To be fair to the Mormons, Abbos in Australia where not legal humans until the late 70s.Originally Posted by Hilmar Keller
To be fair to the Mormons, Abbos in Australia where not legal humans until the late 70s.
Couldn't agree more. Hopefully some conservative leaders wake up and learn the lesson from this election.
I am pretty sure Mitt's religion is a big part of who he is and I am fascinated by the hatred and intolerance held by many on these forums against Romney for his religious views.
You sound as intolerant about religion as one may be about homosexuality. How stupid would it be for someone to say "Well nobody's forcing him to
marry another man"? Do you think Romney's religion is just an expedient choice where he could wake up one morning and just decide to not be a Mormon? He's not Barrack Obama.
His life isn't based on political expediency or self promotion. It's who he is.
Note, activists throughout the gay community raised $millions in order to ban Mitt from being President based on who he is, so I think you got your revenge.
Also note, I have many gay friends and many Mormon friends and I am not going to send either to hell for being who they are.
Final note, funny thing is that Obama believes that many different groups in America should have unequal treatment under the law, but where's the gnashing of teeth here over that?
Yes well let's not forget that Willard 'Mitt' Romney enjoyed participating in activities like chasing down gay people and shaving their hair. And then not apologising when asked about it.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
Religion is inherently irrational. The same cannot be said of any sexual preference. When someone's religion, based on myth and legend, dictates their views on policy in the real world, is it wrong to try to bar them from leader of the free world on those grounds?
There's nothing wrong with having a religion, but you cannot let it dictate policy. And in the GOP's policies on abortion and gay marriage, among others, religion is dictating policy. Religion and the state are inherently incompatible in a democracy like ours.
The Colorblind Angel of Kugutsumen - Turning Bad Country into Mad Country one post a time
These are people whose financial acumen we should respect;
A study by the Sunlight Foundation found that just 1.29 percent of the nearly $104 million [Karl Rove's super PAC American Crossroads] spent in the general election ended with the desired result. In addition to spending $85 million to defeat Mr. Obama and $6.5 million to support Mitt Romney, the group spent millions more opposing Democratic Senate candidates Bill Nelson in Florida, Jon Tester in Montana, Joe Donnelly in Indiana, Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, and Tim Kaine in Virginia - all of whom won. The only candidates it supported who won were Republicans Deb Fisher in Nebraska and Dean Heller in Nevada, who the group spent a combined $1.3 million to support.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
So this guy that fired 160 people is a politician first and a businessman second?
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
Do expand.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/09/news...d=HP_HighlightA coal company headed by a prominent Mitt Romney donor has laid off more than 160 workers in response to President Obama's election victory.
[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]
And it's worth noting that, legislatively speaking, nothing has changed, and nothing will change for months.
EDIT: This was the same guy that forced those workers to attend a republican rally on their own time.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
Speaking of "mandates"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...got-a-mandate/
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
Are you saying it's bad to plan for the immediate future? Murray started laying off people much earlier than this and has closed plants months ago IIRC. Coal is going to be a dead industry soon because of impending EPA regs which will make them impossible to profit from.
This company has been saying for months what it would find to be necessary if the regs were restricted past a point.
By the way, this bankrupting the coal industry is a stated objective of the current administration. Obama literally wants these people fired.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF7Qm31LIDM
Why hasn't this thread been locked, yet?
The world is changing, robotics are getting soo good that even China or American prison labour cant compete with that shit.
Something Germany and Japan have known for decades.
The new EPA regulations only apply to new coal mines.
Coal profitability is tanking because Shale sourced Natural Gas is so cheap and has many advantages over coal, not least lesser environmental impact.
Just another example of mathematics having a liberal bias
What you are missing here is that policy is made by politicians and they are human. Being human means we all have a religion that we each follow, be it mormonism or catholicism, or scientism, or sexism or materialism, or liberalism or hate or love or whatever system of thought innately drives us and explains reality for us. It is part of each person and can't be removed prior to taking office. Quite a bit of our Democracy was founded on religion and in a way is its own religion.
Obama's religion is prejudicial and treats many minority groups differently, favoring or unfavoring them as he sees fit. He does it based on his own religion which expresses itself through his political views and policies. Why aren't folks all up in arms over that? Yes, on the specific topic of gay marriage BHO aligns with us and I believe has the rational position, but then again rationalism is a religion too. Just one we like. If you wanted to apply rationalism to abortion, that would be an interesting
discussion, but let's not go there...
I am sure the math the produces a $16 Trillion debt is due to a liberal bias.
Science is not a religion. It describes the universe to the best of our knowledge. If something changes, science changes.
People don't believe in science, they accept it's the best anwer we can give at this moment in time.
I'm sure it's nothing to do with the 2 wars started by conservatives either.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
Old coal plants in need of being replaced are very much affected by the inability to buy replacement equipment or plants.
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...ican-consumerswould significantly increase compliance costs for existing coal plants and effectively bar construction of new ones, which will increase the cost of electricity for consumers and business.
shale/gas is part of it as well of course. So I guess you agree that these firings aren't motivated by rage but by business needs?
There is more to it than just the availability of fracking and shale conversion. Both of those will be facing EPA pressures in the coming months so that part of the equation might even out were it not for Obama's specific desire to bankrupt the coal plants. He wasn't ambiguous about it; he came right out and said he wanted to shut down coal. I'm actually impressed as very few pols like to take the risk associated with being up front about their desire to kill entire industries.
I'd be more impressed if current coal plants flipped a bird and shut down their plants entirely, though. That would be one hell of a good troll when half the east coast goes dark.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact the US didn't start the war with Afghanistan, or you don't think that killing three thousand civilians is a worthy reason for a war. I'll let your point on Iraq stand, though. At least part of that was fixing daddy's legacy.
The US most absolutely did start the war
If 3000 civilians were the issue, the war would have been with Saudi Arabia
I notice you forgot to say anything about Iraq, which was the more expensive of the 2 wars
Regardless of why they were started, those two wars cost a lot of money.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
When people say that, do they really mean that the US should have gone to war with Saudi Arabia based on the nationalities of the hijackers or is it just one of those things you say to make a point?
I'm asking because if it's the former then things might get.....complicated with regards to international relations.
I'm not sure if you're serious. The taliban supported Al Quaida from the start and provided OBL with a base of operations. They might have handed him over to the US but they decided Afghanistan would fight, rather than give up their local terrorist sheik. The US government has an obligation to ensure its citizens are safe and allowing the Taliban to shelter and enable Al Quaida was in conflict with that obligation.
I didn't at all forget to say anything about Iraq. In fact, I specifically said I believed that was at least partly fixing daddy's legacy. Did you conveniently forget to read my entire post?
You don't stop terrorists by invading a country, quite the opposite actually. Now they managed to kill thousands of us soldiers without even needing to go to the us.
I'm sorry can you show me any video of Obama saying that or anything like that, or anythign he put in print, because as far as I can see he wants CLEAN COAL, which is slightly different (and by slightly I mean completely) than Dead Coal.
But fuck the environment right?
Its pretty funny that everybody thinks that saddling our grandchildren with unpayable debt is a sin beyond forgiveness but leaving them with a planet in the throws of death because we're raping the atmosphere is totes ok if it makes a buck.
I think any President, Dem or Rep, would have been forced by political necessity to invade Afghanistan. Furthermore, once that is undertaken, you have to stay long enough that they just don't come slinking back as soon as you leave, thereby making you look ridiculous on the world stage. Placing Afghanistan in the lap of Bush or Reps is unfair.
Iraq, on the other hand, totally fair game as far as unnecessary, debt-ballooning wars go.
The final piece of the great debt puzzle is the financial meltdown, which was a process begun as far back as the early 90s I beleive (easy enough to check), so similarly laying that at the door of Bush Jr only is also unfair and misrepresentative.
All that said, the biggest and baldest lie is placing any of it on Obama, who spent the last four years saving your country from oblivion. Reps have lost all credibility as the party of fiscal responsibility, and Romney ultimately lost because his economic plans were shockingly and dangerously vague (with the women and brown people thing not helping). The Dems want similar government spending with increased taxes, while the Reps want similar government spending with tax cuts. That is why the Dems won, and that is why the Reps will continue to lose until they reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility by formatiing strong economic policies instead of relying on playing to their, shrinking, socially conservative base.
And the Taliban were mostly funded and supported by which nation?
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
Well I guess you're right. Somebody had to get bombed, dambit.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
Well let's not forget all those enormous WMD stockpiles that Saddam had which we were totally 100% assured that there was unimpeachable intel on... that's we're going to find... soon...
one day
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
I have no idea what you're trying to insinuate here.
Will your next action be indicating that the Mujahideen and bin Laden - who were recruited, paid, and equipped by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghanistan war - are in any way related to and the origin of Al-Quaida?
You probably also believe that the Reagan administration made illegal weapon deals with Iran, thus funding the Nicaragua Contras with that money, right? You really should see a doctor with all those wild, crazy, absurd conspiracy theories clouding your mind.
Please, take your unfounded, irrational, unamerican, freedom-hating lies elsewhere.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
If you believe that, you haven't been paying attention to issues such as Anthropomorphic Global Warming, as just one example. Facts are chosen to try and prove an idea. Facts are chosen to fit one's interpretation of reality.
It has happened throughout history. Yes, science evolves or time, just like any other religion, and it has its faith topics just like any religion, especially as it relates to the perceived importance of various scientific issues, answers, politics, hate etc.
Scientists are human and thus have their own perception of reality and their own religion and their own identity.
Yes, the wars were a small portion of that. Wars that were supported by both sides of the aisle as well as the UN, but again this was just a fraction of the total. A bigger adder to the deficit would
likely be the 9/11 attack which tanked the US economy for several years afterward and put the government into the red and the two wars from which it has not yet recovered.
I am not sure I would claim Al Queda as being a conservative org. Tack on the burgeoning entitlement programs and Obamacare and we have some fun math to deal with.
Rescinding all tax cuts in an effort trim the deficit wouldn't even dent it at this point.
You must be fucking trolling.
I thought the dumbest part of that was Saddam himself continually claiming that he had the WMD's stashed away and daring the U.N. to try and find them. If he had once come out and stated that Iraq did not or no longer
had the stockpiles, he would have pulled the rug out from under the NeoCons and the U.N. and the war may have been averted.
Another note is that while the US did not find the WMD stockpiles it expected in Iraq, it did find plenty of terrorists and terrorist training facilities.
Why do you keep saying that? The Muhjahadeen =/= Taliban. Even after the Taliban took over the country most of their senior commanders didn't align themselves with them. I know it makes a pretty good contemporary Aesop about the international ramifications of cause and effect, but it's factually incorrect to say "The US trained and equipped the Taliban." Anyone can look at the documentation and see we ended our support in Afghanistan in the late eighties and the Taliban were first formed in Pakistan in the 1994.
The factually correct version would be that the US' apathy to the newly independent government allowed extremist elements to take hold and eventually provide a safe haven for like-minded individuals.
Yeah you're right, science is a religion and the caliph of science just issued a fatwa against this post in the name of the Greatest and one true god of Science Aristotle and his one true prophet Copernicus (pbuh). The infidels shall be purged in the holy light of [s]YHWH[/s] Euclidean geometry!
Don't use fancy words you don't understand. Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific fact untill proven otherwise. There are currently no other scientific theories as to why the earth is warming up.
That is why peer evaluation is one of the core elements of scientific research.
A lot of things evolve over time. Doesn't mean science is a religion.
Science doesn't have an opinion about anything, humans and media do.
See: peer evaluation.
You clearly don't understand what people mean by science, facts or theories. I would explain it to you but luckily someone else did it already.
Scientific Method
Holy shit, grab the popcorn, here comes a THE JURY IS STILL OUT ON SCIENCE thread!
I just hope he reads that wikipedia article. It's actually interesting and a decent read.
I always forget to put one of these
I approve of your vapid condescension in light of my previously poorly written post. You are confusing science and "scientism". I will try to clarify. "Scientism" is a belief that everything can be explained/justified
through science.
I am not saying science: Euclidian geometry, or classical physics, or evolution, or chemistry (etc) is just something to take on faith. Many of the forces and functions of this universe are well understood and well proven and have
moved from the realm of science to the realm of application and technology. Firstly, I am pointing to the areas of science where the boundaries and ideas and functions are much less clear and where people delve in order to
define the "meaning of life" or to define "man's place in the world" or "man's place in the universe", etc. For example, science has yet to fully understand the mind, or man's impact on the global weather patterns, or the beginning of the universe, or the nature of matter, or non-local quantum connections, or the genesis of life, or psychology/parapsychology. Furthermore, in all of these topics and more, there must be some justification, some judgment given, often in the form of a moral value statement as to the importance and relevance of these scientific efforts and many relate directly to a "who are we?" or "why are we here?" discussion. Interpretations are made and acted upon without solid
proof in many cases, and in many fields we are reaching boundaries of our ability to delve further.
Secondly, the believe that Science has the answer to everything and can be one's religion, one's motivation and system of thought and behavior. Many believe this, and this is where "scientism" lives.
One obvious example of "Scientism" that I have come across: The search for the Boson, aka "The God Particle". Another more popular one are the bumper stickers with "Darwin" on them replacing the Christian Ichthys, a great troll of
creationists (one way to tell you are a religion is that you troll other religions, Fact). I always found the Darwin example ironic due to its obvious factual scientific nature and yet it utter irrelevance to our moral place as modern human beings. Anyway, I meant to clarify that science and scientism are two different things and scientism can be the religion for many, without anything else to fall back upon. Atheism, sometimes called "Humanism" or "We-Hate-Humanity" is a religion as well, as it is a system of thought used to motivate ones behavior and guide ones view of the world. Each system of thought is entirely personal and "God" need not apply.
What's up with the formatting
This new Kmita dude is mind numbingly fucking boring. Just sayin'
I find it highly amusing that the easiest way for religious people to attack science is to equate it with religion :V
The Colorblind Angel of Kugutsumen - Turning Bad Country into Mad Country one post a time
I find the best way to bash gays is to call them so hetero
E: Actually, isn't that where the term "breeder" came from?
Yeah that's literally the only derogatory word for heteros that exists. I've never heard it used unironically though.
The Colorblind Angel of Kugutsumen - Turning Bad Country into Mad Country one post a time
Seems the jury is still out on language. I didn't say the jury was out on science. I said it couldn't explain everything. Do you not agree?
Instead of saying you can't explain everything, how about you try not explaining anything?
+fucking1
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks