PDA

View Full Version : How do you think the election will turn out?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

virtualcomposer
10-14-2008, 10:13 AM
I'm personally voting for McCain but I have a feeling Obama is going to win. Allot, I believe has to do with the media says very little about Obama's mistakes and yet, if McCain or Palin look at somebody wrong, it's all over the news and 20 investigations are done. I believe the media is who really determines who wins. The media does that with products to. I bet if I wanted to sell coloured dust and I got the media support all over the nation and the media told everybody that it's the coolest thing around and it has health benefits, I bet 40 million people in this country alone would buy it.

Iain
10-14-2008, 10:17 AM
Please, we have enough political threads going on.

jburford
10-14-2008, 10:23 AM
Lol, yep!

That is marketing simply on the colored dust comment. The media did not determain the last election (well other than Fox), the majority of the media and Hollywood was against Bush and he still won (or stole, depends how one looks at it) the election.

RollerJesus
10-14-2008, 10:28 AM
Preferably without a recount.

geothefaust
10-14-2008, 11:14 AM
Touching on what you're saying virtualcomposer... I must agree. Media (PR, focus groups, etc.) does in fact, have a huge impact on the drones of America (and the rest of the humans on Earth for that matter).

The BBC did a great production called "The Century of the Self". I believe that you can view it online, there should be 4 parts. It focuses on Edward Bernays and the techniques he and his uncle (Sigmund Freud) developed, which were used to create what we all know (and love...) as our consumerist society today. It's worth a watch, I highly recommend it. One word warning though, you will most assuredly come away from it thoroughly disgusted.

virtualcomposer
10-14-2008, 11:53 AM
Touching on what you're saying virtualcomposer... I must agree. Media (PR, focus groups, etc.) does in fact, have a huge impact on the drones of America (and the rest of the humans on Earth for that matter).

The BBC did a great production called "The Century of the Self". I believe that you can view it online, there should be 4 parts. It focuses on Edward Bernays and the techniques he and his uncle (Sigmund Freud) developed, which were used to create what we all know (and love...) as our consumerist society today. It's worth a watch, I highly recommend it. One word warning though, you will most assuredly come away from it thoroughly disgusted.

Disgusted but educated. I'm all about knowing the truth about something and I don't like being fooled or pushed into something I don't need. I learn more and more everyday that I don't need most of the junk being thrown at me whether it's products or who should become the next political leader. (even though I am buying the Iphone next month:D) In a way most of us are like drones. Most of us, from the observation of how Americans seem to be, don't even research the facts. We just believe what media tells us and assume they did the research when in fact, they only portray what they want or what is going to turn over a dollar for them. I see such disrespect these days for our leaders. For example "The View". Even if a person doesn't like McCain, at least respect the fact that he went through 4 years as a POW. Can you imagine what that would do to a person!?!?! At least people should respect the fact that he fought for our country and he really seems to care about America. By the way, thanks for the Title, I'll check that out tonight.

theo
10-14-2008, 12:04 PM
I've never watched the Ed Bernays flick (but will- thanks for the rec, geo) but if I remember correctly many of Bernays's techniques were also successfully employed by the Nazis in propaganda campaigns.

Intuition
10-14-2008, 12:39 PM
This thread needs some religious input to be really good.

I did notice that there were less pirates in the last few years and did see the rise in global temperatures.

But... then note this particular instance....

Solar minimum (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080924.html)

And I was wondering why it was cooling off... so I did some more research...

pirates attack boat (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/somalia/2959296/Pirates-launch-rocket-attacks-off-Somali-coast.html)

check the dates!!!!!

Remember this scientific chart?

http://unhinderedbytalent.com/Phi/wp-content/images/piratesarecool4.jpg

So, it must be true. We are seeing more pirates and hence a cooler sun!

:foreheads: how could I have been so blind?

Iain
10-14-2008, 01:01 PM
Pirates! Yes!
Aaaarhhh

DiedonD
10-14-2008, 01:10 PM
Touching on what you're saying virtualcomposer... I must agree. Media (PR, focus groups, etc.) does in fact, have a huge impact on the drones of America (and the rest of the humans on Earth for that matter).

The BBC did a great production called "The Century of the Self". I believe that you can view it online, there should be 4 parts. It focuses on Edward Bernays and the techniques he and his uncle (Sigmund Freud) developed, which were used to create what we all know (and love...) as our consumerist society today. It's worth a watch, I highly recommend it. One word warning though, you will most assuredly come away from it thoroughly disgusted.

That sounds rather interesting seeing that one of my high icons is in it (Freud). Could you provide some links or a walkthrogh to the vid please?

rezman
10-14-2008, 01:21 PM
Pat Paulson!!
http://www.paulsen.com/pat/

adamredwoods
10-14-2008, 05:21 PM
I'm personally voting for McCain but I have a feeling Obama is going to win. [...].
How do I feel the election will turn out?

I feel Ron Paul will swoop in on a dragon's back, breathe fire on congress, and turn us all into sex slaves for 4 years until Al Gore returns as a bionic android (and energy efficient) to save us all.

hrgiger
10-14-2008, 05:27 PM
McCain will win, he will die about a half hour after inaugeration (you know because he's old), Palin will become President and I'll move to Canada and enjoy socialized medicine and America will go bankrupt.

No, just kidding. Obama's going to win.

Chris S. (Fez)
10-14-2008, 05:54 PM
Unless McCain has the debate of his life tomorrow I think Obama's got it in the bag.

hrgiger
10-14-2008, 06:06 PM
Unless McCain has the debate of his life tomorrow I think Obama's got it in the bag.

And considering what we've seen so far, the debates are not likely to change a lot of peoples minds. I don't buy this whole 'new approach' thing that the McCain camp is pushing. It sounds like a desperate ploy.

akademus
10-14-2008, 06:22 PM
Are going to paint White house brown if Obama wins?
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Chris S. (Fez)
10-14-2008, 06:22 PM
It sounds like a desperate ploy.

Sure does. I think the market crash all but assured Obama the presidency. In some ways it made the election less interesting.

theo
10-14-2008, 10:36 PM
The election will be fairly close with a McCain win. A majority of undecideds will go with McCain once they get in the booth.

virtualcomposer
10-14-2008, 10:49 PM
All I know is that it will be all over with Nov 4th so we can stop hearing who hates who and the fact that Palin wore the wrong colour pants last year while eating to much shrimp. It's all a media presentation of garbage.

ted
10-14-2008, 10:50 PM
The election will be fairly close with a McCain win. A majority of undecideds will go with McCain once they get in the booth.

While McCain isn't my idea of the perfect leader, I certainly hope you are right!
I'll be glad when it's all over.

jin choung
10-14-2008, 10:50 PM
The election will be fairly close with a McCain win. A majority of undecideds will go with McCain once they get in the booth.


doubt it.

especially since another republican in the white house will almost guarantee an overturning of roe vs. wade... (two MORE seats will come up soon [bush already installed roberts and alito])which most americans are (yep, they reall are) still against overturning.

despite media attention for palin, many women and feminists will be driven to the polls just by this issue.

also, the current administration is not just a failure, it is a PRECEDENT. and the only hope in undoing the precedent is with the opposing party in the next white house.

if there is to be ANY chance of rolling back the often illegal practices of the bush white house, a democrat must be elected. ANY republican voted in next will be obliged to just cover it up and/or ignore it.

most of the polls show (in statistical terms) a BIG lead for obama and it's only trending greater with each passing week. some polls even show double digit lead.

it's just south of "in the bag".

jin

jin choung
10-14-2008, 10:54 PM
Sure does. I think the market crash all but assured Obama the presidency. In some ways it made the election less interesting.

actually, this kind of struck me as "even God is on obama's side"... : )

incidental crises are tipping things in his favor....

anyway, i didn't want an interesting race. i don't want a close one. i just want it to be over so i, along with the world, can heave a huge sigh of relief.

jin

TripD
10-14-2008, 10:54 PM
Someone in the McCain camp will let it leak that Sarah Palin really is Tina Fey then everyone will vote for them cause Tina Fey is genious!

jin choung
10-14-2008, 11:06 PM
also,

gotta say that all this "liberal media" stuff is hilarious.

1. where else are you gonna go? FOX? rush? oh yeah... that's unbiased.... : )
2. this is the same "liberal media" that basically bent over and grabbed their ankles when bush was chanting fear 911 the boogeyman and 10 other reasons for invading iraq. the media was AS SILENT about opposition to war as they may be silent to obama opposition now.

if anything, MORE! you had 8 years of the media basically being the mouth piece for the bush administration.

where was all the outrage about the "liberal media" then?

: )

simply put, our embarassing press - which is supposed to be part of our system of checks and balances - is a COWARD. they'll go wherever the wind blows.

they're fallible, weak, spineless and frequently wrong.

but that's a far cry from "liberal media".

the winds have changed and as they bit their pillows for bush, dam straight they're gonna bite it come the dems.

jin

Verlon
10-15-2008, 12:17 AM
The media isn't for Obama OR McCain. The media is for the media. A close election is good for ratings. So the media paints it close. A "Reagan vs. Mondale," is not good for ratings.

War in Iraq is good for ratings. Bake sales are not good for ratings.


The media, whatever channel you watch, is a business, and they want lots of viewers. Yeah, FOX is right biased and MSNBC is left biased, but most ofthe other majors are pretty close to the middle. If they seem off to you, it is more likely YOUR position makes it seem that way.

And really, if every political analyst for every major news agency in the US except FOX favors one candidate over the other, why in the world would you think the other guy was a better choice for president? If all the smart people who study the stuff think Obama is a better candidate, maybe they're on to something.

And McCain gets plenty of leeway, too.

hrgiger
10-15-2008, 12:44 AM
I don't see a majority of undecideds going to McCain, I see them going to Obama. With the economy in the crapper, you're going to see a shift to the democrats. It doesn't really matter which one of them has a better plan or worse plan, it's a majority perception that the democrats are better suited to handle the economy. If the war was the major issue right now, it'd favor the Republicans. It's completely wrong of course, I'm not sure that the democrats are better equipped to handle this economy and I know that the Republicans aren't better suited to handle the war, but that's just the perception that exists. Also something to remember, whoever is in presidential power during a bad economy, historically, the other side benefits. A majority in congress has had no historical significance.

Chris S. (Fez)
10-15-2008, 12:58 AM
where was all the outrage about the "liberal media" then?

jin

Ha. Good post. Somebody probably already linked, but did you see Sunday's Doonesbury? Brutal, absolutely brutal: http://www.arcamax.com/doonesbury/s-421961-550595

Iain
10-15-2008, 02:02 AM
McCain isn't that old.
According to life expectancy averages, he has a good erm...5 years left.

If only 3 of those are descent into mild senility, the US could flourish for a glorious 2 year period and then they'd have Palin. Whoop do f***ing doo!

ingo
10-15-2008, 02:36 AM
How do you think the election will turn out?

Well, one wins and the other one not, or so. If its the tough old man or the colored actor, who cares ? As long as dubbleyu is gone... :santa:

I would vote the guy who gives us a better LightWave in the future, with a faster rendering and so on.......

Matt
10-15-2008, 06:37 AM
Are going to paint White house brown if Obama wins?
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Bit racist? ;)

Anyway, I reckon the whole thing will be rigged and McCain will get in, just like Bush did with Gore.

But hey, what do I care, it's not my Country, besides, all Politicians are just puppets for the people behind the scenes who _really_ make the decisions.

theo
10-15-2008, 07:10 AM
most of the polls show (in statistical terms) a BIG lead for obama and it's only trending greater with each passing week. some polls even show double digit lead.

it's just south of "in the bag".

jin

Rasmussen and Zogby aren't reflecting an election on the edge of 'in the bag' at all.

Obama has much to be concerned about since his slight lead (on average of 4-8%) isn't nearly enough to insure much of anything but a hair-puller come election night. The alphabet polls are feldspar, so I view them with a healthy amount of skepticism.

Obama is not going to get elected. If he does- I will be surprised, to be frank.

His international policies border on warmed-over pacifism and his communications are reminiscent of a very persuasive but vapid motivational speaker.

McCain is old, sure, and his running mate is a dressed conventionalist.

But something tells me that physical security is still on the minds of many Americans despite the floundering economy and eight years of Bush bumblings.

Obama's a cult based on political zealotry. McCain's a worn out fighter. The majority of people will vote for the gun not the passion, when it comes down to managing physical risk.

warmiak
10-15-2008, 07:24 AM
McCain isn't that old.
According to life expectancy averages, he has a good erm...5 years left.

If only 3 of those are descent into mild senility, the US could flourish for a glorious 2 year period and then they'd have Palin. Whoop do f***ing doo!


You are sad.

warmiak
10-15-2008, 07:28 AM
I hope Obama wins. McCain is just a f*cking stupid old man. I bet he has that moldy half-dead odour about him. Not fit to make decisions the effects of which will inevitably ripple through the whole world.

I don't care about US internal policy stuff, but I care about US foreign policy.

Obama for teh win!

Then why don't you just shut the **** up and go on with your life, instead of accusing people you don't know of being stupid and having "half-dead odour" ?

theo
10-15-2008, 07:35 AM
Then why don't you just shut the **** up and go on with your life, instead of accusing people you don't know of being stupid and having "half-dead odour" ?

warmiak, you've just shut the thread down.

Iain
10-15-2008, 07:43 AM
You are sad.

I'm generally quite the jolly type actually. :hey:

Anyway, what I said is very relevant.
Men of 65 are deemed too old to continue ordinary jobs never mind one carrying the greatest of responsibilities.

beverins
10-15-2008, 08:10 AM
Looks like a rabid Drudgeling got into our message boards.... Warmiak needs to look around and realize where he's posting. Big ol' Newtek up there. They're just nice enough to have a "general anything-goes message board", but that doesn't mean you can try to start a political flamewar. Go over to www.crooksandliars.com and go rant over there.

I think it's going to be another nail-biter, and there are going to be contested election results in all the "battleground" states. Unfortunately, I doubt that this is going to be an election that has a winner announced on November 5th.

Personally, I'm voting Obama and I think he's going to get the majority of the popular vote... but whether he will get the electorate is another matter entirely.

Glendalough
10-15-2008, 08:18 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/presidential.debate/index.html


" Both campaigns, for example, have requested that an air-conditioning vent be placed above their candidate to prevent sweating, and the Nixon-Kennedy debate could be the reason.

In the 1960 presidential debate with John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon's excessive perspiration and 5 o'clock shadow became fodder in the media and arguably one of the more memorable moments in debate history.

Another demand cited by the official: Both candidates are demanding a water glass, and not just any glass. They want an exact replica of water glasses used at the previous debates. "

What is the significance of the replica water glass? Don't get it?

hrgiger
10-15-2008, 08:20 AM
Theo have you looked at recent Rasmussen and Zogby? This is from yesterday: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/john-mccain/23477/gallup-rasmussen-reuterscspanzogby-polls-obama-maintains-steady-lead-over-mccain/ As I was saying earlier, Obama is winning when it comes to the independent voter. I think it's a combination of the bad economy and just the fact that a lot of people don't want a repeat of the last 8 years. As far as America and it's concerns over security and saftey, you may be right. The Bush camp has done a tremendous job at convincing Americans that the threats we face are a lot worse then they actually are.

In addition to, Palin is not attracting the women in large numbers like the McCain camp probably thought she would. I guess women do want a say on what happens to their bodies. Kooky. She attracted a lot of good attention at first, but the more we know about her, the less good that attention has gotten and now it's almost like another Hillary. A lot of people really love her or really hate her and very few who are on the fence about her.

I also heard a story last night that the Bradley Effect is not going to have as large as an effect as first thought. In fact, some are predicting a reverse Bradley effect in some areas.

I find it odd that we would be willing to give one of the most important (at least figure head) jobs to somebody who is well past retirement age. You know, Alzheimer's is funny in that one day you don't have it, and the next day you do. Despite Warmiaks's strong support of such a 'seasoned' presidential candidate, his age is a concern for a lot of people. Not only because he has to maintain such an important position but also because of what would step in to replace him when his health deteriorates.

hrgiger
10-15-2008, 08:28 AM
I think threads like this detract from other areas of the forum (just look at the views/post ratios on these). And they are not helping the community feeling, on the contrary.

I think political discussions should be carried out elsewhere. I don't think they belong in communities such as this.

I don't know, I think most people despite their differences can maintain a level of professionalism. IMI is a great example of someone that I usually disagree with on a lot of things but I still consider him a friend on these forums, same as MattClary. His views are whacked, but I don't hold that against him:D. Prospector is so far out there, I can't even figure what his deal is, but for me, it doesn't carry across to the other forums. If he had work in the WIP forum, I would comment on it objectively or if he had a question that I could answer, I would do so in a community manner. But then, I'm usally not offended by most things and it would be very hard to make me angry, but it appears some peoples skins are a bit thinner then others when it comes to certain topics.

theo
10-15-2008, 08:47 AM
I find it odd that we would be willing to give one of the most important (at least figure head) jobs to somebody who is well past retirement age. You know, Alzheimer's is funny in that one day you don't have it, and the next day you do. Despite Warmiaks's strong support of such a 'seasoned' presidential candidate, his age is a concern for a lot of people. Not only because he has to maintain such an important position but also because of what would step in to replace him when his health deteriorates.

Don't include me in the 'we', hr. I ain't votin' for'im. He's an entrenched ideologue (same old ideas) and his running mate's most obvious political asset is her beauty (which may be a relief to some :thumbsup:).

Obama's a classic 'spread the wealth' democrat. Which translates to raising taxes on small businesses. As a social liberal I am comfortable with fiscal conservatism that rejects popular democratic advances to skim the meager profits of small business.

An example: http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/news/politics/obama_fires_a_robin_hood_warning_shot_133685.htm

dweinkauf
10-15-2008, 08:48 AM
I like Obama, but with his support of the death penalty, his plan to leave a residual force in Iraq, his support of increased defense spending, his non-support of gay marriage, his votes for FISA and the latest flavor of the Patriot Act, and his agreement with McCain on many issues, I felt he moved too far to the right for my tastes. About three weeks ago, I used my absentee ballot to vote for Nader and in no way consider it a wasted vote.

Andyjaggy
10-15-2008, 09:12 AM
Ron Paul for president!!!

I think whoever wins they will both die in office so pick whichever vice president you like best.

warmiak
10-15-2008, 09:33 AM
I take it that my opinion doesn't please you?

:help: Someone on the internet doesn't agree with me.

If it were an actual opinion I wouldn't even say a word .. you simply accused an old man of being .. old and smelling like death.

Frankly, I think my high-school period opinions were more sophisticated than that.

warmiak
10-15-2008, 09:47 AM
But I had a point. Sophistomocated or not. Sometimes the brute force method works best.

I rarely spend my sophistication on political topics, I hold it in reserve for other topics.

I'm sure everybody would love to hear more about your highly intellectual high-school period achievements. Do share.


Well, you would have made the same point talking about any old man (including your father ) so what's the point of "sharing" opinions like that in the first place boyond just trying to insult someone you don't even know ?

CMT
10-15-2008, 09:54 AM
I find it odd that we would be willing to give one of the most important (at least figure head) jobs to somebody who is well past retirement age. You know, Alzheimer's is funny in that one day you don't have it, and the next day you do. Despite Warmiaks's strong support of such a 'seasoned' presidential candidate, his age is a concern for a lot of people. Not only because he has to maintain such an important position but also because of what would step in to replace him when his health deteriorates.

Alzheimer's is progressive. It get's worse with time. And you never have it until you're far enough along and show symptoms enough to make the diagnosis. ASAIK, McCain's memory is pretty good, although selective just like all politicians.

Reagan even showed signs of Alzheimer's in his first term. Yet he performed his duties well, depending on who you ask, I guess.... :)

FDR had polio during his entire presidency, and yet he also performed his duties without much problem. And he was basically a paraplegic. His body wasn't nearly as strong as McCains is right now, and he's also somewhat disabled.

McCain has had malignant melanoma which is pretty much the only cause for concern right now. It's only fatal if undetected and allowed to spread. But the doctors so far say he's been treated and nothing to really worry about. Other than that though, he's is pretty good health. If he dies in office, it will probably be from something else. Possibly a heart attack which seems to run in his family.

But he's only running for a 4 year term. I wouldn't even consider him for a second term though cuz that's pushing his age it a bit.


I think political discussions should be carried out elsewhere. I don't think they belong in communities such as this.

These discussions don't bother me much except when people ignore their own party of choice's blunders in the name of blind loyalty. I'm not entirely happy with McCain, but IMO he's a slightly better choice than Obama, which isn't saying much.

warmiak
10-15-2008, 10:01 AM
He's a public figure, I'm sure he has heard worse and will survive my little jab... for at least a couple of years more. :hey:

Don't tell me you never formed an opinion of someone you don't personally know. A public figure perhaps? A politician? Someone who talks about and may act on matters that carry consequences for the whole world?

I am sure he will survive .. .that's not the point.

Of course I form opinions about people I don't know .... I just don't think insulting these people over issues they have no control over ... like for instance their age, contributes anything beyond eliciting occasional "shut the **** up" .. if you know what I mean.

CMT
10-15-2008, 10:12 AM
If he was any other old man I'd never draw out such points, but we're talking the president of the US here! How well would he stand up physically to a really stressful crisis?

Probably no better or worse than any other senior citizen who's worried about how they will pay for their medical expenses.... I imagine that's a pretty stressful position for those folks.

warmiak
10-15-2008, 10:13 AM
But age is very much an issue for a world leader with responsibilities as such.
How many times has his ticker broken already? 2? 3?

If he was any other old man I'd never draw out such points, but we're talking the president of the US here! How well would he stand up physically to a really stressful crisis? He's no spring chicken.

Well, that's different and you know it.

The bottom line is that if you were to bring up this point in the way you did in your last post , we woudn't be even talking about this stuff ...

That's all there is to it.

Iain
10-15-2008, 10:18 AM
Probably no better or worse than any other senior citizen who's worried about how they will pay for their medical expenses....

You really don't think his age is a concern? You even refer to him as a senior citizen, the classic euphemism for an old man.

My Dad admits that he can't cope with simple things as easily as he could and he's younger than McCain.
I know everyone is different but the reality is that 72 is old.

CMT
10-15-2008, 10:34 AM
You really don't think his age is a concern? You even refer to him as a senior citizen, the classic euphemism for an old man.

My Dad admits that he can't cope with simple things as easily as he could and he's younger than McCain.
I know everyone is different but the reality is that 72 is old.

It's a slight issue, but it's not as big of an issue as some think it is. Reagan was 70 when he took office and he was 78 when he left. He did a pretty good job too, again depending on who you ask.

And senior citizen by definition, in the US at least, is someone 65 and over. We've had several presidents who have been senior citizens either at the time or during their term.

And if 50 is the new 30, then McCain's only 52. :D

hrgiger
10-15-2008, 10:45 AM
Alzheimer's is progressive. It get's worse with time. And you never have it until you're far enough along and show symptoms enough to make the diagnosis. ASAIK, McCain's memory is pretty good, although selective just like all politicians.


My point was that you either have Alzheimers or you don't. There is no, 'sort of have Alzheimers'. It may not be diagnosed, but it's still slow deterioration of normal brain function. John McCain is two years older then Reagan when he went into office. He may be fine in this area, but I'd rather not chance it. Speaking of health of elected leaders, Cheney went into the hospital again today for another jump start.

warmiak
10-15-2008, 10:46 AM
My point was that you either have Alzheimers or you don't. There is no, 'sort of have Alzheimers'. It may not be diagnosed, but it's still slow deterioration of normal brain function. John McCain is two years older then Reagan when he went into office. He may be fine in this area, but I'd rather not chance it. Speaking of health of elected leaders, Cheney went into the hospital again today for another jump start.

Well Cheney went for his first "jump start" when he was just 36 so you know .... he is different.

CMT
10-15-2008, 10:55 AM
He may be fine in this area, but I'd rather not chance it.

Even without the age issue, your mind was already made up who you wanted to vote for. By your many other responses we can gather that you've been for Obama.

It's for those swing voters on the very edge that it might be an issue.

For me, the importance of the differences in policies far outweighs the remote possibility that McCain might kick the bucket in office.

hrgiger
10-15-2008, 11:00 AM
For me, the importance of the differences in policies far outweighs the remote possibility that McCain might kick the bucket in office.

Well me too, which is why I'm voting for Obama. But let me put it this way, I voted for Obama in the primaries over Hillary, but if he had been 72, I would have voted for Hillary.

CMT
10-15-2008, 11:08 AM
I voted for Obama in the primaries over Hillary, but if he had been 72, I would have voted for Hillary.

......which ...... means you place age as a higher priority over policy differences.

hrgiger
10-15-2008, 11:14 AM
......which ...... means you place age as a higher priority over policy differences.

You should be a politician, the way you spin things I mean. Or at least be in the biased media.
No, it means that age is certainly a factor. I was pretty close between voting for Hillary or Obama, but in the end, I thought Obama would bring more to the ticket. Age wasn't a factor in this choice. But if it were, I would certainly have considered it.
The reason that it's such a factor in this particular race is that I don't have a huge problem with McCain, but I do with Palin. Which makes McCains age a HUGE factor.

CMT
10-15-2008, 11:37 AM
You should be a politician, the way you spin things I mean. Or at least be in the biased media.
No, it means that age is certainly a factor. I was pretty close between voting for Hillary or Obama, but in the end, I thought Obama would bring more to the ticket. Age wasn't a factor in this choice. But if it were, I would certainly have considered it.

I wasn't spinning anything. It's your own words. I took them at face value. I'm just trying to understand how someone could point out McCain's age as being a factor, then say it's not, but in the same breath say that age would be a large enough factor between a 72 year old Obama and Hillary. I'm just trying to make sense of it.


The reason that it's such a factor in this particular race is that I don't have a huge problem with McCain, but I do with Palin. Which makes McCains age a HUGE factor.

Again, Palin's chances of making it to the presidency in the next 4 years are virtually nonexistent. But again. Your mind was already made up even before Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate. So it wasn't a deal breaker anyway for you.

I'm not all that thrilled with the prospect of Palin becoming president either. But I'm not voting for her. I'm voting for McCain. She just happens to be along for the ride.

As far as being biased, you're probably right. I've always leaned toward the conservative side of policy. But that's just my thinking tendencies. Everyone has their own tendencies and biases. Even you.

But back in 2004, I was ready to vote for Howard Dean because he seemed to make the most sense with his policies and Bush wasn't looking so good to me. Too bad he never made the ticket.

jin choung
10-15-2008, 11:38 AM
Obama has much to be concerned about since his slight lead (on average of 4-8%) isn't nearly enough to insure much of anything but a hair-puller come election night.

you're interpreting the numbers incorrectly. in a presidential election, polls that show anything close to a double digit lead is CONSIDERABLE.

to be unimpressed with the numbers because they aren't 90 - 10 is just wrong.

the current lead of up to double digit lead is huuuuuuuuge and is well beyond what these stat analysts consdier a statistical dead heat.

anyway, get ready to be surprised then. : )

jin

hrgiger
10-15-2008, 11:47 AM
Again, Palin's chances of making it to the presidency in the next 4 years are virtually nonexistent. But again. Your mind was already made up even before Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate. So it wasn't a deal breaker anyway for you.


Again, you just have to read what I'm actually writing. I never said that Palin was a deal breaker for me, nor did I imply that I would have ever voted for McCain had he chose someone as a running mate more to my liking. I'm just merely saying that I think McCains health and age are very important to consider in this particular race when you consider who would be taking over in his absence. He doesn't have to die for her to assume power, he only has to be incapacitated to the point of not being able to carry out his job duties. Geesh, you only have to watch 24 to know that...;)

warmiak
10-15-2008, 11:54 AM
you're interpreting the numbers incorrectly. in a presidential election, polls that show anything close to a double digit lead is CONSIDERABLE.

to be unimpressed with the numbers because they aren't 90 - 10 is just wrong.

the current lead of up to double digit lead is huuuuuuuuge and is well beyond what these stat analysts consdier a statistical dead heat.

anyway, get ready to be surprised then. : )

jin


It is true .. but then again, Gore was leading BUsh by 11 points in 2000 with just three weeks to go before election day.. so you never know.

Matt
10-15-2008, 12:02 PM
warmiak, you've just shut the thread down.

That's not a bad idea, when pointless threads like this pop up, just post a response that guarantees it's shut down!

:D

jin choung
10-15-2008, 12:07 PM
It is true .. but then again, Gore was leading BUsh by 11 points in 2000 with just three weeks to go before election day.. so you never know.

true.

but still....

jin

CMT
10-15-2008, 12:09 PM
Again, you just have to read what I'm actually writing. I never said that Palin was a deal breaker for me, nor did I imply that I would have ever voted for McCain had he chose someone as a running mate more to my liking.

I never said or implied you did. In fact, what I said was that you had your mind already made up even before he chose a running mate. I read carefully all posts I respond to.


I'm just merely saying that I think McCains health and age are very important to consider in this particular race when you consider who would be taking over in his absence. He doesn't have to die for her to assume power, he only has to be incapacitated to the point of not being able to carry out his job duties. Geesh, you only have to watch 24 to know that...;)

And you're welcome to that opinion of course. I'm just saying that it's not as important as you and others are making it. Democrats seem to be making a huge issue of it just as a selling point for Obama. Republicans aren't of course because they want to have their man be president. But I can't imagine that McCain would have even made it this far in his own party if everyone believed it was a real issue. And to me it's not. To each his own.

hrgiger
10-15-2008, 12:24 PM
But I can't imagine that McCain would have even made it this far in his own party if everyone believed it was a real issue. And to me it's not. To each his own.

If it were up to the republicans, they wouldn't have had McCain in this position at all. He wasnt' a lot of peoples darling in the republican party. He just turned out to be the best of several bad choices.

virtualcomposer
10-15-2008, 01:24 PM
I would vote the guy who gives us a better LightWave in the future, with a faster rendering and so on.......

Or offers to buy us all the newest Mac Pro. I'd vote for him.

warmiak
10-15-2008, 01:48 PM
If it were up to the republicans, they wouldn't have had McCain in this position at all. He wasnt' a lot of peoples darling in the republican party. He just turned out to be the best of several bad choices.

McCain recent behavior is a disgrace .. his recent cheap attempts at populism and class warfare are exactly what I would expect from an average democratic candidate but not from someone who claims to follow in Reagan's footsteps.

Actually, the same applies to Bush.

Both of them claim to admire Reagan but Bush with his "when people hurting, government has got to move " is the exact opposite of Reagan who used to say "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

mattclary
10-15-2008, 01:54 PM
I'll vote for McCain, but pretty sure Obama is going to win. I'm pretty philosophical about it though. Without Carter, we may have never gotten Reagan. And this guy is going to be "Carter" in spades.

mattclary
10-15-2008, 01:55 PM
If it were up to the republicans, they wouldn't have had McCain in this position at all. He wasnt' a lot of peoples darling in the republican party. He just turned out to be the best of several bad choices.

Actually, McCain was pretty close to the bottom of the list. My tinfoil hat and I think the media pushed him because they knew he was the one most easily defeated.

IMI
10-15-2008, 02:44 PM
Actually, McCain was pretty close to the bottom of the list. My tinfoil hat and I think the media pushed him because they knew he was the one most easily defeated.

I and my tinfoil hat agree with you completely. Not only that though, but if he *did* win, he'd at least be palatable, considering he's mostly an old-time democrat with certain liberal tendencies, pretending to be a republican. ;)

hrgiger
10-15-2008, 03:49 PM
Or offers to buy us all the newest Mac Pro. I'd vote for him.

Buying Macs for voters wouldn't be unlike what the republicans do now. Give us things that only a small percentage of us would actually only benefit from.

CMT
10-15-2008, 03:59 PM
Buying Macs for voters wouldn't be unlike what the republicans do now. Give us things that only a small percentage of us would actually only benefit from.

Hey, nice stab! :thumbsup:

CMT
10-15-2008, 04:09 PM
Actually, McCain was pretty close to the bottom of the list. My tinfoil hat and I think the media pushed him because they knew he was the one most easily defeated.

Not hard to imagine....

My first choice from the Reps was Huckabee. I wasn't even considering McCain at that time.

mattclary
10-15-2008, 05:43 PM
Ron Paul for me.

Stunt Pixels
10-15-2008, 05:56 PM
Going by the latest polling, it will be a landslide for Obama - 357 to 181. link (http://www.electoral-vote.com/)

I hope so for you guys sake. When the last election in Australia was finally won by the Labor party (after 12 years of conservative government) there was literally parties in the street. It felt like a huge weight had been lifted off our shoulders.

theo
10-15-2008, 06:05 PM
Ron Paul for me.

You'll have to write him in, clary. May as well pen 'Jack the Ripper' for what that's worth. I like Ron Paul myself, actually, but his day in the sun is officially over.

IMI
10-15-2008, 06:50 PM
You'll have to write him in, clary. May as well pen 'Jack the Ripper' for what that's worth. I like Ron Paul myself, actually, but his day in the sun is officially over.

Yeah, I agree, and Paul's just not on there. Lack of interest or couldn't secure the Libertarian Party endorsement. Bob Barr.... ?

warmiak
10-15-2008, 08:46 PM
Buying Macs for voters wouldn't be unlike what the republicans do now. Give us things that only a small percentage of us would actually only benefit from.

Well, you have it completely wrong .. they cannot give anything to anyone .... they can only take it from someone and give it to someone else which means however you partition the pie ... it will be the dreaded rich that will end up paying for it anyway.

virtualcomposer
10-15-2008, 08:55 PM
Hey guys, just finished watching the debates. Very disappointed since I'm voting for McCain. I hate to say it but I do think Obama is going to win based on poles and also he's a better speaker and talked about the economy allot so I think that will make all the difference. Oh well. The voting will all be over after November 4th so hopefully that will ensure a little economic up. At least gas is going down. It's $2.99 a gallon!!! So much better then what it was $4.29 a gallon a few weeks ago. :thumbsup:

warmiak
10-15-2008, 09:20 PM
Hey guys, just finished watching the debates. Very disappointed since I'm voting for McCain. I hate to say it but I do think Obama is going to win based on poles and also he's a better speaker and talked about the economy allot so I think that will make all the difference. Oh well. The voting will all be over after November 4th so hopefully that will ensure a little economic up. At least gas is going down. It's $2.99 a gallon!!! So much better then what it was $4.29 a gallon a few weeks ago. :thumbsup:

The main problem is not Obama winning but Democrats taking over every branch of government.
This is basically new 70s in the making ... complete with inflation, price controls and insane taxes.

Stunt Pixels
10-15-2008, 09:21 PM
This is basically new 70s in the making ... complete with inflation, price controls and insane taxes.

Nooo, not tie dye again!

hrgiger
10-15-2008, 09:21 PM
At least gas is going down. It's $2.99 a gallon!!! So much better then what it was $4.29 a gallon a few weeks ago. :thumbsup:

Enjoy it. You better start stockpiling it if you like that price.

hrgiger
10-15-2008, 09:22 PM
Hey, nice stab! :thumbsup:

Thanks, I was pretty proud of that one myself.

AbnRanger
10-15-2008, 09:46 PM
I'm personally voting for McCain but I have a feeling Obama is going to win. Allot, I believe has to do with the media says very little about Obama's mistakes and yet, if McCain or Palin look at somebody wrong, it's all over the news and 20 investigations are done. I believe the media is who really determines who wins. The media does that with products to. I bet if I wanted to sell coloured dust and I got the media support all over the nation and the media told everybody that it's the coolest thing around and it has health benefits, I bet 40 million people in this country alone would buy it.
The media is overwhelmingly Liberal. That's a well-observed fact. They are being increasingly brash and unapologetic for hating on anyone that's a Christian (that's how it's been for 2000 years, though)...and they are extremely adept at using their platform to promote their political and social ideologies.
Just look at the SNL pieces. It's so unbalanced and they candidly don't care who notices it. It's being used as nothing but a democrat propoganda tool, and they're quite proud of it.They relish in the fact that it helped to immediately bring down the poll numbers of the McCain-Palin ticket.

Sometimes it's subtle, sometimes blatantly overt. It's just the way it is. It's a real coup anytime a conservative wins, because it means despite all their efforts to brainwash the public...they failed somehow, and like a brat who gets beat with their own marbles. They get mad, grab the marbles and stomp back to the house. Just watch how kids act with their toys around other kids. That's a picture of the Liberal media, in it's simplest form. It's their toy after all.

Just one reason why they hated Bush so much. He somehow got through their gauntlet. Have you noticed how subdued and quiet they are, now that they got some POWER back, and perceive that they'll win the presidency. It was like the baibies got their bottle of milk back.
Liberals, by and large, are nothing but a large group of overgrown brats....demanding to get their way. Like a bunch of babies they scream and wail if they don't get it.

Also, have you ever noticed how the chief criticism against conservatives is that they are (supposedly) so "Stoo'pid?" Bush actually has a higher IQ and did better in college than Al Gore, yet he's stupid and Gore was brilliant (being awarded a Nobel Prize of all things....cause he worshiped their god...Global Warming)...he even inventing the Internet! Didn't know that, did you? :D If Bush is so stupid, what does that say about Liberals like Gore?

Palin is a VP candidate. Obama Bin Ladin is a presidential candidate with no more "Foreign Policy" experience than Palin, yet the liberal media is all up in her grill about her lack of experience. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Isn't it funny how...because she is seen as a threat, they go after her with the same ole line...Stupid!
Is that the best liberals can come up with? They are like kids throwing tantrums on the playground. "Well, your just stupid!" :cursin:

It's so old, and so boring, I figured I'd just bow out of the whole debate and focus on more important things. No sense in letting it ruffle my feathers anymore. I now see it for what it is...pure comedy. :D

jin choung
10-15-2008, 10:14 PM
The media is overwhelmingly Liberal. That's a well-observed fact.

no it's not.

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showpost.php?p=765812&postcount=25

jin

jin choung
10-15-2008, 10:25 PM
Liberals, by and large, are nothing but a large group of overgrown brats....demanding to get their way. Like a bunch of babies they scream and wail if they don't get it.


tell me, who's gonna scream and wail in the coming 4 years? : ) betcha it'll be just as loud, just as whiny, twice as vicious... and they will inexplicably claim the insufferable "side of God" to top it off.... WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAH! i want my bushie!

hahaha, geez, have you ever heard limbaugh or oreilly? waaaaaah! whiiiiiiiine! booooooo! damedtohell!

pffft.. don't talk to me about whiny....

and if we're gonna be stereotypical...

i can say that conservatives are nothing but a bunch of ignorant, xenophobic, self righteous, scapegoating, paranoid, science hating brats that get "mad, real mad" when they don't get their religious-bullying way and frequently resort to childish, caricature demonization - "he's an A-rab! he's a muslim! he's a terrorist!"

gotta say, no matter how much liberals hated bush, i've never heard people in a rally cry "kill him!"

also, conservatives have the odd position of giving lip service to a religion that bemoans the inability for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, that bestows blessings on the poor and meek... and yet claw tooth and nail for "what's theirs gdamit!"

...if we're gonna be stereotypical....

jin

AbnRanger
10-15-2008, 10:26 PM
Honestly, I feel bad for whoever wins. Oil Prices is something no president has any real control over, and the greed of investors/speculators is what has brought the global economy to it's knees.

It all starts and ends with oil. The sooner we can start relying on our own resources, the sooner the problem gets fixed.
I'd like to see countries stop bailing out the financial markets so much and take a large portion of those packages and instead conduct a MASSIVE investment effort (globally) in subsidizing the auto industry to produce electric powered vehicles (hydrogen is NOT the way to go...you'd still have to rely on companies like Exxon to supply it...charging what THEY want). That is THE quickest way out of this problem. Help the industry make the shift as rapidly as possible. They have only so much money themselves, to invest in such collosal re-structuring of their production facilities. The more the government helps, the sooner the change is made...plain and simple. It's just like the investment made in the interstate highway infrastructure back before most of us were born. It's something the COUNTRY needs, and the COUNTRY needs to roll up it's sleeves, break out the checkbook, and help the industry as much as possible. It's one reason they are currently hurting...they can't change fast enough. It means more jobs for the country as well...increased construction, engineering, design, and manufacturing jobs. Not to mention guys like us get to make more of those jazzy car commercials. :thumbsup:

The plus side to this, is that investors (who collectively have driven oil prices to their current level) will start to bail on a commodity that appears to be diminishing greatly in demand. Significant government subsidies of production infrastructure for electric-powered vehicles will be the warning flare that initiates a massive drop in prices. The good thing is, that oil investors won't be able to put the (green powered) Genie back in the bottle, so oil prices will likely stay low once they hit the bottom. They brought it all on themselves, trying to get-rich-quick, at the expense of Joe consumer. Joe is biting back. :D

AbnRanger
10-15-2008, 10:36 PM
tell me, who's gonna scream and wail in the coming 4 years? : ) betcha it'll be just as loud, just as whiny, twice as vicious... and they will inexplicably claim the insufferable "side of God" to top it off.... WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAH! i want my bushie!

hahaha, geez, have you ever heard limbaugh or oreilly? waaaaaah! whiiiiiiiine! booooooo! damedtohell!

pffft.. don't talk to me about whiny....

and if we're gonna be stereotypical...

i can say that conservatives are nothing but a bunch of ignorant, xenophobic, self righteous, scapegoating, paranoid, science hating brats that get "mad, real mad" when they don't get their religious-bullying way and frequently resort to childish, caricature demonization - "he's an A-rab! he's a muslim! he's a terrorist!"

gotta say, no matter how much liberals hated bush, i've never heard people in a rally cry "kill him!"

also, conservatives have the odd position of giving lip service to a religion that bemoans the inability for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, that bestows blessings on the poor and meek... and yet claw tooth and nail for "what's theirs gdamit!"

...if we're gonna be stereotypical....

jinIgnorant because they don't happen to share your views?
Science hating? That's funny. Newton, Pascal and others who helped form modern science...actually, uh...HATE science? Many proponents of Intelligent Design have PhD's in one form of Science or another...and those PhD's were from among the most prestigious universities in the nation (usually very liberal institutions). I guess they are committed to "Hating Scienc" too, huh? Spewing ignorance is bliss for the average Liberal.

jin choung
10-15-2008, 10:40 PM
Obama Bin Ladin is a presidential candidate

wow. congratulations. you just presented your side in a light as ignorant and hate filled as possible.

wow.

just... wow....

<shaking my head sadly>

jin

p.s. you can safely consider your post a rather hate filled whine and cry because the bottle got taken away from you. too bad. eat it.

AbnRanger
10-15-2008, 10:43 PM
Rudy Gulliani is a classic case of a financial Conservative, but not a social Liberal. So your greedy Conservative issue is a rather mute one. More Social Conservatives (largest part of the party) actually can put their (charity) money where their mouth is! What about you...mr. Liberal?
What have you done to help people hurting from Hurricanes and disasters...outreaches to the poor. You don't want to pick a fight on that front, mister. You'll lose your shirt on that bet!

jin choung
10-15-2008, 10:44 PM
Ignorant because they don't happen to share your views?

"obama bin laden". i rest my case.


Science hating? That's funny. Newton, Pascal and others who helped form modern science...actually, uh...

i love it how christians like to chalk everybody up to christianity... look up some bio on newton and get ready to call him a heretic... k?

and....

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Every_Single_2008_Nobel_Laureate_Endorses_Obama

i'm sure that's a complete coincidence owing nothing to the science policy in this country over the last eight years.

jin

jin choung
10-15-2008, 10:47 PM
So your greedy Conservative issue is a rather mute one.

no it's not. conservative policy in this country has created a situation where the top 2% of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 98%.

whatever they give to charity is table scraps that they use to get a tax break....

pffffft.

i just think it's funny that those who claim the name of Jesus are such whores to mammon.

jin

AbnRanger
10-15-2008, 10:47 PM
wow. congratulations. you just presented your side in a light as ignorant and hate filled as possible.

wow.

just... wow....

<shaking my head sadly>

jin

p.s. you can safely consider your post a rather hate filled whine and cry because the bottle got taken away from you. too bad. eat it.

Actually, I don't hate the guy at all. I think the nickname fits quite well since he does have a shaky history being personally associated with a domestic Terrorist and a pastor who for has spewed national and racial hate, in his presence, for years.
If Liberals can poke fun at Palin, then I think Obama deserves at least a quick jab too.

jin choung
10-15-2008, 10:48 PM
also, what's up with all this bile against liberals?

is it not written, "love your enemies?"

jin

Hopper
10-15-2008, 10:49 PM
Just look at the SNL pieces. It's so unbalanced and they candidly don't care who notices it. It's being used as nothing but a democrat propoganda tool, and they're quite proud of it.They relish in the fact that it helped to immediately bring down the poll numbers of the McCain-Palin ticket.
In all fairness, Palin helped bring down the poll numbers of the McCain-Palin ticket.

If she would just twist her hair and smack her gum, there wouldn't even be a need for SNL sketches - they could simply replay actual video. At this point, it's almost undeniable... she's pretty much unqualified and not even good at hiding her ignorance on topics that have been discussed more intelligently on these forums alone.

Regardless of party affiliation or preference, I'd rather pick from one of us on the forum than the beauty queen. You betchya <wink>

If she were Obama's running mate, I wouldn't vote for him for that reason alone. There are thousands of Republicans that are switching their votes or not voting at all for that very same reason. I'd tend to bet that less than 0.5% of the Obama supporters had even thought of changing teams based on his selection for VP.

AbnRanger
10-15-2008, 10:53 PM
no it's not. conservative policy in this country has created a situation where the top 2% of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 98%.

whatever they give to charity is table scraps that they use to get a tax break....

pffffft.

i just think it's funny that those who claim the name of Jesus are such whores to mammon.

jinAgain...you don't know what you're talking about.
Do you want to make a friendly wager on that? If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow by posting in big bold typeface "I WAS WRONG...JIN WAS RIGHT!"

If you lose, you do likewise!

Come on Big Boy...back up your BIG words, with some BIG facts.
Liberals MO is to fallback on ridicule when they are bereft of facts. Let's see what you got.

jin choung
10-15-2008, 10:56 PM
don't you EVER ask yourself WWJD? why are conservatives sooooooo quick to HATE and CONDEMN?

where did the LOVE go? hmmmmm? "but the greatest among these is"... what? say it with me now... LOVE.

actually, i think liberals are missing out on a huge opportunity to dismiss all these christian conservatives by just pointing out their hypocrisy.

jin

jin choung
10-15-2008, 10:59 PM
Again...you don't know what you're talking about.


brilliant argument tactic. "saying something is so makes it so". backed up with tons of fact.

bravo.

jin

Hopper
10-15-2008, 11:02 PM
don't you EVER ask yourself WWJD?
Hmmm I can see it now ... bracelets with "What Would Jin Do?" on them .. lol

AbnRanger
10-15-2008, 11:06 PM
"obama bin laden". i rest my case.



i love it how christians like to chalk everybody up to christianity... look up some bio on newton and get ready to call him a heretic... k?

and....

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Every_Single_2008_Nobel_Laureate_Endorses_Obama

i'm sure that's a complete coincidence owing nothing to the science policy in this country over the last eight years.

jinIt's not a mystery that self-proclaimed "Intellectuals" are largely pro-Evolution...just as wealth often fosters pride (as you alluded to earlier), so does intellect. A majority opinion, doesn't always equal the truth. Many scientific deiscoveries initially contradicted common held theory. That's why evolutionist have to continually ammend their "Facts." :D

jin choung
10-15-2008, 11:07 PM
That's why evolutionist have to continually ammend their "Facts." :D

the fact that you find this ironic shows that you don't understand the first thing about real science or its process.

just go back to sunday school.

also, you people should make up your minds... you attack it as BOTH "fact" and "theory"? and without understanding the meaning of either....

sigh....

jin

jin choung
10-15-2008, 11:10 PM
It's not a mystery that self-proclaimed "Intellectuals"

yes, nobel laureates simply "proclaim themselves" nobel laureates.

shaking my head sadly.....

sigh sigh sigh... sad....

do you not recognize their achievement and intellect because your pastor didn't paste a gold star next to their names? who would need to recognize them for you to respect their achievement?

our scientists are best judged by.... our theologians? sunday school teachers? the pope?

sad....

jin

jin choung
10-15-2008, 11:14 PM
Hmmm I can see it now ... bracelets with "What Would Jin Do?" on them .. lol

they have those. they sell them at fine strip clubs and massage parlors everywhere. the answer usually involves ball gags and harnesses and stuff....

jin

AbnRanger
10-15-2008, 11:52 PM
brilliant argument tactic. "saying something is so makes it so". backed up with tons of fact.

bravo.

jinJin, you bring your statistics about the amount of finances Liberal organizations give to hurting PEOPLE (not trees, whales, and endangered species), and the man hours they expend in bringing REAL physical aid to the hurting...and I'll do the same with Christian organizations, Churches, etc.

It won't be pretty. Liberals do love giving...I have to admit that. It's just that they love giving OTHER PEOPLES money (tax dollars) to aid the poor. Not their own. Remember Al Gore's Charitable giving on his tax returns...He's a millionaire giving a few hundred dollars?

Believe it or not, the poorest state in the union, Mississippi, gives a higher percentage of their income to charity. A small, largely impoverished state dwarfs a massive Liberal state like California in charitable giving. With the big money makers in Hollywood/Entertainment industry, along with the massive Tech sector, you would think it would lead in that category. In actuality, it's toward the bottom. Talk about vanity.

Look at the recent Hurricanes, for example. Christian charities provide the Lion's share of assistance. Dwarfing government help. It's organizations like Samaritans' Purse, Operation Blessing, Feed The Children, Salvation Army, etc., that are the first on the scene providing a full range of assitance (food, portable showers, temporary shelters, etc, including bringing in skilled VOLUNTEERS from all over the country to help clear debris and help rebuild homes). EVERY single church within a large radius of affected communities is involved in the effort.
When Katrina hit, our local church in Tennessee, sent people down to help, with supplies and food, and coordinated to bring in families affected by the devastation and provide them with a place to stay until they could get on their feet.
So, Jin...without Google-searching (I didn't), name 3 liberal, non-government, organizations that regularly help when disasters (like these) strike.

For what it's worth, the average household has enough deductions outside of charities, to expend their maximum amount of deductions before charities are even factored in.
That happened with me while I was in school. I hit the limit before I could even start deducting charitable giving. So, the tax deduction issue is largely mute. Most people who give, do so because THEY WANT TO HELP. I never gave thinking, "well, I should get this back on my tax return."
Your argument is about as silly as saying parents have kids :stumped:

Sometimes you are right...and other times you embarrass yourself by clinging to a losing hand. :argue:

AbnRanger
10-15-2008, 11:57 PM
the fact that you find this ironic shows that you don't understand the first thing about real science or its process.

just go back to sunday school.

also, you people should make up your minds... you attack it as BOTH "fact" and "theory"? and without understanding the meaning of either....

sigh....

jinJin, you put some evidence on the table and we'll debate it merits, ok? Again, like a spoiled brat who can't get his way...typical Liberal procedure...you think spewing a barrage of ridicule without any FACTS to support it, gives you a winning hand.

Show us some of this SCIENCE you're referring to. Be specific. I'm ready when you are.

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 12:04 AM
Your argument is about as silly as saying parents have kids :stumped:
Part of the sentenced got deleted, and I didn't catch it before the 5min cutoff. I'll re-state it.

Your argument is about as silly as saying parents have kids in order to get a deduction on their taxes:stumped:
Good one, Jin. You really stuck me me with that arguement.

warmiak
10-16-2008, 12:18 AM
no it's not. conservative policy in this country has created a situation where the top 2% of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 98%.

whatever they give to charity is table scraps that they use to get a tax break....

pffffft.

i just think it's funny that those who claim the name of Jesus are such whores to mammon.

jin


What do you mean ? They stole it ?

If they did then that's a crime and if they didn't then what is your problem ?

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 12:25 AM
What do you mean ? They stole it ?

If they did then that's a crime and if they didn't then what is your problem ?Come on Warmiak, you're using logic here. Jin will throw the penalty flag on you, for unsportsmanlike conduct...

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 12:29 AM
they have those. they sell them at fine strip clubs and massage parlors everywhere. the answer usually involves ball gags and harnesses and stuff....

jinClassic Jin-speak. Spewing garbage out his blowhole.

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 12:58 AM
Amazing how "open minded" people are so closed minded when it comes to Christians and their beliefs. Many people tend to turn the pain from their life into a blame God thing. Over time it turns into hatred & bitterness as they hide behind their intellect. It's pretty common. That's why some of the comments on this thread are so angry and hateful when discussing Christians. It goes beyond disagreements about who should be president. I may disagree with some people about who they vote for but I still respect their decision because it's everyone's right to choose for what ever reason they wish. I think we should all be respectful on this thread. We all have at least one thing in common in that we all love animation and help each other out when questions arise.

jin choung
10-16-2008, 01:14 AM
: )

classic... saying it simply makes it so....
-------------------------------------------------------------------

warniak - here is my problem.

conservatives give "LIP SERVICE" to the fact that life is not fair. they can say it, but they don't mean it. or - they don't really understand it.

here is the ultra liberal position on wealth, society and everything:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cut taxes for everyone and halt spending as oldy mcgee suggests - hurts who most? conservatives seek to influence the stupid and uneducated by making taxation an issue for even the poor but here's what the dopes don't get. for every nickel it saves the poor, it saves the wealthy ten bucks.

cut taxes for those who make less than 250k and tax the wealthy more so that we can have more programs for the poor and tackle something like universal health care.... oldy wealthy mcgee who doesn't remember how many houses he owns asks why raise taxes on ANYBODY?

you know why john mccain? because the federal government doesn't run on candy and good intentions john mccain. duh.

"spreading the wealth around" ... find that objectionable do you john mccain?

here we go - LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

before you argue with me, ask yourself if you really believe that this is essentially true. then continue:

those who are wealthy don't deserve it.

those who are poor don't deserve it.

don't bring up EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. yes, actors and rappers and business people and others have crawled their way out of poverty. EXCEPTIONS EXIST. but they ARE exceptions.

the greatest predictor of YOUR wealth is your parents'. the greatest predictor of YOUR class is your parents. the american dream is for most people a myth.

it is a toss of the dice. you may be born to a wealthy white family with a good mind and a sound body. you may be blessed with being tall which is shown to improve your chances of success. you may be blessed with being attractive which helps everything.

OR

you may be born to a crack whore mom in the inner city with birth defects that make you not only short and unattractive but severely mentally incapacitated as well.

which of these persons deserved their entrance into this world? neither.

which of these persons deserve any wealth and success that is INVARIABLY a result of these factors? neither.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

it is NOT just a homily.

and society SHOULD be about RECTIFYING UNFAIRNESS... not PROPAGATING IT.

so - tax the wealthy so that the benefits of living in a wealthy country extend to everyone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

next point: the 2% vs. 98% is "not sustainable". economists have said it - it is DANGEROUS for our society for the wealth gap to be so large.

people will not remain mute forever. anger will bubble up. as it bubbles up now. the right isn't using words like "class warfare" for no reason.

if the upper class keeps screaming "let them eat cake", sooner or later, the pitchfork, torches and guillotines will indeed come out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

abn likes to point at all the charities blah blah blah.... doesn't really help with our health care situation does it? lots of families still going bankrupt because of HEALTH CARE COSTS of all things! leading reason for bankruptcy in the u.s.a. for a nation that claims to be "christian", this is absolutely shameful.

leaving the wealthy to give of their own volition DOESN'T SUFFICE.

if it did, we wouldn't see the WEALTH DISPARITY CONTINUALLY INCREASING! it would go the other way. the wealthy want to reduce everyone to charity cases and instead of teaching a man to fish and leading him to wealth, they just toss out a moldy piece of bread every now and then.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

all the conservative strongholds of charity and trickle down economics has been shown to be failures. charity is NOT ENOUGH. and trickle down does NOT trickle down because what's given to the wealthy either stays there or goes overseas where it's cheaper.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

penultimate point:

WE ALL PAY FOR POVERTY.

we have the HIGHEST PRISON POPULATION in the world!

"The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College London.

China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison." http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/23/america/23prison.php

poverty, lack of opportunity and sometimes just being black lands a lot of people in jail. and the people who want to keep the status quo think that that's a solution. wrong. every prisoner costs a ridiculous amount of money to upkeep.

and this is the common case of penny wise dollar stupid. having some PREVENTIVE PROGRAMS - giving opportunities, providing beneficial programs - these would probably end up being FAR CHEAPER in the long run.... but nooooooo.....

also, every uninsured person who shows up in an ER MUST BE TREATED. as cold hearted as conservatives can be, they won't let people die if they don't produce a credit card evidently.

this is the MOST EXPENSIVE WAY to deal with the problem of health care in america and yet this is the system that we subsidize by failing to act.

also, our LACK of a federal health care system simply pushes this burden on companies contributing to making american workers some of the most expensive in the world which completely cripples our ability to compete against companies in other modern western countries that DO provide health care for their citizens.

oooooo, the "s" word.... "SOCIALISM".... ooooo.... spooky.... well as we've seen in the last few weeks, it turns out socialism ends up being the last refuge of scoundrels. take that capitalism!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

liberals want the game of life to be like the game of golf. whether we like it or not, we have to play together - the very good vs. the very bad. it doesn't work too well without a handicap.

from wikipedia:

"A golf handicap is a numerical measure of an amateur golfer's playing ability. It can be used to calculate a net score from the number of strokes actually played, thus allowing players of different proficiency to play against each other on somewhat equal terms."

given that LIFE IS NOT FAIR, there's nothing objectionable in this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

finally:

if you make more than 250k and the thought of being taxed to help those who did not have the benefit of the many opportunities and chance fortunes that befell you just turns your gut, vote for mccain. please.

this is 20% of you in america.

the rest of you 80% of americans who make less than 250K... vote for obama because you will benefit. you would be a fool (and worse, a pawn of the wealthy) not to.

then hopefully, more americans will be able to achieve the american dream and the wealth gap will diminish. heck, i wouldn't at all be disappointed if it's by the low goin' up instead of the high comin' down.

otherwise - hey, i got my torch tricked out just right and my pitchfork sharpened. bring on the class war.

jin

jin choung
10-16-2008, 01:15 AM
I think we should all be respectful on this thread. We all have at least one thing in common in that we all love animation and help each other out when questions arise.

i agree. but tell that to the liberal hater.

also, i've got no hatred of christianity. but its followers are easy targets if they don't follow the WAY.... right? i mean their code of conduct is a best seller in book form as well as read by charlton heston and james earl jones on dvd....

if you dare claim God to preach at others, you better be pretty good at following it yourself.

jin

jin choung
10-16-2008, 01:24 AM
Amazing how "open minded" people are so closed minded when it comes to Christians and their beliefs.

you may find that ironic but what i find more ironic - and frankly hypocritical - is how "loving people" are so hateful.

jin

jin choung
10-16-2008, 01:30 AM
Classic Jin-speak. Spewing garbage out his blowhole.

ooooo... unlike the magnanimous, big spirited sentiments issuing forth from your pie hole?

as the kids say... whatttt... everrrrrrr....

stop fitting the stereotype so well and have a sense of humor for pity's sake.

jin

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 01:35 AM
i agree. but tell that to the liberal hater.

also, i've got no hatred of christianity. but its followers are easy targets if they don't follow the WAY.... right? i mean their code of conduct is a best seller in book form as well as read by charlton heston and james earl jones on dvd....

if you dare claim God to preach at others, you better be pretty good at following it yourself.

jin

You're right about allot of Christians who don't follow the Bible and that does make us look bad. Greed, many times, seem to take hold of many evangelist and preachers in the spot light along with other things. The ones I can't stand the most are the ones that yell at people about hell seeming to put themselves on a pedestal that they are better then the "non-christian". They almost seem to be glad a person is going there. Yes, I can see why many people don't like Christians. It's not the Bible itself so much as a Christian's poor conduct. For me, I believe soli on the Bible but there's a respectful way to approach it. Treating someone like a real human being is the best thing a Christian can do and live their life to the best ability according to the Bible. If someone is interested in my views, they'll be more open when they are spoken to like a respectful individual...a human being. Many, many Christians have this tendancy to look at people as how many souls they can save and put on their check off list instead of looking at someone as a person, a friend. I'm sorry you've seen allot of crazy so called Christians out there but this one (me) believes in balance. I'm flawed just like the rest of the human race and I claim to be no better then anyone else. If you were to ask me about Christianity, then cool...if not, that's ok to. :) I think it's the persona that Christians put off that make them look "holier then thou" and I think that makes them easy targets and rightfully so.

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 01:38 AM
you may find that ironic but what i find more ironic - and frankly hypocritical - is how "loving people" are so hateful.

jin

You mean people that pretend to love but have an underlining motive? Such as getting the glory and attention or a tax benefit?

jin choung
10-16-2008, 01:41 AM
cool,

for the record, and very very oddly, my best friends are devout christians. they laugh nervously when i bring up ball gags and harnesses but they do laugh. so believe me when i say i have nothing against christianity per se.

but i've got huge problems with christianity as it presents itself politically.

i don't mean this at all with ill will but i genuinely believe that christianity is at its best in the lions den and not behind the throne... if you follow my meaning.

jin

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 01:50 AM
LOL. Yeah, I used to get strange looks all the time from church goers who saw my long hair and gothic metal outfits. They would look at me as the low life as though God had a special light on them. I'm pretty sure that's called pride and according to the Bible, that's the first sin that was committed by Lucifer. Maybe I should have told them that. LOL :D I'm sure they would have really loved me then. Their attitude doesn't represent the Bible though since it talks about keeping away from pride. It just means that they had a serious attitude problem.

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 02:01 AM
cool, but i've got huge problems with christianity as it presents itself politically.jin

I also agree. I don't like any motion that shows itself in a non-loving way. Don't get me wrong, I believe in standing up for what I think is right but not in the traditional pushy, angry way many Christians have done over the years. I don't think one woman has ever said to herself "maybe I should keep the baby" after seeing a hundred angry strikers in front of an institution nor have I ever seen a Christian/non Christian debate that has ever had a resolution. Why people have not learned that these methods don't work on any level I don't know. People followed Jesus because of the love that He gave. I think the bottom line is that there is a way to approach issues and even though the church has done many great things such as feeding the poor, helping people in need and other things, it has a lot of flaws that leave itself to easy ridicule and scrutiny and politics is no exception.

jin choung
10-16-2008, 02:01 AM
You mean people that pretend to love but have an underlining motive? Such as getting the glory and attention or a tax benefit?

no.

more like abn and the christian right on tv talking about liberals etc and their political enemies with no semblance of love at all. seriously, they are FROTHING AT THE MOUTH with out and out, unbridled hatred.

and man, if i really had a nickel for every knucklehead preacher saying this or that disease or disaster was a "punishment from God" and then having to take it back i could probably retire.

...

seriously, it really does say somewhere in the bible - love your enemies.... and not just the ones you kinda like anyway.... : )

but that's not what's paid attention to. seems there's lots of selective hiliting going on in some sunday schools:

break out the big yellow hiliter for the old testament comments on homosexuality. underline a few passages in the new testament that may indicate the beginning of human life. cross out the thing about loving your enemies. rip out the passage about the difficulty of a rich man entering heaven. rip out and burn the part about inability to serve two masters, God and mammon.

in every case, when politicos invoke God or religion - they never show the "power of God" (tm), only the weakness of man. but they insist on signing God's name anyway.

sigh and ugh.

jin

inquisitive
10-16-2008, 02:03 AM
Actually, I don't hate the guy at all. I think the nickname fits quite well since he does have a shaky history being personally associated with a domestic Terrorist and a pastor who for has spewed national and racial hate, in his presence, for years.
If Liberals can poke fun at Palin, then I think Obama deserves at least a quick jab too.

Guilty by association?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-naif/todd-palins-alaska-indepe_b_134793.html

hrgiger
10-16-2008, 02:10 AM
Getting back to the whole 'not letting certain people vote because they're not smart enough' topic, It seems that would be most of us: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20081015/sc_livescience/americansflunksimple3questionpoliticalsurvey

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 02:13 AM
no.

more like abn and the christian right on tv talking about liberals etc and their political enemies with no semblance of love at all. seriously, they are FROTHING AT THE MOUTH with out and out, unbridled hatred.

and man, if i really had a nickel for every knucklehead preacher saying this or that disease or disaster was a "punishment from God" and then having to take it back i could probably retire.

...

seriously, it really does say somewhere in the bible - love your enemies.... and not just the ones you kinda like anyway.... : )

but that's not what's paid attention to. seems there's lots of selective hiliting going on in some sunday schools:

break out the big yellow hiliter for the old testament comments on homosexuality. underline a few passages in the new testament that may indicate the beginning of human life. cross out the thing about loving your enemies. rip out the passage about the difficulty of a rich man entering heaven. rip out and burn the part about inability to serve two masters, God and mammon.

in every case, when politicos invoke God or religion - they never show the "power of God" (tm), only the weakness of man. but they insist on signing God's name anyway.

sigh and ugh.

jin


Everything you say is true. Unfortunately, many Christians are hypocrites. There are also allot of Christians who are not. When looking at the Bible, Jesus called them Pharisees. People who use God for their own glory or to collect in cash or preach hatred. These people are not following the Bible and Jesus preaches against such things. I find more and more that being a Christian is not about pointing the finger in anger and going to war with everyone who's not a Christian, it's about how much I need Christ in my own life and how I live my life according to the Bible and last time I looked, I've just scratched the surface on things I need to fix. LOL My wife can tell you that. ;D

Stunt Pixels
10-16-2008, 02:13 AM
Getting back to the whole 'not letting certain people vote because they're not smart enough' topic, It seems that would be most of us: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20081015/sc_livescience/americansflunksimple3questionpoliticalsurvey

Sweet! I got all three. Does that mean I get to vote in the US election?

Put me down for Obama!

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 02:14 AM
LOL. Sorry guys. :foreheads

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 02:15 AM
Well, whoever wins, I hope they fix the economy and can fix my grocery bill.

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 02:16 AM
I've learned more about using a calculator since gas started going up. Now I'm a pro!

*Pete*
10-16-2008, 02:29 AM
You're right about allot of Christians who don't follow the Bible and that does make us look bad. Greed, many times, seem to take hold of many evangelist and preachers in the spot light along with other things. The ones I can't stand the most are the ones that yell at people about hell seeming to put themselves on a pedestal that they are better then the "non-christian". They almost seem to be glad a person is going there. Yes, I can see why many people don't like Christians. It's not the Bible itself so much as a Christian's poor conduct. For me, I believe soli on the Bible but there's a respectful way to approach it. Treating someone like a real human being is the best thing a Christian can do and live their life to the best ability according to the Bible. If someone is interested in my views, they'll be more open when they are spoken to like a respectful individual...a human being. Many, many Christians have this tendancy to look at people as how many souls they can save and put on their check off list instead of looking at someone as a person, a friend. I'm sorry you've seen allot of crazy so called Christians out there but this one (me) believes in balance. I'm flawed just like the rest of the human race and I claim to be no better then anyone else. If you were to ask me about Christianity, then cool...if not, that's ok to. :) I think it's the persona that Christians put off that make them look "holier then thou" and I think that makes them easy targets and rightfully so.

I like this way of thinking.
your or mine religion or lack of religious belief doesnt make us into better or worse people with higher or lower morals.

I am a non believer, but i live a life that is far closer to the teachings of the bible or the Koran than many of its believers..
I spoke with a muslim friend last week and we got into a discussion about the ramadan.®
he said that he didnt care for it, he ate and drank just as usual and a lot of his muslim friends were incredibly angry with him for disobeying the teachings of the religion.
but in every other way he follows the basic rules of the religion, he doesnt cheat on his wife, he doesnt steal or lie and he does believe in God.
those accusing him of being a bad muslim did have the ramadan as a good muslim should, but many of them cheated on their wifes and girlfriends, some bought prostitutes and many lied or stole from others.

i think that too many see religion as a club, a place for members only where you do the stuff members do, go to church or mosque, have religious holidays and when nobody but god is watching, they do as they please...

as usual, no matter if you are religios or not, its the bad ones among us that give the bad rep to the rest.
im an atheist but im not pushing my view as the correct one to anyone, i could be wrong and either way..im not bothered at all if people find personal strenght in having a god to believe in.

the sovjet commies has given atheist a bad name by banning religion, just as paedophile priests, the burning of witches, crusades and so on has given the religions a bad name.

i do like to speak about religion with my religious friends, i like to see the other point of view without either of us trying to convert the other...i find religion fashinating. a powerfull source of personal strenght...but i also noticed that some wear it as some kind of badge of "im better than you, you will burn in hell and i wont", this immeadetly fills me with discust towards both the person and his religion.

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 02:37 AM
but i also noticed that some wear it as some kind of badge of "im better than you, you will burn in hell and i wont", this immeadetly fills me with discust towards both the person and his religion.

Yeah, I dislike that to the core. That's just being plain old stuck up. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with other religions and their teachings but again it goes back to mutual respect. He or she is still a person and deserves the right to be listened to. I would want to be listened to so I need to give the courtesy to them as well. You're right though, a bad attitude or an arrogant person trying to talk about their beliefs is worse then smelling spoiled eggs. LOL Now that's bad. Every time I get into a discussion with someone about Christianity, it's always the same line. They left the church because they didn't feel excepted or someone screamed hell down their throat. It has proven ineffective over and over again and yet people continue to do it. It's like touching an electric fence 15 times, and every time it shocks but then you think, maybe the 16th time won't shock me. LOL

*Pete*
10-16-2008, 02:54 AM
yep...there are idiots in all shapes, religious or not.

but when an nonbeliever idiot is taken for what he is, an idiot..a religious idiot is taken as a represantive of his religion.

think Islam and you think oppression and suicide bombers, you think of a threat.
but how many of the muslims you met fit that description?..possible not one.

its the idiots that brand us...from where comes the thought that americans are stupid?..i wouldnt know, but i suspect that Ricki lake and DR Phil has something to do with it since thats where us foreigners see "real americans" instead of hollywood movie stars in action movies..

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 03:00 AM
I'm so sorry that Ricky Lake and Dr. Phil are what people in other countries think of when they think of America. Pretty sad story really. :oye: Anyway, must go sleep and get my 3.5 hours of sleep. I'm downing the coffee pot tomorrow. This is the life of an animator I guess. It's worth it. :D

Stooch
10-16-2008, 04:18 AM
Buying Macs for voters wouldn't be unlike what the republicans do now. Give us things that only a small percentage of us would actually only benefit from.

hahaha brilliant. i had a witty mac comment ready but you got it covered.

Stooch
10-16-2008, 04:20 AM
Hey guys, just finished watching the debates. Very disappointed since I'm voting for McCain. I hate to say it but I do think Obama is going to win based on poles and also he's a better speaker and talked about the economy allot so I think that will make all the difference. Oh well. The voting will all be over after November 4th so hopefully that will ensure a little economic up. At least gas is going down. It's $2.99 a gallon!!! So much better then what it was $4.29 a gallon a few weeks ago. :thumbsup:

lol so you saw that obama was clearly superior in every way yet still chose to go with the loser? why?

Stooch
10-16-2008, 04:42 AM
so does this mean that self proclaimed "dumbasses" are largely pro creationism?


It's not a mystery that self-proclaimed "Intellectuals" are largely pro-Evolution...just as wealth often fosters pride (as you alluded to earlier), so does intellect. A majority opinion, doesn't always equal the truth. Many scientific deiscoveries initially contradicted common held theory. That's why evolutionist have to continually ammend their "Facts." :D

as far as amending facts... at least they arent creating a new science every time they dont like what they are hearing.

anyway rather than trying to logic and reason with a crying child, i will try to appease you with some tunes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEuWDxfBJP8

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 05:43 AM
i agree. but tell that to the liberal hater.

also, i've got no hatred of christianity. but its followers are easy targets if they don't follow the WAY.... right? i mean their code of conduct is a best seller in book form as well as read by charlton heston and james earl jones on dvd....

if you dare claim God to preach at others, you better be pretty good at following it yourself.

jinFor what it's worth, I loathe the underhanded, hateful conduct of Liberals in this country, since Bush beat Al Gore. I didn't have a politcal position at the time, and actually pulled for Gore, believe it or not (had to pull for the home state guy).
But after 9/11 my eyes were opened wide to what Liberalism really stood for. I didn't even know what a Liberal was before that. I just knew it referred to Democrats. As soon as we started bombing Taliban positions in Afgahnistan, I remember vividly the opposition towards Bush...all for the sake of political jockeying.
I knew right then these people would rather see this country suffer, just so that they could get back in power. I didn't learn that from a conservative talk show. I discovered it all on my own.

Liberalism is 100% counter cultural to the Christian faith. It is literally a Culture War we are in. Sometimes it's hard to know where the line is to be drawn when taking a stand, but taking a stand we must.

It won't be long at all before we are completely ostrisized and jailed for "Hate Speech" anytime we take a public stand against issues like Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc. It's already happening in Europe and Australia. Liberals in this country would LOVE to shut Christians and Conservatives up through the court/legal system. Our constitution makes it a bit difficult for them to do that, but it doesn't prevent them from trying nonetheless.

It's funny, while Liberals try to destroy the character of their conservative opponents, they also think they have grounds to lecture us Christians as to how we should conduct ourselves....hhhmmm. You want us to lower our guard so you have no opposition. That's really what it's all about. Plain and simple.

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 05:57 AM
so does this mean that self proclaimed "dumbasses" are largely pro creationism?



as far as amending facts... at least they arent creating a new science every time they dont like what they are hearing.

anyway rather than trying to logic and reason with a crying child, i will try to appease you with some tunes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEuWDxfBJP8

If you have some evidence to present here, we're listening. Sorry, but ridicule doesn't prove a single thing. It just makes you look like you're covering up for something you don't have. Again, if you're so confident in YOUR science, put it on the table for the rest of the class to observe.

Put your exhibit on the table and let the facts lead where they may. Is that too much to ask?

Iain
10-16-2008, 07:06 AM
Sometimes it's hard to know where the line is to be drawn when taking a stand, but taking a stand we must.

It won't be long at all before we are completely ostrisized and jailed for "Hate Speech" anytime we take a public stand against issues like Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc.

Why is hate speech in quotation marks? Do you think it's something else?

Perhaps you can explain this one to me. Why do you need to take a stand against something like gay marriage?

Is it just because you don't like gay people or because you don't think they deserve the same rights?
Or is it that you'd prefer to pretend they just don't exist?

hrgiger
10-16-2008, 07:20 AM
Perhaps you can explain this one to me. Why do you need to take a stand against something like gay marriage?

Is it just because you don't like gay people or because you don't think they deserve the same rights?
Or is it that you'd prefer to pretend they just don't exist?

Well, what they'll tell you is that there is an invisible man in the sky who is telling people that marriage is between only a man and a woman.

What it is in reality is that they just can't stand those f*ggots.

hrgiger
10-16-2008, 07:22 AM
hahaha brilliant. i had a witty mac comment ready but you got it covered.

Thanks. That one was so easy, it wrote itself.

mattclary
10-16-2008, 07:26 AM
no it's not.

jin

Yeah it is.

Obama slams McCain for using negative ads, yet the real kicker is that Obama doesn't HAVE to use negative ads, as the media is handling all the hit-pieces FOR him.

Glendalough
10-16-2008, 07:31 AM
Star of the Show?

“It’s pretty surreal, man, my name being mentioned in a presidential campaign,” he said.

hrgiger
10-16-2008, 07:40 AM
Here we go again with the biased media. How is it that even if there was a biased media, that people are so susceptible to what they hear on the news? I mean, there are plenty of right wing outlets with millions and millions of viewers/listeners but we're not complaining about their bias which isn't even questionable. You've got Fox news, Rush, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Bill O'Reilley....and Republicans totally dominate the radio world. Democrats used to have Air America but we don't have that anymore.
You talk about shows like SNL with their bias and the 'drive by media'. You guys are surprised when people are asking tough questions of Palin because she's realtively unknown to most of us. Then you get mad when she's mocked for giving stupid answers. Go ahead, defend her foreign policy experience because of her close proximity to Russia.
Perhaps if the mainstream media is actually biased, is it just because the people who control these news sources lean to a more democratic position? If so, what's wrong with that? You're always talking about American opportunity and how people who work the hardest and work the smartest can make success for themselves. If that's the case, perhaps Republicans just haven't been working hard or smart enough to influence the media in the way they would like to. Or perhaps it's because views like Rush Lmbaughs and Bill O'Reilleys dont' really speak about what the majority of the American people believe in.

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 07:42 AM
Well, what they'll tell you is that there is an invisible man in the sky who is telling people that marriage is between only a man and a woman.

What it is in reality is that they just can't stand those f*ggots.
Well, let's see...Marriage has ALWAYS been a sacred institution between a man and a woman, upon which the family unit is grounded. Just because people like you suddenly want to come along and re-define it as something different or define it as ANYTHING you want it to be, doesn't make it so.

If you want to pretend that you're a female when in fact you're sporting some landing gear, that's your own personal issue.
But why would you want to come along and pretend your male girlfriend is your wife...then expect society to legally embrace such pretension?
It's not so much about rights...it's about cheapening and redefining an historically sacred instituition, and expecting everyone to legally endorse it.

Pretend all you want. But Marriage is what it is. Fair enough?

Iain
10-16-2008, 07:52 AM
Pretend all you want. But Marriage is what it is. Fair enough?

Well first of all, it's not a man pretending to be a woman. It's a person who wants to be recognised as such and have his or her relationship and legal rights taken seriously.

Pretend all you want but marriage is just a legal agreement.

Or maybe you don't approve of people having sex or children outside of wedlock either?
Get out there with your placards for that one.

frantbk
10-16-2008, 08:04 AM
Well, what they'll tell you is that there is an invisible man in the sky who is telling people that marriage is between only a man and a woman.

What it is in reality is that they just can't stand those f*ggots.

First, why do you think everybody can't stand gays just because they believe marriage is between an man and women?

Some people are against the change because once you change what marriage is from a man and women. It will open the legal issues of a person and their pet, a person and their car. It also bring up the legal issues of If there isn't a classification of man and women, than does age matter between two people? When you're talking about Law's your not just talking about the current issue, but all issue will stem from this law. Once you open this law, you open the use of this argument for more unforeseen issue than a man and man, or a women and a women getting married.

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 08:05 AM
Well first of all, it's not a man pretending to be a woman. It's a person who wants to be recognised as such and have his or her relationship and legal rights taken seriously.

Pretend all you want but marriage is just a legal agreement.

Or maybe you don't approve of people having sex or children outside of wedlock either?
Get out there with your placards for that one.Like I said, marriage is what it is...and it has ALWAYS (guess something changed to make it different all of a sudden) been a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Maybe you can convince enough people that marriage can also be between you and your pet, and get some legal rights for that too. Why not rake in all the dependency tax deductions Jin was talking about by marrying a few dozen wives. Who would ever need to pay taxes again.

Maybe Marriage is every time you go on a date with Stooch and get him to lay a sloppy wet one on you? Just go to the Jewelry shop, get what you want and walk off. When they ask you what you're doing stealing THEIR merchandise, just tell them you have the RIGHT to rename their goods as yours. Anything goes...just re-name it and it's yours. Name it and claim it

theo
10-16-2008, 08:06 AM
Why do you need to take a stand against something like gay marriage?


Perfect example of why polar positions are critical in relation to law.

Iain, you will never fully grasp why someone may take a position against gay marriage.

The answer (however right or wrong according to someone's opinion) is totally unrelated to the freedom to EXPRESS whatever in the h3ll (within prudent social constraints) someone wants to in relation to same-sex marriage or anything else for that matter.

I happen to think same-sex marriage is such a non-issue that gays should have been given the right to marry years ago.

Some happen to think this should never occur. So what?

This is a free society. Just because you and I think differently on this issue does not afford us the right to arbitrate with legal action what should roll off people's tongues.

There is no question that hate laws are on the books around the world and will only continue to proliferate.

Debates are one thing but to write into law what can and cannot be stated is morbidly excessive and presents disturbing conclusions as to the future of free speech.

frantbk
10-16-2008, 08:06 AM
Well first of all, it's not a man pretending to be a woman. It's a person who wants to be recognised as such and have his or her relationship and legal rights taken seriously.

Pretend all you want but marriage is just a legal agreement.

Or maybe you don't approve of people having sex or children outside of wedlock either?
Get out there with your placards for that one.

If you are talking about legal rights of ownership because of partnership that doesn't have anything to do with marriage. If you are talking about the right to be married in a church. There is no legal right to be married in a church. That is the Churches right to decide if they will marry you.

Andyjaggy
10-16-2008, 08:35 AM
this is looking to be another good thread. We've got politics, gay marriage, abortion, religion, and George Bush even. Can't beat that. Now we just need some Maya vs LW and it will be complete and ready to rage for 5,000 posts.

CMT
10-16-2008, 08:38 AM
Well, what they'll tell you is that there is an invisible man in the sky who is telling people that marriage is between only a man and a woman.

Well, what I'LL tell you is that yes, Christians believe just that. BUT. I have no problem as a Christian allowing a legal definition of a civil union between same sex couples which enjoy many, perhaps not all though, of the same benefits of married couples. Something should be said, however small, for propagating our species and add to the community of your own blood. Adoption could come close, yet it's not adding to the community, just helping someone else.

Right now in those states that support same sex marriage, they get the state benefits of marriage, but not the federal benefits. I don't see why they can't have most of the benefits of federal as well.


If you are talking about legal rights of ownership because of partnership that doesn't have anything to do with marriage. If you are talking about the right to be married in a church. There is no legal right to be married in a church. That is the Churches right to decide if they will marry you.

Exactly. Church is church. And state is state. If the legal system is changed to allow for same sex ...unions I'll call them, then that's fine. They can enjoy most of the benefits of the heterosexual couples. The only benefits that shouldn't be available are those relating to bringing a child into the world, whatever benefits those may be. But this would have nothing to do with benefits rewarded to raising a child which would apply even to those who adopted or had, uh... outside help in creating a child.

But marriage should remain defined as a union between a man and a woman. It's connotation is more religious in nature, though it has a legal definition. Churches should have the right to deny marriage rights for anyone who seeks it that does not fit that religions requirements for marriage. If a same sex couple has a legal civil union, the church should not be forced to recognize it with regard to internal religious matters.


It's pathetic how some religious people want others to accept their faith when they're unable to accept something completely natural like a man loving another man. Homosexuality harms no one, no one at all! I guess tolerance doesn't go both ways.

Intolerance runs abundant for many, not just for "some religious people". Example... your sig.

Anytime anyone mentions God and their beliefs here, you engage in a rant against religion and why people always want to shove religion in your face, yadda yadda yadda. Yet your sig shows your religious intolerance every time you make a post.

CMT
10-16-2008, 08:47 AM
What it is in reality is that they just can't stand those f*ggots.

Not a very insightful comment.

Iain
10-16-2008, 08:55 AM
Some people are against the change because once you change what marriage is from a man and women. It will open the legal issues of a person and their pet,

Are you serious?

Relations between same sex couples have been legal in most civlised places for a while now. There are even laws against discrimination because it has been recognised and accepted as a quirk in our nature that is evident in most animals.

Relations between men and animals however is illegal and revolts the overwhelming majority of people.

Do people really have trouble distinguishing between these two concepts?

CMT
10-16-2008, 09:00 AM
Are you serious?

Relations between same sex couples have been legal in most civlised places for a while now. There are even laws against discrimination because it has been recognised and accepted as a quirk in our nature that is evident in most animals.

Relations between men and animals however is illegal and revolts the overwhelming majority of people.

Do people really have trouble distinguishing between these two concepts?

Yeah, the bestiality thing is taking it a bit too far. There's disease issues which alone should justify making it illegal. And that's all my now upset stomach will allow me to say on that subject..... *shudder*

mattclary
10-16-2008, 09:00 AM
I don't care about gay marriage, more power to them. Maybe they will adopt some of those unwanted babies. Rather have that than abortions-as-birth-control.

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 09:01 AM
Maybe I should have named this thread "How do you think Lightwave 10 will turn out? LOL

Iain
10-16-2008, 09:01 AM
If you are talking about legal rights of ownership because of partnership that doesn't have anything to do with marriage. If you are talking about the right to be married in a church.

I was talking about the legal right to be acknowledged as the singular partner of another person.

Marriage is an agreement bound by a piece of paper that kids can sign at the drop of a hat. If you want to pretend it's something else, a sacred institution between a man and a woman, then please justify the statistics of year one divorce.

CMT
10-16-2008, 09:09 AM
If you want to pretend it's something else, a sacred institution between a man and a woman, then please justify the statistics of year one divorce.

I can answer that one. It's simple. Selfishness. Inability to make a commitment. Just because these people sign a piece of paper doesn't mean they magically are transformed into faithful, completely rational and compassionate people. The trend is that people are becoming more and more selfish in just about every society. No one wants to give in or compromise. No one wants to work for their relationship. They feel that everything should just fall into place for them and when things get bumpy, they split. People just aren't treating marriage as a sacred institution anymore.

Iain
10-16-2008, 09:13 AM
People just aren't treating marriage as a sacred institution anymore.

Exactly!
The word sacred just doesn't fit now-if it ever did.

But in an evolving society, that must be a good thing. In the old days, people endured unhappy marriages because it was the right thing to do.

I don't think people should enter into any commitment lightly but it's better to be able to get out of something than be unhappy.

hrgiger
10-16-2008, 09:15 AM
Not a very insightful comment.

Exactly my point in making it. Restricting gays from marrying has little to do with preserving some sacred institution and more to do with the fact that homophobia is rampant. People from all faiths get married. Some of those faiths allow flexibility when it comes to gay marriage. And of course, there are benefits in society from a legally binding marriage. So why is it, that only the relgions that are against gay marriage should win out on this issue. Why are they so against giving gays the benefits that they enjoy. Fine, dont' recognize the marriage in your church if you don't see fit but how on earth is it that gays can't have a legal marriage when it comes to state and federal matters? Why does the church even matter when it comes to this. Separation of church and state people.

hrgiger
10-16-2008, 09:30 AM
I can answer that one. It's simple. Selfishness. Inability to make a commitment. Just because these people sign a piece of paper doesn't mean they magically are transformed into faithful, completely rational and compassionate people. The trend is that people are becoming more and more selfish in just about every society. No one wants to give in or compromise. No one wants to work for their relationship. They feel that everything should just fall into place for them and when things get bumpy, they split. People just aren't treating marriage as a sacred institution anymore.

I think that's true to a point. But speaking from experience, I have to say that some people are just not made for other people. I tried very hard to make my marriage work but in the end, it just fell apart.
In addition to, churches have the wrong idea by not encouraging people to live together before marriage. You find all kinds of stuff out about people when you live with them. Sexual incompatibility is also a big issue for some people.
Getting back to my own experience in the matter, people are fundamentally dishonest. I don't mean in the way that we are purposefully deceitful, but more to the point, we present ourselves as we like to be seen. Of course, when we relax on that facade, people start seeing what's really underneath and sometimes, it's not what we expected or came to know about a person.
Sometimes, and I'll be a little sterotypying here because I think this is a bigger problem among women, people want to get married so much, they forget everything else around them and have total tunnel vision. Then they find that marriage isn't the fairy tale they thought it was going to be. They don't ever truly ask themselves if they're marrying the right person or marrying for the right reasons. Marriage is hard enough without adding delusions of grandeur into it.
I'll agree with you that people are very selfish, but it's not the only reason that people can't stay together. I would like to add that I am now happily divorced.

Iain
10-16-2008, 09:34 AM
I would like to add that I am now happily divorced.

Did AbnRanger keep putting the knives in the spoon drawer?

CMT
10-16-2008, 09:37 AM
I don't think people should enter into any commitment lightly but it's better to be able to get out of something than be unhappy.

Well, how many marriages could be saved if people would just compromise a little? I had a rough patch around year 5 of my marriage. I felt it was pretty much all her fault too. I was about to hit the road. But I hung in there and made a conscious effort to really work on some issues that I had problems with. I'm now married for 13 years. Things are much smoother now and I'm very happy. And I didn't really have to compromise too much. Just create boundaries and expectations and communicate much more.... And a few extra foot rubs will go a loooong way. :)


I'll agree with you that people are very selfish, but it's not the only reason that people can't stay together. I would like to add that I am now happily divorced.

Sorry to hear it didn't work out for you, but glad that you are happy now. I realize that some marriages are destined to fail from the beginning. And as you said, it's partially due to false preconceptions about what marriage really is and lack of understanding about what it takes to make it work.

Not saying that was your case. I'm sure it was all her fault. :)

warmiak
10-16-2008, 10:25 AM
Are you serious?

Relations between same sex couples have been legal in most civlised places for a while now. There are even laws against discrimination because it has been recognised and accepted as a quirk in our nature that is evident in most animals.


The bottom line is this..
It is nobody's business what people do with their private lives.

The government should not be in business of creating any standards for personal relationship - assuming you are an adult person and there is no crime being perpetrated ( meaning everyone involved is acting out of free choice) , you should be free to engage in any relationship you want.

I donít understand why is this even an issue , it sounds to me like the very basic prerequisite for freedom.

Hopper
10-16-2008, 11:02 AM
they have those. they sell them at fine strip clubs and massage parlors everywhere. the answer usually involves ball gags and harnesses and stuff....
Awesome ... lol.


Classic Jin-speak. Spewing garbage out his blowhole.
Lighten up - it was a joke. Take the rage out of your Kool-Aid and relax a bit.

CMT
10-16-2008, 11:19 AM
i agree. but tell that to the liberal hater.

also, i've got no hatred of christianity. but its followers are easy targets if they don't follow the WAY.... right? i mean their code of conduct is a best seller in book form as well as read by charlton heston and james earl jones on dvd....

if you dare claim God to preach at others, you better be pretty good at following it yourself.

jin

Shows what you know about Christianity. The religion acknowledges that we are fallible creatures and allows for it with the idea of repentance.

You may say you have no hatred of Christianity, yet other than that declaration, I've seen absolutely no tolerance in your posted words for it. In your own sarcastic words,


"saying something is so makes it so"

You may say it, but you don't seem to demonstrate it.


Lighten up - it was a joke. Take the rage out of your Kool-Aid and relax a bit.

No. That's what he does. He pokes away with his little quips designed to provoke these types of responses. The only thing he's contributed to this thread is a bit of Christian/religion bashing.

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 11:26 AM
You know, for anyone who has studied Human Anatomy, you can see amazing parallels between the major systems in the body and major systems that exist in our own world/society. That alone should make us wary of dogmatically insisting that nothing exists outside of what we are able to perceive with our limited faculties.
Circulatory/Transportation, Nervous/Communication, Immune and Lymphatic system/Defense (Police/local defense), Skeletal/Defense (Military/external or global defense) Digestive & Respiratory/Supply & Waste Management, Urinary/Waste Management, and Muscle/Industrial system.

Additionally, observe the way certain critical functions are governed while others are free and voluntary (look at the sphincter muscles of the bladder...one is involuntary..would open up and release the waste when full...while the outer muscle is voluntary...a stop-gap design so you don't pee all over yourself before you can get to a restroom :D). That is masterful engineering for an organism that evolutionists claim originated from random chance, spawned by nothingness. Talk about having Faith in "NOTHING":D

The cells in your body are extremely intelligent free agents with limited autonomy. They have their specific work to do and they do it, without you even having to think about it. Amazing how a T-Cell knows to go from one end of the vast universe...that is your body, to the other, just to answer the call from other cells to defend the body from a foreign invader. That's just flat out amazing!
Just because those intelligent cells can't perceive you, empirically, does that mean you don't exist? Your brain responds simultaneously to millions of nerve repsonses every second. So, all those crazy Christians praying simultaneously to an invisible God sounds ridiculous, does it? HHHHmmmmm....

Each one of your cells has a master blueprint of you...it's called DNA (with millions of lines of information contained within) .
Funny, similar words were written thousands of years ago by a man name Moses, in the book of Genesis..."  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. -Genesis 1:27

Isn't it peculiar that no other species on earth reaches out to something or someone greater than themselves. Just man.

More than these, the greatest evidence is Jesus Christ himself. He literally existed, and he literally performed miracles that no man has ever done, nor is capable of. That's why one single man changed the world more than any other in history. It wasn't his teaching, nor his appearance. He certainly didn't have any military conquests...it wasn't because he was a swell, loving guy.

It was because he was the ONLY God-Man there has ever been. Hundreds, and thousands watched him heal the blind, paralyzed, leper, raise the dead, etc. (if your Biology Professor can do better than that, then maybe I need to catch one of his lectures). And then his disciples (as well as a crowd of over 500) saw him resurrected 3 days after being crucified (just as he said he would). The prophecy written by Isaiah (Ch. 53), written over 800 yrs prior, gave a specific forward glimpse of the Gospel. As did many others, but it is the most thorough and vivid of them all.
Not only did his disciples hold fast to their testimony (eyewitness testimony happens to be the strongest form of evidence in modern day jurispridence) of him under the duress of stonings, beatings, imprisonment, and execution (many people throughout history have indeed died for what turned out to be a lie, but no one is willing to die for what THEY THEMSELVES KNOW is a lie), but there is also plenty of external/extra-biblical evidence of those miracles as well.
For example, his own enemies, the Jewish leaders of the day, admitted in the Talmud, that he performed great miracles among the people, but they could not accept that he was the Messiah (they were looking for a Political/ Military leader, like King David to deliver them from their Gentile enemies...he didn't fit their expectations, but that's a separate discussion). If anyone had a reason to dismiss his miracles as being fabricated or made up, they would have. But there was too much eyewitness testimony, so they couldn't deny it.

Then you have Josephus, a Jewish (not particularly sympathetic to Christians) and later Roman historian of that day, mentioned in his book, "Antiquities of the Jews":
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.'

Additional non-christian sources that refer to it's origin are Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, The Babylonian Talmud, and the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion.

Just some food for thought.

jin choung
10-16-2008, 11:28 AM
No. That's what he does. He pokes away with his little quips designed to provoke these types of responses.

and again, my biggest fan, who has devoted so much time studying me as to be an expert in my behavior decides to put his two cents in.

how informative and entertaining!

want my autograph now?

jin

jin choung
10-16-2008, 11:30 AM
Yeah it is.

Obama slams McCain for using negative ads, yet the real kicker is that Obama doesn't HAVE to use negative ads, as the media is handling all the hit-pieces FOR him.

again, read what i quote AFTER i say no it's not.

jin

CMT
10-16-2008, 11:31 AM
and again, my biggest fan, who has devoted so much time studying me as to be an expert in my behavior decides to put his two cents in.

how informative and entertaining!

want my autograph now?

jin

What do you expect me to do, Jin when you devote several posts to attacking the character of Christian believers?

CMT
10-16-2008, 11:35 AM
again, read what i quote AFTER i say no it's not.

jin

Oh look! The link is a post from a credible source!

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showpost.php?p=765812&postcount=25

Must.... submit... to .... superior..... debater....

jin choung
10-16-2008, 11:39 AM
You want us to lower our guard so you have no opposition. That's really what it's all about. Plain and simple.

you know why it's not the least ironic?

you guys are the one's claiming God's side. you guys are the one's who claim him.

WE are NOT.

therefore, we have a very public (best seller) way of holding you accountable. frankly, the liberals would do well to read the bible cover to cover and use it against you. we can take a great swathe of you out without even having to bend words.

your God says that you should love your enemies. not love your friends. not love the people you agree with. you do not. you fail Him.

by claiming His name and being so hate filled, you give Him a bad name. just like the people who hold up signs saying "God hates [email protected]" give Him a bad name.

finally, how weak is your God? why are you so concerned about letting your guard down? if God is for you, who can be against you?

again, all i see is the weakness of man when religion plays out in politics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'll school you some more -

bible says render unto caesar what is caesar's. render unto God what is God's. doesn't say anywhere "render unto yourself what is yours" or render unto caesar what is caesar's but try to get him to make policies so you don't have render very much.

you say liberals are enemy of faith but when it comes to mammon worship, the republicans really take the cake.

jin

jin choung
10-16-2008, 11:39 AM
Oh look! The link is a post from a credible source!

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showpost.php?p=765812&postcount=25

Must.... submit... to .... superior..... debater....

and what of the post do you disagree with spocko?

jin

jin choung
10-16-2008, 11:40 AM
What do you expect me to do, Jin when you devote several posts to attacking the character of Christian believers?

you should attack their iniquity as well. or are you blind to it? if you people kept your own houses, i wouldn't have to go in and clean up your mess.

jin

CMT
10-16-2008, 11:56 AM
you should attack their iniquity as well. or are you blind to it? if you people kept your own houses, i wouldn't have to go in and clean up your mess.

jin

I have stated in the past my dislike of religion in politics. My record is clear there.


and what of the post do you disagree with spocko?

jin

The only reason the media backed off of Bush after 9/11 was for to keep themselves from looking like the bloodthirsty journalists that they are. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc... They all had a better story anyway covering the attack until it became old news. Then the war came. Got to be behind your country in those times so again, they couldn't really come out and criticize Bush at that time with the apparent justification for the war or else it would be too obvious how partisan they were. But when the opportunity was finally there, off everybody went criticizing everything they could. Some of it justifiable, some not.

There's no mistake that there's some conservative commentators out there. But they don't try to hide it either. They say exactly what's on their mind. They make no bones about who they think is the better candidate. Unlike the more stealthy liberal mainstream media.

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 12:03 PM
you know why it's not the least ironic?

you guys are the one's claiming God's side. you guys are the one's who claim him.

WE are NOT.

therefore, we have a very public (best seller) way of holding you accountable. frankly, the liberals would do well to read the bible cover to cover and use it against you. we can take a great swathe of you out without even having to bend words.

your God says that you should love your enemies. not love your friends. not love the people you agree with. you do not. you fail Him.

by claiming His name and being so hate filled, you give Him a bad name. just like the people who hold up signs saying "God hates [email protected]" give Him a bad name.

finally, how weak is your God? why are you so concerned about letting your guard down? if God is for you, who can be against you?

again, all i see is the weakness of man when religion plays out in politics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'll school you some more -

bible says render unto caesar what is caesar's. render unto God what is God's. doesn't say anywhere "render unto yourself what is yours" or render unto caesar what is caesar's but try to get him to make policies so you don't have render very much.

you say liberals are enemy of faith but when it comes to mammon worship, the republicans really take the cake.

jinI can assure you, Jin, he didn't have very kind words for his enemies at various times...he called them a brood of vipers and whitewashed graves...clean on the outside but full of dead bones on the inside.
He called them Blind Guides, swine, etc.
Calling a spade a spade at the appropriate time is what's needed sometimes. You can be a really nice guy, but if someone threatens your family or home, you switch out of "Mister Nice Guy" mode really quick, wouldn't you?

Yeah, I admit, I stepped over the line with the Obama Bin Laden quip. I was actually saying that tongue-in-cheek. I don't honestly believe he has links to terrorists, but he sure doesn't help himself with the connections he has to some unsavory folks.

I decided a long time ago that I wasn't going to get wrapped up in this election, at all. I've only caught a tiny snippet of news coverage here and a few weeks later there. But, on the whole...I really just don't care anymore.
It's just one big hatefest that I just don't want to be involved with. I have better things to focus on, and that's why I need to get out of this conversation soon. It's too easy to get mired down on politics and religion, and I have too much work that needs to get done.

Stooch
10-16-2008, 12:04 PM
But why would you want to come along and pretend your male girlfriend is your wife...then expect society to legally embrace such pretension?

the same way you expect the rest of society to legally embrace your pretension of god. and your pretensions of faith and how it makes you better than the "heathens" and your obvious hatred for others who dont share your pov.

lol and i have to laugh every time the word evidence comes out of your mouth. hahahaah seriously. you are a walking irony.

jin choung
10-16-2008, 12:06 PM
spocko-

yawn....

media totally backed bush for eight years.

whatever you think of their "hidden secret agenda" they loudspeakered all his talking points, slavishly presented the administration position and couldn't be bothered to give the opposition the time of day. the opposition that you claim is really "their side".

this was FAR more egregious than any kind of bias against mccain now.

but where were the cries of "liberal media" then? : )

media was the [email protected]#$ch of bush for eight years. stop crying that it's swinging the other way.

jin

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 12:17 PM
the same way you expect the rest of society to legally embrace your pretension of god. and your pretensions of faith and how it makes you better than the "heathens" and your obvious hatred for others who dont share your pov.

lol and i have to laugh every time the word evidence comes out of your mouth. hahahaah seriously. you are a walking irony.Seriously Stooch...you do nothing...and I mean N-O-T-H-I-N-G but blow hot air and criticize. There's absolutely nothing substantive to your posts at all.
If you're big enough to talk the talk, then be willing to walk the walk...for once in your miserable life.
You're just a bag of wind and nothing more. When you want to prove me wrong, come at me with some facts. What's the phrase again.?.."Don't sing it...Bring it!"
Alas, your next post will only serve to demonstrate to everyone here What you're all about. All bark...no bite. A toothless mut as it were.

warmiak
10-16-2008, 12:25 PM
spocko-

yawn....

media totally backed bush for eight years.

jin

Uh ... that's a good one.

If only liberals could somehow get their message out there ...

jin choung
10-16-2008, 12:26 PM
do you deny they had a rough time of it during the bush admin?!

jin

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 12:34 PM
do you deny they had a rough time of it during the bush admin?!

jinCome on Jin. I know you don't believe that. The Media is well-known to be Liberal, with the exception of Fox News. Why do you think Fox takes so much heat from the Hollywood know-it-alls? Look at the View. That poor girl (forget her name at the moment...she's the only Conservative on the show) is like chum for the Liberal sharks surrounding her.

CMT
10-16-2008, 12:39 PM
spocko-

yawn....

media totally backed bush for eight years.

whatever you think of their "hidden secret agenda" they loudspeakered all his talking points, slavishly presented the administration position and couldn't be bothered to give the opposition the time of day. the opposition that you claim is really "their side".

this was FAR more egregious than any kind of bias against mccain now.

but where were the cries of "liberal media" then? : )

media was the [email protected]#$ch of bush for eight years. stop crying that it's swinging the other way.

jin

Just an except from wikipedia about two studies done regarding liberal media bias. Not saying they are 100% credible, but there they are...

Not necessarily from the exact moment of Bush's administration, but I can't expect it to suddenly disappear with his term. And I wouldn't bring it up if I didn't notice it myself.


"The academic study cited most frequently by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.
The book's most thorough case study involved nuclear energy. The survey of journalists showed that most were highly skeptical about nuclear safety. However, the authors conducted a separate survey of scientists in energy related fields, who were much more sanguine about nuclear safety issues. They then conducted a content analysis of nuclear energy coverage in the media outlets they had surveyed. They found that the opinions of sources who were cited as scientific experts reflected the antinuclear sentiments of journalists, rather than the more pro-nuclear perspectives held by most energy scientists.
The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality. At the time the study was embraced mainly by conservative columnists and politicians, who adopted the findings as "scientific proof" of liberal media bias.
Many of the positions in the preceding study are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view."

And gotta love the name calling. Makes you look all the more credible....

CMT
10-16-2008, 12:52 PM
no it's not.

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showpost.php?p=765812&postcount=25

jin

And if you noticed, I didn't site myself as the source.

frantbk
10-16-2008, 01:08 PM
Are you serious?

Relations between same sex couples have been legal in most civlised places for a while now. There are even laws against discrimination because it has been recognised and accepted as a quirk in our nature that is evident in most animals.

Relations between men and animals however is illegal and revolts the overwhelming majority of people.

Do people really have trouble distinguishing between these two concepts?

If the only requirement is what revolts the majority than Gay marriages are not allowed in the U.S. because of your standard.

The point that is being made about law is: Once you take away the concept of man and women as the factor of two objects bonding there is nothing in a theory of law that will prohibit the bonding of a person and their pet. A women and her vibrator. A underage person and an older person. Once you take away the basic foundation of what marriage is - a new foundation must be created to replace it. Gay marriages doesn't replace that, nor does it help that foundation of law. The facts are it destroys the base foundation and open it to new interpretations of what the foundation can be to any majority.

Stooch
10-16-2008, 01:10 PM
wow you know thats exactly how i feel about your posts. not only that but i have no intention to convince you of anything because frankly you arent worth the time. i love the way you also bring everyone else into the picture, when im confident that the kind of people that matter to me can see you for what you really are.

the really funny part about this, is that im using your words against you and your ideas applied to yourself. So you are asking me for evidence on your own notions. how obtuse is that? hahaahahahah

logic, do you speak it?


Seriously Stooch...you do nothing...and I mean N-O-T-H-I-N-G but blow hot air and criticize. There's absolutely nothing substantive to your posts at all.
If you're big enough to talk the talk, then be willing to walk the walk...for once in your miserable life.
You're just a bag of wind and nothing more. When you want to prove me wrong, come at me with some facts. What's the phrase again.?.."Don't sing it...Bring it!"
Alas, your next post will only serve to demonstrate to everyone here What you're all about. All bark...no bite. A toothless mut as it were.

Lightwolf
10-16-2008, 01:13 PM
The point that is being made about law is: Once you take away the concept of man and women as the factor of two objects bonding there is nothing in a theory of law that will prohibit the bonding of a person and their pet.
Only if you see a man and a woman as two objects to start with. Replace that with two consenting adults and there's no problem.

On the other hand, this is about rights before law: visiting rights etc. I know plenty of straight couples that marry because of that reason alone.

As for the definition of marriage, if you want to get historical you might as well add polygamy. Wasn't that even legal in certain States of the US at some time?

Cheers,
Mike

frantbk
10-16-2008, 01:16 PM
I was talking about the legal right to be acknowledged as the singular partner of another person.

Marriage is an agreement bound by a piece of paper that kids can sign at the drop of a hat. If you want to pretend it's something else, a sacred institution between a man and a woman, then please justify the statistics of year one divorce.


Are you in need of a vacation? Marriage is what the majority believe it to be based on what they, the majority, thinks is proper for their society. Just because Europe thinks it is old school to limit marriage to a man and a women does not mean that any country that believes that it is just a bonding of a man and women are any less wrong.

Being acknowledged as a singular partner of another person isn't part of the constitution, therefore it is not a right at birth, or naturalization. It is a privilege granted by the majority

jin choung
10-16-2008, 01:37 PM
And if you noticed, I didn't site myself as the source.

tedious and boring man. why are you so tedious and boring.

i'm not citing myself as a source. i am referring him to the argument behind "no it's not".

as for your citation - big whup.... you don't think i can find studies that say that charges of bias are overblown? and if you're gonna cite it, link it spocko.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

man... i really despise talking to you. and i hate that you keep engaging me in conversation. you're like a fungus that won't go away.

it really is quite hilarious though. you could just stay away from me. but you don't. i don't ever seek you out. i don't ever jump into a convo where you're saying your stuff. i don't ever reply to what you say.

you know why?

because it's boring. you're boring. i'm sick of talking to you. nothing you can say is of interest to me. but i'm oh sooooo compelling to you... alll the time....

you just can't keep away from me. you're like a deranged fan. ever see the movie "the fan"? you loooooooooooove trying to jump into convos and characterize me and rebutt me. you can't help it. do you consider it your duty?

and you don't keep it on point. you keep coming after me personally. trying to characterize me or what i do or make snide comments like the one i'm responding to here.

that's kinda sick.

why can't you just leave me alone? i don't want to talk to you. i am asking you yet again, leave me alone. i don't want to talk to you.

if i could add myself to your ignore list, i soooooo would. and if i could get a gaurantee that you won't be talking about me, i'd add you to mine in a heartbeat.

i am so sick of you man.

jin

Iain
10-16-2008, 01:57 PM
Are you in need of a vacation?...............Just because Europe thinks it is old school to limit marriage to a man and a women does not mean that any country that believes that it is just a bonding of a man and women are any less wrong.


First it's bestiality and now you want to know when I'm free to travel.
I'm not interested Fraktnb! And I'm straight!

Check the laws in the US before you go on about those kooky Europeans. Same sex marriage is legal in some states.

jin choung
10-16-2008, 02:07 PM
yup. hawaii, massachussetts and california!

jin

jin choung
10-16-2008, 02:09 PM
It is a privilege granted by the majority

gotta say that this is so wrong that it boggles the mind....

marriage is a "PRIVELEGE"?

marriage is a RIGHT. and if we're gonna be historical about it, this right has a precedent of the entirety of human civilization.

jin

CMT
10-16-2008, 02:12 PM
...jin

Oh here we go again. I happen to respond to one of the most idiotic statements you ever made, and an offensive one at that, and it's me who's to blame. Yeah, that's rich!

As for my citation, go find it yourself, Mr. Google. It's on wikipedia.

And I can't stand conversing with you either. But such idiotic statements like the ones you constantly make can't be left unanswered.

BTW, I ALWAYS kept it on point. I responded to your statements with research. You respond with nothing except credibility attacks as usual and nothing to back up your ridiculous claims except to quote yourself, which is the lamest thing I've ever heard of.

Any snide comments I made pale in comparison to the nasty comments and personal attacks you are prone to make. So don't give me that s#it. And you call others hypocritical?

And as long as you keep engaging in discussions that I happen to be interested in, I'll have every right to respond to one of your remarks. Especially ones that are offensive to me. If you don't want to hear what I have to say, then put me on your ignore list. It's that simple.

And if I'm such a nuisance you, why don't you complain to the mods? Maybe it's because there's more evidence of you and your personal attacks? If they were to look at our post histories, they would see your pattern of verbal abuse. They would see my response to such posts made by you requesting you to stop the personal remarks and respond to the issues. YOU'RE the one who always talks down to everyone. More so than anyone else on these forums.

CMT
10-16-2008, 02:16 PM
Legal marriage is a right. But the state or federal benefits of marriage or civil unions is not gauranteed by that right. Just the recognition.

But I do believe that the state and federal benefits should mostly apply to both hetero and same sex couples.

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 02:33 PM
I can assure you, Jin, he didn't have very kind words for his enemies at various times...he called them a brood of vipers and whitewashed graves...clean on the outside but full of dead bones on the inside.
He called them Blind Guides, swine, etc.

He was calling the Pharisees that, not the world. The Pharisees acted godly and various other things but their heart wasn't right. They would say one thing and do another. Praying out loud so that people would see them. Fasting and looking sickly so that people would see them. Unless it was leaders or the Pharisees, Jesus spoke truth but spoke it with compassion and love. This is why I think so many people followed Jesus is because he showed love and compassion along with the salvation message. I would rather work for a loving, compassionate boss with lower pay then make lots of money being condemned and thrown 50 facts as to why I'm not a good employee. Pointless, angry arguments aren't going to do anything except make people turn further from anything you want to say. That's just basic communication and common respect.

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 02:36 PM
wow you know thats exactly how i feel about your posts. not only that but i have no intention to convince you of anything because frankly you arent worth the time. i love the way you also bring everyone else into the picture, when im confident that the kind of people that matter to me can see you for what you really are.

the really funny part about this, is that im using your words against you and your ideas applied to yourself. So you are asking me for evidence on your own notions. how obtuse is that? hahaahahahah

logic, do you speak it?If you don't have anything...or should I say, SINCE you don't have anything...man up and say so. Your fat ego won't let you do it. You're playing a losing hand, and the best way for you to keep from being shown up is to try and ease out with nothing but some flimsy, worthless ridicule. I hear plenty of people spout the same verbage they get from TV or what your professor said, but you're too lazy to check out the facts on your own.
Fine, if you haven't done your homework, then just shut your yapper, cause you have no input here...your posts are as cowardly as a child crying "My daddy can whoop your daddy." "My theory can whoop your theory."

Cool...if you think so...just don't say it...SHOW IT! Come on, tough guy...show us what you got. You threw your hat into the ring...so take a swing!
Scared?

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 02:47 PM
I just can't believe I'm hearing this from Christians. No wonder people hate us. Seriously, I just can't believe this. We think that putting people down and screaming at them is the right approach and then think that God is supporting us in doing so saying "yeah, you tell em". This is crazy. These put downs are not Christian but plain old pride and arrogance thinking we got it all together and it's up to us to "show them". I promise there will not be a single salvation out of any of these arguments and most likely will make everyone on this thread hate Christians more.

CMT
10-16-2008, 02:58 PM
I promise there will not be a single salvation out of any of these arguments and most likely will make everyone on this thread hate Christians more.

Salvation doesn't come from avoiding or not avoiding arguments. That was never a requirement. So in a way, you're right.

jin choung
10-16-2008, 03:01 PM
Oh here we go again. I happen to respond to one of the most idiotic statements you ever made, and an offensive one at that, and it's me who's to blame. Yeah, that's rich!

As for my citation, go find it yourself, Mr. Google. It's on wikipedia.

And I can't stand conversing with you either. But such idiotic statements like the ones you constantly make can't be left unanswered.

BTW, I ALWAYS kept it on point. I responded to your statements with research. You respond with nothing except credibility attacks as usual and nothing to back up your ridiculous claims except to quote yourself, which is the lamest thing I've ever heard of.

Any snide comments I made pale in comparison to the nasty comments and personal attacks you are prone to make. So don't give me that s#it. And you call others hypocritical?

And as long as you keep engaging in discussions that I happen to be interested in, I'll have every right to respond to one of your remarks. Especially ones that are offensive to me. If you don't want to hear what I have to say, then put me on your ignore list. It's that simple.

And if I'm such a nuisance you, why don't you complain to the mods? Maybe it's because there's more evidence of you and your personal attacks? If they were to look at our post histories, they would see your pattern of verbal abuse. They would see my response to such posts made by you requesting you to stop the personal remarks and respond to the issues. YOU'RE the one who always talks down to everyone. More so than anyone else on these forums.

if you put me on your ignore list you wouldn't see my stupid statements. why not do it? you KNOW i never talk about you. or refer to you. why not do it?

why don't you leave me alone? why can't you talk about the subject without referring or addressing me? why are you such a nuisance to me?

leave me alone. what about that can't you understand? don't talk to me. i don't want to argue with you. i don't want to exchange a single word with you.

leave me alone.

what is so hard about that?

leave me alone.

leave me alone.

leave me alone.

i don't like you.

i get nothing from interacting with you.

leave me alone.

please.

jin

CMT
10-16-2008, 03:02 PM
I just can't believe I'm hearing this from Christians. No wonder people hate us.

And this type of behavior is hardly exclusive to Christians.

CMT
10-16-2008, 03:08 PM
w
jin

Jin, get over it! Damn, man....

Deal with it. Quit crying about it.


If you post a response that I'm not offended by, odds are I'll ignore it and I have for quite some time, but if you post something I find offensive, as you recently did, why should I ignore it? Just to make you happy and spare you some discomfort?

Tell you what. Next time you post something offensive, I won't say anything to you directly. I'll just refer your post to the mods. Will that be better?

It's simple, Jin. Apply some common decency to your posts. Easy, no?

I mean, I've had some disagreements with plenty others here. Take HRGiger. He can be pretty harsh sometimes, but he can also be respectful too. But you've never shown an ounce of respect for anyone who disagrees with you and often call them names. This last one was religious in nature which really ticked me off.

jin choung
10-16-2008, 03:09 PM
put me on the ignore list. report me to the mods.

why do you want to control me? do whatever. call the cops.

just please stop trying to interact with me.

jin

jin choung
10-16-2008, 03:11 PM
It's simple, Jin. Apply some common decency to your posts. Easy, no?

i will never conform to your standards. i will never do as you ask. your attempt to coerce behavior is a sickness.

SERIOUSLY WHY NOT PUT ME ON YOUR IGNORE LIST?!?! THEN YOU WON'T BE OFFENDED!!!

WHO DIED AND MADE YOUR FORUM COP?!

your inability to let the simple EXISTENCE of ideas you disagree with is a SICKNESS.

IGNORE ME!

leave me be.

jin

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 03:12 PM
Yes and I'm all for healthy discussions but whether it's Christianity or the type of computer to buy, screaming and acting like we're better then the other person doesn't work. If I told people how much better Macs were then their PCs, threw out a bunch of facts to try and prove so, then basically say that it's their fault for choosing a computer that crashes all the time, those people would probably not buy a Mac just because it reminds them of my nasty attitude and arrogance that would probably make them sick. It's the same principle here with Christians and non Christians. I believe Christians on this thread need to stop putting people down and state their belief in a loving way and go on and treat people with dignity and respect. This is probably the number one reason Christians are ridiculed because they do it to themselves. Look at The Simpsons, Family Guy and other shows. The number one joke is that Christians are judgmental and hypocrites. You know what, their right, and this is coming out of the mouth of a Christian here. Again like I said earlier, I stand on what the Bible says and accepted Christ as my Lord and Saviour but that doesn't make me better then anyone else. I do my best to follow what the Bible says but it's a struggle and I mess up allot. There are allot of things in the Bible I don't understand and won't pretend to understand. The last thing I want is for a person to hate me or Christianity because I was a arrogant jerk.

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 03:16 PM
And this type of behavior is hardly exclusive to Christians.

True.:agree:

Iain
10-16-2008, 03:25 PM
Yes and I'm all for healthy discussions but whether it's Christianity or the type of computer to buy, screaming and acting like we're better then the other person doesn't work.

This is the only way forums like this can react to a thread like this.

There's such a disparity in beliefs in a general interest worldwide community that when you start a political or religious discussion, this (see above) is what happens.

It would be great if we all just stuck to nice discussions about LightWave or CGI but people like you insist on starting these threads.
Why, I don't know. It's not what the forum is for and in fact there are forum rules against it.

I've never started a thread like this but when the usual small mindedness and bigotry start flowing I can't help myself from getting involved.

Please-NO MORE!!!

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 03:30 PM
Ok, how about a new discussion on this thread like, "How do you think LW 10 is going to be? Maybe this will filter out previous discussions and perhaps this discussion can be moved to the McCain and the 45 nuclear reactors thread. This is a serious question, How do you think LW 10 will be? I also heard to that Maya is losing its grip on the animation world. Is this true?

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 03:36 PM
I personally would love to see an option to either keep Modeler separate or together. This way, everyone who wants either/or will be happy. I've gotten used to Modeler being separate but I might like it together to in Layout. That's why an option would be good.

Iain
10-16-2008, 03:37 PM
Ok, how about a new discussion on this thread like, "How do you think LW 10 is going to be? Maybe this will filter out previous discussions and perhaps this discussion can be moved to the McCain and the 45 nuclear reactors thread.

It's too late, man!

Can't you hear the sirens and the wailing?
Jin's slumped in a corner shouting "leave me alone," humping his stuffed goldfish wife for pity's sake.

Seriously, the only way threads like this end are with the big padlock sign when the moderators have finally stopped chuckling.

CMT
10-16-2008, 03:38 PM
i will never conform to your standards.

So be it.


WHO DIED AND MADE YOUR FORUM COP?!

Nobody made me a forum cop. What? I don't have a right to be offended? Are you the forum dictator who passes out that right? Gimme a friggin' break.....


your inability to let the simple EXISTENCE of ideas you disagree with is a SICKNESS.

Wrong. I've demonstrated many times on these forums how I can tolerate other's views that are different from mine. Except when they offend me. And I have the right to say I'm offended. So if you have a problem with that, I don't really care.

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 03:39 PM
Either that or we can create a large line of different questions that way that other people that get on this thread will see those first. LOL

CMT
10-16-2008, 03:40 PM
Seriously, the only way threads like this end are with the big padlock sign when the moderators have finally stopped chuckling.

That should have been done right at this point....


i just think it's funny that those who claim the name of Jesus are such whores to mammon.

jin

I didn't find that funny at all....

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 03:45 PM
Yes, can we agree to change the subject to something more positive.

jin choung
10-16-2008, 03:52 PM
I didn't find that funny at all....

PUT ME ON YOUR IGNORE LIST. THEN YOU WILL NOT BE OFFENDED! what is your problem?

you are offended by me but you choose not to ignore me. WHY? because you can't tolerate that i exist and that my words are OUT THERE? and so you have to police me?!

your absolute refusal to ignore me paints you either as a masochist or that you can't tolerate ANYONE being exposed to what i say. in which case i ask again, who died and made you forum cop?

you have no duty to police what others say or what others are exposed to. nor does anyone have any obligation to do what you demand or ask. you need only worry about YOURSELF.

YOUR BEHAVIOR.

YOUR EXPOSURE to others.

and all YOU need to do is put me on your ignore list and just not read anything with my name attached to it.

HOW HARD IS THAT?!

WHAT KIND OF MALFUNCTION KEEPS YOU FROM DOING THAT?!

this impedes your freedom to enjoy this forum NOT AT ALL! in fact, you will enjoy it more because i will no longer be in your field of view. participate in any and every discussion you choose. BUT IGNORE ME. i will return the favor.

....

please, let this be our last words to and about each other. find someone else to harass.

and if you need to have the last word, make your next post to/about me the last. and after that, no more.

i am sooooooo done with you.

please.

leave me alone.

jin

CMT
10-16-2008, 03:55 PM
:oye: Wah... Get over it, Jin. You're dwelling too much on this.

jin choung
10-16-2008, 03:56 PM
why won't you leave me alone?

what kind of person are you in real life? that you have to follow people around that you DISLIKE just to... what? torture them?

leave me alone.

or *I* will go to the moderators and ask them to make each of us invisible to the other.

last chance.

jin

virtualcomposer
10-16-2008, 04:01 PM
please, let this be our last words to and about each other.

I agree, can we turn this thread around with more positive. Either that or a big padlock is going to be put on this and none of us will be able to express anything on this thread. Seriously, we can either decide to drag this out to no end or make a decision to be done with course words and turn this around. I go back to my questions before "How do you think LW 10 is going to be? I also heard to that Maya is losing its grip on the animation world. Is this true? I personally would love to see an option to either keep Modeler separate or together. This way, everyone who wants either/or will be happy. I've gotten used to Modeler being separate but I might like it together to in Layout. That's why an option would be good. I bet Jin would have allot of good information on that. Allot of his thread responses concerning technicals have been very informative and knowledgeable.

CMT
10-16-2008, 04:09 PM
or *I* will go to the moderators and ask them to make each of us invisible to the other.

last chance.

jin

hehe. Do what you have to to make yourself feel safe, Jin. But if they alter my settings, I'll let them know my side of it as I'm sure you'll have enlightened them with ideas of evil ol' me.

If I were you , I'd just drop the issue.

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 04:39 PM
He was calling the Pharisees that, not the world. The Pharisees acted godly and various other things but their heart wasn't right. They would say one thing and do another. Praying out loud so that people would see them. Fasting and looking sickly so that people would see them. Unless it was leaders or the Pharisees, Jesus spoke truth but spoke it with compassion and love. This is why I think so many people followed Jesus is because he showed love and compassion along with the salvation message. I would rather work for a loving, compassionate boss with lower pay then make lots of money being condemned and thrown 50 facts as to why I'm not a good employee. Pointless, angry arguments aren't going to do anything except make people turn further from anything you want to say. That's just basic communication and common respect.

Notice I said, sometimes....cause if you don't recall, he alluded to the world as well when he told his disciples not to cast their pearls among the swine (Matt 7:6). Remember in Acts when Paul forcefully confronted Elymas, the sorcerer (a pagan). What I'm saying is that there IS a time for confrontation, and there is a time for grace. A time for mercy, and a time for justice.
Christians have been to willing to be punching bags for liberal ridicule, and the vast majority don't even know why they believe in evolution. It just fits their lifestyle, and that's the only reason it's in majority. Put their "FACTS" under scrutiny, and they scamper like a bunch of stinking cock roaches.
I'm just asking the same ones who are throwing the slurs around to back it up with something more than the cheap vaneer of ridicule.

I'm hoping the challenge will at some point at least compel them to do their own homework and examine things for themselves. Whether they are mad at me or not doesn't matter. As it applies to Stooch and Neverko...you don't know these guys like I do.

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 04:44 PM
That... is a ludicrous argument. As Mike already mentioned, we are talking about CONSENTING ADULTS - not consenting vaccum cleaners or consenting pets or consenting vibrators.

The majority huh? What if the majority wanted slavery back? I don't think that would fly, do you? It's what's Constitutional. And I'm sure one day soon this question will be in front of the Supreme Court. Hopefully it will be AFTER Obama appoints the next justice or two. :) Polygomy wouldn't classify as consenting adults?

Lightwolf
10-16-2008, 04:47 PM
Polygomy wouldn't classify as consenting adults?
Yup, it does. And it would make a lot of people in Utah happy as well (as well as some Muslims I suppose) ;)

Cheers,
Mike

AbnRanger
10-16-2008, 05:08 PM
I just can't believe I'm hearing this from Christians. No wonder people hate us. Seriously, I just can't believe this. We think that putting people down and screaming at them is the right approach and then think that God is supporting us in doing so saying "yeah, you tell em". This is crazy. These put downs are not Christian but plain old pride and arrogance thinking we got it all together and it's up to us to "show them". I promise there will not be a single salvation out of any of these arguments and most likely will make everyone on this thread hate Christians more.My apologies to you and everyone else...but Stooch is notorious for roaming the forums and trying to criticize and belittle folks. I'm just asking him to stand by his remarks with some facts. He doesn't have any and I want everyone here to see that.
Yes, I may be stepping over the line to check him, but I have stood up to Bullies all my life. He has a long history of routinely trying to be the bully on board...seeking whom he can belitte. So, I don't mind calling his bluff or telling him to pick on someone his own size. Yeah...we go a ways back.

frantbk
10-16-2008, 05:17 PM
That... is a ludicrous argument. As Mike already mentioned, we are talking about CONSENTING ADULTS - not consenting vaccum cleaners or consenting pets or consenting vibrators.

The majority huh? What if the majority wanted slavery back? I don't think that would fly, do you? It's what's Constitutional. And I'm sure one day soon this question will be in front of the Supreme Court. Hopefully it will be AFTER Obama appoints the next justice or two. :)

It is only a ludicrous argument to people who lack any understanding of law, and the theories of law and how they are applied in the process of case law.

It is strange that you equate slavery with a marriage issue, or is it? :D Once the Constitution does not cover marriage. There is no Constitutional right to marriage.

frantbk
10-16-2008, 05:24 PM
First it's bestiality and now you want to know when I'm free to travel.
I'm not interested Fraktnb! And I'm straight!

Check the laws in the US before you go on about those kooky Europeans. Same sex marriage is legal in some states.

But it is not legal at the Federal level therefore, the marriage if void outside of those States unless the State you travel agrees to recognize the union.

Once again, you need to read what was said. I asked if you needed a vacation, not if you were free to travel. After reading your post you seem to be someone that takes everything to the 10th level and feel the need to generate a lot of [i]drama in your life on the Internet.
:tsktsk:

Stooch
10-17-2008, 12:18 AM
My apologies to you and everyone else...but Stooch is notorious for roaming the forums and trying to criticize and belittle folks. I'm just asking him to stand by his remarks with some facts. He doesn't have any and I want everyone here to see that.
Yes, I may be stepping over the line to check him, but I have stood up to Bullies all my life. He has a long history of routinely trying to be the bully on board...seeking whom he can belitte. So, I don't mind calling his bluff or telling him to pick on someone his own size. Yeah...we go a ways back.

hmm. i dont see anyone else bitching and spraying spit all over their monitor.
My remarks are actually using your own statements. so again you are asking me to prove your own assertions because you dont like the way i use your own reasoning against you. oh well, the trick to get around that is not say dumbass things in the first place.

by the way, i do remember exactly when your fascination with me started. It had to do with your big mouth talking about other peoples art and having nothing to show to back your words up (and you still dont). combined with your insecurity and loud arguing style you are just too much fun. lol.

lol at picking on someone my own size... what is that supposed to mean? intellectually you seem pretty tiny to me.

Iain
10-17-2008, 01:27 AM
Once again, you need to read what was said. I asked if you needed a vacation, not if you were free to travel. After reading your post you seem to be someone that takes everything to the 10th level and feel the need to generate a lot of [i]drama in your life on the Internet.
:tsktsk:

It's what a lot of us refer to as humour, fratnkb.

I didn't expect you to understand.

Iain
10-17-2008, 02:08 AM
the vast majority don't even know why they believe in evolution. It just fits their lifestyle, and that's the only reason it's in majority. Put their "FACTS" under scrutiny, and they scamper like a bunch of stinking cock roaches.

Are you sure it's not the other way around? There was a programme about Darwin on TV recently and a group of children from religious schools were shown evidence of evolution and given a broad overview of our current understanding of it. They were visibly shocked by the simple logic involved.

Evolution doesn't fit my lifestyle. Ideally I'd have the comfort blanket of an afterlife and the cosy idea that a loving god created us a few thousand years ago but I just don't believe that to be true.
I see evidence of evolution everywhere. I see evidence of god nowhere.

Yes there are gaps in scientific knowledge but they aren't hastily filled with folklore and myth just so we have an answer. That would be unscientific so the gaps will remain as "Don't know," until an answer is found.


Lovely turn of phrase about the cockroaches btw. That from the bible?

Stunt Pixels
10-17-2008, 02:37 AM
[QUOTE=Iain;767202]Evolution doesn't fit my lifestyle. Ideally I'd have the comfort blanket of an afterlife and the cosy idea that a loving god created us a few thousand years ago but I just don't believe that to be true.[QUOTE]

Man do I hear you. I have friends with a deep spiritual belief, and I wish I could share that belief, and the comfort it gives them. I've seen people in situations that would rip my heart out, but its bearable to them because of their faith. Me, I just see the void.

Oh well, I'll just muddle along stalking the Laughing *** (bit of an oblique Nietzsche reference, but it works for me...)

** Hmm, censored out.. Errr, it was a word for a donkey that rhymes with brass ***

AbnRanger
10-17-2008, 02:39 AM
hmm. i dont see anyone else bitching and spraying spit all over their monitor.
My remarks are actually using your own statements. so again you are asking me to prove your own assertions because you dont like the way i use your own reasoning against you. oh well, the trick to get around that is not say dumbass things in the first place.

by the way, i do remember exactly when your fascination with me started. It had to do with your big mouth talking about other peoples art and having nothing to show to back your words up (and you still dont). combined with your insecurity and loud arguing style you are just too much fun. lol.

lol at picking on someone my own size... what is that supposed to mean? intellectually you seem pretty tiny to me.Good find the link, then. It was YOU doing the all the criticizing. Only you...par for the course. If you are intellectually superior, then why are you so afraid to show some facts to support your position. It can ONLY be due to the fact that you have none. You dodge the fact with silly, juvenile insults that carry no weight whatsoever.

Again, petty insults are cheap and easy to go by from behind a monitor. You remind me of the wizard character in the Wizard of Oz....hiding behind a curtain...your little game is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

I'm starting to get a good laugh out of you. Stooch...now that is quite an appropriate name for you, a toothless mut, barking at the neighbors. :D

Stooch
10-17-2008, 03:24 AM
so if my words carry so little weight, why are you so bent out of shape? obviously what i said struck a chord. especially since i just use your own words against you. but keep on repeating yourself. its working for you so well afterall. I dont even have to insult you btw you are more than capable of doing that yourself.

there are plenty of examples where I engage in a debate and bring forth ideas backed by facts, its just I require someone who is capable of critical thinking and logic in order to enjoy a good debate. however your statements are usually so obtuse and lacking in insight that all i have to do is turn them against you and watch the spittle fly. so please, by all means, keep crying. you are making all the christians proud for sure.


Good find the link, then. It was YOU doing the all the criticizing. Only you...par for the course. If you are intellectually superior, then why are you so afraid to show some facts to support your position. It can ONLY be due to the fact that you have none. You dodge the fact with silly, juvenile insults that carry no weight whatsoever.

Again, petty insults are cheap and easy to go by from behind a monitor. You remind me of the wizard character in the Wizard of Oz....hiding behind a curtain...your little game is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

I'm starting to get a good laugh out of you. Stooch...now that is quite an appropriate name for you, a toothless mut, barking at the neighbors. :D

AbnRanger
10-17-2008, 04:41 AM
Are you sure it's not the other way around? There was a programme about Darwin on TV recently and a group of children from religious schools were shown evidence of evolution and given a broad overview of our current understanding of it. They were visibly shocked by the simple logic involved.

Evolution doesn't fit my lifestyle. Ideally I'd have the comfort blanket of an afterlife and the cosy idea that a loving god created us a few thousand years ago but I just don't believe that to be true.
I see evidence of evolution everywhere. I see evidence of god nowhere.

Yes there are gaps in scientific knowledge but they aren't hastily filled with folklore and myth just so we have an answer. That would be unscientific so the gaps will remain as "Don't know," until an answer is found.


Lovely turn of phrase about the cockroaches btw. That from the bible?All I'm asking is this...SOMETHING in the evolution debate has either 1) convinced you that is factual, or 2) you have never examined the matter closely for yourself. Instead you're merely relying on what you've heard your Biology teacher and/or others say.

I contend, in most cases, that it's the later. Believing that there is no design to the universe and life means there would be no Designer/Creator to whom you are held accountable to. So, in that regard, because you want to live according to your own dictates and on your own terms, you choose to believe what SUITS you, contrary to what your natural instinct tells you. You instinctively KNOW that your body is no mere accident, and that is was masterfully designed...even if you can't currently see the Designer.

Intelligent Design/Creation proponents examine the VERY SAME DATA that evolutionists do, as well as other fossil, geological, and Biological (especially recent discoveries regarding cellular makeup) exhibits that they contend also points not to random processes, but an overwhelmingly obvious design.
Their conclusions are just different...just as pro-evolutionist have different conclusions amongst themselves in different areas (such as whether mutations have to occur over long periods of time or sponanteously).

Just because small degrees of adaptation occurs within an organism, doesn't mean it's a mechanism of spontaneous progeneration anymore than the thermostat on your AC unit is responsible for having both engineered and constructed your house.

There are automated, self-adjusting components in your vehicle, but you and I both know that those are merely elements designed by the Manufacturer to FACILITATE THE OPERATION of the vehicle? Surely you don't believe your cruise control switch is evidence that the vehicle spontaneously appeared due to the right atmospheric conditions? Do you?

Everything inorganic we see is understood by experience, to be designed and fashioned by someone...even if you didn't see the building process yourself, or the one who built it. Then you look at organic elements and see design and engineering that is a million time more complex AND ORDERED ...and this time, you conclude it just fell into place over time and by random chance/processes. That conclusion, my friend, is worth ridicule, not the other way around.

Intelligent Design examines the VERY SAME FOSSIL RECORD/EVIDENCE, and yet observes a gaping hole that Darwin expected would have seen a resolution. A resolution that has still, over 100yrs later, hasn't been resolved. He even stated himself that his theory would be in serious trouble if no transitional fossil evidence were found.

So when people such as yourself snicker and say "It's not real science"...I have to laugh, cause I KNOW it's made out of sheer ignorance.That's why not a single one of you will step forward with some compelling evidence to support your sneering remarks...why not just a small sample. I'm not asking for much.

Maybe I have never seen the evidence you have. Why can't you enlighten me and everyone reading this thread? Let's have a civil, intelligent conversation, shall we? I'll do my level best to be more cordial and courteous from here on out. I just want those who have hurled their insults to man up, step forward, and stand behind your words. Let us see WHY you are so confident.

AbnRanger
10-17-2008, 04:44 AM
so if my words carry so little weight, why are you so bent out of shape? obviously what i said struck a chord. especially since i just use your own words against you. but keep on repeating yourself. its working for you so well afterall. I dont even have to insult you btw you are more than capable of doing that yourself.

there are plenty of examples where I engage in a debate and bring forth ideas backed by facts, its just I require someone who is capable of critical thinking and logic in order to enjoy a good debate. however your statements are usually so obtuse and lacking in insight that all i have to do is turn them against you and watch the spittle fly. so please, by all means, keep crying. you are making all the christians proud for sure.

Then, in order to prevent you from wasting any more time with my worthless comments, why not just put me on your ignore list and be done with it?

Lightwolf
10-17-2008, 04:52 AM
So, in that regard, because you want to live according to your own dictates and on your own terms, you choose to believe what SUITS you, contrary to what your natural instinct tells you.

Sorry, but that's pretty much a non-argument. You can just as easily turn it around.

Regardless though... what is the rationale behind being held accountable to your designer? That's the bit I never seem to grasp. Especially if said designer is (by definition, as anything less wouldn't allow for that role) omnipotent as well as omniscient.

As for instincts... my instincts tell me nothing of the sort. To the contrary, looking around me they show me nothing but a lack of design.

Cheers,
Mike

AbnRanger
10-17-2008, 05:02 AM
Sorry, but that's pretty much a non-argument. You can just as easily turn it around.

Regardless though... what is the rationale behind being held accountable to your designer? That's the bit I never seem to grasp. Especially if said designer is (by definition, as anything less wouldn't allow for that role) omnipotent as well as omniscient.

As for instincts... my instincts tell me nothing of the sort. To the contrary, looking around me they show me nothing but a lack of design.

Cheers,
MikeYou're saying that the eyes you use to look at your monitor have nothing well-ordered about it? Huh? If there was no design/order in your body, we'd not be having a discussion right now.

Do you have kids? You don't have any rules at all for them to follow in the household. You don't set some boundaries for them...for their own welfare?

Lightwolf
10-17-2008, 05:15 AM
You're saying that the eyes you use to look at your monitor have nothing well-ordered about it? Huh? If there was no design/order in your body, we'd not be having a discussion right now.
Order is not design. And we do only perceive as order what we are familiar with and comprehend. Which is why we constantly need to operate with similies/metaphors.
Have a look at the rationale and psychology behind wide screen projections/TV for example. It shows what our visual system has adapted to focus on.
Is it by design that our visual aparatus is specialized for certain tasks, or an evolutionary need?

You don't set some boundaries for them...for their own welfare?
And if they don't follow them to an inch I kick them out? And expect them to follow my rules for their whole lifetime?
No, not really. I see education as a jump start to allow an individual to form its own personality.

Cheers,
Mike

AbnRanger
10-17-2008, 05:23 AM
Sorry, but that's pretty much a non-argument. You can just as easily turn it around.

Regardless though... what is the rationale behind being held accountable to your designer? That's the bit I never seem to grasp. Especially if said designer is (by definition, as anything less wouldn't allow for that role) omnipotent as well as omniscient.

As for instincts... my instincts tell me nothing of the sort. To the contrary, looking around me they show me nothing but a lack of design.

Cheers,
MikeNo design? So the rib cage surrounding your vital organs is a stroke of luck, aye? Oh, I see...you put them there yourself, did you?

What about the protective measures built into your respiratory system (ingenious I tell you). The Mucous is an ingenious trap for pollutants and foreign bodies that try to enter your system. But it HAS to have a way out....otherwise the objects would collect in your lungs indefinitely.
No problem. The Cilia, lining your lungs, acts as both a filter and a conveyor belt, transporting mucous (with the trapped particulate matter) from your lungs toward your throat. You brain and sensory nerves know that it is ready to expell from the body. Your brain forces you cough, and then spit the trapped matter back out.
There's no order to that process, huh? That just randomly fell into place. Does your instinct tell you that this sort of thing (stuff just falling into place perfectly and orderly) happens AL THE TIME? Sure it does. :stumped:

Iain
10-17-2008, 05:28 AM
So when people such as yourself snicker and say "It's not real science"...I have to laugh, cause I KNOW it's made out of sheer ignorance.That's why not a single one of you will step forward with some compelling evidence to support your sneering remarks...why not just a small sample. I'm not asking for much.

You seem to think that by shouting and hurling insults, your arguments become stronger when in fact it just makes you appear hostile and aggressively blinkered.

A good example of ignorance is using science to negate science and then throwing it all out when faced with trickier questions.
'God designed DNA-science proves it!' begets the question, 'who designed God's DNA?'. The answer of course is 'that can't be answered by mere science'.
You can't have it both ways.

In support of evolution, if you tell me what evidence you'd like to see, I'll dig out links for you. Some of it is pretty compelling:

Fossils
Natural Selection
Age of the Earth/Universe (and the relative age of our species)
Geographical Spread of Species
Race
Animal Breeding
Genetic similarity
The 'Missing Link'

I'm sure you could look into it yourself but I'm happy to help.

Iain
10-17-2008, 05:33 AM
There's no order to that process, huh? That just randomly fell into place. Does your instinct tell you that this sort of thing (stuff just falling into place perfectly and orderly) happens AL THE TIME? Sure it does. :stumped:

No-one is denying there is order-just that it doesn't have to come from design.

AbnRanger
10-17-2008, 05:41 AM
Order is not design. And we do only perceive as order what we are familiar with and comprehend. Which is why we constantly need to operate with similies/metaphors.
Have a look at the rationale and psychology behind wide screen projections/TV for example. It shows what our visual system has adapted to focus on.
Is it by design that our visual aparatus is specialized for certain tasks, or an evolutionary need?

And if they don't follow them to an inch I kick them out? And expect them to follow my rules for their whole lifetime?
No, not really. I see education as a jump start to allow an individual to form its own personality.

Cheers,
MikeThe visual adaptation to wide screen proves random processes are responsible for our origin just how? Because our eyes don't have to strain as much. So the because lifting lighter loads is more comfortable than heaviers ones prove...?

And, if you are referring to hell....Have you ever heard of Prisons? Is that a tough concept for you to grasp, too? If people can just do whatever they feel like doing, without any boundaries, what's the purpose? Let me ask you a better question. Are you not glad FOR Prisons? It's hell to people who are restricted to it's confines. We can agree that it has it's purpose...no?

How about this novel idea....? He gives you a choice...live with him, or without him. If you choose without him, then heaven would be more like hell to you since you would be forced to stay there against your will.

Even automobiles have operational instructions...instructions that, if not adhered to, result in a breakdown. No?

So you are saying that your bed just makes itself? Food just spontaneous appears on your plate? A table set's itself? An airplane isn't constructed with parts placed in the right ORDER? Whereever there is ORDER, there is by necessity, and ORDERER.

Lightwolf
10-17-2008, 05:41 AM
No design? So the rib cage surrounding your vital organs is a stroke of luck, aye? Oh, I see...you put them there yourself, did you?
I suppose that is the heart of the matter. Evolution has little to do with "luck". It's not a lottery where one magic number decides the outcome.

I suppose that's also where "intelligent design" fails. It starts with the outcome and then takes the (very) lazy route in tracing it back. Evolution is a process that works in the other direction though.

Also, the rib cage doens't surround all vital organs, far from it ;)

Honetly, educate yourself about evolution (the information is freely available on the big wide web) and then come back. Having a look at how the scientific process works would help as well.


There's no order to that process, huh? That just randomly fell into place. Does your instinct tell you that this sort of thing (stuff just falling into place perfectly and orderly) happens AL THE TIME? Sure it does. :stumped:
This is where you don't get it. It doesn't fall into place perfectly and orderly all the time, it doesn't need to (we also had the discussion of genetic defects which are quite common by the way and totally debunk the idea of a "perfect" design).
What matters is the selection. If it works it'll survive. If it can't compete it won't. That goes for small solutions to problems as well as for complete species.

Cheers,
Mike

AbnRanger
10-17-2008, 05:42 AM
No-one is denying there is order-just that it doesn't have to come from design.Give me an example then where you find complexity and ORDER where there was nothing to put it in order.

AbnRanger
10-17-2008, 05:54 AM
I suppose that is the heart of the matter. Evolution has little to do with "luck". It's not a lottery where one magic number decides the outcome.

I suppose that's also where "intelligent design" fails. It starts with the outcome and then takes the (very) lazy route in tracing it back. Evolution is a process that works in the other direction though.

Also, the rib cage doens't surround all vital organs, far from it ;)

Honetly, educate yourself about evolution (the information is freely available on the big wide web) and then come back. Having a look at how the scientific process works would help as well.

This is where you don't get it. It doesn't fall into place perfectly and orderly all the time, it doesn't need to (we also had the discussion of genetic defects which are quite common by the way and totally debunk the idea of a "perfect" design).
What matters is the selection. If it works it'll survive. If it can't compete it won't. That goes for small solutions to problems as well as for complete species.

Cheers,
MikeEducate myself? Are you joking? I'm trying to make sense of your responses, and they are making no sense at all. It sounds like backpedaling using jibberish as your smoke screen. I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from, but I think you're trying to mire me down with silly talk. You know better than what you're saying. It seems like a front...and not an intelligent answer.

Please, do tell, then how evolution/random processes can answer for the origination and subsequent well-order development that you see in the human body. To deny that there is any order tells me this conversation is going no where.

Lightwolf
10-17-2008, 05:55 AM
The visual adaptation to wide screen proves random processes are responsible for our origin just how? Because our eyes don't have to strain as much.
That's not a reason, that's a side effect.
The reason? Our origin in the plains of Africa. Some predators tend to have a wide field of view as well, which is great to detect enemies in a Savannah. There's little use for it in a forest environment (which is why different species have visual organs that are similar in they way they work, but different specialisations).
If we were so perfectly designed, why the limitation?


And, if you are referring to hell....
I wasn't.


Have you ever heard of Prisons? Is that a tough concept for you to grasp, too? If people can just do whatever they feel like doing, without any boundaries, what's the purpose? Let me ask you a better question. Are you not glad FOR Prisons? It's hell to people who are restricted to it's confines. We can agree that it has it's purpose...no?
So a supreme being that has all the power one could imagine, and even more than that, has a need to confine us to a prison? Is that what you're saying? Is that what you worship, the ultimate prison keeper? I surely hope not.

I don't get the line of reasoning from a divine being that supposedly cares for us to a prison. You might want to work on that analogy a bit more ;)

How about this novel idea....? He gives you a choice...live with him, or without him. If you choose without him, then heaven would be more like hell to you since you would be forced to stay there against your will.
Why would he? How can you be so vain as to claim to understand the notions of a divine being that is way past any of our horizons of understanding (heck, we can't even proove it exists)?

Even automobiles have operational instructions...instructions that, if not adhered to, result in a breakdown. No?
Yup, usually shipped with the apparatus. I'll have to ask my mum to see if she still has mine ;)


Whereever there is ORDER, there is by necessity, and ORDERER.
Nope, I see that as a very narrow minded definition of "order". Order is a very abstract concept and very subjective (back to the socio-cultural discussion I suppose).

Chers,
Mike

hrgiger
10-17-2008, 05:57 AM
I don't get the proof that God exists because things are 'ordered'. Things are ordered or they don't work, things fall apart. Thousands of species go extinct every year, and most of them time, those extinctions have nothing to do with man's involvement (hunting, destruction of habitat, etc...) That's evolution. If things can change and adapt quickly enough to changing environments, they survive. If not, they die. Hardly says much about intelligent design when you consider the staggering number of species that just haven't worked out. Life is a series of random events and when those events work, they form order. It goes back to that whole idea if you gave enough monkeys and enough time, eventually one of them would produce Hamlet on a typewriter. It's not a theory, it's a mathematical certainty.
If man is a product of design, what were dinosaurs, a failed trial of a species from a supposedly perfect God? And why did it take 65 million years or so for man to come along? Surely intelligent design couldn't be so slow. Or is that how long it took for conditions to be right on their own to create and harbor human life?
I've often been willing to say that perhaps God created the spark that created the universe, big bang or whatever you want to call it, but I fail to see any involvement since then.

Iain
10-17-2008, 06:10 AM
Educate myself? Are you joking? I'm trying to make sense of your responses, and they are making no sense at all. It sounds like backpedaling using jibberish as your smoke screen. I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from, but I think you're trying to mire me down with silly talk. You know better than what you're saying. It seems like a front...and not an intelligent answer.


There's no jibberish or esoteric matter in Mike's post.

You're either not trying hard enough or else you just don't want to have the discussion you instigated.

AbnRanger
10-17-2008, 06:30 AM
I suppose that is the heart of the matter. Evolution has little to do with "luck". It's not a lottery where one magic number decides the outcome.
What does evolution rely on, then? If it's not random chance/processes then it has to be ordered. Is there some in between that you're aware of? And if it's ordered, then it by necessity, has to have an orderer.

I suppose that's also where "intelligent design" fails. It starts with the outcome and then takes the (very) lazy route in tracing it back.
What? Lazy...you mean by using logic? That's lazy?


Also, the rib cage doens't surround all vital organs, far from it
Come on Mike. Don't do this man. Don't try to wear me down with meaningless talk. If you have something punctual and intelligent to say, say it. But don't bog me down with crazy talk. I don't have time for this, and I doubt you do either.
Just to play along for a second...The rib cage covers the heart, lungs, liver, and spleen 4 of the 5 vital organs. Only the Kidney is not covered, and it is by design closer to the bladder, and shielded by muscles in the back and abdomen. So what's your point? That's the rib cage is just hanging there by accident? An how would "Natural Selection" be involved in engineering the makeup of an organism?


Honetly, educate yourself about evolution (the information is freely available on the big wide web) and then come back. Having a look at how the scientific process works would help as well.Uh, most shools now days FORCE you to getEDUCATED(whether I chose to or not) on it Mike...I had to take a Biology class in high school and in college. To the contrary, have you CROSS-EXAMINED any arguements against it? Have you given it a fair shake, like your asking me to do, regarding evolution?

This is where you don't get it. It doesn't fall into place perfectly and orderly all the time, it doesn't need to (we also had the discussion of genetic defects which are quite common by the way and totally debunk the idea of a "perfect" design).
What matters is the selection. If it works it'll survive. If it can't compete it won't. That goes for small solutions to problems as well as for complete species.

Cheers,
Mike[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about, Mike? I don't get what? Perfectly ordered and genetic deffects? So, because your car get banged up in an accident or get a flat tire, that PROVES there was not manufacturer? Huh? That's just more More crazy talk, Mike.

jpleonard
10-17-2008, 07:07 AM
Talk about this instead of arguing and getting mad at each other. Can't we all just get along. Doesn't Obama want to increase taxes for the weathly upper 5 percent of the population?

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would work out this way:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So,that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first fourmen were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a graded procedure, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drinkfor free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare theirsavings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah,that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That'strue!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all.The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

This came in an email to me this morning from a friend. Just thought I'd share it.

AbnRanger
10-17-2008, 07:13 AM
You seem to think that by shouting and hurling insults, your arguments become stronger when in fact it just makes you appear hostile and aggressively blinkered.Usually when I put something in bold typeface or all caps, it's for emphasis, not for yelling. An entire sentence with an excalmation point would be and example of a raised tone of voice or yelling. And saying that people's jeers about how "It's not real Science" is a sign that they are speaking from ignorance is just the truth. Very silly telling a professor with a Phd in Astrophysics that he doesn't know real science.

A good example of ignorance is using science to negate science and then throwing it all out when faced with trickier questions.
What? Because Intelligent Design draws a different conclusion when examining the same fossil records...the same data that Evolutionist do....that by default means it's negating science? Huh? Come again?


'God designed DNA-science proves it!' begets the question, 'who designed God's DNA?'. The answer of course is 'that can't be answered by mere science'.
You can't have it both ways.What do you mean I can't have it both ways? Again, just because the intelligent living organisms (cells) within your body cannot (fully) perceive you...does that then mean YOU don't exist?

Can't have it both ways...what ever that means.

If God is indeed eternal (always existed) and creates finite creates within limited boundaries of time and space, why would He, by default, have to be made up just like you and be confined to the very same boundaries?
Please explain that one to me.
You and I started out as just a few cells, believe it or not. Far cry from what we would eventually become. We didn't have eyes, limbs, etc at that point...now way at that stage in time to perceive our father's existence. Why would he have to be just like us, in order to exist?
Why would a superior being HAVE to be confined to the same limitations in time and space as we are, then...in order to be who He is?


In support of evolution, if you tell me what evidence you'd like to see, I'll dig out links for you. Some of it is pretty compelling:

Fossils
Natural Selection
Age of the Earth/Universe (and the relative age of our species)
Geographical Spread of Species
Race
Animal Breeding
Genetic similarity
The 'Missing Link'

I'm sure you could look into it yourself but I'm happy to help. Why would you have to dig up links? You're already convinced it's factual, right? So in order to ridicule me, you would have to be confident already. What were you confident in...what you had already learned, or confident that you could dig up some links?

Lightwolf
10-17-2008, 07:22 AM
What does evolution rely on, then? If it's not random chance/processes then it has to be ordered. Is there some in between that you're aware of? And if it's ordered, then it by necessity, has to have an orderer.
Random start, yes (as well as tons of variables). But no chance or luck. Those are human notions that's don't apply.

What? Lazy...you mean by using logic? That's lazy?
No, by taking the easiest way out. And a divine being as is worshipped by mere humans is irrational.
Now, if you were to say: The basic laws of natures on a sub-atomic level might be due to "divine" intervention (whatever that means in that context) I'd give you some credit for it.
It wouldn't make it true, but just not proveable.

Just to play along for a second...The rib cage covers the heart, lungs, liver, and spleen 4 of the 5 vital organs.
You forgot the most vital one, the brain.

An how would "Natural Selection" be involved in engineering the makeup of an organism?
You keep making the same point, and the answer is the same. Whatever works, works. And there are multiple solutions to the same problem, just look at nature.


To the contrary, have you CROSS-EXAMINED any arguements against it? Have you given it a fair shake, like your asking me to do, regarding evolution?
Yup. I haven't found any scientific evidence though. I've seen some good questions asked, plenty of non-sensical questions asked but no proof. And that's after discarding the most ridiculous theories (like the ones that attempt to use the bible to specify the age of the universe to what, 6000 years?).


What are you talking about, Mike? I don't get what? Perfectly ordered and genetic deffects? So, because your car get banged up in an accident or get a flat tire, that PROVES there was not manufacturer? Huh? That's just more More crazy talk, Mike.
Hey, we are talking about this perfect designer how designed everything down to the last atom, omniscient, omnipotent... and you're telling me he designed junk that fails, or even worse, is manufactured with defects?

Cheers,
Mike

Glendalough
10-17-2008, 07:26 AM
What does evolution rely on, then? If it's not random chance/processes then it has to be ordered. Is there some in between that you're aware of? And if it's ordered, then it by necessity, has to have an orderer...

Evolution is ordered. It's ordered by genetics. If you read up on this, genetics and evolution, you will see that it is irrefutable. There are absolutely no scientists (except one whom they can't get off campus) that even question it. By a scientist, I mean someone with proper degrees from accredited universities.

Most Christian religions and followers have no difficulty with this and see no contradiction as they don't take the bible literally. The moral tenets of the Bible are identical to those of the Enlightenment and modern western civilization.

As far as god is concerned, my unique theory which I find it hard to believe, © ME, is that through genetics, Man created in the image of God, is god, will at some future date have to resurrect himself, all humans one by one. This theory provides hope for all!

The only downside and doubts are that with all these people recently getting cremated, how will we trace their DNA? Also when people like Hitler and Stalin get resurrected it could cause complications.

CMT
10-17-2008, 07:34 AM
I suppose that is the heart of the matter. Evolution has little to do with "luck". It's not a lottery where one magic number decides the outcome.

Actually, I thought that was the very premise of evolution. That by chance, an organism develops some type of mutation which is beneficial, however small. If the mutation is beneficial giving that organism a higher probability of survival. Maybe it didn't hit the Powerball lottery, but it got the $50 scratch off win... :)

Lightwolf
10-17-2008, 07:41 AM
Actually, I thought that was the very premise of evolution. That by chance, an organism develops some type of mutation which is beneficial, however small. If the mutation is beneficial giving that organism a higher probability of survival. Maybe it didn't hit the Powerball lottery, but it got the $50 scratch off win... :)
Hehe, true. But it's not a single winning ticket - more like a succession of millions of little draws.
And I think the term "luck" is extremely misleading. It's only "lucky" in human hindsight if you don't see the potential alternatives that never made it either.

I presume a lot of this is related to our human-centric approach of looking at the world. Alas, we have nothing else to go by - how could we.

Cheers,
Mike