|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 05:59:15 [Permalink]
|
Bottom line for me is that Rmoney and Huck have been the most openly religious campaigners to date. Why does the prospect of either becoming president scare me. They talk (pray) to a God that I do not believe exists. We don't have to go too far back to find a recent example of a president who talk to God when it came to matters of strength.
"Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. . . . I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for personal strength and for forgiveness."
|
How does his God convey his will to George? Does he hear some disembodied voice in his head? What does God's voice sound like? As someone who doesn't share his belief in God I would like to know these things. It strikes me as crazy scarey.
Bush said he did not remember asking the question of his father, former president George H.W. Bush, who fought Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But, he added that the two had discussed developments in Iraq.
"You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to," Bush said.
|
Maybe he was talking about Dick Chenney. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 11:34:56 [Permalink]
|
Message Quarantined by Health Authorities
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 01/08/2008 22:56:28 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 01/08/2008 : 13:47:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Complete crap Dave, and you know it. |
Nope, I no longer know it. I used to, but I've now decided to question that conclusion. I'd like to re-examine the evidence in its favor. Is there any? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 16:45:15 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
John McCain, at the New Hampshire Primaries, just stated: "There is no superstition that I don't believe in. Most of all I believe in LUCK. I am going to be lucky here!"
|
Sounds like him making a joke to me.
Dave_W said:
| Nope, I no longer know it. I used to, but I've now decided to question that conclusion. I'd like to re-examine the evidence in its favor. Is there any? |
If you want to go this route....
Please provide evidence that: You no longer know it. You did decide to question that conclusion. That you would like to re-examine the evidence.
Get back to me with the evidence that supports those claims.
Or, if you don't want to engage in this type of stupidity (I certainly don't), you can stop now.
So lets look at the most recent president.
G.W.Bush is from TX, he ran for Gov there, as he did for president, on a ultra-conservative platform. His family has deep ties to the oil industry, KBR/Haliburton, and Saudi Arabia.
During his time as president he let Cheney and some energy industry execs write our national energy policy (the details of that meeting are still not public knowledge). Federal subsidies for energy companies have increased under this president despite oil setting record profits (Exxon/Mobil, if it were a nation, would have the 35th highest GNP on earth). He has pushed for opening coastal and protected artic lands to oil drilling. He has refused to participate in the Kyoto treaty.
He has appointed at least one batshit insane justice to the SCOTUS (Alito), and put the SCOTUS under the rule of a very conservative (possibly not crazy though) person.
He has awarded billions of dollars in "no-bid" contracts to Haliburton, KBR, and other companies.
He has not said a single word critical of Saudi Arabia, despite 19 of the 9/11 hijackers being from there, despite Osama Bin Laden being a Saudi, despite the money being channeled from Saudi to terrorists everywhere, despite their blatant disregard for basic human rights....
He pushed for a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage.
He has publicly stated that "the jury is still out on evolution."
(and thats the stuff I can come up with in 60 seconds of thinking about it)
So, Dave_W, please tell me how any of this is inconsistent with G.W. Bush's history, his statements from the campaign trail and before, or his stated intentions at any time.
Now, if Bush had appointed a liberal feminist atheist to SCOTUS, signed Kyoto, and publicly admitted his gay relationship with Rove.... you might have a point.
As it is, his record is remarkably consistent with his statements and his history.
 |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 16:48:31 [Permalink]
|
Also, you can look at his original cabinet.
How many of them came from PNAC?
And PNAC certainly wasn't hiding their advocacy of the US using military power to get it's own way in the world.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 20:20:18 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
You said:| I think we see enough empty claims made on the campaign trail that we need to re-evaluate how accurately one can predict a candidate's performance in office using nothing more than what they've said and done up until they take the oath. |
Let me see if I got this right. New personalities appear on the political scene. The rank and file public, the body politic, has never heard of them. They outline, in speech and debate, and then fill in the outline of their positions on many issues. Dozens of talking heads on TV give their highly biased opinions. We are barraged by political advertising, most of it attack and saying little or nothing about the candidate. Some information shows up in the news about good or bad things they have said or done in the past. The voter needs to decide if she wants to vote for this candidate. This is what he has to go on:
1. What the candidate says and conveys in speech and debate.
2. The published record of the candidate's political action.
3. Strongly biased political ads.
4. Opinion from TV, Internet, newspapers, radio.
5. News stories, possibly planted, good or bad.
Dave says don't pay any attention to what the candidate says(#1), or has done(#2).
So the voter makes up his mind based solely on political advertising, opinion from the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc.,or their left wing counterparts, and miscellaneous reports of the candidates past personal life, maybe true, maybe not.
Really sounds like critical thinking applied to political decision making!
You gotta give us something more than this, Dave!
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 20:26:00 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck, I see two disagreements here. One is over whether or not Mormonism is a cult. The second is over whether or not a candidates personal religious beliefs should factor in to a voter's decision.
On the first matter:
| 1. Formal religious veneration - Christ, Joseph Smith, the Restoration and the Latter day Saints. |
This quality on its own could be said of most religions.
| 2. A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents;the Bible, Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenents, the Pearl of Great Price |
Again, a trait of religions in general, not just cults.
| 3. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents; considered such by Catholics, most protestants, and many orthodox Jews |
This is purely prejudicial. It is also bullshit. Most Catholics, other Christians and Jews do not regard Mormonism as a cult. Mostly hardline conservative evangelicals and other conservative religious groups do. Of course many of those same groups regard Catholicism as a cult. In mainstream culture, Mormonism is regarded as a religion, not a cult. It might be thought of as an unusual sect of Christianity, or even not even Christian, but there are other odd forms of Christianity that are not regarded as cults, such as Quakers.
| 4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator; go here |
After reading that asinine article, I'm more and more convinced that you really are just discriminating against Mormons. Take this passage: | In short, my young friend did not take seriously the judgment of the scientific community or of wealthy investors (like General Motors or NASA) who rely upon the judgment of scientists to make billion dollar investment decisions. I suggested to him the places he should look to assess the merits of this invention on a scientific basis, how perpetual motion machines have been an inventors' Holy Grail forever and how credible scientists long ago abandoned the idea and have focused instead on converting energy from one form (atomic, fossil fuel, sun, wind, etc.) into another that is more convenient for us to use. But he did not seem interested in this. He had heard about something that “felt good” to him, and that feeling was more important (at this point at least) than anything he might find in a science book. Where would a well educated young Mormon get an idea like that? |
Talk about religious discrimination! And the list of Mormon attitudes was even worse! I have known atheists who have not worried about overpopulation because they think science and technology will deal with the issue before it becomes devastating.
Hello! We live in a culture that is anti-intellectual and suspicious of science. You don't have to be Mormon to base your decisions on what "feels good". We have plenty of mainline Christians, and agnostics, and non-religious people who do that too! This is such a bullshit argument: that people who exhibit irrationality in one area will necessarily exhibit that same kind of irrationality in other areas. It is clear by now, in this modern era, that religion is one of those things that people can quite easily compartmentalize. This is exactly how someone who was deeply religious like Martin Luther King was still able to be a great civil rights leader, taking action in the spirit of truly humanistic ethics. And even though Christianity as a whole used to be just as self-righteous, sexist, oppressive, and all-around primitive as tribal Islam, it changed because of cultural forces. One cannot predict how a religious culture and set of beliefs and practices will change based on their current beliefs, because those changes are dictated by other, outside factors. This is WHY it is wrong to discriminate against people for their personal religious beliefs. If we start judging people by their religious beliefs instead of their actions, we are heading toward a very dark, stupid, and violent place.
| 5. Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book). Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, The current President of the Mormons, the angel Moroni, the Book of Mormon |
Again, could be said about other religious characteristics, such as Jesus and the Bible or Buddha and his writings.
| 6. A particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies;Celestial marriage, Baptism for the Dead, polygamy (still widely practiced) |
Again, a generic trait of religions.
| 7. An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers;Joseph Smith, The Latter Day Saints, The Great Exodus west to the the Salt Lake Valley led by Brigham Young in July 1849 |
Again, applies to other religions.
| 8. The object of such devotion; Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and the Latter Day Saints |
I feel like a broken record here.
| 9. A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc;Mormons, both en mass, and in small, extreme sects as you mention, and which are numerous |
Yeah, like my Humanist group in how we venerate our shared philosophy and worldview.
| 10. Group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols; The Book of Mormon, The Bible, This is the Place (Salt Lake City), The Doctrine and Covenents |
I'm still waiting for a characteristic unique to cults, rather than just general characteristics of religions.
| 11. A religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader;Very evident in many small groups and cities in western Colorado and Eastern Utah |
As I said before, some Mormon groups are cults. (in the same way that some other Christian groups are or have been cults). Doesn't make all of Mormonism a cult. Most Mormons do not live outside of conventional society and are not under the direction of a charismatic leader.
| 12. The members of such a religion or sect;Seeabove |
I'm really starting to wonder why you didn't just cut and paste the relevant portions…
| 13 a quasi-religious group, often living in a colony, with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views, practices or beliefs See Above |
See what above? You mean the asinine article by the guy with a chip on his shoulder against Mormons in particular?
| 16 a system of religious adulation and worship directed towards a particular figure or object.Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ |
Yet another trait of religions in general…
| 17. a group of people with different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong. See Richard Abanes writing on Mormonism as a cult of Fundamentalist Christianity |
The same was thought of Quakers. How long does it have to last and how many members does it have to have to qualify as established in its own right? There are more Mormons than Quakers, and as I said before, they are NOT regarded as a cult by mainstream society. If they were, Mitt Romney wouldn't have been able to achieve any kind of political career, much less be a serious contender for the Presidency.
| 18. a group with extreme or dangerous philosophical or political ideas. Again, the Mormons in enclaves along the Colorado-Utah border are strongly all of these! |
And again, pointing to certain communities of Mormons who are cultish does not prove that Mormonism is a cult any more than pointing to Protestant communities which are cultish prove that Protestantism is a cult.
On the second matter:
I think Romney is a terrible candidate for many reasons, including his now stance on abortion, his economic policies, his pandering to the religious right, and what seems to be his easy use of obvious political deception in order to achieve votes. These are all things he is doing as a candidate and they are all political actions. But when you started this, you made it clear that you were criticizing his personal religious affiliation. That by itself is religious discrimination in the worst way. I wasn't saying that Romney is a candidate to consider. I was saying that to not consider him based on his personal adherence to the Mormon religion is, according to my ethical values, wrong.
Do you understand what I am saying? I mean, it is cool if we just disagree, but I'm not convinced that is the problem. It seems to me more likely that this debate is really just a misunderstanding of positions. Maybe it can be cleared up like this: would you discount any candidate who happened to be Mormon and was active in their religious community, even if their political campaigning and track record showed that they kept their religious life and beliefs private?
On religion as delusion:
| The "factors" you mention have nothing to do with the definition of 'delusional' Webster:b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary Marf, delusion is irrational, illogical, inconsistent with reality, distorted,crazy, psychotic! By definition. Deep and devotional religious belief is all of these. As you probably know, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens all make very strong cases for this! If you don't know, please read some of last year's best sellers! |
I have read all three, and there are things I agree with and very aggressively disagree with from all three.
If you are arguing delusional in medical terms; Even deep religious beliefs in-of-themselves are not psychotic. Also, most people with very deep religious belief are not exposed to or confronted with much evidence to the contrary (note that the more educated people are, the less religious they tend to be), so again the argument that deeply religious people are by definition delusional falls flat on its face.
People are voting to Romney, not because of his Mormonism or even his appeal to the religious right. Moderates and conservatives are voting for him in spite of these things, and he is also gaining some religious right votes because of his obviously political bullshitting to warm up to them. If he were to win the Presidency, I would be horribly disappointed and worried for the fate of the nation (as I have been through Bush's entire presidency), but I wouldn't be surprised. Huckabee is grassroots evangelical. People are voting for him primarily because of this. So if he wins, that says something about the people in America as a whole that I would be quite surprised and concerned to learn. To me, it would be a sign that the culture war is turning tide against social liberalism, and for liberal like me, this could mean bad things in the future for me and my loved ones. I am young and haven't started having kids yet, but I plan to. If America is going all Jesus freak, I'm out of here.
| Huckabee and his ilk are going to put you in "camps"? |
Edited to add: Oops, I forgot to respond to this one. Yeah, maybe this is such an extreme future possibility that I shouldn't worry about it, but then again, there have been innocent Muslim-Americans who have been imprisoned without charges against them for months and even years and then released without compensation. There is plenty of casual prejudice against atheists, polls show we are more distrusted and hated than even gays, and civil rights do seem to be eroding. So in the long run I do worry a little about waiting to leave until it is too late. But I suppose I could just be paranoid. Hard to tell.
| You have no problem with his fundamentalism? |
Problem, no. I have an intellectual disagreement (which is the nice way of saying that I think the fundamentalist worldview is primitive and outright idiotic) But I don't have a problem with fundamentalists who keep their religion private, such as the Amish.
I do have a problem with people who push their beliefs on the whole of society, and that would include anyone, even people whose worldview I agree with. If someone wanted to teach kids in public school that all religions are wrong and the universe is just this material thing with no higher purpose other than the one we give it, I'd oppose them, even though this is my worldview.
| What leads you to believe he is a Fascist, aside from his religion? |
His advocating of public policies which would force his religion on those who don't agree with it. Just like I fear Giuliani because he advocates policies which would use the terrorism scare to restrict civil rights and freedoms that I don't want to give up. Well, I should say that he does this more than the other mainline Republican candidates, because they all do that!
| And if it is his religion, how is it so terribly different from Romney's idiotic Joseph Smiths, and Moronic Angels? |
It isn't Huckabee's religion in-of-itself. It is the policies he would advocate as a public servant. Those policies are inspired by his beliefs, but that's not the point. Guiliani's policies, which I also oppose, are not inspired by any personal beliefs which are clearly irrational.
| It's an old story exemplified in the Catholic Church for centuries, they just have a few Latter Day twists on it! In addition to stupidity, most organized religions are fountainheads of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and hidden (strangely) homosexuality! |
Nice rant, but I thought we were talking about judging individuals who happen to be religious, not the whole religious institutions and their histories.
| Gays are fine, I don't like them hiding as Catholic priests! |
WTF is that supposed to mean? For your information, the Catholic church has recently banned gay men from becoming priests, and this has been a very hurtful and bigoted decision on their part, done purely because of the bullshit assumption on the part of many that gays are likely to be pedophiles. Also, how do they hide in the priesthood? I don't like that many gay Catholics have been shamed into being celibate, and from that, some of the most devout among those have decided to become priests since they would be celibate anyway. But you seem to imply that there is something deceptive about gay Catholic men becoming priests.
Well I'll be damned if I would vote for Isabella today, or would I in the mid to late eighteen hundreds. Pacifism does not make any political sense then or now. It ain't practical, nor is isolationism. She was an unusual spokesperson for abolition and womens rights in her day - completely impractical in the 1800's. A Baumfree presidency (totally impossible at that time, of course) would have been completely impotent because her notions were way in advance of her time. I have seen nothing that indicated she was a Critical Thinker, she was a good preacher. She certainly had some intelligence, and perhaps wisdom (be careful with that word, we all are going to examine it soon) but I see absolutely nothing in her career to qualify her for the Presidency at any time in history.
William Sloan Coffin is justifiably famous for his civil rights work, pacifism, and zeal for world disarmament. He was an utterly impractical idealist and there are many like him in the religious community today. Liberal, yes, but also out of touch with reality, especially the realities of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Part of their ignorance, unsophistication, and lack of a realistic approach to world affairs is the completely false idealism built into most religions.
Martin Luther King Jr. is certainly to be admired for his astonishing civil rights work. I have read at some length of King, being curious as to what really constituted his charisma. He had a magnetic presence, particularly to members of his race, but so does Creflo Dollar. Charisma is not enough to qualify for aspirance to high political office. I have read nothing showing that King had exceptionally high intelligence nor Critical Thinking Skills nor diplomatic genius nor major problem solving abilities. He was a hell of a preacher and orator, and, but for racial prejudice, might have had an opportunity to run for the presidency. I doubt very much, even if he could have been nominated (never, at that point in History) and elected (also impossible at that time), that he would have been a great president, any more than Jack Kennedy was a great president, (definitely not), nor would Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. All of these men were and are far too narrow and focused on a small part of the enormous complex of problems that a president must face. And solve a few of them, to be successful. I do not feel that any of the three people you mentioned would be qualified to be President today or in their time. Their good and decent liberalism grew, in part, out of their religion - but goodness, and decency, and liberalism, while necessary, are not nearly sufficient qualities by themselves to make a good president. Sadly; few, if any, of the candidates of either party today possess enough even of these basic "good human being" qualities to make a good president. |
Talk about missing the point.
Every human is flawed. There is no ideal political leader. There are better and worse ones, of course, but it is hard to predict. I'm pretty damn bored by your volunteered analysis of all these people as presidential candidates. We have strayed far, far away from the point, which was whether or not a candidate's religion should matter. You keep fudging religion together with policies, as if they were one in the same. Well John Kerry is a practicing Catholic convert, and yet still pro-choice politically. I imagine we've had many decent political leaders who had deep religious faith. The best ones would have, out of wisdom, kept it private because politics and religion can't mix without corrupting each other.
7.
The idea that someone's personally-held religious beliefs must automatically impact their other judgments and actions is pure bullshit. It is well known by anyone who pays attention that
| Well, Marf, you certainly are an expert on bullshit; having defined it for us several times in this thread. I pay a lot of attention to a lot of things and what you say is "well known" is not well known to me. How about a few germane political Presidential examples of that wild, unsupported statement Marf? |
You disagree with this? people can hold the most ridiculous beliefs and still conduct their lives and take actions which are completely rational, as well as compassionate and efficient. And you want me to support it with evidence? Are you kidding? First of all, I already pointed out King, Coffin, and Truth as examples of well known people who fit the bill. You want presidential examples, but that isn't a fair request because we can't read individual peoples' minds. How deep a man of faith was Lincoln? FDR? We can't even agree on how deep the convictions of our current president are. However, I will say this much: I regard Christianity, when taken literally, to be a ridiculous set of beliefs. And certainly, unless they were almost all lying for their whole lives, most of our Presidents were Christians. And if we look at people in general, most of them have silly beliefs, at least what most skeptics would call silly or irrational or even ridiculous. And yet, bridges get built, schools, libraries, firehouses, city halls and such keep functioning pretty normally. Almost everyone I know holds at least one belief that I regard as ridiculous, whether it be that Jesus rose from the dead and is god or that Mother Earth is some sort of real and conscious spirit, and yet all of these wonderful people I associate with function just as well as I and my atheist friends. They are just as likely to be critical in the things that matter, and just as likely to be biased by their emotions and upbringing. They are just as likely to be compassionate and giving, or cold and selfish. They are just as likely to vote Democratic or Republic or independent, or not vote at all. I have not seen one shred of evidence, scientific or in my own personal experience with people, that would show that mere religious beliefs by themselves make people more dangerous, or less kind, or less practical in their actions. And so I think it is wrong to judge people by their beliefs alone. Doesn't mean I won't have a friendly intellectual debate against them if they want to for fun, but I won't judge their character or competency.
| Absolutely! And Romney's stupid words and past actions are all over the map. |
Then why don't you talk about them!? That is what I've been asking for all along, and instead you go on these rants against Mormonism in general instead of against Romney! Learning about Mormonism in general won't tell us any more about Romney's character than learning about atheism in general will tell you about mine.
| Look, Marf, you've got some sort of a soft spot in your heart or brain for certain kinds of Religiosity. What the hell, we all have our peculiarities. But you are just not really thinking it through if you are willing to consider a True Religious Believer, or even somebody that just says he is to get fundie votes, for President! |
What do you mean by "True Religious Believer"? I'm not sure since you capitalized all the letters. What is Obama is actually the Christian he says he is? He is active in his church. I think his church's beliefs are ridiculous. And yet I'm considering him. But if by capitalizing all those words you mean the politically mobilized religious right, well, that isn't a personal religion, that is a political movement.
| Anybody that's using religion as a political platform plank has got to be opposed! |
I agree. When did I disagree with this? Never. I disagreed with the criticizing of a candidate because of his religion. If a Mormon were running who were in line with my politics, I would vote for him or her. And as such, it would be hypocritical to criticize Romney for being a Mormon. Criticize him for the REAL reasons and THEM ALONE. Otherwise you promote hatred and prejudice against the innocent.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/08/2008 20:40:04 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 08:12:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave says don't pay any attention to what the candidate says(#1), or has done(#2). |
Yes, Bill, the word "re-evaluate" means exactly "don't pay any attention to." 
I don't know why you and Dude are so hostile towards the idea of checking to make sure how well politicians' past statements predict future performance (especially with regard to the Democrats), but I don't care enough to pursue this any further. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 12:26:23 [Permalink]
|
Dave....
You are wise not to! |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 01/09/2008 12:27:26 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 12:48:07 [Permalink]
|
Marf.....
I have carefully read every word of your lengthy post. It is well written and your positions are well stated.
I must defer reply for a short period until I can resolve some intellectualization problems I have with the manner in which this topic is being addressed. This may take a day or two. Meantime, please don't think I am ignoring your excellent comment. Thank you.
Judging from the results in Iowa, and now New Hampshire, the Romney topic may well be moot by now, at least as far as any real relevance to the ongoing campaign is concerned. It's beginning to look like neither Romney nor Guliani are going to be players. |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 01/09/2008 13:02:29 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 15:20:37 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| I don't know why you and Dude are so hostile towards the idea of checking to make sure how well politicians' past statements predict future performance |
Hostile?
So you don't agree that Bush's history is consistent with what he has done as president? That it is possible, in the very general sense, to predict some behavior/actions based on what people have said and done in the past?
Does that mean you wouldn't mind living in an area with a few dozen pedophiles recently released from prison, maybe hire one to watch your kids while you and the wife go out for dinner?
You, Dave, are the one making an extrordinary claim here. If past behavior and statements are not a predictor of future behavior any longer, then you are the one who is going to have to pony up to the logic and evidence table here.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 17:19:58 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
You, Dave, are the one making an extrordinary claim here. If past behavior and statements are not a predictor of future behavior any longer, then you are the one who is going to have to pony up to the logic and evidence table here.
|
| but I don't care enough to pursue this any further. |
Looks like when Dave gets in a corner he doesn't run, he just vanishes! Probably "re-evaluating" his position!
Edited to add "re-evalue" comment
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 01/09/2008 18:46:42 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 18:54:28 [Permalink]
|
Dude, you're pulling a beskeptigal, and it's a little sickening to watch. My only claim is that I think it's time to re-evaluate how well past performance matches future performance (and my general example, hoping to spark discussion - when all it got was "come on!" - was the poor showing that Congressional Democrats have made since 2006). If you think that claim is so "extraordinary" that one counterexample - Bush of all people - should suffice then you, hypocritically, are demonstrating an unwillingness to question your own political dogma.
But I don't give a damn anymore, especially since I now think the point is moot. Even if past performance is a poor indicator of performance in office, I can't think of any other predictor that makes any sense. In other words, no matter how mis-matched a person's (possibly youthful) idealism and campaign rhetoric is with how they actually govern, there is no "good governance litmus test." But Dude, you're acting as if you don't even want to know if they only match poorly.
bngbuck, your attempts to escalate this disagreement are themselves disagreeable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 19:32:19 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
But Dude, you're acting as if you don't even want to know if they only match poorly.
|
Nonsense.
Tell me, Dave, what kind of Justices do you think Huckabee will appoint to SCOTUS (the next pres is getting at least one) if he gets in?
Are you seriously telling me that you are unsure? Well, make it official, state it in no uncertain terms that you don't know what kind of justices Huckabee will appoint if he gets the chance.
| and my general example, hoping to spark discussion - when all it got was "come on!" - was the poor showing that Congressional Democrats have made since 2006 |
How many of them, who were in previously and now hold the leadership positions, voted FOR the Iraq war? Quite a few.
How many of the new ones, who ran on anti-war platforms, have voted for more Iraq war funding? I don't know.
But your analogy fails primarily because you are comparing a group of people to individuals.
| Dude, you're pulling a beskeptigal |
Only because Kil asked me not to will I refrain from telling you what orifice you can stick that nonsense back into.
I admit political bias, everyone has it. I know I do.
But this isn't a question of politics, its one of behavioral science.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 20:00:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Sometimes it is hard to see past [personal bias], but that is what your skeptic friends are for! To slap the shit out of you when you start to let a bais cloud your reason. |
Shall I slap you harder, Dude?Originally posted by Dude
Are you seriously telling me that you are unsure? Well, make it official, state it in no uncertain terms that you don't know what kind of justices Huckabee will appoint if he gets the chance. |
See? This is what beskeptigal did, over and over again: she took what should have been seen as a simple question, and turned it into a strawman position statement. A position which, as should have been obvious from my posts already, I do not maintain, nor do I ever intend to make "official."| But this isn't a question of politics, its one of behavioral science. |
And no question of science should ever be answered as you've been answering me. I'm saying, "this isn't obvious to me," and you've been hurling back little but "it's obvious!" I ask for evidence, and you sarcastically indicate that what you're saying is self-evident. But if it's behavoral science, then the only things that should be self-evident are the premises, while I've been asking about the conclusions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Buck on Huck
