At 9/9/08 07:19 PM, DXplayer wrote: there is this video where Rudy Guiliani is attacing Obama Verblie.

That's because Rudy Guiliani is a moron.

I refer you to Joe Biden's thoughts on Guiliani.

Biden is now the VP nom for an intense, historic election. Guiliani roams aimlessly about the country telling people why they should continue to shit billions of dollars on the middle-east and be happy about it. Oh yeah, and 9-11.

At 9/9/08 09:50 PM, The-Mage wrote: mcain picked a wonderful choice. She has the only executive experience out of all 4 candidates. Only female, and best of all, only conservative.

most people are smart enough realize he picked her for us. not women.

I have to strongly disagree. The best choice (debatably) would have been Romney. Given what McCain wants to do overseas, the state of the economy, and the need to satisfy the religious vote Romney should have been a shoe in for the VP.

Why he wasn't could be a factor of many things; too much like McCain, the Mormon issue, wouldn't help that Obama still had the edge of age on his side, etc.

Palin offers absolutely nothing new the table that the other nominees had. Palin is quite possibly the most blatant political tool for the VP since Dick Cheney himself.

At 9/8/08 12:48 AM, Acid wrote: I want to hear people's opinions on who should be the next president and why.

I vote for which direction I want to see the country taken in.

McCain's philosophy on foreign policy empowers the idea that America should spend billions of dollars funding our dominance over the middle-east. I'd rather see that money used for something else.

I'm voting for Obama, because his demeanor, his policies, and his general outlook on the world are very forward looking, rather than coercively trying to keep hold of the status quo.

In general, I like Obama because he's a rational, down to earth, extremely educated person, and although I don't agree with him on a lot of issues (like abortion) I agree with him more than I disagree with him. As for McCain, I don't like where he wants to lead us for the next 4 years. Plain and simple.

Awesome. I spelled the godamn title wrong. That's great. >=(

I'm having a very, very hard time finding any saving grace to NeoConservative ideology. It takes quite a while to understand what the hell a NeoConservative is to those fond to politics, much less getting the average joe to understand.

I'm hoping Cellardoor can come to my rescue on this one. Though I'm unsure of his thoughts on the Bush administration, I recall a few times in the past an unwavering loyalty to American hegemony to areas of the world that are kind of a pain in the ass. Of course I still think he's batshit insane, but he makes a good argument now and then, nontheless.

Seriously, though. Is NeoConservatism good just on paper? Or is it really a good concept, but the rodeo clown in the oval office just doesn't have the leadership skills to pull the ideology off correctly?

At 8/6/08 09:53 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 8/6/08 09:43 PM, Nylo wrote:

that evidence of a higher power

What evidence?
WHAT EVIDENCE?

"the laws of the universe" isn't evidence for ANYTHING.

YOU UNDERSTAND?

IT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING WHATSOEVER.

"the laws of the universe isn't evidence for anything" should be the quote of the year. The laws of the universe are what govern and give science it's report, not to mention it's purpose in life. Whether or not you believe universal laws have any ties to theology is a matter worth debate. Saying universal laws aren't evidence of "anything" sounds like an interesting tale told by some hobo protesting outside a Starbucks.

Please clarify what you mean by "laws of the universe aren't evidence of anything". Because common sense would indicate they're evidence of our own reality.

You're applying the scientific method to faith, which is useless.

That's the trick people use to say "well I have no evidence but I want to believe, so instead of admitting that I'm pulling aaaaaaaaall of this out of my ass, I will attack science and act like they don't know everything so that gives me some magic seer-like insights into the workings of the universe!"

I'm not "attacking" science, I'm challenging it's assertion that theology is all wrong. It's the nature of science to be challenged, so that it can grow and continuously become more correct over time. If you honestly believe I should take science, especially your version at that, at face value I might as well stick to theology. Because I'd be relying on faith alone that you know what the hell you're talking about.

but modern science can't prove or disprove the reality of an intelligent designer

That's because it's a non-idea, a non-concept that you are UTTERLY foolish to believe in.
Utterly, utterly foolish and WRONG.

Hahahaha. I seriously respect your opinion, I do. Though at this statement I have to say you're dead wrong. This "non-idea" as you put it has shaped the image of human history every bit as much as empiricism and science has. It is utterly IMPOSSIBLE to claim there is no truth to religion without offering a theological replacement of your own; which is exactly what you're doing. True science doesn't seek to topple theology; rather it works around it, completely indifferent of it.

You still haven't answered.
Where's your intelligent designer concept?
What is it? How does it work? What does it do? What rules does it abide by?

My concept of an intelligent designer, through my own eyes, is evident in 1) the fact that life exists at all, 2) that life and existence follow rules and guidelines, and 3) that human beings among all living things are unique in their cognitive abilities.

Aside from that, I'll just be reiterating scripture to you. You'd rather place your faith in mankind than in possibilities beyond that which we can percieve; and that's your right, of course. Your ultimate irony is that you have faith, when you claim to have none at all.

You can't answer any of this because you haven't thought about it for one damn second. All you did was explain a mystery with a BIGGER mystery and tried to pass it off as legitimate faith instead of the bullshit that it really is.

Ok, Pox. Please tell me, empirically, how existence began through your reason and logic. I'd love to hear how this doesn't dabble into the realm of faith. It's humorous, because what I often hear most is that "there was never a claim that we knew". Which is essentially saying "we don't know, so we pretend it doesn't exist until we can explain it."

So go on. Please tell me, without any measure of faith, how the universe was created in logical, scientific form. I look forward to you explaining how this is another one of those dastardly Christian tricks.

At 8/6/08 04:00 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: How exactly is Confucius' writings even remotely as relevant as Darwin's?

I guess that all depends on how you view human history. China's status as an empire had profoundly affected and influenced the way other nations began to govern their people. Darwin's writings are to science and reason what Confucious' writings were to government, civility, and stability.

I'm by no means saying that Confucius and Darwin are comparable when compared in one field, but rather for their time and place they put into motion huge strides and new ideas that advanced the way humans lived their lives and viewed the world around them.

At 8/6/08 04:45 PM, PineappleWinnie wrote: I am not saying that Obama himself will do this. I am not saying that Obama will go mad and wacko like that. But he may lead politics that may weaken the USA (in a wide-sense) to the point where Islam can actually stand a chance. He might go soft on Muslims, and even somewhat promote Islam in a very subtle way, making more people to either convert to Islam (ads, mosques, etc), or make it easier for those abroad to come in. It would be then these folks, several years in the future, who may actually make Islam stronger and stronger within the USA. Its not what Obama himself will do as a President, but the many subtle doors he may open that don't really convince me. He can make it easy for Islam to get through. This itself shoult not be an issue, but it sadly is, as Muslims consider that they need to conquer the West (which is represented by the USA and Europe).

I respect your views, however I find this among the least of all things to worry about Obama. The fear of Islam is rooted in ethnocentrism. The U.S.A. is the most religious western nation and has military bases all over the globe, not to mention the most powerful military that's ever existed. Fearing a rise in Islam is, in my own humble opinion, a fear that our culture is under attack and that other rising belief systems must be subverted. It's an argument for hegemony over other cultures.

Though I'm an Obama supporter, I'm still objective. I think the most worrisome thing about him is his globalized, socialistic view of the world. He's not just trying to appease the United States, he's trying to appease the EU and middle eastern nations. If elected, Obama will flush out the NeoConservative administration and bring in new leftist blood. It will be a radical departure from the last 8 years.

I truly believe Obama will deliver on his promise to change America. What the agenda for that change will actually be is a question every American should ask themselves before they vote. I, for one, am willing to take that risk.

At 8/6/08 09:13 PM, poxpower wrote: That is all babble.
State clearly what you mean by intelligent designer, and show us what it explains, how it explains it and tell us what it predicts.

The concept of an intelligent designer merely observes the complexity of the universe, and concludes that evidence of a higher power creating it is evident in the laws of nature that life appears to follow. Most humans will agree with the concept of there being a higher power of some sort beyond this life.

Find a test to verify your claim.

Then you have something.
Until then, you have nothing. You have a fairytale wrapped in a cloud, surrounded by an enigma and cast in the world by magic.

You're applying the scientific method to faith, which is useless. There's no doubt that science is as crucial as the air we breathe, but it's not the end-all be-all truth to the universe. You can't rely on empiricism to explain everything in the world. My stomach wretches at the thought of learning about the raw power of love, music, and art through the pages of a science book.

But back on point, your claim that religion is nothing but a fairytale wrapped in a cloud is, in itself, a political and faith-based belief. You can make a claim against the inconsistencies of organized religion, but modern science can't prove or disprove the reality of an intelligent designer through empiricism. Science can barely agree on global warming, as it were.

But again, this is an argument for the concept of an intelligent designer. Actually teaching this concept as a science in the classroom is an ENTIRELY different thing; which I don't agree with at all unless it falls under religious studies.

At 8/5/08 07:13 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Trying to assume science opposes all other forms of thought is stupid.

That ought to be the focus of the entire thread.

From my vantage point as a proponent of a faith-based belief system, science as a lot more to answer for in regards to an entire universe existing with no explanation as to how matter and anti-matter were created in the first place.

Does that mean I think science is hocus-pocus? No, it means I acknowledge faith and empiricism are two sides of the same coin. The yin and yang. Anyone that tells you different wants you on their side.

At 8/6/08 12:42 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: But back on topic.

I think the bible is relevant today. Just as cheese is relevant today. It's an option, that can be chosen.

That's all it needs to be.

Agreed. There's two types of knowledge in this world: spiritual and intellectual. You can excel in one and starve yourself of the other at your own discretion. You have a right to make yourself a religious fanatic, or opt to be more like PoxPower and assume your 5 senses as a human being overrule everything that's not empirical until proven otherwise.

For the most part, it's not even a question about religion. Most people just want the world to run in the candy land fashion they evens ion in their mind, i.e. no one starts bitching until beliefs start affecting laws. Which is always.

The Bible is relavent both spiritually as well as historically. It's among the most relevant piece of existing literature in the world, alongside the Quran, Confuscious, the Origin of Species, etc. etc.

Just remember to keep an open mind. You don't have anything to lose by reading the Bible. Unless you really, really hate religion or theology in general.

At 7/20/08 06:26 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

At 7/20/08 06:21 PM, Nylo wrote: When we actually stop terrorists, the news would rather cover bullshit like Brangelina and Hanna Montana.

When we actually stop terrorist attacks, you and the media never know about it.

There'd be a lot to gain by actually covering and communicating with Americans about the war on terror in that sense, don't you think? Stopping that plot to blow planes up over the Atlantic was astounding, they really should have run that story a lot more when it happened.

Instead, the Administration would rather you not even see coverage of military funerals. It might "lower" your morale.

At 7/20/08 06:20 PM, hrb5711 wrote: Fox was doing a story on Veterans being at higher risk for violent crimes. Not from war protesters, just from people. It is on Hannity's website, video called Military Murder Target.

Is that being at higher risk for violent crimes period? Or at higher risk for violent crimes than ever before in the past?

I think it's a damn good story, but coming from Sean Hannity, I don't have the patience for his Big Brother 10 Minutes Hate bullshit on all the different reasons why I should loathe the enemy. Glenn Beck and Rusty Humphry do the same damn thing, over, and over, and over, and over again.

It's no surprise that most of them have jack shit in the education department, to boot.

At 7/18/08 10:28 AM, Memorize wrote: You do realize that there have been attempted attacks since 9/11, right?

If you're referring to the plot to blow planes up over the Atlantic Ocean, that doesn't count. When we actually stop terrorists, the news would rather cover bullshit like Brangelina and Hanna Montana.

I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on the cover story.

Anyone that has any family in the military will tell you it's riddled with power politics. I know a guy who was standing guard at a post when a Generals WIFE was pulling up in the official car, and he didn't salute the car. The next day, he was chewed the hell out and removed.

I'd like to hear more testimonials about this guys' personality and background. I'm having a hard time believing that this guy was minding his own business and the whole military decided to out him for no other reason than theology.

B.S. Just my opinion.

At 7/20/08 05:18 PM, mindlessdestruction2 wrote:

At 7/20/08 03:19 AM, jackkniphe wrote:

At 7/20/08 02:53 AM, Gon-Jinetik wrote:

At 7/20/08 01:46 AM, mindlessdestruction2 wrote: today on the radio....

how about that link?

it is not on the news wires. don't think the story it is real.

it was on hanity's america on the fox news xm station

Why am I not surprised. Though to be fair, I was betting initially that you'd heard it from Michael Savage.

At 5/3/08 09:34 PM, poxpower wrote: Yes, science is a belief system.
Of course.

Science itself is a quasi-belief system. It's entire foundation relies on what human beings can detect with their senses.

I'm not one of those wackos that's saying there is no reality. I'm saying you're being short-sighted in your definition of science if you think it doesn't involve a strong element of belief.

If you think science is the end all, be all form of truth detection, you clearly haven't heard enough of Newtonian and Eistein ideologies clashing.

Scientists can't even agree on Global Warming for Christ's sake.

At 4/30/08 05:52 PM, poxpower wrote: Wow look at you, you're really high and mighty because you don't take sides!

Wow, and you're extremely unobservant! I took an obvious and clear side saying that both you and Stein hold more in common in your unwavering ideology that it becomes comical in how the both of you bicker and bitch as if your side of the truth is as obvious as the air we breathe.

Debatably, look at you! High and mighty for not even acknowledging an entire realm of thinking between the both of you.

Ha! I laugh at slavery, it's so funny to me that they both think they are right haha, there's no such thing as a right answer, those fools!

It's amazing to me that a man of logic an science such as yourself can get so entrenched into an unwavering belief system. It's elements of both yours and Steins arguments that I heavily agree with and support.

It's the "you're a complete retard" for not thinking in parallel with me mentality that obstructs and impedes the best of what you both have to offer.

Yeah I'm really insane to think that evolution makes sense,

Which would make two of us. A prime example of how we agree on the surface about :a logical concept.

:wow look at me with my superiority complex obeying the CRAZY laws of science and discarding religious texts as evidence. Wow what a fool I am for hating assholes like Ben Stein and his shit-eating producer

And a perfect example of how we part ideological ways in your insistence to to spit, shit, and scoff at ideas that go off on tangents from your own.

It's not hating assholes like Ben Stein that makes you a fool, it's taking a position that automatically makes anyone who disagrees part of the problem that makes you a fool. There are ways, believe it or not, that allow one to stand for something without having to wage an uncompromising ideological war. Some of them are even scientists; shocking, I know.

SARCASM OVERLOAD OMG.

I know, but I couldn't help it. It's been an extremely long day, and I wish I had a damn Nintendo DS (Bleach included or not) to pass the time on this completely irrelevant school trip.

At 4/29/08 01:24 AM, Memorize wrote: Nevermind SS is going to be bankrupt.

Stupid ass.

Do you even know what the Bush alternative was?

Seriously, before you take the bar of ignorance out of your mouth, do a good Google/Wikipedia search before your answer.

I gave Bush props for trying to fix it. I said "fuck him" for the particular plan he offered. It took balls to bring it up, either way. But frankly, I'm tired of a president who's all balls and no brains.

I can see where Stein is coming from; though it's an understatement to say he goes off the rails. I haven't seen the movie, but I did listen to an hour long radio interview he did about the movie.

If anything, I think the whole situation is worth it's dollar in humor. Not because I agree or disagree with Stein, but just in seeing how people who bitch about the movie being bias are equally bias in their criticism.

It's like a Bizzaro PoxPower went off and made a movie. It's so nice to see so many people equally uncompromising in their fixated beliefs get together and bitch about their superiority.

The debate that just ensued between reviewer-general and Cellardoor was leaps and bounds more informative and controversial than any discourse that has occurred between this "scandal" with Reverand Wright.

The greatest irony: Cellardoor decrying Obama as elitist, while simultaneously telling other cultures to drop their heritage and act like the rest of America.

The people that actually have had power for the past eight years and used it in inconceivably countless ways were 1) Visually Patriotic, 2) Experienced well beyond belief, and 3) Religious in the politically correct context.

It should go without debate that Reverand Wright in the news and having to deal with it has completely lowered the integrity and IQ of the entire debate and political process.

I made the large mistake of judging Jeremiah Wright's speech by video clips on the news instead of actually watching the entire thing.

Reverand Wright was not saying there is a biological difference in the way Whites learn and the way Blacks learn. He was saying there has been a huge cultural difference in which style of learning our respective cultures is more likely to promote.

Listen to the man's words. It's another drive by meant to distract you from things that actually matter. Wright wants to stand up for a certain culture. Obama wants to stand up for the country.

As McCain begins his stride towards the White House, we continue to argue over a preacher from Chicago as if he'll be calling the shots for the next four years. The power to manipulate emotions never ceases to amaze me.

At 4/28/08 05:41 PM, Mr-Money wrote:es.

Capitalism is now doing more harm than good. It is time to end greed forever and introduce an entirely new financial system, where we work together to achieve common goals for the benefit of all society,

Four legs good! Two Legs Bad!

K seriously, though. You do have a very valid point. Uncontrolled capitalism has ultimately led to us outsourcing thousands of jobs. It's nowhere written that Capitalism is loyal to it's birth-nation, so it's funny in a sad way when people talk about their jobs as if they are owed one. It's all shits and giggles to buy cheap crap at wall mart until your job goes to India.

This is why I strongly believe in degrees of socialism. People ignorantly confuse it with Communism; as a matter of fact that's a requirement to get a job on Fox News. Socialist programs like Social Security are great; they're designed to make sure you have a social netting. It's not designed to be a damn retirement program; America has a hard time understanding that. I do have to give props to Bush (one of very few) for trying to fix SS.

Though George's view of "fixing" SS was ultimately to abolish it. So fuck him. :)

The irony of it all is that conservatives are the ideal environmentalists. But they'll never gain an edge and take the lead in global issues with NeoConservatives calling the shots. I swear to God, NeoConservatism is the AIDS of conservatism.

But I digress. The fact of the matter is that there's no net-loss in integrity in supporting environmental issues. I give props to Al Gore any chance I get. So the guy got like, what, 99% of his information wrong in An Inconvenient Truth? Well I'm glad SOMEONE got the fire burning under Americas ass; the advances is environmental science since that movie came out are amazing. Even if they do fundamentally contradict half of the movie. There is no bad knowledge.

Go Al Gore. You're boring as hell, but thank you.

At 4/27/08 09:24 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Discuss, but don't feel obligated to just this aspect of his speech.

Jeremiah Wright is stuck in the past. He is convinced that if he doesn't constantly remind modern America of it's dark past, the country will be getting off light. Wright also reflects an unacknowledged frustration in black America, who will never forget what has been done to them.

Wright reminds me of Thomas Jefferson, in that Jefferson firmly believed that blacks were designed mentally different than whites. But Wright should know better, considering the level of science available today.

Wright is an interesting character, and people who don't want Obama in office will take every chance they can get to convince you that Obama is as fanatical and unpredictable as Reverand Wright. Obama the Man is nothing like Wright the Preacher. Not once as Obama ever said or implied anything that parallels with Wright's radical thinking.

To the Republicans, Reverand Wright is the gift that just wont stop giving.

At 4/17/08 09:05 PM, Ravariel wrote: Something that just came to me:

Don't we live in a meritocracy?

Is it really surprising that someone like Obama feels the way he does about the small town folk of the country? I'm more insulted by the pandering that most politicians do toward small town folk.

Isn't that ironic? Only a few months ago, people were bitching about how much attention small places like Iowa and New Hampshire get too much attention.

Barack Obama's "slamming" of guns, religion, and small towns is a very convenient statement. It couldn't be any better if it was, ohhh I don't know, made up.

At 4/11/08 08:12 PM, GeoKill wrote: In this case LESS is MORE. The government is not a force multiplier of ecomics. Over Regulation may help the Left sleep at night, but it does NO long term good to those who really need help.

I can definitely understand that concept.

What I want to know is how "conservatives" think that a sovereign nation can police the entire world for terrorists while keeping taxes low and pointing the finger at the Left, saying that government isn't the answer.

Taxes need to be raised in war-time. It's pure idiocy to assume that in the absence of extra Tax money, the Fed won't play favorites in writing legislation for business. What's good for business is NOT always good for America. Reaganomics hardly accounts for a global economy, either.

Here's a nice can of gasoline to sum it all up: Reaganomics is ethnocentric bullshit ^_^ Cute name, though.

I actually found the debate very disappointing. The questions were 90% horrible, and the responses from both Clinton and Obama were weak.

These questions about Jeremiah Wright and whether or not Barack Obama will wear the lapel flag pin echo the complete disconnect from reality people should be viewing either him or Clinton in. Clinton lied about sniper fire in Bosnia; that was a legit question, albeit there are literally countless other questiosn that could be asked of her.

Honestly, how many bloody times does Barack Obama have to say he denounces and rejects what Reverand Wright said? I know this subject is extremely important to conservative intellgencia in CellarDoor's realm, but can't we leave that for talk radio already? Is this same question really worthy of being asked over and over and over again in every sequential debate? The fact that Hillary Clinton echoes the very same things conservatives are saying about Obama adds double-damage.

This was by far Barack Obama's weakest debate. The questions were horrible, but it would be wrong not to hold him accountable as well. If he's to be president, he has to be able to withstand the constant puke that passes for political discourse and inquiry.

I'll sure sleep safer tonight knowing Obama's stance on wearing a pin on his jacket. Seriously, wtf.

At 4/14/08 11:09 PM, TheMason wrote: You're mistake here is thinking this is being capitalizied upon by Republicans. At this point it is Hillary who is making political hay out of this

Secondly, your notion that ppl are youtubing this and finding out about this is not really relevant. Historically the 18-25 crowd is pretty apathetic

Hmmm. Very, very true. I concede to correction on both of those points. Damn you =)

At 4/14/08 11:58 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You're just like most Obama supporters. It doesn't matter what he says or believes or does, you've already made up your mind and will suspend your own sense of judgment to accommodate continued support for him.

Well I kind of already said that in my second post at the end, except not in the dick-ish, condescending sort of way you put it.

If the guy said that small town people should be exterminated, you'd probably still support him.

I'm pretty sure there's no comparison whatsoever to what you just said and what he actually did say about small towns. Like at all.

Not picking on you specifically, but that's what Obama supporters do.

Phew, thanks. I much rather prefer to be lumped into a shameful group of politically ignorant people than judged on my own merit.

:Obama supporters are either ultra-liberal to begin with and despise average Americans and hate America...

Yes, we all hate America. We burn copies of the Constitution in front of effigies of Che Guevara whilst beating conservative children with the Soviet flag. Seriously though, that's not accurate at all, and you really do know better. Obama has earned the vote of some of the most historically racist and divided states for his nomination, with the obvious exception of Arkansas.

You can get by with the ultra-liberal remark, because lets face it, democrats are voting for him. But the rest is a cliche' statement; whether it be about Republicans or Democrats, the "opposition" always hates America. Obama's advantage is being able to reach people across political boundries. Which is why Obama just received pro-life support for his campaign . I know you're not impressed, but I thought that article was pretty cool, myself.

they are just impressionable people who are infatuated with him and the group mentality among other supporters to the point they'd defend the guy no matter what they learn from then forward.

That's the best quote on George Bush I've ever heard.