The fact that he has voluntarily decided to represent a party which has significant numbers of supporters that deny the Copernican model.Originally Posted by Fartman
Since, y'know, I spend a lot of my weekends giving tours up at the 200" Hale Telescope I'm pretty sure that offering any sort of comfort or aid to such people is the Eighth Unforgivable Sin.
I mean, hell, we're all supposedly playing/played EVE here, Nicholas Copernicus is kinda fundamental to spaceship games.
sure
Romney's really not all that different from Obama they're both centrists now but even if he were radically different, y'think he could actually change anything substantial or meaningful given the hurdles of the other two branches of government? It's not as if Obama has butted heads with them at al oh wait.
Romney is a cultist who wears magic underwear, ffs. That's reason enough to not want him elected.
If you're a right-leaning centrist, Romney's your man. If your a far right-winger, you tolerate him. Vice-versa for leftists and Obama. In fact, most of the staunch liberals in America aren't at all happy with Obama, as evinced by Romney cleaning his clock at his own fundraising game due to the Obama-lot's disapproval/disinterest.
"lol."
It's not about tactics or tricks and you don't have to be GOP to be pissed off about Democrats using race as a wedge issue. A mild dose of their own medicine? What are you smoking?
BTW what proof do you have that Romney is a racist?
What did I miss there?
Just hyper-partisan lefties losing their mind.
If I had to pick one reason to vote for Obama it would be so that I wouldnt have to endure the rioting, ranting, and general foaming of the mouth that will ensue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garmentWhat did I miss there?
Magic underwear.
Kinda like exactly what happens on the right, or FOX News on a daily basis, right?
Let's not kid ourselves here. Everyone who takes Politics SUPER-ARMAGEDDON2012-SERIOUSLY is a massive douchebag. Thinking that one side is holier than thou and the other :literally Hiter: is childish at best and severely damaging (See Congress) at worst.
Spaceship friends don't let other spaceship friends madpost.
To clarify, that might more properly have been gay-bashing "racist crook".
Are you really going to try and tell me that the birth certificate thing wasn't all about OH GOD A NIGGER IN THE WHITE HOUSE? Because if you are, then you're an idiot or you're trying to play us for idiots.
PS For 1 MalcPoint answer this quiz: which US presidential candidate who attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser a few years ago recently called for its abolition?
I don't understand how anyone could vote to put a man in charge of this country who thinks his magic underwear will protect him from evil.
I know we've pretty much beaten the superstition/religion thing to death in other threads, but come the fuck on.... Seriously? Leader of the United States wearing blessed long johns under his suit? I will never be able to look at that man again without picturing his underpants. Not in a Gay Way, more in a What The Fuck Is This Country Thinking way...
Wait they're actually magic long johns? O_o
... How does that man pull off suits so easily.
Spaceship friends don't let other spaceship friends madpost.
To be fair the Catholic church symbolizes cannibalism with communion(eating of Jesus's flesh and blood). All religions have their fucked up traditions and ceremonies. If politics where based off of symbolism I would pick the dude who believes in magical underwear over cannibalism.
[B]Join the hunt for Ransomlist! Help us find the Number One Kugu poster!
[URL="http://Join the hunt for Ransomlist! Help us find the Number One Kugu poster! http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?11270-RansomList-has-gone-AWOL"]http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?11270-RansomList-has-gone-AWOL[/URL][/B]
I just wouldn't pick either. It's funny that you chose catholics, because I was going to make a joke about "Can't we just go back to the days when everyone said a Catholic (Kennedy) will never be President?" But then your point occurred to me and I left it out.
I just can't wait until we, as a species, get past this need for superstition and irrationality. Obviously not even my great-grandchildren will see it happen, but I gotta have hope.
Until then, we're all pretty much boned.
I know, I know I keep linking CCN articles but this one basically just spells out the possible issues of Romney's tax returns.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/opinio...html?hpt=hp_c1
There's really no way he can weasel out of this, I mean for god's sake the very idea of publishing these was created by his Father.
Spaceship friends don't let other spaceship friends madpost.
How tolerant of you. Does atheism have a jihadi wing? They could maybe help you out.
Are you saying it's not legal for gays to marry in the UK?
Rake,
Sorry for the tardy response. You are correct; I had conflated Romney's gay staff member with Santorum. Interestingly, Santorum put up a big fight over the gay advisor to remain on his team and reportedly tried to talk him out of leaving. That's how ultra right wingers roll.
My reading skills must have atrophied because I thought Grath was going mental over Romney, not Obama.
Only him? Seriously, you guys should pretty much all look in the mirror. There are enough teeth being gnashed and cloth being torn to fill a bible story ITT.
Someone who is a racist: finds out their particular brand of cult thinks that people with brown skin are less than human; sticks around because hey God said so right?
Someone who is not a racist: finds out their particular brand of cult thinks that people with brown skin are less than human; disagrees, leaves, and stops paying lip service to the cult.
This is kind of how it works. For example, the KKK also has a racist doctrine, and you can't belong and also not be a racist. It's in the doctrine. Furthermore, since it was originally in the Mormon doctrine, and then was changed due to outside pressure, really can't be the word of any supreme being, can it? Otherwise that is moral relativism i.e. the opposite of what people say religion is.
That is why the GOP is such an utter mess right now - they're mired in moral relativism, speak against it, and condemn the least of them all of being Satan.
The best thing out of this weekend was the bullshit spewed by John Sununu. Perfect example. Neither of his parents were native American citizens either. And he is saying this to a guy who became President of the United States. If you were Matt Drudge tripping on acid made with sweat from Jonah Goldberg's balls, you couldn't write shit this upside-down.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/17/john...d_know_better/
It's legal, but it's not equal to marriage - a "civil partnership"
How does it differ from a real marriage (except the name of course)? Are there benefit differences or legal issues married couples take for granted?
It's easier than that. Point out a hot black skinned woman (or man I guess) and mention how much you'd like to sleep with her. The reaction you get will usually be pretty telling.
The problem with the left is they confuse a number of different attitudes with racism, watering down the meaning of actual racism. The word is becoming meaningless.
I lean right but I'll fuc... err date any woman I find attractive enough.
I honestly couldn't tell you for certain without looking it up - as far as I recall, legally, the civil partnership carries most of the benefits of marriage (tax breaks, next-of-kinship for inheritance matters), but not all. Mostly it is just a semantic difference, but there are a few points they differ on - one of them being you can't have a Civil Partnership ceremony in a church as with a "normal" wedding, but that's really to appease religious groups.
So in other words, gays aren't equal in the UK. Thanks, I wasn't sure about that.
Not quite, but we're getting there!
Hopefully I don't get infracted for this, it seemed appropriate:
Attachment 3132
If it's captioned, has justification, and is ideally spoilered, you won't get infracted for posting an image macro. It's when people use them as emotes, and have nothing else in their post, that we run into problems and the red cards start flying
This is extremely tangential, but tolerance is not self-justifying. Would you tolerate slavery or child rape? You seem to be conflating tolerance with respect. We all necessarily tolerate loads of shit we wish didn't exist the terrible behavior of an employer, the lying and pandering of politicians, crappy familial circumstances, etc. The fact that it's prudent or necessary to tolerate something doesn't also mean one should wish it continued existence or popularity.
I'm not cynical enough to think that humans need religious woo to lead fulfilling, rewarding, worthwhile lives. I wish we could live in a society which appreciated the universe without the trappings of myth and legend being treated as factual or otherwise especially consequential. If you think that makes me "militant" then you don't know what "militant" means.
The dominant ideological mindset of the western world is the offshoot of an Iron Age cult which claimed that reality has a revealed, transcendent, all-encompassing teleological framework. And yet here you are, suggesting that we shouldn't wish for a society which places skepticism, evidence-based inquiry, and distrust of authority above that patently-ridiculous ancient fluff all in the name of "tolerance". Fuck me. Do you stand for anything?
If you were to speak about blacks or gays with the same amount of vitriol, you'd be called out on it. All I did (and am doing) is pointing out that for all of y'alls high-minded protestations, you're no different than the respective religious loud and proud types.
I prefer not to push my deeply held beliefs on others nor look down my nose at those who don't see life the same way. your loud bemoaning of people who see life through different color glasses goes to show people are pretty much the same ignorant assholes everywhere.
Isn't there a 'God is dead, discuss' thread that way? I thought this was the thread for dunking on former Massachusetts governors raised in polygamist Mormon colonies in Mexico.
I think its probably best if we just stray away from the whole Religious debate. It never ends well and no one really comes out of it feeling any more enlightened...
Edit: Seems Hilmar and I are on the same page.
Spaceship friends don't let other spaceship friends madpost.
I was trying to make a more general point than a religious one. That said, yeah it is a bit of a derail.
The two are hopelessly intertwined for me, but I'll drop it.
I'm still rather lamenting that Jon Huntsman didn't make the national cut. He really was such a normal honest guy.
can someone explain why obama seems to get a pass on the whole religious-people-are-nuts thing? i mean he did apparently
attend a batshit church in chicago for like 20 years or something, didn't he? just asking questions here.
also checking in to report i'm still super mad
Because he doesn't push a religious based political agenda upon the country as a whole...
But your right he did go to a batshit crazy church. Its too bad Americans refuse to vote for anyone who is Agnostic or Atheist because they must be evil or have no true love in their hearts vOv
(not generalizing people on Kugu, just our populace as a whole)
Spaceship friends don't let other spaceship friends madpost.
Is there a thread where it can be chatted over? I'll spoiler this.
[SPOILER=Religious-talk with Manfred]That's absurd. Ethnicity and sexuality are intrinsic to us whereas we create thoughts and traditions. Do you consider yourself a relativist?
You freely compare Raketefrau to a jihadist yet you think calling Christianity a cult-gone-viral is vitriolic? Does that seem a little strange to you? Maybe a touch of double-standard in there? At the very least I think we'd disagree over the meaning of the word "vitriol". I've been pretty damned tame in here!
Suggesting that we prioritize skepticism, critical inquiry, etc, above veneration of myth is "no different than" screaming 'God hates queers' or trying to get creationism taught in schools? REALLY?! If you sincerely believe that, we're at an impasse.
I prefer people think critically about their beliefs because they're easily led around if they don't. If you're European you may not understand where I'm coming from, but religious people are nutty in the USA, especially in the Bible Belt where I reside. Just to be clear, I'm big on our First Amendment. I don't want the government to have any position on religion. Religion can (and will, eventually) die out via the same social mechanisms that spawned it the government needn't (and shouldn't) be involved. That's already happening in Europe and even stateside (on the coasts).
The "different color glasses" bit is beyond bullshit. Beliefs matter because they effect how people behave. You know beliefs matter I really don't think you'd support slavery or trial-by-combat, and that's because you have some set of moral beliefs which you think society should reflect. For whatever reason, you think religion shouldn't be criticized publicly, and I'm telling you that's a stupid fucking idea. If people can't handle critique then they need to grow the fuck up, man. Adults shouldn't have any of their ideas treated with kid gloves because they end up taking all manner of shit for granted. I encourage people to criticize my beliefs because it makes me think about and refine them, and then I can approach future exchanges and problems with a richer context and hopefully I'll be a more effective communicator.
I'm familiar with the Bible, having been raised in a Christian household, and I've read several versions of it (I'm pretty interested in comparative religion). It's a pretty schizophrenic hodgepodge owing to the fractious history of the churches, but the bible does contain some genuinely moving passages and a good hunk of worthwhile moral sentiment. It's also brimming with inconsistency, self-contradiction and all manner of abhorrent morality. It's mega-unfair to call me an ignorant asshole simply because I don't want people to believe that our books are sacred and/or the works of deities.
[/SPOILER]
/edit @Fartman: Obama's lip service isn't as serious as Romney's (although Romney's just pandering to his more-religious constituency). Ultimately the religion is pretty irrelevant to me because politicians generally don't take their religion very seriously and because there are other things that matter more.
The main reason I'd stick with Obama is that he seems to be the best & most realistic statesman of the two, and that's the most consequential role the President plays (it'll only become more important as the US loses hegemony and has to deal with international affairs in a less heavy-handed manner). I also find Romney's "well-off people needn't pay unfair taxes" stuff extremely bullshitty and counterproductive, but that's less important than the candidate's demeanor, speaking ability, apparent capacity for reflection and consideration, etc, all of which Obama has the edge in. He's also less of a confrontational nut vis-a-vis Russia and China, which is good. We don't need a bigger pissing match over the Gulf region than we already have.
Romney is a moderate who had to wear a costume to survive the primary. This is no different than Obama pretending to be a moderate to secure his.
As for foreign policy, Obama hasn't (IMO) done all that well. He's inconsistent and appears weak (whether he is or not). This is a part of the reason Russia and China have become much more aggressive these past few years.
What's bullshitty about not wanting to pay unfair taxes? Nobody should have to pay anything unfair.
During the GOP nominee debates of 2008, Mike Huckabee (who collected the second most delegates in the primary) was asked something to the effect of 'What would Jesus do?' or more elaborately 'How would Jesus choose to lead this country?' This question was also fielded to Giuliani, Romney and (I believe) McCain, who each gave some bullshit response to the effect that Jesus was a constitution-loving truck-driving gun-owning tax-hating conservative.
Huckabee said, 'Jesus would never run for public office' and explained that as President it wouldn't be his job to be like Jesus at all. This is coming from a Baptist minister. And he was 100% right; sometimes the President has to make dirty choices in the interest of the Nation, and if Jesus is going to cloud those judgments, you're going to make a terrible President.
I still think Huckabee is a nut-job, but for about ten minutes in 2008 I loved his Bible-thumping guts out.
Let's wait and see what he has to do during the real campaign. It's all just a game of electorate numbers, like a game of Risk to get the most armies. He'll end up pandering to whoever his strategists think will give him the most votes in any given region, and he'll have to pander to those people just like everyone else does. Primaries are nothing compared to a general election.
The difference, though, is that Obama doesn't have to pretend to be a moderate this time around: He's got one term left and it's pretty clear he's going to slam-dunk the female and LGBT vote. He can't win anything significant in the South, where most people still believe he's an African-born Muslim socialist, so instead of running a moderate platform to woo an insignificant number of those voters, he's going to go balls-deep Liberal to try coaxing young voters out from their basements. It worked in 2008 for the black vote, and it'll work this year to Romney's detriment.
In the eyes of the law, yes, in the eyes of various churches, no.
That contradicts Don's statement that gays have most but not all of the same legal rights. If they don't have exactly the same then they are by definition not equal. If the difference between them is simply the term "marriage" then I'd call it equal.
The thing that rubs me wrong is that many of the people who pontificate against Americans for not making same sex marriage live in countries where it is also not entirely legal. I also have a problem with the fact that both gays AND straights wish to stop consenting adults from having multiple partnership marriages. The fact is, when the government regulates something personal, it MUST be discriminatory. I personally don't much like even the idea of a civil marriage/partnership/union because someone will be discriminated against.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya all say hi. Oh and Osama too :P
Edit: Electorate wise this year I have Obama at 272 and Romney at 266. If Iowa flips over to Romney on my map he'd win the election.
Spaceship friends don't let other spaceship friends madpost.
You're seriously saying Afghanistan has been good for him?
Besides, what I meant was the powers that really matter (not Libya and friends) have been testing him for months and seem to have decided he lacks resolve. Vietnam is almost at the point where they're begging the US to put in a naval port for protection, China is running all sorts of naval muscle flexing and thumbing their noses. Russia sends warships to the gulf to show naval prowess in hilarious opposition to the USN. These are the acts neither of friends nor cowed nations. They smell weakness.
Also, fuck electoral counts. What does vegas have to say?
Russia and China have become more aggressive? What does that mean? China has over a billion people - they're going to be aggressive simply by existing with that many people. Russia has huge untapped stretches of natural resources; and if you remember - we utterly destabilized and decimated their economy through the cold war. They've suffered through a lot of civil unrest, and now they have money. Surprise! Pissed off people with resources get aggressive.
Obama has done a fairly good job at foreign matters. Under his term, not only did we see Iraq come to a close, but the Osama bin Laden is dead. What is most important about both situations, especially the latter, is that it was a plan set in motion by a previous president, overseen by members of both cabinets, as a bipartisan effort to get the guy who actually attacked us.
Tell me, what would Obama have to do to be successful in foreign policy? Build a military base in every foreign country known to us? Destroy every country in the middle east with nukes, then move in with an army of senior citizens on medicare funded handi-scooters to suck up the oil?
I'm don't have high expectations of any public official but getting Osama bin Laden was kind of game set match for the foreign policy debate. If it were any other president old white racists in small towns would be jizzing confetti and sleeping with full length not-Obama body pillows.
Regarding Afghanistan: that issue wouldn't be a picnic for any president. I have had more friends serve tours over there than any other engagement I can remember. usually they have opinions about what they're doing. Strange, Afghanistan nobody seems to have an opinion, just frustration over keeping a foothold there.
As long as Romney's getting shit on for being a mormon, I don't see why Obama should get a free ride. You raise a good point here - let whatever religion they practice be their own business, and evaluate them on their merits as a leader
Vis-a-vis the batshit craziness of his church, wasn't it his old pastor who called him a "long legged mac daddy" and ranted for a while on video about how he wasn't going to make a good president, back in the 2008 election? I distinctly remember that quote because Have I Got News For You had a field day with that clip
Who decides what is unfair? You can be sure a lot of people think paying higher than 0% is unfair. The top federal income tax rate until the 80s was 70%, yet the millionaires paying it didn't exhibit anywhere near the same amount of anti-tax vitriol that the people currently paying around 20% are.
Sorry you're off by 7%, its 13% where the rich folk are spacemad about POCO tax rates.
But seriously when you pay less in taxes than your fucking maid something is wrong.
Spaceship friends don't let other spaceship friends madpost.
The 6 members of the Walton family have more money than 30% of the population of this country.
Taxing the rich isn't gonna change that.
I don't understand why we haven't done what Germany did -- keep people at work, and subsidize their wages with government money.
It's pretty simple -- our economy is 2/3 consumerism. Gotta get money to consumers. The plan we *attempted* was to lower credit rates, but everyone was already WAY over their heads credit-wise anyway, so that was pointless. So how do we get money into the hands of more consumers?
Germany has come out of this global recession in FAR better shape than anyone else, AFAICT, except maybe China. Their plan seems to have worked, but it would never be used in this country because it smacks of Socialism. But realistically? It would've been awesome.
Who decides what is wealthy? You can be sure a lot of people making less than 100K think making more than 100K is unfair.
Seriously, I might be on board with a small increase for people who are actually wealthy but 250K really isn't rich and this would fuck a good number of small business owners who would have to dump the very workers who are not "wealthy" in order for the business to survive. I'm not one of the people who want zero percent rates. I'm comfortable with what I pay now as being fair both to me and to the nation.
Is it really such a bad thing to not allow the government creep to take more and more scratch, rather than giving them incentive to learn how to balance a goddamned checkbook like, you know... the non wealthy?
Part of the trouble is the businesses who could have adjusted their balance sheets by lowering pay rates rather than dumping employees is that dumping employees turned this into a vicious cycle of fire...contract...fire. The government is additionally to blame because the banks continued to fuck about BECAUSE they knew Uncle Sam wouldn't let them fail. I'd love to get back to the bank regulations we had fifteen years ago because unregulated banks go from being conservators of money to expansionist risk-takers who use someone elses money to make windfalls.
I watched my former employer (Bank of America) go from being a damned good corp (who actually did reduce salaries to avoid layoffs in the last recession) to a shit house after Nationsbank merger. The basically went out ans started playing the roulette wheel and when it failed, fired entire divisions.
I don't get where "Russian and China are acting aggressive" is coming from. The only "aggresive" things they've done are saying "No" and I think somwhere in the last year or so China bought an aircraft carrier the size of Starbucks parking lot from the 1960s.
I'm not someone who says "AMERICA IS THE WORST!" but in all seriousness we're the ones fighting wars, crushing our enemies, hearing lamentations of their women as we toss their dead bodies into the ocean and fist pumping about it. You could say something about Iran but then it turns out that the whole time they were talking shit and we were just nodding our heads *someone* was Sandra Bullock'ing their nuclear program and when they figured it out someone started Matt Damon'ing the scientists.
At this point our foreign policy is about two steps short of sending bald and black ambassadors around the world with the skulls of bin Laden and Saddam to demand a tribute of earth and water. I actually struggle to imagine how we could be any more aggressive without it becoming the prologue to Judge Dredd.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks