US presidential election 2012 [Archive] - Page 5 - MensTennisForums.com

US presidential election 2012

Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

Jimnik
11-02-2012, 02:49 AM
The answer you're looking for is Gary Johnson.

Hope this helps Abigail.

Jimnik
11-02-2012, 02:50 AM
Doh! I just made this a chat thread. :(

Echoes
11-02-2012, 02:57 AM
I side with Gary Johnson on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Candidates you side with...

76%
Gary Johnson Libertarian
on foreign policy, domestic policy, environmental, and science issues

75%
Jill Stein Green
on foreign policy and healthcare issues

65%
Rocky Anderson Justice
on foreign policy and healthcare issues

56%
Mitt Romney Republican
on economic, immigration, and social issues

52%
Virgil Goode
on immigration and social issues

51%
Barack Obama Democrat
on science issues


Might be, after all. Conservative values and Social on Labour ..

Parties you side with...

69% Green

66% Democrat (say what??)

64% Libertarian

41% Republican



More important is the responses, I think..

What is your stance on abortion? Pro-life (least important)

Should gay marriage be allowed in the U.S.? No.

Should the federal government allow the death penalty? Yes (because it only regards each state; I'm not campaigning for death penalty in my country, where it's been abolished)

Should the government require health insurance companies to provide free birth control? No.

Is Global Warming a threat to the environment? Yes (but I'm worthless in climatology, so what is my opinion worth)

Should we expand our offshore oil drilling? No.

Should U.S. National Parks and Forests continue to be preserved and protected by the federal government? Yes (as a Belgian, I have to say that these parks are supreme and made me dream as a kid)

Should the federal government continue to give tax credits and subsidies to the wind power industry? No (windpumps are ugly)

Should the government raise the federal minimum wage? No (raise every wage)

Should Congress raise the debt ceiling? No

Should the U.S. have bailed out the major banks during the financial crisis of 2008? No.

Do you agree with President Obama's 2009 Stimulus Plan? No. (Obama is a South compass anyway)

Should the federal government subsidize U.S. farmers? Yes

Should we expand or dismantle our Social Security program? Expand

Do you believe the 2001 and 2003 George W Bush tax cuts should be extended? No.

Should able-bodied, mentally capable adults who receive welfare be required to work? No. (Slavery?)

Do you support increased gun control? Yes

Do you support the Patriot act? No. (Horror !)

Should the federal government regulate the internet to deter online piracy? No. (Freedom, for Christ's Sake!)

Should we limit federal funds to public schools that do not meet performance standards? No.

Are you in favor of decriminalizing all drugs? No. (!!!)

Do you support affirmative action programs? No. (this is a reversed apartheid!)

Should corporations and unions be permitted to fund broadcast advertisements backing political candidates through political action committees (Super PACS)? No. (but I know it's idealistic)

Should marijuana be legalized in the U.S.? No. (!!!!!!)

Do you support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)? Yes, institute a mandatory single payer system (which means a 'No', right?)

Should we expand or dismantle our Medicare program? Transform the system into a Canadian or European style single payer system that can negotiate pricing for medication and treatments

Should the government cut military spending? Yes.

Should the U.S. end the war in Afghanistan? Yes.

Should the U.S. maintain a presence at the United Nations? Yes (but I said least important because I have no illusion about the UN anyway)

Should the United States end its trade embargo and travel ban on Cuba? Yes. (does not mean I support the regime, right?)

Should the U.S. continue to support Israel? We should give equal support to Israel and Palestine. (this is my stance, if I were an American citizen, as a Belgian, I think we should support the Palestinians)

How should the U.S. deal with Iran? Add your own stance: support the regime.

Should the U.S. intervene in the affairs of other countries? No. (National sovereignty for all)

How should the U.S. handle the genocide in Sudan? Do not get involved.

Should foreign terrorism suspects be given constitutional rights? Yes, just like U.S. citizens, terrorists should be given a fair trial in federal courts

Should children of illegal immigrants be granted citizenship? No. (I don't say this with great pleasure, though)

Should illegal immigrants be given access to government-subsidized healthcare? No (Though I should have said this actually: Only for life threatening emergencies or infectious diseases; I'm not a monster!)

Should illegal immigrants working in the U.S. be granted temporary amnesty? No.

Do you believe the theory of Evolution? Regardless, all theories should be taught in school (I add that they should be taught in the framework of strict neutrality, even those that seems the most extreme and it's also valid for political, theological or philosophical doctrines.)

Should the federal government fund stem cell research? Yes (but I'm worthless in medecine, so I might have missed something.:()

Should the United States increase our space exploration efforts and budget? No. (Space exploration is only relevant for our sattellites...)

Fed_Ds
11-02-2012, 05:29 AM
I voted today.
Unfortunately I live in a state where my vote doesn't make a difference :bigcry:


State to state and internal polls have the numbers looking like this:

Ohio=Slight lead to Obama but tightening. Now basically tied after Obama had a comfortable lead. But Obama has a major lead in early and absentee votes that may pull him through.

Florida=Both sides are effectively admitting that this is going to go to Romney, but the Latino vote may make this a surprise win for Obama.



The winner of the past 12 elections has won Ohio. We need this. Would also be a dream to win Florida. If we win it then it's game over.
But Romney has a 0.4% lead as of today:(.

Har-Tru
11-02-2012, 06:10 AM
Do you believe the theory of Evolution? Regardless, all theories should be taught in school (I add that they should be taught in the framework of strict neutrality, even those that seems the most extreme and it's also valid for political, theological or philosophical doctrines.)

I agree.

While we're at it, let's also teach astrology when we reach the astronomy bit of the science class. And witchcraft, when we're talking about the germs theory.

Lopez
11-02-2012, 10:19 AM
I agree.

While we're at it, let's also teach astrology when we reach the astronomy bit of the science class. And witchcraft, when we're talking about the germs theory.

+ 9 000 :yeah:

buddyholly
11-02-2012, 12:18 PM
Do you believe the theory of Evolution? Regardless, all theories should be taught in school (I add that they should be taught in the framework of strict neutrality, even those that seems the most extreme and it's also valid for political, theological or philosophical doctrines.)



And don't forget that some people always argue that black is white? That needs to be covered as well, but I am not sure which class.

GSMnadal
11-02-2012, 12:43 PM
91%
Barack Obama Democrat
on healthcare, social, science, economic, immigration, and environmental issues

90%
Jill Stein Green
on social, domestic policy, science, foreign policy, immigration, economic, and environmental issues

79%
Gary Johnson Libertarian
on social, domestic policy, science, foreign policy, immigration, and environmental issues

3%
Mitt Romney Republican
no major issues

59%
American Voters
on social, domestic policy, science, foreign policy, immigration, and environmental issues.



3% with Romney :lol:

Filo V.
11-02-2012, 01:11 PM
I voted today.
Unfortunately I live in a state where my vote doesn't make a difference :bigcry: That always sucks. I feel your pain, living in Virginia. I always dream about moving to a more blue state where I don't feel like an outcast :lol:

The winner of the past 12 elections has won Ohio. We need this. Would also be a dream to win Florida. If we win it then it's game over.
But Romney has a 0.4% lead as of today:(.
I think we got Ohio :) But even if we lose Ohio, I think we got Virginia. I think my state comes through. And if it does, then we can lose Ohio and basically steal a state from Romney and they'll need to look for another state like Iowa or Wisconsin, which isn't going to go for them. But Ohio will definitely go to us. Romney made that false Jeep ad and that will ruin him, as well as the Hurricane Sandy drama. Consumer confidence is the highest it's been since pre-Bush years.

Romney has to win most of the states Obama won in 2008 and it's not going to happen. Florida will likely go to Romney but Barack can handle that loss and keep it moving.

Echoes
11-02-2012, 03:34 PM
And don't forget that some people always argue that black is white? That needs to be covered as well, but I am not sure which class.


When bastards are sent to orbit you won't stop turning ..

Jimnik
11-02-2012, 04:50 PM
Careful Echoes, the atheist brigade will find you, wherever you post. :lol:

I don't see why scientific fact is the only thing that should be taught in schools but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Unless we want our children to grow up as robots we should show them there's more to life than rational thought.

Jimnik
11-02-2012, 04:55 PM
79%
Gary Johnson Libertarian
on social, domestic policy, science, foreign policy, immigration, and environmental issues
Amazing how even the hard core liberals can mostly agree with Gary Johnson. I didn't even think it was mathematically possible.

Har-Tru
11-02-2012, 05:16 PM
Careful Echoes, the atheist brigade will find you, wherever you post. :lol:

I don't see why scientific fact is the only thing that should be taught in schools but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Unless we want our children to grow up as robots we should show them there's more to life than rational thought.

We should teach children the truth. Period.

And in a science class (which is where evolution is taught) science is the only thing that should be taught.

Now in a philosophy or ethics class, I'm all for presenting a wide arrange of schools of thought, ideologies, religions, etc.

buddyholly
11-02-2012, 05:23 PM
I don't see why scientific fact is the only thing that should be taught in schools but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Unless we want our children to grow up as robots we should show them there's more to life than rational thought.

There's MTF for that.

buddyholly
11-02-2012, 05:25 PM
When bastards are sent to orbit you won't stop turning ..

I am sure my mother and father did a much better parenting job than yours.

Ace Pounder
11-02-2012, 05:26 PM
http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/200745012.jpg

Tommy_Vercetti
11-02-2012, 06:15 PM
http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/200948300.jpg

It's a flawed poll though.

Jimnik
11-02-2012, 09:19 PM
I always assumed if you were >70% Romney, you couldn't be >70% Obama. I wonder if they edited in the last few days (I assume not).

In any case, I like these results. I guess MTF is more libertarian than I thought.

Jimnik
11-02-2012, 09:21 PM
We should teach children the truth. Period.

And in a science class (which is where evolution is taught) science is the only thing that should be taught.

Now in a philosophy or ethics class, I'm all for presenting a wide arrange of schools of thought, ideologies, religions, etc.
The question was "what should be taught in schools", not "what should be taught in science class".

Tommy_Vercetti
11-02-2012, 09:34 PM
Creationism should be taught in mythology with the gods of antiquity and all religious crap.

It sickens me how the right has been taken over by religious idiots, in the same way the left has been taken over by politically correct racial identity politicians. It's why I don't support democracy anymore. I don't think it works without heavy restrictions to who can vote.

GSMnadal
11-02-2012, 10:12 PM
What really bothered me is that, in the school I attended, they sort of laughed at the ideas of the Romans and Greeks with their multiple gods as being 'stupid' and 'blasphemous', while they diehard preached the word of 'the one true god' as the absolute truth.

Come on, there isn't any more evidence for that as there is for the other cases. But, this isn't really about the elections, so I'll stop now

abraxas21
11-02-2012, 10:15 PM
We should teach children the truth. Period.

And in a science class (which is where evolution is taught) science is the only thing that should be taught.

son, we aren't even close to figure out what the truth is about anything.

the evolution theory is like the name says, just a theory. the one that's more widely accepted given the scientific proof it has compared to others but still is, nevertheless, a theory that will probably be ditched or at the very least adjusted in the next couple of centuries. on this subject, i recommend reading thomas khun's great book "the structure of scientific revolutions".

abraxas21
11-02-2012, 10:19 PM
What really bothered me is that, in the school I attended, they sort of laughed at the ideas of the Romans and Greeks with their multiple gods as being 'stupid' and 'blasphemous', while they diehard preached the word of 'the one true god' as the absolute truth.

greeks and romans had a very rich religious concept of their gods. As a Christian man myself, I can't help but to be totally amazed by it.

Reading their thoughts, i find it amazing how some diehard atheists can think that religion is unnecessary or stupid. the idea of religion must be one of the greatest inventions of humankind.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-02-2012, 10:43 PM
Seeing that religion was responsible for drastically halting the advancement of society in Europe and the Middle East. I would strongly disagree. At least in antiquity, their religion didn't stop them from scientific research and cultural advancement. Unlike Christianity and Islam in particular.

Nidhogg
11-02-2012, 11:29 PM
son, we aren't even close to figure out what the truth is about anything.

the evolution theory is like the name says, just a theory. the one that's more widely accepted given the scientific proof it has compared to others but still is, nevertheless, a theory that will probably be ditched or at the very least adjusted in the next couple of centuries. on this subject, i recommend reading thomas khun's great book "the structure of scientific revolutions".

greeks and romans had a very rich religious concept of their gods. As a Christian man myself, I can't help but to be totally amazed by it.

Reading their thoughts, i find it amazing how some diehard atheists can think that religion is unnecessary or stupid. the idea of religion must be one of the greatest inventions of humankind.

This is silly on so many levels. Firstly, the theory of evolution is about as obvious as the theory of gravity. Evolution is just a word which explains what you get when you mix dynamic life in a dynamic world and let it simmer. Cue the forces of mutation and all life's will to live and spread its genes, and there you go. Adaptation. Hardly something magical, would you say?

It's fun to see you being near certain that it will be scrapped in the future. Myself I highly doubt it, but who knows. Maybe the Earth's gravity is just in our heads as well.

As for theories being adjusted and improved over time? Yeah, have you ever heard of the word science and how that works?

I'll make this easy for you:

http://i.imgur.com/FuqZV.png

Religion came about partly because our intellect evolved to the extent that we started to seek and feel a desire for a deeper meaning to life. If that's your thing, fine. I don't really mind people being spiritual on a personal level.

The idea that it could substitute and should deserve as much place as empirical knowledge when it comes to describe the world, however, is beyond stupid. Faith has nothing to do with knowledge.

buddyholly
11-02-2012, 11:39 PM
son, we aren't even close to figure out what the truth is about anything.

the evolution theory is like the name says, just a theory. the one that's more widely accepted given the scientific proof it has compared to others but still is, nevertheless, a theory that will probably be ditched or at the very least adjusted in the next couple of centuries. on this subject, i recommend reading thomas khun's great book "the structure of scientific revolutions".

You certainly aren't, gramps.

We know gravity is a fact and the theory of gravity explains it. The theory is an explanation of the fact. When we talk of the theory of Gravity we are not talking about whether or not gravity exists.

We now know evolution is a fact. Darwin's theory was an attempt to explain that fact. He knew evolution was a fact and used natural selection as the foundation for his explanation of the fact. He did not have all the DNA information that we have today that makes the explanation of the fact so elegant and simple. When we talk about Darwin's Theory we are not talking about whether or not evolution exists. We are talking about how it works.

PS I guess Nidhogg and I were writing at the same time.

Har-Tru
11-03-2012, 12:19 AM
The question was "what should be taught in schools", not "what should be taught in science class".

The original question referred to evolution, which is a scientific theory.

Har-Tru
11-03-2012, 12:26 AM
son, we aren't even close to figure out what the truth is about anything.

the evolution theory is like the name says, just a theory. the one that's more widely accepted given the scientific proof it has compared to others but still is, nevertheless, a theory that will probably be ditched or at the very least adjusted in the next couple of centuries. on this subject, i recommend reading thomas khun's great book "the structure of scientific revolutions".

You have no idea what you're talking about, son. As Nidhogg and buddyholly already pointed out, your concept of theory does not correspond to the scientific meaning of the word "theory", as in theory of gravity, germ theory, theory of relativity or theory of evolution.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-03-2012, 12:30 AM
Most of the major religions preach that the world is only thousands of years old. That's a basic belief. Which is complete and total bullshit. Anyone who can simply try and dismiss that or make excuses is only kidding themselves. Which is what they all do. Because to actually believe that is to believe the dinosaurs never existed and what not. So they talk around that and ignore that part of their "faith". Which just shows how deluded people can be.

I remember when I was a kid and decided to look into religion, it took me about one weekend to realize that it was all just superstitious nonsense. I think I was 10 at the time and nothing has ever changed my mind on the subjects, only reinforced it. How people can be against abortion, stem cell research, gay rights or believe that society should pay out the ass to take care of capital criminals rather than executing them because it's up to God to decide all that is just beyond the pale. And this is who the Republicans have been forced to pander to. Teddy Roosevelt has to be turning in his grave.

abraxas21
11-03-2012, 02:16 AM
This is silly on so many levels. Firstly, the theory of evolution is about as obvious as the theory of gravity. Evolution is just a word which explains what you get when you mix dynamic life in a dynamic world and let it simmer. Cue the forces of mutation and all life's will to live and spread its genes, and there you go. Adaptation. Hardly something magical, would you say?

It's fun to see you being near certain that it will be scrapped in the future. Myself I highly doubt it, but who knows. Maybe the Earth's gravity is just in our heads as well.

As for theories being adjusted and improved over time? Yeah, have you ever heard of the word science and how that works?

I'll make this easy for you:

http://i.imgur.com/FuqZV.png

Religion came about partly because our intellect evolved to the extent that we started to seek and feel a desire for a deeper meaning to life. If that's your thing, fine. I don't really mind people being spiritual on a personal level.

The idea that it could substitute and should deserve as much place as empirical knowledge when it comes to describe the world, however, is beyond stupid. Faith has nothing to do with knowledge.

You certainly aren't, gramps.

We know gravity is a fact and the theory of gravity explains it. The theory is an explanation of the fact. When we talk of the theory of Gravity we are not talking about whether or not gravity exists.

We now know evolution is a fact. Darwin's theory was an attempt to explain that fact. He knew evolution was a fact and used natural selection as the foundation for his explanation of the fact. He did not have all the DNA information that we have today that makes the explanation of the fact so elegant and simple. When we talk about Darwin's Theory we are not talking about whether or not evolution exists. We are talking about how it works.

PS I guess Nidhogg and I were writing at the same time.

You have no idea what you're talking about, son. As Nidhogg and buddyholly already pointed out, your concept of theory does not correspond to the scientific meaning of the word "theory", as in theory of gravity, germ theory, theory of relativity or theory of evolution.

quite funny. as khun himself explained, any attempt to show that a widely accepted theory could be wrong has been historically attacked by all fronts, esp by the closed minded ones.

gotta split now. i'll address the "gravity comparison" tomorrow

Pirata.
11-03-2012, 03:29 AM
Seeing that religion was responsible for drastically halting the advancement of society in Europe and the Middle East. I would strongly disagree. At least in antiquity, their religion didn't stop them from scientific research and cultural advancement. Unlike Christianity and Islam in particular.

Uh, weren't the Islamic Moors pretty much the most scientifically advanced culture in the Medieval period?

Har-Tru
11-03-2012, 10:31 AM
quite funny. as khun himself explained, any attempt to show that a widely accepted theory could be wrong has been historically attacked by all fronts, esp by the closed minded ones.

gotta split now. i'll address the "gravity comparison" tomorrow

On the contrary, Nidhogg has stated very clearly scientific theories can be adjusted as new evidence comes along. And yes, scientific theories are, by definition, subject to be proven wrong, even entirely wrong. All you need is evidence that shows them to be wrong.

Which stands in stark contrast to religious "theories", which are not based on evidence and are therefore worthless for all practical purposes. A theory that can explain everything actually explains nothing.

Har-Tru
11-03-2012, 10:32 AM
Uh, weren't the Islamic Moors pretty much the most scientifically advanced culture in the Medieval period?

Yes. Like a millenium ago.

Nidhogg
11-03-2012, 12:50 PM
quite funny. as khun himself explained, any attempt to show that a widely accepted theory could be wrong has been historically attacked by all fronts, esp by the closed minded ones.

gotta split now. i'll address the "gravity comparison" tomorrow

Nice try, and you're completely missing the point. It doesn't even matter if evolution eventually would turn out to be disproven in the future as it right now is the by far most plausible theory which has been formulated in a scientific manner. If you have an explanation which you deem more credible, by all means hook us up. I'd be impressed if it tops something which has been under intense scientific scrutiny for 150 years.

Also note that like most ideas in their infancy it started out as more primitive than its current form. People believed in "missing links", so if we evolved from apes they wanted to find evidence of a creature half-ape / half-human. They had no broader understanding of how many changes over time could lead to a myriad of new species evolving depending on their niche.

Kuhn is saying that personal investment as well as forces that are reluctant to change can get in the way of ideals. Well, duh? You want a good historic example of that in the scientific field?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_Wars

Nothing is perfect and fall proof when humans are involved in the equation. Is that your point? Science and faith still doesn't compare in this regard. Science revolves around coming up with an idea based on evidence and then continually try it against all new evidence. The core and strength of this philosophy is that it's dynamic and pragmatic, as the theories that are formed are merely a manifestation of the scientific mindset.

Faith is based on a static idea which isn't grounded in reality and revolves around that idea to then never be questioned or disproven no matter the evidence. "The lord works in mysterious ways."

See the difference?

By all means, have at it with the comparison of gravity and evolution. I can't wait.

Lopez
11-03-2012, 03:08 PM
Uh, weren't the Islamic Moors pretty much the most scientifically advanced culture in the Medieval period?

Yes. Like a millenium ago.

Yeah it's sad to see the Arab world so far behind in something that they used to be ahead in. Nowadays we see the least amount of scientific publications and research in these countries IIRC.

Echoes
11-03-2012, 03:21 PM
Careful Echoes, the atheist brigade will find you, wherever you post. :lol:

Yes, apparently. :lol: I can't say I did not expect this but they show their true face every time. I mean I've always known atheists were true obscurantists and that they openly admit it is not surprising either because I know that they're not short on audacity. Already their obsession with some themes is striking. I've passed the test and made all my responses public and they of course picked one of them, guess which one? If they were French, they would've picked the immigration issue. They're incapable of any general thought, that is why they would just pick one topic and discuss it. Pathetic.


I don't see why scientific fact is the only thing that should be taught in schools but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Unless we want our children to grow up as robots we should show them there's more to life than rational thought.

Entitled to their opinion, unless they get in power, or are teachers, right? Because here I'm no longer joking. Our children's teaching is at stake. It's very serious now. In my country, teaching is a disaster because of them. Children have the right to be taught every general theories of any kind. It's a matter of general cultural knowledge and open-mindedness. These obscurantists should be combatted fiercly.

Amazing how even the hard core liberals can mostly agree with Gary Johnson. I didn't even think it was mathematically possible.

9J3-YoVPckk

I am sure my mother and father did a much better parenting job than yours.

Let my parents out of this, will you?

Seeing that religion was responsible for drastically halting the advancement of society in Europe and the Middle East. I would strongly disagree. At least in antiquity, their religion didn't stop them from scientific research and cultural advancement.

Antique world, Roman and Greek, was based on slavery. Perhaps it's your ideal.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-03-2012, 03:23 PM
The Muslims ran the slave trade as well as owning them and many Christians owned them and were involved in the trade up until just 150+ years ago.

That argument doesn't hold water. All societies at the time had slavery. I remind you that American Indians owned slaves here even after they were freed in the South. They were "spiritual people" in their own minds.

Religion goes like this: The most primitive people worship nature and spirits. Dirt worshipers like Aboriginals or American Indians or the tribal people of Africa. Much like all people use to be. Everyone originally worshiped the Earth.

Then there is polytheism and monotheism and then people realize that religion is bunk. That's how it goes. Unfortunately the Muslim world is 1,000 years behind the evolution of human thought. The Jewish zealots of the Roman period were pretty much seen like the Islamic fanatics are today. But Islam has always been fanatical. I might remind you that the Crusades were launched well after the Islamic invasion of Christendom and largely as self-defense against another one. Followers of Islam, unlike every other religion, have never progressed beyond that stage.

Lopez
11-03-2012, 03:35 PM
Some of these arguments remind me of this golden clip:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-26-2011/weathering-fights---science---what-s-it-up-to-

Seriously, Echoes, of course children should be taught about other religions and what are their mythologies etc. But in science class, evolution of course should be taught, there is really no plausible alternative scientific theory :shrug:

buddyholly
11-03-2012, 06:01 PM
Let my parents out of this, will you?




You insulted mine, so what's your problem? Just be careful what you say in future, if you throw the first stone.

buddyholly
11-03-2012, 06:03 PM
Entitled to their opinion, unless they get in power, or are teachers, right? Because here I'm no longer joking. Our children's teaching is at stake. It's very serious now. In my country, teaching is a disaster because of them. Children have the right to be taught every general theories of any kind. It's a matter of general cultural knowledge and open-mindedness. These obscurantists should be combatted fiercly.




There are churches for teaching faith based, non-scientific theories. If they are not doing their job to your satisfaction, it is because there is little interest.

When you say that children have the right to be taught every general theory of any kind, you are just trying to justify ridiculous Creation theory as something that should be taught in schools. By your standards, religious fanatics could make up any crazy theories they wished in an effort to justify the words in the bible - and then demand it be taught to children. Fortunately, common sense beats idiocy.
Children do have the right to be taught every general theory of any kind. But teachers in educational institutions should not be obliged to teach nonsense.

But we have gone over this countless times. Basically the religious argument comes down to - evolution completely undermines all fundamental religious belief and therefore should be stomped out at all costs, to save the faith.

Echoes
11-04-2012, 06:01 PM
the idea of religion must be one of the greatest inventions of humankind.

So it's an invention? Consider yourself an atheist, son. :p


many Christians owned them and were involved in the trade up until just 150+ years ago.

Christians abolished slavery in the Roman Empire. Mostly the Jews organized the slave trade. A Christian/Rousseauist abolished it (Robespierre) and ... a hardcore atheist reinstated it (Buonaparte).

So I guess it does hold oceans. Is it your ideal?


I might remind you that the Crusades were launched well after the Islamic invasion of Christendom and largely as self-defense against another one.

I morally support the Crusades. So thanks.


Seriously, Echoes, of course children should be taught about other religions and what are their mythologies etc. But in science class, evolution of course should be taught, there is really no plausible alternative scientific theory

Let me repeat my response to that question that you seem so obsessed with...


Do you believe the theory of Evolution? Regardless, all theories should be taught in school (I add that they should be taught in the framework of strict neutrality, even those that seems the most extreme and it's also valid for political, theological or philosophical doctrines.)

It's clear, clean and unequivocal.

Laugh if you want but I had some astrology class at school myself. And find it perfectly normal !

You insulted mine, so what's your problem? Just be careful what you say in future, if you throw the first stone.

It seems I should, indeed, be careful, when I use film quotes, that anybody should know them. Anyway, it remains that what you said was plain stupid and I can prove it.


There are churches for teaching faith based, non-scientific theories.

Churches are NOT a place to teach anything. It's a place where people pray and ritualize.

Teaching may happen everywhere but should be compulsory until the age of 17 and it should be compulsory to teach every political, theological and philosophical doctrine, to teach literature too. History classes should not be reduced to a list of dates, a list of wars and treaties, etc etc.

You don't want anything of this but fortunately you are a minority. I've seen myself the decline of teaching in my country because of irresponsible people like you. There's nothing funny about this topic now. This is very serious. You want our chilldren to become good consumers and good technicians, period. I'd like them to become knowledgeable, independant citizens and for that they need cultural knowledge, as simple as that.

Mae
11-04-2012, 06:04 PM
I will be glad when the election is over!

buddyholly
11-04-2012, 06:27 PM
S


It seems I should, indeed, be careful, when I use film quotes, that anybody should know them. Anyway, it remains that what you said was plain stupid and I can prove it.



Churches are NOT a place to teach anything. It's a place where people pray and ritualize.



We probably don't go to the same movies. I have no idea who you are quoting. What did I say that was stupid?

I think all churches have times when they teach children about their parent's religion. You are in favour of stopping that?

buddyholly
11-04-2012, 06:31 PM
Laugh if you want but I had some astrology class at school myself. And find it perfectly normal !



:lol::lol::lol:

What kind of school was that? A rhesus monkey could figure out in a week that the constellations are man-made groupings of stars and their relation to past, present and future happenings are ZERO. Was that a normal type of school you went to? What an embarrassment to your country. The most a real school should say about astrology is that it is nonsese, like palm reading, card reading and bump reading and tell the pupils not to waste their time with it.

buddyholly
11-04-2012, 06:35 PM
Let me repeat my response to that question that you seem so obsessed with...


Do you believe the theory of Evolution? Regardless, all theories should be taught in school (I add that they should be taught in the framework of strict neutrality, even those that seems the most extreme and it's also valid for political, theological or philosophical doctrines.)

It's clear, clean and unequivocal.



How about the theory that the earth is flat? Should that be taught? Maybe after the astrology class, I guess.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-04-2012, 07:16 PM
I never label myself an atheist, because I detest about 90% of atheists I've ever met.

I don't know what created the universe. I don't think what happens when we die is any different than stepping on an ant or swatting a fly. You just cease to exist.

buddyholly
11-04-2012, 10:06 PM
I never label myself an atheist, because I detest about 90% of atheists I've ever met.

.

I'm sure it's mutual.

Lopez
11-04-2012, 10:08 PM
Let me repeat my response to that question that you seem so obsessed with...


Do you believe the theory of Evolution? Regardless, all theories should be taught in school (I add that they should be taught in the framework of strict neutrality, even those that seems the most extreme and it's also valid for political, theological or philosophical doctrines.)

It's clear, clean and unequivocal.

Laugh if you want but I had some astrology class at school myself. And find it perfectly normal !

So any BS theory should be taught? Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it? :p

How about the theory that the earth is flat? Should that be taught? Maybe after the astrology class, I guess.

So much pwn in this post.

Echoes
11-05-2012, 12:21 AM
Are you thick as a brick or what?


For the third and, I hope, last time:

EVERY GENERAL THEORY SHOULD BE TAUGHT!


If you don't agree with this, that makes you a damn brainwasher. And I hope you'll one day realize how disgusting your ideas are, and harmful for mankind.

buddyholly
11-05-2012, 12:47 AM
Are you thick as a brick or what?


For the third and, I hope, last time:

EVERY GENERAL THEORY SHOULD BE TAUGHT!


If you don't agree with this, that makes you a damn brainwasher. And I hope you'll one day realize how disgusting your ideas are, and harmful for mankind.

But you don't say why the crazy ones should be taught. Such as Creationism.

Theories are tested on whether they stand up to scientific observation. But since there has not been a scrap of evidence offered for Creationism it can't be tested. But this is where the fundamentalists shine. They challenge you to prove it wrong. And if you can't prove it wrong, they claim it must be true.

I think you are the proponent of brainwashing, proposing the teaching of illogical theories based on imagination and nothing else. Why put that nonsense in a kid's head?

buddyholly
11-05-2012, 04:47 AM
The best predictor of the election result is the result of the Washington Redskins game on the Sunday before the election. They lost today. Romney wins!

Jimnik
11-05-2012, 06:05 AM
But you don't say why the crazy ones should be taught. Such as Creationism.

Theories are tested on whether they stand up to scientific observation. But since there has not been a scrap of evidence offered for Creationism it can't be tested. But this is where the fundamentalists shine. They challenge you to prove it wrong. And if you can't prove it wrong, they claim it must be true.

I think you are the proponent of brainwashing, proposing the teaching of illogical theories based on imagination and nothing else. Why put that nonsense in a kid's head?
Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.

Ace Pounder
11-05-2012, 07:48 AM
Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.

Isn't it the real problem, hm? Science is all about objectivity; it's not what we think is true, but what is true, with materialized proof.

Lopez
11-05-2012, 09:23 AM
Echoes going overboard as usual. Define general theory please? Every religious person I know laughs about the idea of teaching anything but evolution in schools. Of course, we do have religion classes where religion is taught :shrug:. However, even those classes never dispute evolution.

Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.

Check out the video I posted, you can see a Republican strategist/spokesperson advocating this. It's really difficult to understand in Europe and we don't have such a problem in Finland except maybe within certain sects of the church. There are also people who are campaigning on teaching "the alternative" in science classes, don't know whether they're republican or not though. However, there were MANY republican presidential candidates that deny evolution.

Look, there is of course room for faith in this world and I wouldn't take it away from anyone. The beginning of the universe, how it all got here... there are philosophical arguments (and could be discussed in philosophy class :) !). I personally don't buy the religious ones but some people do and it's ok. However, evolution isn't debatable and it creates a lot of unnecessary friction between the scientific community and religion.

buddyholly
11-05-2012, 12:50 PM
Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.

Unless you want to nitpick over the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design, then I name George Bush.

I am not sure why it has to be a Republican. The teaching of Creationism in science class has been a public issue in the US for some time.

Science journals and publications publish evidence on the subject discussed (observations made) and may go on to theorise based on that observed evidence. The same can not be said for the bible because there is no evidence offered to substantiate the claims made. Also, science journals don't publish anonymous articles.

Echoes
11-05-2012, 12:58 PM
But you don't say why the crazy ones should be taught.

Sometimes ideologies are so fanatical and harmful that I can't play the game/charade of democratic debate anymore. I fight them.

Dismissing some of the great philosophers and philosophical/theological doctrines of the past + every great literary movement because they do not fit with your ideas and no longer teach them to children/students is such a horrible Orwellian tabula rasa that I can't even discuss it. It's the basics of every totalitarian regime.

Every sane, open-minded and culturally knowledgeable person reading this thread can realize that.


Every religious person I know laughs about the idea of teaching anything but evolution in schools.

I'm getting really tired now. It's unbelievable I have to repeat myself all the time. Perhaps the language is a problem but I can't speak Finnish.

Let's try Dutch:

ELKE theorie moet onderwezen worden.


Yes I had to add general because some rascals would go on details such as: 'even the theory that black is white' or 'how to grow salad', 'how to play tennis', 'how to wipe your arse'.

Lopez
11-05-2012, 01:13 PM
I'm getting really tired now. It's unbelievable I have to repeat myself all the time. Perhaps the language is a problem but I can't speak Finnish.

Let's try Dutch:

ELKE theorie moet onderwezen worden.


Yes I had to add general because some rascals would go on details such as: 'even the theory that black is white' or 'how to grow salad', 'how to play tennis', 'how to wipe your arse'.

If it's a language issue I'm pretty sure it's not mine :p.

Anyways, I'm definitely not against talking about religious philosophy in philosophy class, so maybe we don't differ as much.

Har-Tru
11-05-2012, 01:26 PM
Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.

Try again.

Evidence is "that which attests to the truth of an assertion". Subjectivity plays a role in borderline cases, but that is not the same as saying "all evidence is subjective" which is what you are saying. The more subjective a piece of evidence is, the worse the evidence. Good evidence is evidence that is independent of personal interpretation.

Take the statement "I can juggle five balls at a time". I can provide a wide arrange of evidence attesting to the veracity of that claim. I can try to show that is true by:

a) Stating that my mother says I can.
b) Showing that it says so in a book (my diary).
c) Performing the act.

c) is a better piece of evidence than a) or b). It is not 100% conclusive evidence (there is no such thing as that). I could have hypnotised you; it could be that I have an identical twin brother, unknown to all of those involved, who can do it; I could be an all-powerful, mind-bending alien... but if confronted with such a situation, we would all agree c) is undoubtedly more solid than a) and b).

A piece of evidence will be solid if it succeeds at offering proof for the veracity of a claim, and it will be shaky evidence if it doesn't.

Religious "evidence" has a formidable track record of being wrong about the things that we can subject to scrutiny. Its realm has been confined to the space occupied by untestable, unsupported propositions about things the veracity of which we can't determine.

Science's strength is that it works. Its evidence pays up, it is accessible to all, it is palpable. The proof that quantum mechanics works is the fact that you're reading these lines right now on a computer. The proof that the theory of relativity works is in every GPS navigator in cars all over the world. That is not subjective, it is objective. And on account of it being objective, it is better.

For there is no good tree that brings forth rotten fruit; nor again a rotten tree that brings forth good fruit.

Har-Tru
11-05-2012, 02:02 PM
Sometimes ideologies are so fanatical and harmful that I can't play the game/charade of democratic debate anymore. I fight them.

Dismissing some of the great philosophers and philosophical/theological doctrines of the past + every great literary movement because they do not fit with your ideas and no longer teach them to children/students is such a horrible Orwellian tabula rasa that I can't even discuss it. It's the basics of every totalitarian regime.

Every sane, open-minded and culturally knowledgeable person reading this thread can realize that.




I'm getting really tired now. It's unbelievable I have to repeat myself all the time. Perhaps the language is a problem but I can't speak Finnish.

Let's try Dutch:

ELKE theorie moet onderwezen worden.


Yes I had to add general because some rascals would go on details such as: 'even the theory that black is white' or 'how to grow salad', 'how to play tennis', 'how to wipe your arse'.

Again, I agree!

In addition to the already mentioned proposals about teaching astrology and witchcraft to children in school, may I add also the proposal that the Flat Earth theory and the Lunar Effect theory be added to geology classes, Psychich Surgery to biology (and medical school!) and the Perpetual Motion theory in physics.

More to come.

After all, they're all general theories with sophisticated rationales and many followers worldwide.

clandis
11-05-2012, 03:56 PM
Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.

Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, many more. Google it

buddyholly
11-05-2012, 07:22 PM
Sometimes ideologies are so fanatical and harmful that I can't play the game/charade of democratic debate anymore. I fight them.

Dismissing some of the great philosophers and philosophical/theological doctrines of the past + every great literary movement because they do not fit with your ideas and no longer teach them to children/students is such a horrible Orwellian tabula rasa that I can't even discuss it. It's the basics of every totalitarian regime.

.

I thought we were talking about evolution versus creationism here. I am not aware of any of the great philosophers that espoused creationism. The large majority of religious people are quite happy with the evidence of evolution. So I am in no way dismissing philosophica/theological doctrines of the past - unless of course they have been 100% disproved. As is the case of a young earth. It is harder to disprove Creationism because there is no evidence to test.
It is only the extreme fringe that claims a literal view of religious texts and tries to impede every scientific fact that comes along. It is obvious to me by now that every scientific advance in chemistry and genetics continues to prove that evolution is a fact. If you believe in Creationism and a young earth as a matter of faith then just come out and proudly say so and there will be nothing more to discuss. Right now you are hiding behind the vagueness of terms like ''all general theories.''

habibko
11-05-2012, 09:27 PM
LOL teaching psychic surgery in medical school, too good :worship:

quite the apt comparison, creationism has precisely as much evidence backing it up in Biology as psychic surgery in Medicine

there's a reason someone like Echoes doesn't single out much besides creationism and goes out of his way to justify teaching it on equal footing as proper science, and it has all to do with their blind faith to which they dearly and desperately hold onto, a total waste of time trying to reason with them as that's exactly what they are battling against

HoorayBeer
11-05-2012, 09:29 PM
The best predictor of the election result is the result of the Washington Redskins game on the Sunday before the election. They lost today. Romney wins!

That is the exact predictor that landed President Kerry in the whitehouse

Har-Tru
11-05-2012, 09:33 PM
That is the exact predictor that landed President Kerry in the whitehouse

The rule was "redefined" after the 2004 fiasco as referring to the last winner of the popular vote (Gore won in 2000).

Echoes
11-05-2012, 10:26 PM
I thought we were talking about evolution versus creationism here.

Headline says "US presidential election 2012"

So I am in no way dismissing philosophica/theological doctrines of the past - unless of course they have been 100% disproved.
There are churches for teaching faith based, non-scientific theories.

So do you know what you mean?

Philosophical doctrines are faith based and non-scientific: existentialism, stoicism, epicurianism, ...
Political ideologies: even more clearly faith-based.
Literary movement: romanticism, classicism, naturalism: non-scientific theories.
And of course religions ...

You want this to be taught at schools or not? If not, then it's just ... frightening. Some kind of Brave New World ...



If you believe in Creationism and a young earth as a matter of faith then just come out and proudly say so and there will be nothing more to discuss. Right now you are hiding behind the vagueness of terms like ''all general theories.''

:eek::rolleyes: Amazing! So I'm forced to give an opinion. Why should I?

I'll repeat my answer for the 4th and - this time I hope it's - the last time:

Do you believe the theory of Evolution? Regardless, all theories should be taught in school (I add that they should be taught in the framework of strict neutrality, even those that seems the most extreme and it's also valid for political, theological or philosophical doctrines.)


Perhaps I'll have to make clear that this was a formated answer proposed by the webmaster of the test, in case you did not get that ...

I have no guarantee to give you on the matter. I don't give a damn about it. I am no biologist and I let other 'competent' people debate on it without me. And I don't think it would be the role of the state to impose an opinion on anyone on this. It's a matter for scientists. Just like no legislators cannot impose a view on history on its people (as is the case in France, e.g.). It's a matter for historians. Hence, my response to the question was immediate (and I really thought this was crystal clear but apparently not and I hope it's over now.)

Looner
11-06-2012, 12:07 AM
Does someone have an idiot's guide to the US presidential election. As I understand it, each state has a number of votes in the choice and there a few key states but the whole process is not exactly obvious to me.

buddyholly
11-06-2012, 12:20 AM
The winner by popular vote in each state gets a certain number of ''electoral'' votes, depending on the population size of the state.

The candidate with most electoral votes wins the presidency. Key states describes those states that may choose either a Rep or Dem this time around and don't have a consistent past. Safe states are those that almost always vote for the same party.

Many states traditionally vote one way or the other and are considered ''safe'' for either the Rep or Dem. So the electoral votes for those states can be safely assigned before election day, if you are doing predictions. When the ''safe'' states probable electoral votes are summed, you can then predict how many of the ''tossup'' states each candidate must win to be the overall winner.

And because of the large population of OHIO, you will hear all the commentators say that to win the presidency Romney must win Ohio. He also needs a few of the smaller tossup states, but OHIO is critical. Obama's safe states plus Ohio would give him more than 50% of the electoral votes.

I find it curious that the number of electoral votes available is an even number, thus there could be a tie. Worse, when the tie is broken there could be a Rep president and a Dem vice-president, because then congress picks the president and the senate picks the VP. This horrible scenario could easily be avoided by adding one more electoral vote. It could be given to a state with biggest population growth. The there could never be a tie in the electoral college and the nightmare scenario disappears.

Also, the candidate with the most votes in the nation may not be the one with the most electoral votes. But this is common in elections and happens in the UK too. A win in a state by a margin of 1,000,000 votes gets you the same electoral votes as a win in that state by 1 vote.

Filo V.
11-06-2012, 01:11 AM
Oh look, our resident fundy has totally taken over this thread with his crazy.

Anyway, here are some final poll numbers out of battleground states that will prove crucial in determining who wins the election:

According to a Columbus Dispatch poll, and University of Cincinnati poll, Obama is +2 in Ohio. Obama is leading in every poll out of Ohio. His lead appears to be somewhere between 2-4 points. So if the people turnout, Obama will win Ohio. A win in Ohio is effectively a win of the election for Obama.

NBC did their most intensive poll in Virginia and showed Obama with +1 over Romney. My state is going to go down to the wire, and again, is all about turnout. Could go either way. Depends largely on the black vote in Richmond, and the overall turnout in NOVA where Barack has a clear advantage.

Des Moines register, a paper that endorsed Romney in Iowa, has Obama +5. CNN has Obama +3 overall in Iowa. That state looks like one you can put in Obama's corner.

New England College and WMUR-University of New Hampshire poll have Obama up +4 in the state. There has been indication of tightening in this state, though. Potentially. Most polls have Obama somewhere between 2 and 4 points up. I think Barack wins this state, but it could be close.

Polls in Florida are all over the map. There are a few that have Romney with as much as a +6, and there are some with Obama ahead slightly. What is evident is Obama has the early vote lead in Florida. Based on a Gravis Marketing poll, which is a pollster I don't respect much mind you, Obama has the +5 edge in early votes, Romney has the +4 lead in voting tomorrow, and 50% have already voted. If you add that up, it equals a 1% win for Obama. But I expect Romney to win Florida.

Obama now appears to have a solid lead in Colorado. CNN has it +2. NBC has it +2. Denver Post has it +2. A live interview poll done Friday through Sunday has Obama +4 with almost 70% having already voted.

As it stands right now, Obama wins the election. It comes down to turnout for Barack. Republicans still have the motivation edge on Democrats. That could end up crucial. But the early voting numbers are similar for Obama to what they were in 2008. That's huge for him and gives him a padding that Romney has to make up tomorrow.

Jimnik
11-06-2012, 02:30 AM
5 replies? And I was worried atheists were sensitive on this issue. :lol:


Isn't it the real problem, hm? Science is all about objectivity; it's not what we think is true, but what is true, with materialized proof.
Problem is even so-called "objectivity" is based on the work of strangers. Everything is relative, including truth which depends on whom you choose to trust - again purely subjective - and their eye witness accounts and the way they're communicated through man-made language and numerals. We can try to define what's real by what we see, hear, feel and smell but that's only because those are the senses we humans are limited to. There's no way to find an "ultimate truth", even if it does exist.


Check out the video I posted, you can see a Republican strategist/spokesperson advocating this. It's really difficult to understand in Europe and we don't have such a problem in Finland except maybe within certain sects of the church. There are also people who are campaigning on teaching "the alternative" in science classes, don't know whether they're republican or not though. However, there were MANY republican presidential candidates that deny evolution.

Look, there is of course room for faith in this world and I wouldn't take it away from anyone. The beginning of the universe, how it all got here... there are philosophical arguments (and could be discussed in philosophy class :) !). I personally don't buy the religious ones but some people do and it's ok. However, evolution isn't debatable and it creates a lot of unnecessary friction between the scientific community and religion.
I can't find your video.

Evolution is debatable and I'm not talking about anything even remotely religious. Any respected scientist will tell you it is by far the most plausible theory but no-one will claim it's been proven beyond doubt. But that's beside the point because obviously it should be taught in schools and no religious theory should go anywhere near a science class. There's plenty of strong evidence to support the theory of evolution so we can pretty much teach it as fact.


Unless you want to nitpick over the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design, then I name George Bush.

I am not sure why it has to be a Republican. The teaching of Creationism in science class has been a public issue in the US for some time.

Science journals and publications publish evidence on the subject discussed (observations made) and may go on to theorise based on that observed evidence. The same can not be said for the bible because there is no evidence offered to substantiate the claims made. Also, science journals don't publish anonymous articles.
I guess it doesn't have to be republican, though I can't imagine a democrat proposing religious theories in science classes. I'll happily criticize any candidate from any party that suggests such a idea.

Yes, the cornerstone of faith is the belief in concepts which can't be proven rationally. Having said that, even if I were trying to look at this rationally, the bible can certainly be considered evidence. You may have good reason not to trust it but that's your subjective opinion.


Try again.

Evidence is "that which attests to the truth of an assertion". Subjectivity plays a role in borderline cases, but that is not the same as saying "all evidence is subjective" which is what you are saying. The more subjective a piece of evidence is, the worse the evidence. Good evidence is evidence that is independent of personal interpretation.

Take the statement "I can juggle five balls at a time". I can provide a wide arrange of evidence attesting to the veracity of that claim. I can try to show that is true by:

a) Stating that my mother says I can.
b) Showing that it says so in a book (my diary).
c) Performing the act.

c) is a better piece of evidence than a) or b). It is not 100% conclusive evidence (there is no such thing as that). I could have hypnotised you; it could be that I have an identical twin brother, unknown to all of those involved, who can do it; I could be an all-powerful, mind-bending alien... but if confronted with such a situation, we would all agree c) is undoubtedly more solid than a) and b).

A piece of evidence will be solid if it succeeds at offering proof for the veracity of a claim, and it will be shaky evidence if it doesn't.

Religious "evidence" has a formidable track record of being wrong about the things that we can subject to scrutiny. Its realm has been confined to the space occupied by untestable, unsupported propositions about things the veracity of which we can't determine.

Science's strength is that it works. Its evidence pays up, it is accessible to all, it is palpable. The proof that quantum mechanics works is the fact that you're reading these lines right now on a computer. The proof that the theory of relativity works is in every GPS navigator in cars all over the world. That is not subjective, it is objective. And on account of it being objective, it is better.

For there is no good tree that brings forth rotten fruit; nor again a rotten tree that brings forth good fruit.
We're getting very "deep" here.

Everything you've said above is based on eye witness accounting. I can only juggle 5 balls at a time if someone trustworthy sees it and records it. 20 people could make this claim even though it might not be true. Or one liar could claim it happened and no-one will believe it even though it's true.

Science works based on the reality of the world we automatically accept at birth. We don't question this reality, we just go along with it and try to understand it as best as we can. We put our trust in people who love us or make us happy, either intentionally or inadvertently. Either way, our decisions are influenced and conclusions reached either by believing our mortal senses (sight, sound etc) or our imagination. Both play equally valid roles in the way we try to seek our ultimate truth, if it does exist.


Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, many more. Google it
You Google it. You're the one making the claim.

buddyholly
11-06-2012, 02:35 AM
:eek::rolleyes: Amazing! So I'm forced to give an opinion. Why should I?



This is a forum - where people voice their opinions.

buddyholly
11-06-2012, 02:39 AM
You Google it. You're the one making the claim.

No, you were the one asking people to name ONE Republican advocating the teaching of Creationism in schools.

Jimnik
11-06-2012, 02:45 AM
No, you were the one asking people to name ONE Republican advocating the teaching of Creationism in schools.
Following my posts very closely I see.

I could spend an hour searching and not find anything. Why not just post a link if you know when and where they said it. I'm not going to waste my time.

buddyholly
11-06-2012, 02:52 AM
Evolution is debatable and I'm not talking about anything even remotely religious. Any respected scientist will tell you it is by far the most plausible theory but no-one will claim it's been proven beyond doubt..

Why do you write sentences like that? Why do you boldly state that no-one will claim it's been proven beyond doubt?

It took me two minutes to find ''Almost all scientists believe evolution is a fact. The 5% who do not are almost exclusively evangelical Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.''

Jimnik
11-06-2012, 02:58 AM
Am I the only one capable of posting links here to back up my conclusions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Facts refer to "events that occur" or "the state of being of things" that can be publicly verified, proven through experiment, or witnessed by direct observation. Facts exist independent of theory or knowledge of them.[3][5] In science, however, a fact is not a statement of absolute certainty. Scientific knowledge necessarily abandons the concept of absolute certainty to remain consistently conjectural, hypothetical.[6] When referring to or representing facts through theory, scientists (including evolutionary biologists) subscribe to different philosophies, such as scientific realism, materialism, or pragmatism. Accordingly, evolutionary biologists suggest that the scientific method reveals truths about "real nature" that is separate from our thoughts on the matter.[3][7][8][9] That all forms of life on Earth are related by common descent with modification is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science that continues to explain vast numbers of facts in biology.

Evolution is officially a theory.

selyoink
11-06-2012, 03:55 AM
Oh look, our resident fundy has totally taken over this thread with his crazy.

Anyway, here are some final poll numbers out of battleground states that will prove crucial in determining who wins the election:

According to a Columbus Dispatch poll, and University of Cincinnati poll, Obama is +2 in Ohio. Obama is leading in every poll out of Ohio. His lead appears to be somewhere between 2-4 points. So if the people turnout, Obama will win Ohio. A win in Ohio is effectively a win of the election for Obama.

NBC did their most intensive poll in Virginia and showed Obama with +1 over Romney. My state is going to go down to the wire, and again, is all about turnout. Could go either way. Depends largely on the black vote in Richmond, and the overall turnout in NOVA where Barack has a clear advantage.

Des Moines register, a paper that endorsed Romney in Iowa, has Obama +5. CNN has Obama +3 overall in Iowa. That state looks like one you can put in Obama's corner.

New England College and WMUR-University of New Hampshire poll have Obama up +4 in the state. There has been indication of tightening in this state, though. Potentially. Most polls have Obama somewhere between 2 and 4 points up. I think Barack wins this state, but it could be close.

Polls in Florida are all over the map. There are a few that have Romney with as much as a +6, and there are some with Obama ahead slightly. What is evident is Obama has the early vote lead in Florida. Based on a Gravis Marketing poll, which is a pollster I don't respect much mind you, Obama has the +5 edge in early votes, Romney has the +4 lead in voting tomorrow, and 50% have already voted. If you add that up, it equals a 1% win for Obama. But I expect Romney to win Florida.

Obama now appears to have a solid lead in Colorado. CNN has it +2. NBC has it +2. Denver Post has it +2. A live interview poll done Friday through Sunday has Obama +4 with almost 70% having already voted.

As it stands right now, Obama wins the election. It comes down to turnout for Barack. Republicans still have the motivation edge on Democrats. That could end up crucial. But the early voting numbers are similar for Obama to what they were in 2008. That's huge for him and gives him a padding that Romney has to make up tomorrow.

Barring all the polls being dead wrong Romney needs a borderline miracle to win the election. Obama doesn't even need Ohio if he wins Virginia. Everything has to break Romney's way for him to win.

Action Jackson
11-06-2012, 04:00 AM
US elections are like the Olympics come around once every 4 years except more cheating.

rocketassist
11-06-2012, 04:09 AM
Obama will win. Will be like a veteran champ beating a first time slam finalist in straights.

buddyholly
11-06-2012, 04:18 AM
Am I the only one capable of posting links here to back up my conclusions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory



Evolution is officially a theory.

Reading that whole article, the first thing that strikes me is the number of quotes from prominent scientists, stating that evolution is a fact. Yet you stated a few posts ago that ''no scientist will claim it's been proven beyond doubt.'' In fact, that link goes to great lengths to explain the difference between ''evolution'' and ''theory of evolution''.

When you say that evolution is officially a theory, you are ignoring what that article also states: Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms of evolution.

Parallel to your argument is the statement "Gravity is officially a theory.'' But gravity is a fact and the Theory of Gravity attempts to explain the mechanisms of gravity.

I think your conclusion that evolution is officially a theory is wrong. The Theory of Evolution is officially a theory, not evolution itself.

Filo V.
11-06-2012, 04:20 AM
Barring all the polls being dead wrong Romney needs a borderline miracle to win the election. Obama doesn't even need Ohio if he wins Virginia. Everything has to break Romney's way for him to win.Pretty much. The numbers just don't add up for Mitt at all. He has to steal several states from Obama that he doesn't look to be in position to do. But it's all about turnout.

Punky
11-06-2012, 05:33 AM
I can't see Obama losing this, I know they say its close close but only a miracle will help Romney.

May the beat for America wins (I have no idea who's the best for America)

Fed_Ds
11-06-2012, 06:06 AM
Does someone have an idiot's guide to the US presidential election. As I understand it, each state has a number of votes in the choice and there a few key states but the whole process is not exactly obvious to me.

Looner, NYTimes has some good charts that may help you:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map


the early voting numbers are similar for Obama to what they were in 2008. That's huge for him and gives him a padding that Romney has to make up tomorrow.

I hope you're right! Obama gave his last rally tonight and Romney will keep campaigning tomorrow.

buddyholly
11-06-2012, 12:29 PM
Following my posts very closely I see.

I could spend an hour searching and not find anything. Why not just post a link if you know when and where they said it. I'm not going to waste my time.

About 20 seconds actually. Why should I waste my time spoon feeding you?

Jimnik
11-06-2012, 01:34 PM
Reading that whole article, the first thing that strikes me is the number of quotes from prominent scientists, stating that evolution is a fact. Yet you stated a few posts ago that ''no scientist will claim it's been proven beyond doubt.'' In fact, that link goes to great lengths to explain the difference between ''evolution'' and ''theory of evolution''.

When you say that evolution is officially a theory, you are ignoring what that article also states: Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms of evolution.

Parallel to your argument is the statement "Gravity is officially a theory.'' But gravity is a fact and the Theory of Gravity attempts to explain the mechanisms of gravity.

I think your conclusion that evolution is officially a theory is wrong. The Theory of Evolution is officially a theory, not evolution itself.
So we know it exists we just can't verify the details of how or why it works. I don't even know why we're arguing about this since I've already stated it's by far the most plausible theory and should be taught in schools.


About 20 seconds actually. Why should I waste my time spoon feeding you?
If that were true you would have posted it. You're already wasting your time obsessing over evolution "fact vs theory" in a politics thread, without posting a single link to back up your claims. You obviously like to spend more time trolling than proving your point.

buddyholly
11-06-2012, 01:53 PM
If that were true you would have posted it. You're already wasting your time obsessing over evolution "fact vs theory" in a politics thread, without posting a single link to back up your claims. You obviously like to spend more time trolling than proving your point.

I don't know how! But I just scheduled a private tutorial with Apple. So watch out next week.

OK, 20 seconds was not accurate. To Google ''George Bush creationism'' takes me about 5 seconds and there you have ONE Republican who said it should be taught in school. Just what you asked someone to do for you.

We are all suffering from the Abigail syndrome. Someone will get elected and the US will stay the same.

Lopez
11-06-2012, 02:13 PM
So we know it exists we just can't verify the details of how or why it works. I don't even know why we're arguing about this since I've already stated it's by far the most plausible theory and should be taught in schools.

I think we're actually pretty clear on these points. I don't know if you've read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins, he explain evolution quite well there. Really, there aren't many details that need explaining. We have even proof of evolution in our lifetime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

And the vid I posted earlier: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-26-2011/weathering-fights---science---what-s-it-up-to-

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 03:15 PM
Dawkins shrilling for Obama has really revealed a lot about himself.

buddyholly
11-06-2012, 04:11 PM
Dawkins shrilling for Obama has really revealed a lot about himself.

What would you expect him to do? The Tea Party would burn him at the stake for heresy.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 04:39 PM
Acknowledge that Obama is nothing more a scripted robot and the only thing that separates Republicans from Democrats is who they pander to.

buddyholly
11-06-2012, 04:55 PM
So, vote for neither?

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 05:31 PM
Exactly. Voting only supports a corrupt system. Like doing jury duty.

BTW, Obama is the Don King of politics. He creates racist white boogeymen to ensnare black people and then soaks them while giving back crumbs

buddyholly
11-06-2012, 05:46 PM
Then why are you interested in this thread?

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 05:48 PM
To encourage people not to vote. Voting is supporting a corrupt, thoroughly fixed system.

Romney is a slightly more likeable John Kerry. How anyone could bring themselves to vote for him is behind me.

Anyone voting for Obama should remember what the Democrats did/do to people like Ralph Nader. People like Dawkins should know better.

It's Obama's brainless media-controlled sheep vs. Romney's flat-earthers, a truly sad commentary on America. I don't know who's reelection will be sadder. Bush's or Obama's.

abollo
11-06-2012, 06:43 PM
Did you see this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrD2ZJOnOrU&feature=share

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 06:46 PM
Is that one example? There hundreds documented with the reverse in Ohio and NC.

Obama is going to win, but everyone will say corruption both ways.

Democrats have a long history of somehow winning close states or finding ballots when they have to. See Minnesota.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 08:35 PM
I have absolutely no faith in the American voting public after they re elected Bush.

Obama better win. My god Romney is an absolute moron.

Edit: I realise our prime minister is absolute cock too.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 08:40 PM
What is it about Obama you like and Romney you don't like?

I don't understand how so many Brits are for Obama. Unless they are believing nothing but BBC propaganda.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 08:55 PM
It's not so much that I like one guy more than the other. In fact I don't really like either of them.

It's just Romney represents absolutely everything I hate about American politics. He is also clearly not capable enough to deal with the pressing issues America and thus by a large extension, the world faces.

He obviously disregards the most pressing matters on the agenda, such as climate change. He doesn't have the diplomatic finesse that is required of a job like the presidency.

I dread to think what could develop with issues like Iran under his presidency. Not to mention the diplomacy with China and North Korea.

Not only that, but he is totally focused on domestic issues. Which is obviously important, but as the most powerful man in the world. You need to tend to international issues as a matter of upmost importance.

Obama is the lesser of two evils but I still wouldn't vote for him.

The only people that win out of elections are the people who line these politicians pockets, the militaries, conglomerates and international corporations who are desperate to protect their profits.

What use is profit if we don't have a planet to live on, let alone a tolerable one.

Fuck politics.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 09:00 PM
But see that's the whole point. Obama and Romney basically agreed on every foreign policy issue. Nothing is going to change in that regard. That's why I don't get all the foreign support for him. It's all media bs.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 09:07 PM
Regardless on what they agree on, Obama has the diplomatic finesse if required. Romney is just another asshole conservative hard liner who'd prefer to destroy us all than talk his way out of a critical situation.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 09:12 PM
See that's the whole point.

Romney isn't a hard-liner. He was never a hard-liner. Bush wasn't a hard-liner. Not compared with many in the party. Obama and Kerry were the most left-wing members of their party when nominated. I wish foreigners could understand American elections instead of just reading bits from the newspapers.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 09:18 PM
Okay, perhaps not as much a hard liner as Reagan. But don't tell me if Iran kicked off, he'd talk his way out of the problem.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 09:21 PM
Also generally, Brits are generally for Obama because he cares about government funded health care. Which is one of the few admirable facets of our national political conscience (even though the tory scum bags want rid of it). Like Obama we dont want people to die on the streets, unlike Romney, who is happy to do so.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 09:24 PM
That has got to be the most deplorable belief that Europeans have. And it goes back decades.

People don't die outside of hospitals because they don't have money. Hospitals can't refuse to treat people. You think when the police show up at a shooting that they check for health insurance before sending them to the hospital?

Saying Romney is happy to have people to die in the streets is just the worst example of what happens in these elections.

The problem with national health care has always been that it is so thoroughly abused by the worst elements of society. I go to the hospital once a year for a check-up (that I pay for) and have never had a serious illness or surgery. Yet people want me to pay out the ass for a system that will turn everything over to the government bureaucrats in the event something does happen, who get to decide my doctor, my treatment and when and where and so and so forth.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 09:26 PM
What about people with Cancer for example.. Do they get free treatment?

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 09:33 PM
The way those things are handled is different in each case. But no, someone who has cancer will have to pay their medical bills. And if the government takes that over, we will have a complete welfare state and you see what happens to the world then.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 09:34 PM
Yes, more people live. My god what an absolute travesty.

Seriously, if you think health care is not a fundamental human right, there is no point in even having a discussion.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 09:38 PM
A fundamental human right that productive members of society be soaked to pay bills for the sick and dying?

Like I said, not good for the human race.

FYI, I would kill myself if I had cancer or a terminal disease. I wouldn't go through the medical treatments and burden others.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 09:47 PM
Yes, I believe we all have a responsibility to help when someone is in dire need of medical care. Even if that impacts our taxes by an amount.

This isn't even a political issue, it's a fundamental altruistic human concern.

Fair enough, you would turn down the assistance, but what about people that want to live, what about people that could potentially change the world for the better if they could live?

Some of our finest minds could be having their lives cut short by the greed and short sighted selfishness of people who can't bare to pay just that little bit extra so that we can all have the insurance of free health if we ever need it.

It shouldn't be politicised it's a right.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 09:49 PM
It's a right that other people pay for your health care?

I couldn't disagree more.

Greystoke
11-06-2012, 10:01 PM
I've heard of the phrase "Fuck you got mine" and now I have seen the living breathing embodiment of it.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 10:02 PM
It's a right that other people pay for your health care?

I couldn't disagree more.



Absolutely, if you're child was dying of a potentially treatable disease and you couldn't pay for it you would want health care right?

You would want to know your child could live without you having to bankrupt yourself right?

I can't possibly see how people think otherwise. It's pathetic to think helping someone in need is wrong.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 10:03 PM
Yes. I'm not anxious to work for fat people to spend their lives not only getting disability and welfare checks, but free medical care too.

In that situation, you would simply have to pay the debt off in time. And that's better than soaking the population to pay blanket coverage for all the spongers.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 10:05 PM
But how would you support your child with no money?

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 10:07 PM
I had a vasectomy as soon as I turned 18 because I never wanted kids. And I wouldn't have children regardless if I couldn't afford to take care of them. That's the entire problem. People need to be responsible for themselves. You can't afford to take of a child, then there are plenty who want to adopt and are forced (or allowed) to adopt foreigners. That needs to change. But the government should be involved in our lives at the bare minimum possible.

erickmartins
11-06-2012, 10:12 PM
So you don't believe healthcare to be a basic human right, then. I wonder what do you consider basic human rights (besides FREEDOM, I'm sure you like that quite a lot).

PedroMarquess
11-06-2012, 10:15 PM
This Tommy_Vercetti is such a troller.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 10:15 PM
A person should be able to live how they chose and believe in whatever they want.

People don't have the right to live off of anyone else. The productive paying for the weakest links. We don't go from the caves to the moon by having (or expecting) others take care of us.

erickmartins
11-06-2012, 10:20 PM
congrats, you got my attention for like 1 minute there before breaking off in a borderline-eugenistic rambling.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 10:21 PM
It's a fundamental human right. There is no negotiation really.

Selfishness has got us only so far as a species. Sure, it helped us flourish but it holds blame for the mess we are in today.

Altruism is the only viable way forward, and that begins with a basic human right like health care.

Stop worrying about personal gain and profit for once and consider the absolute miracle that we exist, once you realise that you can then understand that health care isn't a issue relating to currency but a concern which is embedded in our conscience as a moral obligation.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 10:22 PM
Social programs is what is responsible for the mess today. People having kids who can't afford them and nations spending money they don't have. No one takes responsibility anymore. Everyone wants someone else to pay for everything.

Altruism is based around the religious nonsense about being rewarded in death, it's nonsense. And we should be materialistic because all we have is the comfort we can afford during our very short lives. The difference is that I don't resent the rich, I wish I could be one of them and work towards that goal. People who don't have that mentality are the problem.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 10:25 PM
Bullshit. The reason we are in the mess we are today is because assholes take take take without consideration for anything else other than profit.

Not because people want to help one another.

Americas allergy to socialism is most hilarious thing I have ever seen.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 10:29 PM
Altruism is none of that. It is broadly defined as selflessness. Something which conservatives seem to not understand.

I absolutely refute the view that material worth is the only comfort in our lives. What about compassion for others? Love? Caring? We can't quantify and sell these so are they therefore worthless in your view?

My god. I don't even care if you are trolling, it's hilarious to pick holes in your logic.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 10:36 PM
Oh yeah, the belief that making money and being successful is not a good thing has done wonders for Europe. Socialism has certainly made Europe a real economic example.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 10:39 PM
Oh so America is a shining example of economic prosperity? with persistently high unemployment and shrinking economy?

At least Europe will look after it's citizens while you lot will be rotting away with only the rich able to pay for health care.

I'd also like to point out that it was American bankers which started the economic collapse with years of persistent irresponsible lending.

Wake up.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 10:41 PM
If only more of America was like Noam Chomsky.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 10:43 PM
That's the whole point. America became the top industrial superpower before all the social programs and regulations. All the taxes. The best and brightest wanted to create businesses and live here. It's not like that anymore. Except there is nowhere to go anymore. People can't immigrate. So we have to wait for the welfare system to collapse.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 10:46 PM
Okay fine, keep chomping away at the right wing propaganda. Delicious denial.

I suppose climate change is also a lie right?

Literally cannot fathom the words to describe how much I hate right wing politics.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-06-2012, 10:51 PM
No. It's a theory. I'm a believer in it, but I don't think there's much anyone can do to stop it. You invent an alternative fuel and we'll talk.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 11:02 PM
Bio fuels exist as do electric cars, but these are supressed by profit obsessed oil companies.

buddyholly
11-06-2012, 11:06 PM
Bio fuels exist as do electric cars, but these are supressed by profit obsessed oil companies.

Yes, let's make fuel out of all the corn that's grown and leave the third world to starve. Anyone who wants can buy an electric car.

buddyholly
11-06-2012, 11:09 PM
I suppose climate change is also a lie right?



Any geologist can tell you that the climate has been in constant flux since the earth had an atmosphere. So it is no lie.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 11:10 PM
Yes, let's make fuel out of all the corn that's grown and leave the third world to starve. Anyone who wants can buy an electric car.

No you're right lets just boil the earth to a scorched corpse instead.

Fujee
11-06-2012, 11:11 PM
Any geologist can tell you that the climate has been in constant flux since the earth had an atmosphere. So it is no lie.

Yes thats true, but there is an exponential increase in temperature since 1900, which specifically coincides with the amount of CO2 we have put into the atmosphere.

buddyholly
11-06-2012, 11:39 PM
No you're right lets just boil the earth to a scorched corpse instead.

Biofuels are not involved in the global warming issue. They were developed as a cheaper alternative source of fuel in the event of wild price swings for oil. In fact, some estimates say that they are worse for greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum. So replacing oil with biofuels does nothing for climate change, just makes life worse for the world's poor. Many environmentalists are more concerned with stopping oil production than they are with improving the environment.

So far, the evidence seems to suggest that the biofuels you are encouraging, will hasten the scorching.

cobalt60
11-06-2012, 11:57 PM
What about people with Cancer for example.. Do they get free treatment?

I am a cancer doc and yes we treat them for free in my state or they immediately get welfare/medicare that pays.

Looner
11-07-2012, 12:01 AM
Oh yeah, the belief that making money and being successful is not a good thing has done wonders for Europe. Socialism has certainly made Europe a real economic example.

Oh, here's one of those clueless ones from the great USA at whom the whole world laughs :lol:.

Echoes
11-07-2012, 12:07 AM
Regardless on what they agree on, Obama has the diplomatic finesse if required. Romney is just another asshole conservative hard liner who'd prefer to destroy us all than talk his way out of a critical situation.




Hey dude, his diplomatic finesse serves for killing thousands of civilians with the help of drones, along with his allies, like my governments, in Afghanistan.

Destroyed the most prosperous country in Lybia, with consequences in the whole region, very serious in Northern Mali.

Sent weapons to terrorists in Syria, destabilizing a secular and socializing country.



Obama has as much blood on his hands as Bush, right?

Dawkins shrilling for Obama has really revealed a lot about himself.

:lol: True..


Also generally, Brits are generally for Obama because he cares about government funded health care.


Dude, Obamacare has NOTHING to do with our Euro single-payer programme that we had after the war. It does not include care for chronic diseases and terminally ill patients. This would be a schandal in my country as well as in yours.

Single-payer or nothing.

Fujee
11-07-2012, 12:21 AM
His diplomatic credentials aren't relevant in Afghanistan, thats a war bush started which he is having to clear up. The use of drones in abhorrent yes, but it serves a purpose of keeping American casualties down which is obviously a priority for him in an election year.

Also, I didn't say that the health care was the same type. But they share commonalities in their socialist perspective.

buddyholly
11-07-2012, 12:27 AM
Oh, here's one of those clueless ones from the great USA at whom the whole world laughs :lol:.

Yeah, while trying to immigrate.

Echoes
11-07-2012, 12:33 AM
He's been in Afghanistan since 2008 and do you realize what you're saying? It means that we don't care about the Afghan civilians killed as long as we don't have GI's killed. He does not have to clear things up. He's got to leave, period. They don't have anything to do in that country. Afghans did nothing wrong to us. Let me tell you that we're all hated there.


And Bush did not start the war in Lybia and did not arm terrorists in Syria.


Social perspective, Obamacare? It's an act that forces citizens to be insured by PRIVATE bodies. And it leaves many citizens without health cover.

I can't support it in any way. Support Rocky Anderson if you want, but please, not Obama.

rocketassist
11-07-2012, 12:35 AM
He's been in Afghanistan since 2008 and do you realize what you're saying? It means that we don't care about the Afghan civilians killed as long as we don't have GI's killed. He does not have to clear things up. He's got to leave, period. They don't have anything to do in that country. Afghans did nothing wrong to us. Let me tell you that we're all hated there.


And Bush did not start the war in Lybia and did not arm terrorists in Syria.


Social perspective, Obamacare? It's an act that forces citizens to be insured by PRIVATE bodies. And it leaves many citizens without health cover.

I can't support it in any way. Support Rocky Anderson if you want, but please, not Obama.

Obamacare that has traits from the UK's fantastic NHS?

OK :lol:

Obama isn't perfect, has his faults but has to win this.

Echoes
11-07-2012, 12:58 AM
Originally, the NHS was totally public, wasn't it?


But I will never understand this. Why support the lesser of two evil? I mean for me it's a matter of honour. If I don't agree with a political leader, I don't vote for him, period. Even if another guy I disagree with capitalize on this.

He should have convinced us that he was good. As Nader said, "the lesser of two evil is not good enough for America, we want the best".

Black Adam
11-07-2012, 01:09 AM
So are the exit polls accurate? Obama retains?

President Obama is not a nice soft guy, he has just fooled the world into believing that he is a nicer guy than Cowboy President Bush. Same music only sneakier. He wasn't really involved in Libya but what happened to the Ghadaffi regime (oust by the "UN") only could happen thanks to his involvement, albeit in the background.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-07-2012, 01:10 AM
Exit polls are always bs. They are always done in heavily one-sided areas. And people f--k around with them.

Jimnik
11-07-2012, 04:25 AM
Obama wins Florida and Ohio. Could win Virginia too. It's a little more one sided than expected.

Har-Tru
11-07-2012, 04:50 AM
Watch out, it could be the first time since 1964 where the winner doesn't take Ohio. Obama up by only 0,1% with 80% reporting.

erickmartins
11-07-2012, 10:08 AM
I'm not happy with Obama winning, but I'm relieved.

Fujee
11-07-2012, 10:54 AM
:lol:

Fox news is a fucking disgrace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COS6VN1T-YA&feature=share

scoobs
11-07-2012, 11:18 AM
A very good night.

I predicted Obama wins while losing Indiana, North Carolina and Florida from last time. He lost Indiana and North Carolina but held Florida, so it's almost as much of a blowout as last time, and wins the popular vote comfortably.

Great wins for Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin and women Senators in general, including the first openly homosexual. Some great news on the same sex marriage front as 4 ballot measures in favour of it or against restricting it have apparently passed. Ditto on some legalisation of marijuana measures in various states.

Allen West loses in Florida, although Steve King and Michele Bachmann hang on to their seats in Iowa and Minnesota.

All in all, very good news for those of us of a progressive bent - although $2.6 billion dollars has been spent on this cycle and:

President elected by about same margin as last time
Senate virtually unchanged - Dems in control though possible gain of a seat or two.
House virtually unchanged, GOP have the gavel, though possible few Dem gains.

Money well spent?

buddyholly
11-07-2012, 12:54 PM
:lol:

Fox news is a fucking disgrace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COS6VN1T-YA&feature=share

What is the problem?

I think she said that because of changing demographics, the Republican Party can no longer present itself as the Party of white middle class Americans and must become more inclusive. To me, that sounds like a criticism of Republicans. And a valid one.

Collective
11-07-2012, 04:17 PM
So a simple average of state polling gets it right. Just like in 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010. Yet pundits seemed surprised. I guess they needed the added drama for ratings.

Nate Silver's 538 blog (fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com)

(I know Silver started in 2008, but state polls have got it right every time)

star
11-07-2012, 05:33 PM
What is the problem?

I think she said that because of changing demographics, the Republican Party can no longer present itself as the Party of white middle class Americans and must become more inclusive. To me, that sounds like a criticism of Republicans. And a valid one.

Saying "brown nation" is not cool.

That may be the objection. Fox is shady when it comes to racial politics.

Anyway, that aside, I am happy for our country. Happy for myself.

Romney, to me, was a disaster.

Har-Tru
11-07-2012, 05:46 PM
:lol:

Fox news is a fucking disgrace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COS6VN1T-YA&feature=share

I don't think that is racist.

This, on the other hand...

kFcAzIWOHpU

Tommy_Vercetti
11-07-2012, 05:46 PM
It's not just the white working-class and middle-class men (you know, those that fought for and built America from scratch), it's the religious nonsense that is killing them more than anything. Todd Akin and Dick Mourdock are just the ultimate examples of that.

The tea party has cost the Republicans huge seats in the Senate. Harry Reid is hugely unpopular in Nevada, like Claire McCaskill in Missouri, but the Republicans that faced them were very weak. But the states that are solidly Republican are very far right. So anyone who goes moderate is facing huge problems in the primary. They have put themselves in a very bad position on a national level. And unless they can suddenly wake up and come out of the social conservatism and primarily make the elections simply about nothing more than economics, they are in for a very tough time in all future national elections. Unless of course the country goes belly up, which if the Democrats don't reign in their spending like a drunken sailor, it will. No one wants to invest in America anymore. Total reverse from what made us the industrial giant.

gulzhan
11-07-2012, 05:54 PM
Respect to Americans for re-electing Obama :hatoff:

rocketassist
11-07-2012, 06:13 PM
Bill O'Reilly is the type of man you would break the TV for, such is the speed you'd wanna ram your knuckle through him.

Echoes
11-07-2012, 07:01 PM
:lol:

Fox news is a fucking disgrace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COS6VN1T-YA&feature=share

Because they are racist and anti-Obama? Are you sure? :lol:

ibsP6XN2dIo

Har-Tru
11-07-2012, 07:07 PM
Phew, for a minute there I thought Fox News was pro-Republican and anti-Obama.

Glad I was proven wrong.

Fujee
11-07-2012, 08:51 PM
Mostly because they are run by asshole in chief Mr.Murdoch

buddyholly
11-07-2012, 10:47 PM
Saying "brown nation" is not cool.

That may be the objection. Fox is shady when it comes to racial politics.

Anyway, that aside, I am happy for our country. Happy for myself.

Romney, to me, was a disaster.

Why can't it be cool? When I first came to Toronto it was almost pure white, and dreary. Now, with the influx of Indians, Asians, Middle Easterners etc, it is browner and because it is browner it is now a wonderful, diverse, multicultural city. I will die before I get to all the great ethnic restaurants I want to get to.

Whoever that woman is, if she is a political analyst, then she was just noting a simple fact.
If you are going to complain about someone saying mentioning colour, then you should also complain when someone says Obama is the first black president.

buddyholly
11-07-2012, 10:50 PM
Phew, for a minute there I thought Fox News was pro-Republican and anti-Obama.

Glad I was proven wrong.

It doesn't hide the fact. It is no more sleazy than MSNBC. Although both set the bar very low. What irritates people is the FOX clearly outfoxes MSNBC in then ratings.

Har-Tru
11-08-2012, 02:20 PM
It doesn't hide the fact. It is no more sleazy than MSNBC. Although both set the bar very low. What irritates people is the FOX clearly outfoxes MSNBC in then ratings.

Funny. I was just reading an article on the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung today about the lack of "fairness and balance" of Fox News and MSNBC.

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/kabelfernsehen-am-tag-nach-obama-sieg-wie-fox-news-mit-der-realitaet-ringt-1.1517685

star
11-08-2012, 03:19 PM
Why can't it be cool? When I first came to Toronto it was almost pure white, and dreary. Now, with the influx of Indians, Asians, Middle Easterners etc, it is browner and because it is browner it is now a wonderful, diverse, multicultural city. I will die before I get to all the great ethnic restaurants I want to get to.

Whoever that woman is, if she is a political analyst, then she was just noting a simple fact.
If you are going to complain about someone saying mentioning colour, then you should also complain when someone says Obama is the first black president.

Such a polemicist. :lol:

It was the manner in which it was said. I said that I thought that was the objection. I didn't find the overall gist of her statement offensive. Also, as you know, I wasn't objecting to multi ethnicity.

Fox is always making these coded racial references. Bill is saying "traditional America" these days for "white America."

star
11-08-2012, 03:23 PM
Of course, Bill doesn't want things or stuff.

0nj9e3JLGkA

star
11-08-2012, 03:24 PM
It doesn't hide the fact. It is no more sleazy than MSNBC. Although both set the bar very low. What irritates people is the FOX clearly outfoxes MSNBC in then ratings.

They both irritate me. In fact, all television news irritates me. I rarely watch it.

Har-Tru
11-08-2012, 03:30 PM
Of course, Bill doesn't want things or stuff.

0nj9e3JLGkA

Go back eleven posts in this thread. :p

buddyholly
11-08-2012, 05:19 PM
Funny. I was just reading an article on the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung today about the lack of "fairness and balance" of Fox News and MSNBC.

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/kabelfernsehen-am-tag-nach-obama-sieg-wie-fox-news-mit-der-realitaet-ringt-1.1517685

My cable company supports fair and balanced. You can not subscribe to one of these channels, only to both. Since most people I know would say that they would not have one or the other in the house at any cost, I doubt they sell many subscriptions.

Har-Tru
11-08-2012, 05:27 PM
MSNBC is bound to be constantly trailing though. Fox are the original ones, they were the ones that created and perfected the formula. They also seem to be more committed to their particular cause than MSNBC are, but I suspect that might be pure business, considering what the same company broadcasts in other networks.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-08-2012, 05:36 PM
Anyone ever see that one complete loser who made something that blocked Fox News? It was some pansy ass guy I remember seeing on a bunch of different segments.

It's like, no one is forcing you to watch any channel dumb ass. He belongs to the ilk that think legalizing gay marriage somehow means it becomes mandatory for everyone.

Everko
11-08-2012, 07:21 PM
what will this change in America?

buddyholly
11-08-2012, 09:29 PM
what will this change in America?The DOW

Lodger Federer
11-10-2012, 05:11 PM
Because they are racist and anti-Obama? Are you sure? :lol:

ibsP6XN2dIo

Can you find an example that's not Shepard Smith? He's actually one of a couple FOX anchors i respect.

Echoes
11-10-2012, 05:23 PM
Oh my God, have you but listened to the interview?

I only know him for that interview but I can't have any respect for that sensationalist tool not even able to hear any of Nader's arguments.

Poor fellow ... He only deserves contempt.

Har-Tru
11-10-2012, 06:20 PM
That's about the only way to get Fox News to say something nice about Obama: bring Nader on the show.