Nothing brings out the flame warriors in us like a presidential election cycle. All you flame warriors come thither and let us get unto it. Let us do try to keep the mud slinging and vindictive mean spirited tirades to within civilized standards though.
Dems:
Well my favorite: Joe Biden. He has a lot of experience and good ideas on climate change, energy independence, health care, Iraq. What I really admire, I perceive him as a man of sterling character. And, not incidentally, what a breathe of fresh air it would be to have a head of state who can put a couple of words together into a coherent sentence.
Of the current Democratic front runners Clinton, Obama, Edwards.
Clinton: My 2nd pick from the Dems. She promises to be a champion on climate change, which is the top of my list of concerns.
I’ve heard a lot of charges about her being capricious all about raw ambition to the point of being a bit of a tyrant. Maybe a bit of that sticks. I have some reservations, but I don’t think it’d prevent me from voting for her over any of the R.s other than McCain.
Obama: I don’t know. Can you really trust anybody under 50? Seems like kind of a young whipper snapper to me. He seems untested to me.
Edwards: Is it just I, or is he a human weather vane? I perceive him as being about trying to figure out where the crowd is going so that he can lead them there. He’s also untested and inexperienced. He’s bright and energetic but seems to me kind of shallow and vain.
Republicans:
McCain: My favorite of the Republicans. He’s been an actual legislative champion on climate change from before it started to become popular. He’s been a lone voice of sanity within the Republican party while Bush was shootin’ up the town on a Saturday night. His credentials for service to country go without saying.
Were it between McCain and Clinton, I’m thinking I’d lean toward McCain.
Romney: I’m a bit amused that he’s in trouble with the very people who should just be thrilled with him for being a champion of their narrow minded superstitions, evangelical Christian right wingers. Why? Because he’s Mormon. That’s rich. Right wing Christian evangelicals won’t vote for a champion of narrow minded superstitious prejudices out of their narrow minded superstitious prejudices. Kind of serves them right in a way.
Then again, this could work for Romney. Anybody the Christian right wingers don’t like can’t be all bad. A whole lot of us, I think, have completely had it up to here with Christian right wingers and their backward idiotic superstitious prejudices being written into the law of the land which is supposed to serve everyone. Were they really in touch with God, that’d be one thing, but I think the God they’re about is their own ego dressed up in a white robe, a white robe and a pointy hood. It seems they still hold sway over large swaths of the South. Maybe they still need Neil Young around there after all.
You know, I don’t see myself voting for Romney, and this has nothing, well ok, little to do with his religion, but I’d be willing to give him a chance were he elected.
My concern about him, as I’ve said, he seems to me to be yet another in a long line of shallow air headed history ignoring jingoist pandering to the lowest common denominator of human stupidity and superstition Republicans, but I could be wrong about that. He might could be an effective competent executive of a modern nation such that would do us proud. Say what you will about Mormons, quite often they do make for good executive material, having been brought up on values of honesty and hard work. For Romney to talk about values does seem to be more than just empty talk like it was from say GW Bush. One thing I have to admire about Romney, he has a solid track record as a very competent executive. He didn’t pay to have his homework done for him. He did more than just party it up at the frat house while in college. He’s actually accomplished stuff in his career. That’d be a breath of fresh air for sure.
Where his religion does bother me a bit, Mormonism is itself quite backward on a lot of things. Gay rights, for example. What basis is there for prejudice against gays? What is that based on other than just superstition and baseless unfounded fears? Romney has promised to fight for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Romney talks about how the traditional family is the pillar of civilization, which is true, but how does gay marriage put that at risk in any way? I can’t see how gay marriage would effect the prospects for continued civilization one way or another.
Environmental problems, however, most assuredly do have the capacity to put the kybosh on civilization, and there Mormons in general tend to be apathetic to hostile. At best, they’ll mumble a few words about “sound stewardship”, but, as a priority, matters environment generally rate near the bottom if at all. Romney will speak on environmental concerns and quite intelligently, but does he really take it seriously? I get the sense that he doesn’t. Not really. On climate change, for example, Romney will say how seriously he takes it and then he’ll employ that logic I was complaining about in the “peak oil” thread, that Kyoto was flawed because regional solutions don’t work and so therefore we shouldn’t participate. What? How does our not participating in Kyoto address the concern that we need a more global approach? Could you explain that to me again, please?
I keep trying to tell Mormons, listen, this is a golden opportunity for you here. Show some leadership on perhaps the most crucial moral dilemma of our time, how to develop a genuinely sustainable way of life, and this will give you all kinds of moral credibility for a long long time. Continue the way you have been, and you’re going to have to do a whole lot of tedious skillful maneuvering in re-writing your history in a positive light again. You could save yourselves a whole lot of money that it will cost you to hire legions of professional historical apologists by just doing the right things now. I tell you Mormons, solar panels on the temples would pay for themselves on the cost savings of not having to hire legions of professional historical apologists alone.
Course, then how would you employ your BYU graduates?
Juliani: I get the sense he could hold his own in a street fight. It’s a dangerous world and having Juliani on one’s side seems reassuring. Then again, some of those toughies he hangs with kind of give me the willies in themselves. I’m not so sure but what to cross those guys might could get one outfitted with some cement shoes.
And Juliani’s thoughts on energy so far seem to me to be pretty much Dick Cheney II, except with a Brooklyn accent. Coal powa’ today and coal powa’ fo’eva’, yous.
Thompson: Well, he can pronounce nuclear, I’ve noticed. That’s an improvement. But about the only one.
Huckaby: I don’t know. Evangelical Christian right wingers seem to like him. Course, I guess that in itself shouldn’t disqualify him. Sure doesn’t do him any good in my eyes.
Jeez, my favorites do tend to be old white males. I don’t think that’s out of bigotry, though. I could vote for a young gay woman of color, I think. Well maybe not a young gay woman of color. I’m sorry but I can’t seem to get beyond a certain prejudice against young people. Why? Because I’ve been one, and I can tell you straight up; never ever trust anyone under 50. Make that 55.
Full Version: flame warriors, let us talk presidential
QUOTE (chaster @ Dec 4 2007, 02:16 PM)
Nothing brings out the flame warriors in us like a presidential election cycle. All you flame warriors come thither and let us get unto it. Let us do try to keep the mud slinging and vindictive mean spirited tirades to within civilized standards though.
Obama seems to be saying a lot of the right things, but I agree, I don't think he even has the huevos that Hillary's got. Between her and Bill they at least have a pair.
I've been reading up on Hukabee, since he seems to be gaining some momentum and to be honest, I think he is our guy. Try wikipedia for starters. Chasmo couldn't vote for him because he supports creationism, but I don't see that being anything but a political football for those who need and excuse to need Liberal Therapy.
McCain over Clinton.. i'm shocked, chaster, you really are a one issue voter after all? But please bro, don't be tricked, none of them are going to do jack about your global warming.... nada bro, nada.. no matter what they say to get your vote. Global warming works for them, it gets them political attention, so why in hell would they do anything about it? Huh? Follow the money. So you better look at some of the other issues.
The Clinton's would have a good time for another four years, screw the rest of the world. It all ends in 2012 anyway right? Eat drink and be merry.
Brother Mitt would make the best president, hands down, but I don't think he has a snowballs chance in hell, of even getting nominated, let alone carrying ANY of the blue states, and he can't win dogcatcher without some Liberal support, so even if he flipped and flopped for it.. it wouldn't be enough. Besides.. he ain't even really "Christian".
Joe Biden... ? Doesn't seem to be even a blip on the radar? Why isn't he at least getting honorable mention as an 'also ran" from anyone except you, chaster? Ignorant masses.. i guess.
Jewliani is a rubber stamp.. why would we need another one of those?
| QUOTE |
| Huckaby: I don’t know. Evangelical Christian right wingers seem to like him. Course, I guess that in itself shouldn’t disqualify him. Sure doesn’t do him any good in my eyes. |
Obama seems to be saying a lot of the right things, but I agree, I don't think he even has the huevos that Hillary's got. Between her and Bill they at least have a pair.
I've been reading up on Hukabee, since he seems to be gaining some momentum and to be honest, I think he is our guy. Try wikipedia for starters. Chasmo couldn't vote for him because he supports creationism, but I don't see that being anything but a political football for those who need and excuse to need Liberal Therapy.
McCain over Clinton.. i'm shocked, chaster, you really are a one issue voter after all? But please bro, don't be tricked, none of them are going to do jack about your global warming.... nada bro, nada.. no matter what they say to get your vote. Global warming works for them, it gets them political attention, so why in hell would they do anything about it? Huh? Follow the money. So you better look at some of the other issues.
The Clinton's would have a good time for another four years, screw the rest of the world. It all ends in 2012 anyway right? Eat drink and be merry.
Brother Mitt would make the best president, hands down, but I don't think he has a snowballs chance in hell, of even getting nominated, let alone carrying ANY of the blue states, and he can't win dogcatcher without some Liberal support, so even if he flipped and flopped for it.. it wouldn't be enough. Besides.. he ain't even really "Christian".
Joe Biden... ? Doesn't seem to be even a blip on the radar? Why isn't he at least getting honorable mention as an 'also ran" from anyone except you, chaster? Ignorant masses.. i guess.
Jewliani is a rubber stamp.. why would we need another one of those?
| QUOTE (chaster @ Dec 4 2007, 02:16 PM) |
| Nothing brings out the flame warriors in us like a presidential election cycle. |
[QUOTE]How does our not participating in Kyoto address the concern that we need a more global approach? Could you explain that to me again, please?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Chas I suppose there are lots of reasons and ideas from both Republicans and Democrats why Kyoto isn't too favorable to sign up with . When you get right down too it even Al Gore is out of step with mainstream Democrats over signing Kyoto it would seem . Kinda funny when you think about it . His home team democrats players wont suit up for the Kyoto game . Heck , maybe they know they cant win this game , or there has to be a better way then to be destine to loose , change or give up . Who likes these options?
Lets forget how to date Kyoto's dead set carbon levels have risen over the years . And lets forget some of the signors such as Canada and others basically want out of the deal . Mostly lets forget how well Kyoto hasnt worked over all .
Yup lets forget all that stuff and talk about Cows. Cows , most stupid animal alive but they are good teachers , yup even for Democrats LOL.
An essay of Carbon Caps , water and dumb Cows and what they have in common .
From the base of a red rock cliff is a dependable steady spring of water thats been piped to a watering tank for cattle . At first there was excess water for these bovine critters . All the cows were happy and as anyone knows happy cows like to make even more happy cows . So they did just that ,Yup , made babies , more cows that needed water to survive . But cows arnt all that smart and their numbers were even more the next year .
What to do says the rancher ? I love my pure bred herd . I aint going to sell them off , but if my herd cant get the water they need I'll lose allot of them and all of them are bound to suffer badly . I know says the rancher , I'll truck water in to subsidise what the spring produces I'll start with a 15000 (USA) Gallon tank truck . When this wont do I'll Semi load watter in with also a pup trailer . Cows are gunna breed you know , always more cows which means more water .
I talked with this rancher the other day and gave him a bid on a railway head spur to haul water in for his cows . Nice guy and he's not stupid at all , he knows he's stuck in a cycle , Yup cows just like to breed , just cant stop them if left alone .
Carbon caps will work just as well for cows as they will for us humans , for a short while . But us humans are going to breed and increase , were stuck in a cycle just like cows can be , year after year we humans need more . We can set carbon cap levels, But we cant set or control the world population level . As the world population goes so will carbon cap ceilings , always higher to meet the growing needs .
Carbon cap levels are like a steady spring filling a tank , as long as the herd doesn't grow we humans will be happy , But the human herd is growing and the carbon cap level will be raised to meet the needs of the herd . That Chas is fact , there will never be a carbon cap that can be written in stone .
So whats better , Carbon caps that are destined to raise to meet needs ? ?
Or Hydrogen or nuclear ? Something the republicans are pushing that will never need to be capped 0x0=0 C02 &So2
Be honest with me Chas , given the choice would you as a democrat really want to go with Kyoto ? Do you think its the best option for the world ?
So did you catch Mitt Romney’s religion speech?
“If I am fortunate enough to be your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.”
I liked that part. A public servant serves everyone, not just a certain constituency. There’s a prescient message for some of our local politicians. But then Romney made other remarks that seemed to me to be divisive and exclusive. I get the sense that Romney will be wonderfully tolerant of other evangelical right wingers, but, as for me, I was left with the distinct feeling that I’m outside his fence.
CSPAN then aired an archival recording of JFK’s religion speech from the 1960 presidential campaign where JFK had to answer to his party’s right wing evangelicals for his being Catholic. Back then, evangelical right wingers were known as “Southern Democrats”, and any Democratic presidential candidate had to have his religious credentials checked with them to have a prayer of winning. Now days, of course, right wing evangelicals have gone Republican. As a Democrat, I can’t say that I miss them terribly. You’re welcome to them. See if you bring them out of the Dark Ages a tad, will you? Please don’t go pandering to them any more than you have to.
Seemed to me JFK was more inclusive in his religion speech. I got the sense that I was inside his fence. I think JFK’s speech was more in the spirit of America’s founding principle, which I read as faith in people. JFK expressed faith in people. Romney expressed faith in religion. “Freedom and religion go together,” Romney said. “You can’t have either without the other.” Personally, I take umbrage to that. I don’t see that religion has had too brilliant a track record as champion of freedom, especially fundamentalist religion, especially lately. Romney went on further to say that it’s imperative that references to God must be incorporated into public institutions, institutions that are supposed to serve everyone. These remarks, it seemed to me, were in direct contradiction to his other comments that public institutions should serve everyone.
Evangelicals like to see our U.S. Constitution as a gift of their religion, and so naturally their religion deserves be enshrined right alongside it. Furthermore, they insist, our Constitution can only be maintained through faith in their narrowly defined God, a God who, not surprisingly, happens to be the spit and image of our white male evangelical himself. Either you worship that God or you don’t get to be free. There’s definitely been something to that notion within our history all right, but is that about God, or is that more about our evangelical?
I don’t see it that way. I see our Constitution as a gift we gave ourselves when we at long last managed to free ourselves from religious tyranny. For evangelicals to be taking credit for this is like the thief taking credit that the stolen goods were recovered. I think our evangelicals yearn for a return to glorious past that never was and precisely at a crucial time for us when we need to be looking forward. We need to be thinking about our kids and the peril their world is in from our own short sighted behaviors. Faith is essential, yes, but not the narrow backward yearning faith of theocrats. The sort of faith that will rescue us, I think, isn’t about whether you believe in God, ten Gods, or no God; it’s about searching for the courage and wisdom to do what’s right.
“If I am fortunate enough to be your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.”
I liked that part. A public servant serves everyone, not just a certain constituency. There’s a prescient message for some of our local politicians. But then Romney made other remarks that seemed to me to be divisive and exclusive. I get the sense that Romney will be wonderfully tolerant of other evangelical right wingers, but, as for me, I was left with the distinct feeling that I’m outside his fence.
CSPAN then aired an archival recording of JFK’s religion speech from the 1960 presidential campaign where JFK had to answer to his party’s right wing evangelicals for his being Catholic. Back then, evangelical right wingers were known as “Southern Democrats”, and any Democratic presidential candidate had to have his religious credentials checked with them to have a prayer of winning. Now days, of course, right wing evangelicals have gone Republican. As a Democrat, I can’t say that I miss them terribly. You’re welcome to them. See if you bring them out of the Dark Ages a tad, will you? Please don’t go pandering to them any more than you have to.
Seemed to me JFK was more inclusive in his religion speech. I got the sense that I was inside his fence. I think JFK’s speech was more in the spirit of America’s founding principle, which I read as faith in people. JFK expressed faith in people. Romney expressed faith in religion. “Freedom and religion go together,” Romney said. “You can’t have either without the other.” Personally, I take umbrage to that. I don’t see that religion has had too brilliant a track record as champion of freedom, especially fundamentalist religion, especially lately. Romney went on further to say that it’s imperative that references to God must be incorporated into public institutions, institutions that are supposed to serve everyone. These remarks, it seemed to me, were in direct contradiction to his other comments that public institutions should serve everyone.
Evangelicals like to see our U.S. Constitution as a gift of their religion, and so naturally their religion deserves be enshrined right alongside it. Furthermore, they insist, our Constitution can only be maintained through faith in their narrowly defined God, a God who, not surprisingly, happens to be the spit and image of our white male evangelical himself. Either you worship that God or you don’t get to be free. There’s definitely been something to that notion within our history all right, but is that about God, or is that more about our evangelical?
I don’t see it that way. I see our Constitution as a gift we gave ourselves when we at long last managed to free ourselves from religious tyranny. For evangelicals to be taking credit for this is like the thief taking credit that the stolen goods were recovered. I think our evangelicals yearn for a return to glorious past that never was and precisely at a crucial time for us when we need to be looking forward. We need to be thinking about our kids and the peril their world is in from our own short sighted behaviors. Faith is essential, yes, but not the narrow backward yearning faith of theocrats. The sort of faith that will rescue us, I think, isn’t about whether you believe in God, ten Gods, or no God; it’s about searching for the courage and wisdom to do what’s right.
Chasy-Flame-Warriors-Dec.7
Courageous Prophet
(In a Lion-House)
Regarding Governor Romney’s speech, by supporting his church in having their members in government office prosecute a smaller church who has been a challenge to their own apostasy, he has “served one religion, one group, one cause, and one interest”, just the opposite of what he proclaims he won’t do, like any two-faced politician pandering for public approval. Since 1890, his church has prostituted itself for special favors, for world favor, and thus has become one of the three unclean spirits who speak out of the mouth of the dragon (the devil), out of the mouth of the beast (a violent warring nation), and out of the mouth of the false prophet (the LDS having turned from the truth since 1890, a well-known fact). So any man who “liked that speech” is as duped as any prostituted Mormon.
The brilliant track record of the FLDS Church as champion of freedom is in fleeing the community and the world, and freeing the people from the corruption. This is what has the dissidents and the world up in arms, ready to destroy themselves, because of a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. Now, the FLDS Church is in the big heart of Texas, free and self-sustaining. Our Prophet is also free even in their prison, free from all cares and free to direct as the Lord directs.
You are most correct, Chasy, in observing that they demand that we worship that white evangelical-LDS god, or you don’t get to be free. This is why the Prophet is in their prison for a moment, because of his faith in fearing and obeying God to bring forth seed from the first-fruits of puberty. While a vile nation murders its children by the millions, it accuses a small flock of the most serious crime of entering into marriages, and that being the only charge against the Prophet, for living according to God’s Law to “Bring forth thy first fruits” (Ex.22:29, Mt.7:16, Rev.22:2): That’s the Word of the Lord. The New Testament prophet prophesied you would legislate against marriage (I Tim. 4:3). Yet, you promote mass-rape as consensual-sex, and mass-murder as pro-choice, and call it “law”, replacing God’s law with the law of Lucifer!
Governments and churches do not determine our freedom. Only God does that, and has instituted governments to merely protect those freedoms, free to raise families according to the dictates of our own conscience, not to destroy them. In so doing, the government is only destroying itself. This is why Senator John McCain was asked by Katie Curic yesterday: “Besides your family, what are you most afraid of losing”. With deep reflection, the man said: “My country”, and he nearly wept. Yes, you freed yourself from the religious tyranny of King George, but now you’re entering into the final and devastating tyranny of a modern King George and the methodical witch-hunts of his Methodist-Evangelical-LDS cabal
You say: “I don’t see God as the giver of our Constitution. We gave it to ourselves. For evangelicals to be taking credit for this is like the thief taking credit because the stolen goods were recovered”. Your constitution will never recover in your tyranny with fellow atheists and religionists and politicians, with the Devil at your back. This land is soon to be swept clean. Talk about thieves taking credit, you thief. You confessed yesterday to stealing radios from peoples’ cars, and mil-spec parts from your government, and to destroying your brain with an excess of sex and drugs during your hippie-days, and to the democratic platform of rape and murder, and you presume to instruct us how we should live and vote. You two-faced infidel criminals. God will take your very lives in just a few more months, because your crimes are capital crimes, sin unto death.
You dare to challenge God, and His very hand in instituting this nation and this theocracy? If God hadn’t given the revolutionaries their very breath and courage and inspiration, and been the very force in rallying allies, they wouldn’t even have had the strength to lift a single coffee-bean into Boston Harbour. That is how puny and insignificant, even non-existent they would have been, as this nation is now fast becoming. You are truly twisted little men. Your excess of sex and drugs and violence against the most innocent of our citizens have truly messed up your brains.
You end your sniveling drivel by saying: “Faith is essential, yes, but not the narrow backward yearning faith of theocrats.” Just my faith, not yours. What is left for God to do with such men, except to cast them far from this earth, so that the narrow and yearning faith may flourish:
“Straight is the gate and NARROW the way that leadeth unto life” (Matt.7:14).
“His bowels YEARN” (Gen.43:30, I Kings 3:26).
“If therefore thou shalt not watch (or YEARN), I will come upon thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee” (Rev.3:3).
Street
Courageous Prophet
(In a Lion-House)
Regarding Governor Romney’s speech, by supporting his church in having their members in government office prosecute a smaller church who has been a challenge to their own apostasy, he has “served one religion, one group, one cause, and one interest”, just the opposite of what he proclaims he won’t do, like any two-faced politician pandering for public approval. Since 1890, his church has prostituted itself for special favors, for world favor, and thus has become one of the three unclean spirits who speak out of the mouth of the dragon (the devil), out of the mouth of the beast (a violent warring nation), and out of the mouth of the false prophet (the LDS having turned from the truth since 1890, a well-known fact). So any man who “liked that speech” is as duped as any prostituted Mormon.
The brilliant track record of the FLDS Church as champion of freedom is in fleeing the community and the world, and freeing the people from the corruption. This is what has the dissidents and the world up in arms, ready to destroy themselves, because of a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. Now, the FLDS Church is in the big heart of Texas, free and self-sustaining. Our Prophet is also free even in their prison, free from all cares and free to direct as the Lord directs.
You are most correct, Chasy, in observing that they demand that we worship that white evangelical-LDS god, or you don’t get to be free. This is why the Prophet is in their prison for a moment, because of his faith in fearing and obeying God to bring forth seed from the first-fruits of puberty. While a vile nation murders its children by the millions, it accuses a small flock of the most serious crime of entering into marriages, and that being the only charge against the Prophet, for living according to God’s Law to “Bring forth thy first fruits” (Ex.22:29, Mt.7:16, Rev.22:2): That’s the Word of the Lord. The New Testament prophet prophesied you would legislate against marriage (I Tim. 4:3). Yet, you promote mass-rape as consensual-sex, and mass-murder as pro-choice, and call it “law”, replacing God’s law with the law of Lucifer!
Governments and churches do not determine our freedom. Only God does that, and has instituted governments to merely protect those freedoms, free to raise families according to the dictates of our own conscience, not to destroy them. In so doing, the government is only destroying itself. This is why Senator John McCain was asked by Katie Curic yesterday: “Besides your family, what are you most afraid of losing”. With deep reflection, the man said: “My country”, and he nearly wept. Yes, you freed yourself from the religious tyranny of King George, but now you’re entering into the final and devastating tyranny of a modern King George and the methodical witch-hunts of his Methodist-Evangelical-LDS cabal
You say: “I don’t see God as the giver of our Constitution. We gave it to ourselves. For evangelicals to be taking credit for this is like the thief taking credit because the stolen goods were recovered”. Your constitution will never recover in your tyranny with fellow atheists and religionists and politicians, with the Devil at your back. This land is soon to be swept clean. Talk about thieves taking credit, you thief. You confessed yesterday to stealing radios from peoples’ cars, and mil-spec parts from your government, and to destroying your brain with an excess of sex and drugs during your hippie-days, and to the democratic platform of rape and murder, and you presume to instruct us how we should live and vote. You two-faced infidel criminals. God will take your very lives in just a few more months, because your crimes are capital crimes, sin unto death.
You dare to challenge God, and His very hand in instituting this nation and this theocracy? If God hadn’t given the revolutionaries their very breath and courage and inspiration, and been the very force in rallying allies, they wouldn’t even have had the strength to lift a single coffee-bean into Boston Harbour. That is how puny and insignificant, even non-existent they would have been, as this nation is now fast becoming. You are truly twisted little men. Your excess of sex and drugs and violence against the most innocent of our citizens have truly messed up your brains.
You end your sniveling drivel by saying: “Faith is essential, yes, but not the narrow backward yearning faith of theocrats.” Just my faith, not yours. What is left for God to do with such men, except to cast them far from this earth, so that the narrow and yearning faith may flourish:
“Straight is the gate and NARROW the way that leadeth unto life” (Matt.7:14).
“His bowels YEARN” (Gen.43:30, I Kings 3:26).
“If therefore thou shalt not watch (or YEARN), I will come upon thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee” (Rev.3:3).
Street
Street, for christ sakes, I gave you your whole entire goddam forum to rant your lunacy on 
. Why don't you just keep it over there? The idea is, see, some of us don't want to have to see this goodam gibberish nor do we want to read your stupid condemnations nor have you sit in judgement as if you had enough brains to judge a nat.
Go away. Quit bothering the normals.
. Why don't you just keep it over there? The idea is, see, some of us don't want to have to see this goodam gibberish nor do we want to read your stupid condemnations nor have you sit in judgement as if you had enough brains to judge a nat. Go away. Quit bothering the normals.
| QUOTE (Onthestreet @ Dec 10 2007, 12:20 AM) |
| Our Prophet is also free even in their prison, free from all cares and free to direct as the Lord directs. |
I don't know whether you indulge in worldy things like newspapers, Street, but our Prophet Warren Jeffs hath resigned as Prophet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs
Our Prophet hath spake on the matter, Street, and hath revealed unto us that he is not the Prophet. What, you're going to disagree with our Prophet there, Street? Oh. you must purge yourself of such wicked thoughts and go flog yourself at once.
"That is how puny and insignificant, even non-existent they would have been, as this nation is now fast becoming."
Well, see, Street, that's your upbringing talking there. That's what they do in a cult. You get beat down so as to be puny and insignificant with the idea of keeping folks timid and obedient. And this has worked in you. Even after this cult kicked you out, your mind is still confined by its boundaries.
So you've been wronged there, Street. Thing is, now, you're responsible for you.
This land is soon to be swept clean.
-A self-fulfilling death wish of people too stupid and cowardly to face up to the rigors of living.
Before Yankie points this out to me, I'm going to cut him off at the pass and acknowledget that it’s not lost on me that Street and I have some parallels in our preachy tirades here. We each call for a return to standards we feel are vital to society’s survival. We each have our end-of-civilization scenarios that we warn a failure of our standards could bring about. We each call for repentance from behaviors that we see as putting our world into peril.
Didn’t one of Ann Coulter’s books take that tack? Those secularists are just another stripe of preacher every bit as strident and dogmatic as the religionists they criticize and ridicule. They’re all about suppressing others’ religions while seeking to make their own atheist non-religion the state religion.
And, of course, there’s evolution. Didn’t we settle that debate in the 20th century? Not no, but hell no, as per this gem in our local paper:
Evolution is indeed a religion
Published:
Saturday, December 8, 2007 3:24 AM CST
To the editor:
During the past month and one half there has been a dialogue in your letters section regarding the subject of religious evolution.
Dogmatic evolutionists vehemently deny that evolution is in fact religious. Instead, they demand that it is science — see Eric O’Neill’s letter, 11/4/2007. In point of fact, evolution is religious because like theistic faith it conforms to the definition of this term found in most dictionaries: Religion: A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. (The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language)
To insist that evolution is not a religion is at its best ignorance and at worst dishonest. There is yet another question that should be addressed: The mindset of religious evolutionist zealots relative to the issue of what constitutes science, and, more importantly, whether evolution has been demonstrated empirically. Many of these self-important disciples of Charles Darwin have appointed themselves as the sole and final arbiters of all that is science, as though the entire field of scientific inquiry belonged to members of the evolutionary faith.
If this snobbery were not sufficient, many of the evolutionary religion go on to suggest that anyone, regardless of academic credentials, can not be a true scientist if they are not of the evolutionary faithful and do not bend the knee to mother — as in mother nature. This must be the ultimate in self-righteous arrogance.
In practice, scientific fact is not determined by a preponderance of so-called scientific opinion or by judicial decision. Instead, it is a result of empirical data correctly understood and interpreted.
Empirical: Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. (The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language)
The intellectually honest manner to deal with disputes of this sort is to put all the information available - evolutionary dogma, creationism and intelligent designon the table and allow the hearer to make up their own mind. Instead, wtiat so often happens is that evolutionary high priests demand that the faith must be protected and kept pure at all cost and non-evolutionary heresy must be stopped at the temple gate. To this end, they attempt to censor any material that contradicts the evolutionary faith posited by individuals outside their religion.
If arguments put forth by creationist and intelligent design advocates are as week and sophomoric as Darwin’s disciples seem to believe, it should be a small matter to utterly refute them in reasoned discussion and debate. Instead, however, the decedents of worms and maggots appear to be terrified by the prospect of having their monopolistic faith challenged by competent representatives holding contrary points of view. Instead, they stick their fingers in their ears and chant the mantra: “evolution in science; evolution is science.”
Chaster’s response to the charge that scientists in general are every bit as ruled by dogmatic thinking as religionists are, I say too right. I’ve known actual scientists and can testify to that. And I include myself too. Yes, my thinking is ruled by stereotypical prejudicial thinking as much as is the next guy's.
As I see it, all humans, without exception, tend to extrapolate too much from too little information. Everybody does this. I don't think there have ever been any exceptions, including all the prophets and sages of all ages. No one has ever gotten above and beyond this failing in our makeup.
The difference between science and religion, religionists tend to interpret their scriptures so as to validate their prejudices. Science is a set of procedures, practices, and standards designed for overcoming prejudices. That's the difference.
It may well be that I am just another fanatic preacher of yet another stripe myself. But that's my point. As a society we need to be capable of telling the difference between somebody's preaching and how our world works, especially if we have any kind of notion of continuing as a technically advanced society. Isn’t it obvious that a technically advanced society just plain MUST, with a certainty liken unto that of a religion, be technically literate, including literacy in such fundamental scientific principles as evolution? To have all kinds of technology at our disposal while at the same time sliding backward into being ruled by ignorance, fear, hatred, and superstition, is there any better recipe for coming to grief than that? Isn't that precisely what worries us about a theocratic state such as Iran?
Seems to me survival is job one here. After we get that done, then we can get into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and stuff. Then we can have some more wars over whether it’s God or Allah or Jehovah. But survival is job one. If that’s being non-religiously religiously dogmatic of me, then so be it.
Back to politics. The Southern-Democrats-re-morphed-into-Regan-Republicans have ruled for most of the past several decades now. Seems to me their track record of being in charge is about as good as it was when they the ruled the Old South. IE, it stinks unto the very whites only heaven they long for.
Romney or Huckaby seems to me to represent their best bet for continued rule from within the office of U.S. president. That’s how I sees it.
Didn’t one of Ann Coulter’s books take that tack? Those secularists are just another stripe of preacher every bit as strident and dogmatic as the religionists they criticize and ridicule. They’re all about suppressing others’ religions while seeking to make their own atheist non-religion the state religion.
And, of course, there’s evolution. Didn’t we settle that debate in the 20th century? Not no, but hell no, as per this gem in our local paper:
Evolution is indeed a religion
Published:
Saturday, December 8, 2007 3:24 AM CST
To the editor:
During the past month and one half there has been a dialogue in your letters section regarding the subject of religious evolution.
Dogmatic evolutionists vehemently deny that evolution is in fact religious. Instead, they demand that it is science — see Eric O’Neill’s letter, 11/4/2007. In point of fact, evolution is religious because like theistic faith it conforms to the definition of this term found in most dictionaries: Religion: A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. (The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language)
To insist that evolution is not a religion is at its best ignorance and at worst dishonest. There is yet another question that should be addressed: The mindset of religious evolutionist zealots relative to the issue of what constitutes science, and, more importantly, whether evolution has been demonstrated empirically. Many of these self-important disciples of Charles Darwin have appointed themselves as the sole and final arbiters of all that is science, as though the entire field of scientific inquiry belonged to members of the evolutionary faith.
If this snobbery were not sufficient, many of the evolutionary religion go on to suggest that anyone, regardless of academic credentials, can not be a true scientist if they are not of the evolutionary faithful and do not bend the knee to mother — as in mother nature. This must be the ultimate in self-righteous arrogance.
In practice, scientific fact is not determined by a preponderance of so-called scientific opinion or by judicial decision. Instead, it is a result of empirical data correctly understood and interpreted.
Empirical: Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. (The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language)
The intellectually honest manner to deal with disputes of this sort is to put all the information available - evolutionary dogma, creationism and intelligent designon the table and allow the hearer to make up their own mind. Instead, wtiat so often happens is that evolutionary high priests demand that the faith must be protected and kept pure at all cost and non-evolutionary heresy must be stopped at the temple gate. To this end, they attempt to censor any material that contradicts the evolutionary faith posited by individuals outside their religion.
If arguments put forth by creationist and intelligent design advocates are as week and sophomoric as Darwin’s disciples seem to believe, it should be a small matter to utterly refute them in reasoned discussion and debate. Instead, however, the decedents of worms and maggots appear to be terrified by the prospect of having their monopolistic faith challenged by competent representatives holding contrary points of view. Instead, they stick their fingers in their ears and chant the mantra: “evolution in science; evolution is science.”
Chaster’s response to the charge that scientists in general are every bit as ruled by dogmatic thinking as religionists are, I say too right. I’ve known actual scientists and can testify to that. And I include myself too. Yes, my thinking is ruled by stereotypical prejudicial thinking as much as is the next guy's.
As I see it, all humans, without exception, tend to extrapolate too much from too little information. Everybody does this. I don't think there have ever been any exceptions, including all the prophets and sages of all ages. No one has ever gotten above and beyond this failing in our makeup.
The difference between science and religion, religionists tend to interpret their scriptures so as to validate their prejudices. Science is a set of procedures, practices, and standards designed for overcoming prejudices. That's the difference.
It may well be that I am just another fanatic preacher of yet another stripe myself. But that's my point. As a society we need to be capable of telling the difference between somebody's preaching and how our world works, especially if we have any kind of notion of continuing as a technically advanced society. Isn’t it obvious that a technically advanced society just plain MUST, with a certainty liken unto that of a religion, be technically literate, including literacy in such fundamental scientific principles as evolution? To have all kinds of technology at our disposal while at the same time sliding backward into being ruled by ignorance, fear, hatred, and superstition, is there any better recipe for coming to grief than that? Isn't that precisely what worries us about a theocratic state such as Iran?
Seems to me survival is job one here. After we get that done, then we can get into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and stuff. Then we can have some more wars over whether it’s God or Allah or Jehovah. But survival is job one. If that’s being non-religiously religiously dogmatic of me, then so be it.
Back to politics. The Southern-Democrats-re-morphed-into-Regan-Republicans have ruled for most of the past several decades now. Seems to me their track record of being in charge is about as good as it was when they the ruled the Old South. IE, it stinks unto the very whites only heaven they long for.
Romney or Huckaby seems to me to represent their best bet for continued rule from within the office of U.S. president. That’s how I sees it.
| QUOTE (chaster @ Dec 10 2007, 12:33 PM) |
| Before Yankie points this out to me, I'm going to cut him off at the pass and acknowledget that it’s not lost on me that Street and I have some parallels in our preachy tirades here. We each call for a return to standards we feel are vital to society’s survival. We each have our end-of-civilization scenarios that we warn a failure of our standards could bring about. We each call for repentance from behaviors that we see as putting our world into peril. |
Stand still will ya chaster you've jumped from global warming , the Iraq war and now its evolution , so predictable , and next its going to be over population to Finnish off your talking points with out one time responding to my input .
The Churchy folks do have it wrong there is evolution . But the science guys got it wrong as well , both of you guys are crazy as loons .
Hear it now Chaster there is evolution but its man evolving too monkeys my dear non responding missing link friend , loss of two way communication is the second step in your evolution , the first , self recognition .
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Dec 5 2007, 12:53 AM) |
| Be honest with me Chas , given the choice would you as a democrat really want to go with Kyoto ? Do you think its the best option for the world ? |
Lest I devolve too much, I best respond to ole Yankie.
Well. Maybe I could argue with you on that point. Are you suggesting that evolving to monkeys is necessarily a bad thing? What are you some kind of a homonist elitist or something?
Hell yes, I want us to get on board with Kyoto. Hell yes. The city hall is on fire and you're going to quibble on the best approach to putting it out? You think the volunteer fire department is better? Great. Then please tell the gol derned volunteer fire department to drop their socks, grab their cocks, and pitch in to putting out this fire. But don't just stand there on the side lines like a gol derned spectator.
Aren't you the least bit embarrassed, Yankie, that the U.S. has been less than honorable here on this and many other fronts? This sits well with you, does it?
What, you didn't believe all those yarns we were told in our misspent youths about this being a great country? I did. I took that in. And I'm feeling let down for what passes for leadership in this country today. I'm hanging my head when I think about it. I guess you're right in that it's a joint Democratic/Republican disgrace. A lot of help that observation is.
The saving grace for me is that I'm seeing positive things happen locally. Ever since we voted agin' IPP-3 here last February, there've been signs that the American spirit we all heard about is real. I've seen it. I've participated in it. That right there is a powerful antedote to cynicism.
Maybe cynicism is the big enemy here for us all. People hang their heads and shrug and conclude nothing can be done. No. Don't give in to that. Tap into those genes of your forebears whose courage and resolve enabled us to endure challlenges before. It's there. It's real.
And. It's needed.
Hey. This is a neat idea. And it's real cheap. What's not to love? I'm going to try this at our house:
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?prog...049&segmentID=5
And. John McCain on climate change:
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?prog...049&segmentID=3
Say made the comment that one presidential candidate is pretty much the same as another on this topic. That may be, but I don't think so. I think McCain is sincere on it.
Hey Yankie, lest you turn into a monkey, could you answer me this:
If you don't take anthropogenic climate change seriously, how about anthropogencic acidification of the oceans? Even if elevated atmospheric CO2 had no effect on climate, there's no doubt that it is causing the world's oceans to become more acidic.
Would it kill you to just admit that hey this needs to be addressed.
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?prog...049&segmentID=5
And. John McCain on climate change:
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?prog...049&segmentID=3
Say made the comment that one presidential candidate is pretty much the same as another on this topic. That may be, but I don't think so. I think McCain is sincere on it.
Hey Yankie, lest you turn into a monkey, could you answer me this:
If you don't take anthropogenic climate change seriously, how about anthropogencic acidification of the oceans? Even if elevated atmospheric CO2 had no effect on climate, there's no doubt that it is causing the world's oceans to become more acidic.
Would it kill you to just admit that hey this needs to be addressed.
| QUOTE (chaster @ Dec 12 2007, 01:09 PM) |
| Hey. This is a neat idea. And it's real cheap. What's not to love? I'm going to try this at our house: http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?prog...049&segmentID=5 And. John McCain on climate change: http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?prog...049&segmentID=3 Say made the comment that one presidential candidate is pretty much the same as another on this topic. That may be, but I don't think so. I think McCain is sincere on it. Hey Yankie, lest you turn into a monkey, could you answer me this: If you don't take anthropogenic climate change seriously, how about anthropogencic acidification of the oceans? Even if elevated atmospheric CO2 had no effect on climate, there's no doubt that it is causing the world's oceans to become more acidic. Would it kill you to just admit that hey this needs to be addressed. |
Did you happen to notice Chaster that now it's not just the LDS bogging down your crusade, Now Pope Benedict has picked the other side so your work is cut out.
I read what wikipedia says about Kyoto Protocol and concluded this whole thing is more about who gets the money for letting someone else do the pollution than it is about non-pollution. No wonder Russia thinks its a great idea and the USA won't sign on. For the US to sign on only means writing checks to the UN for for all the others. Quite the UN racket if you ask me.
Seriously, US would be way smarter to use the money to help reduce the emissions at home than to pay penalties to other countries who have a lower threshold. The whole scheme sounded kinda loony toony to me. So who isn't on it.. China and the US. go figure.
If ever there was a real political football, this has to be it on a global scale. I wondered if maybe the Pope could see an opportunity here too? "Father forgive me for I have sinned" I breathed. I breathed CO2. I may have breathed more than my fair share of CO2.
... and incidentally.. I read somewhere too that all the anti-Global warmers created more pollution getting to the Bali convention, than would 20,000 automobiles in a year. lol. But, we gotta start somewhere, right Chaster?
Mitt Romney, along with other conservative types I’ve heard lately, such as Newt Gingrich, for example, cite a compelling reason they claim why faith in God in essential to our freedoms. Look, they say, it’s right there in our Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.
Creator. That’s important, see, say our conservatives. Our rights derive from our Creator, not from government, not from the Constitution, not at the whim of a legislature or judiciary that might change its mind at any moment, but from our Creator.
As a secular guy, I appreciate this stance in one sense. I’m glad that inalienable rights are something our conservatives take seriously at least in their words if not in their actions.
What bothers me about this “our rights derive from our Creator” line of thinking, while it’s good that we hold these sacred principles as off limits to living breathing fallible people, that’s also its downside too. It raises an alarm within me when we’re ruled by principles that are off limits to living breathing fallible people. This is one ingredient to tyranny. The other ingredient is a person who has a special relationship with the Almighty, someone with whom the Almighty has been exceedingly pleased and who therefore has been anointed by his usually white male self as the Almighty’s spokes-saint. You put these two ingredients together, principles that derive from the Almighty and which are off limits to living breathing fallible people, and a person who has this special relationship with the Almighty, and your tyrant is all set. He has a blank check. Combine this with yet another ingredient, a population ruled by fear, ignorance, and superstition, and you’ve got yourself a credible Dark Age going. Throw in some self-inflicted environmental degradation, plagues, and continuous tribal warfare, well it’s the Old Testament II. And there we are. Living the Bible. Oh yeah. Gi’ me that old time religion.
I’d much rather that our societal contracts derive from living breathing fallible people, by living breathing fallible people, for living breathing fallible people, with the understanding that we’re living breathing fallible people who need continual reality checks. The key notion there, a very American ideal as I read our ideals, is access. As living breathing fallible people, we have access to the societal contracts that govern us. Seems like a practical enough approach as exemplified by the success of this nation.
One big problem with our religious conservatives’ claim that their religion is the great rock on which our freedoms rest is that their track record on that. I look to our religious conservatives for many a splendid example both today and in the past of how their lack of morality can imperil our freedoms. They’ve done a heck of a job exemplifying that “Every man for himself” isn’t a suitable creed by which people can remain free for very long.
What our religious conservatives have been brilliant at both now and in the past is putting a sanctimonious face on skullduggery. Slavery, for example. Our religious conservatives sure dipped heavily into their good old fashioned Christian values there, didn’t they? They leaned heavily upon them to explain to the world that it was all about helping sub-humans gain the blessings of Christianity. Slavery, see, was all about Christian charity. Helping out in the fields was a small thing to ask in return. Oh yeah. Gi’ me that good old religion. Some rock of morality. Our religious conservatives have been the great rock all right, the great rock on which freedoms of many others have been smashed in the service of their “Christian values.”
That isn’t to say that our religious conservative necessarily deliberately starts out with the intent of subverting religion to justify greed. No. He’s probably sincere. I imagine in most cases he probably does set out to adhere to a system of thought that would help him develop a moral life. Somewhere along the line, he loses sight of that and becomes religiously devoted to training himself to overlook things that don’t square with his “faith”. He grooms this capacity to where he genuinely can’t tell the difference between faith and wishful thinking. That’s a human fault that doesn’t disqualify him from participating in our political process, but it does undermine the claim that Mr. Romney has reiterated that religiosity is the sole source for morality and freedom.
I don’t share his delusion. That I don’t share in Mitt Romney’s delusional thinking does not make me morally deficient. I aim to prove that with my life. I’m about making my life a moral statement not derived from any religion or any God. God? God who? I’m about leaving the campground in better shape than how I found it. Has nothing to do with any religion, unless you consider the Boy Scouts of America a religion.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.
Creator. That’s important, see, say our conservatives. Our rights derive from our Creator, not from government, not from the Constitution, not at the whim of a legislature or judiciary that might change its mind at any moment, but from our Creator.
As a secular guy, I appreciate this stance in one sense. I’m glad that inalienable rights are something our conservatives take seriously at least in their words if not in their actions.
What bothers me about this “our rights derive from our Creator” line of thinking, while it’s good that we hold these sacred principles as off limits to living breathing fallible people, that’s also its downside too. It raises an alarm within me when we’re ruled by principles that are off limits to living breathing fallible people. This is one ingredient to tyranny. The other ingredient is a person who has a special relationship with the Almighty, someone with whom the Almighty has been exceedingly pleased and who therefore has been anointed by his usually white male self as the Almighty’s spokes-saint. You put these two ingredients together, principles that derive from the Almighty and which are off limits to living breathing fallible people, and a person who has this special relationship with the Almighty, and your tyrant is all set. He has a blank check. Combine this with yet another ingredient, a population ruled by fear, ignorance, and superstition, and you’ve got yourself a credible Dark Age going. Throw in some self-inflicted environmental degradation, plagues, and continuous tribal warfare, well it’s the Old Testament II. And there we are. Living the Bible. Oh yeah. Gi’ me that old time religion.
I’d much rather that our societal contracts derive from living breathing fallible people, by living breathing fallible people, for living breathing fallible people, with the understanding that we’re living breathing fallible people who need continual reality checks. The key notion there, a very American ideal as I read our ideals, is access. As living breathing fallible people, we have access to the societal contracts that govern us. Seems like a practical enough approach as exemplified by the success of this nation.
One big problem with our religious conservatives’ claim that their religion is the great rock on which our freedoms rest is that their track record on that. I look to our religious conservatives for many a splendid example both today and in the past of how their lack of morality can imperil our freedoms. They’ve done a heck of a job exemplifying that “Every man for himself” isn’t a suitable creed by which people can remain free for very long.
What our religious conservatives have been brilliant at both now and in the past is putting a sanctimonious face on skullduggery. Slavery, for example. Our religious conservatives sure dipped heavily into their good old fashioned Christian values there, didn’t they? They leaned heavily upon them to explain to the world that it was all about helping sub-humans gain the blessings of Christianity. Slavery, see, was all about Christian charity. Helping out in the fields was a small thing to ask in return. Oh yeah. Gi’ me that good old religion. Some rock of morality. Our religious conservatives have been the great rock all right, the great rock on which freedoms of many others have been smashed in the service of their “Christian values.”
That isn’t to say that our religious conservative necessarily deliberately starts out with the intent of subverting religion to justify greed. No. He’s probably sincere. I imagine in most cases he probably does set out to adhere to a system of thought that would help him develop a moral life. Somewhere along the line, he loses sight of that and becomes religiously devoted to training himself to overlook things that don’t square with his “faith”. He grooms this capacity to where he genuinely can’t tell the difference between faith and wishful thinking. That’s a human fault that doesn’t disqualify him from participating in our political process, but it does undermine the claim that Mr. Romney has reiterated that religiosity is the sole source for morality and freedom.
I don’t share his delusion. That I don’t share in Mitt Romney’s delusional thinking does not make me morally deficient. I aim to prove that with my life. I’m about making my life a moral statement not derived from any religion or any God. God? God who? I’m about leaving the campground in better shape than how I found it. Has nothing to do with any religion, unless you consider the Boy Scouts of America a religion.
Mormons ought to be first in line to promote secularism. Give the religious right free reign and they'll outlaw Mormonism. Separation of church and state does two things
Thing 1: Protects us from religious wackos.
Thing 2: Protects religious wackos from each other.
Thing 1: Protects us from religious wackos.
Thing 2: Protects religious wackos from each other.
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Dec 17 2007, 09:02 PM) |
| Mormons ought to be first in line to promote secularism. Give the religious right free reign and they'll outlaw Mormonism. Separation of church and state does two things Thing 1: Protects us from religious wackos. Thing 2: Protects religious wackos from each other. |
You shouldn't get a free pass on this half truth, cactus.
Separation of Church and State was never intended to eliminate "in God we Trust, or "One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
The framers of the constitution would turn over in their graves at where secularism has .. is.. taking us now. The men who fought and won the Revolutionary war, and established this a a free nation would be the first to confess the "hand of providence", meaning the religious influence in their life, and work.
True, they intended that there be no "state relgion" and provided for people to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience, but the idea that they would abandon religion. and God altogether was not the intent of that proviso.
You are right that it does things 1 and 2, but not for the reasons you are saying... and not to establish thing 3... Secularism, which is just another religion... the new politically correct State Religion? Only when they have successfully outlawed the rest of them.
Well, now we got to keep this respectful of each other there Say and not get all pissy like we (I mostly) did last time. We can disagree and still think we're both pretty fine fellers.
"In God we Trust" was added to the coinage during the civil war. Like many such things it was a product of the fear that war brings on, which always makes people turn more to religion and also to more conservative politics. It isn't necessarily good policy or even legal, but in war, whatever.
"Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance during the McCarthy witchhunt era. Again, fear brought on by war with the added twist that if you opposed it, you were apt to be labeled a Commie. That could be devastating during that time.
So there's our most prominent public manifestations of faith; both motivated by fear, war hysteria, and witch hunting.
Secularism is not a religion. All it means is the churchs run themselves without interference from the government and the government conducts government business without entanglements from religion. It's a simple concept, which has been the basis of our government for almost all of it's history. I think you are confusing it with atheism, which is a form of religion.
Why do you say the founders would founder at where "secularism" is taking us now? Where is it you feel secularism is taking us? I honestly don't know what you are talking about. The only Secular agenda I know of is to try and keep the wackos from undermining our freedoms.
Sayitaintso, I would really like to you to respond to my point about Mormons being potential victims of evangelizing the government. The dominant force behind the religious wacko right are evangelical Christians. You can see what they think of Mormonism by their response to Mitt Romney. Give those assholes free rein and Mormonism will be outlawed. Your only protection is the separation between church and state - that is secularism. Better get on board now, brother Say. At least we are nice people. You will get no quarter from Robertson/Gingrich.
"In God we Trust" was added to the coinage during the civil war. Like many such things it was a product of the fear that war brings on, which always makes people turn more to religion and also to more conservative politics. It isn't necessarily good policy or even legal, but in war, whatever.
"Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance during the McCarthy witchhunt era. Again, fear brought on by war with the added twist that if you opposed it, you were apt to be labeled a Commie. That could be devastating during that time.
So there's our most prominent public manifestations of faith; both motivated by fear, war hysteria, and witch hunting.
Secularism is not a religion. All it means is the churchs run themselves without interference from the government and the government conducts government business without entanglements from religion. It's a simple concept, which has been the basis of our government for almost all of it's history. I think you are confusing it with atheism, which is a form of religion.
Why do you say the founders would founder at where "secularism" is taking us now? Where is it you feel secularism is taking us? I honestly don't know what you are talking about. The only Secular agenda I know of is to try and keep the wackos from undermining our freedoms.
Sayitaintso, I would really like to you to respond to my point about Mormons being potential victims of evangelizing the government. The dominant force behind the religious wacko right are evangelical Christians. You can see what they think of Mormonism by their response to Mitt Romney. Give those assholes free rein and Mormonism will be outlawed. Your only protection is the separation between church and state - that is secularism. Better get on board now, brother Say. At least we are nice people. You will get no quarter from Robertson/Gingrich.
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Dec 18 2007, 09:09 PM) |
| Sayitaintso, I would really like to you to respond to my point about Mormons being potential victims of evangelizing the government. The dominant force behind the religious wacko right are evangelical Christians. You can see what they think of Mormonism by their response to Mitt Romney. Give those assholes free rein and Mormonism will be outlawed. Your only protection is the separation between church and state - that is secularism. Better get on board now, brother Say. At least we are nice people. You will get no quarter from Robertson/Gingrich. |
Yeah, I may be getting Secularism and Liberalism kind of crossed up. I'll give you that one... if you can separate them.
By that definition of Secular, you have a valid point. Although it does seem a little semantic. But I guess if you are the leader of it, we have to take your word for it.
I don't really think that anything in Mormonism is a big threat to presidential politics. What? Are they afraid the President in this election might just end being a crooked money grubbing sanctimonious kiss up to the Jews like all the others? No Mormon would do THAT, surely not.
All they accomplish by attacking Mormonism, is a buncha "Christian" mudslinging in the primary that will only come back to haunt them in the general election.
Of course I could just take the old mantra argument too, that all good will be attacked. So yeah, Mormonism, and all the other religions as well, would probably self destruct left to duke it out. But that's gonna happen anyway, Secular law won't be able to stop it. It's going to take the Second Coming to end the warmongering.
Did you happen to see the Orson Scott Card essay on Deseret News? About Mormon Christianity. I read all 200 comments too... you get a pretty good feel through that where the argument goes. (besides on and on indefinitely)
Ya boy, comments on and on and on and>>> I live in Arizona so the Deseret news doesn't appear on my radar screen very often. When we was kids dad was a Trib man. Hey, maybe that's how I came to grow up secularist. Do you have a link to the DesNews article?
I don't think secularism or liberalism were associated with non-religion before the conservative movement got all wrapped in religiosity. Back in the day, back when I had lots of brown hair that is, there was this civil rights movement, which was kind of heir to the old anti-slavery movement. It was led by ministers, both black and white. The main support was from churches. But those weren't the rock m' sock m' old testament, judge first and gather facts later kind of churches. Those were more of the touchy feely give me a hug judge not kind of churches. You might say they were the more liberal new-testament kind of churches. These conservative dickheads today are "evangelicals" which is old testament based. The same mix of churches is around, but today it's the pointy headed ones that are making the most noise.
We have this guy at work, who's very sharp and actually is a very thoughtful and kind man, in arenas where his religion/politics don't partition his mind. But in those areas, he's a pointy headed old testament guy with no compassion. Once we got in an argument, which was pretty much this same discussion. I said USA is secular. He got all worked up and finally he said "This is a Christian nation and if you don't like it you should leave". Now, here's the deal. I was born in the USA. I am 60 years old and I don't know any other country I could go to. I have never in my life been told that I wasn't welcome in the country I was born in before this f...ing Christian came along. So, maybe that helps you see why I think these dickheads are a threat.
I don't think secularism or liberalism were associated with non-religion before the conservative movement got all wrapped in religiosity. Back in the day, back when I had lots of brown hair that is, there was this civil rights movement, which was kind of heir to the old anti-slavery movement. It was led by ministers, both black and white. The main support was from churches. But those weren't the rock m' sock m' old testament, judge first and gather facts later kind of churches. Those were more of the touchy feely give me a hug judge not kind of churches. You might say they were the more liberal new-testament kind of churches. These conservative dickheads today are "evangelicals" which is old testament based. The same mix of churches is around, but today it's the pointy headed ones that are making the most noise.
We have this guy at work, who's very sharp and actually is a very thoughtful and kind man, in arenas where his religion/politics don't partition his mind. But in those areas, he's a pointy headed old testament guy with no compassion. Once we got in an argument, which was pretty much this same discussion. I said USA is secular. He got all worked up and finally he said "This is a Christian nation and if you don't like it you should leave". Now, here's the deal. I was born in the USA. I am 60 years old and I don't know any other country I could go to. I have never in my life been told that I wasn't welcome in the country I was born in before this f...ing Christian came along. So, maybe that helps you see why I think these dickheads are a threat.
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Dec 19 2007, 05:58 AM) |
| Ya boy, comments on and on and on and>>> I live in Arizona so the Deseret news doesn't appear on my radar screen very often. When we was kids dad was a Trib man. Hey, maybe that's how I came to grow up secularist. Do you have a link to the DesNews article? |
I had to search it up, it was last week so it had dropped off the page, but it was hot topic for several days. I seed the comments are up to 384 now, so I i'll have to read the other half. lol I'm bettin' they didn't come up with anything new in the rest tho.
I thought OSC did a pretty good job (for a mainstream Mormon) of explaining the doctrine at least. I read in the comments , or somewhere, that he was an editor of the Ensign Magazine, was or is? but anyway he "esplained like a bleever"
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695233910,00.html
It never made any sense to me to decide who God is by having a duel. But I guess with some of them, the last man standing proves they wuz right. So it Shiz what it is. But then the Muslims got us all outnumbered now, so get ready for Sharia Secularism... lol
But oh yeah, those "Christians" get to be killin' mad thible bumpers, over this, and then when that brawl is done, start in on "works vs. grace" and save themselves and damn you, no matter what they done did or said.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Dec 19 2007, 01:16 AM) |
| Secularism, which is just another religion... the new politically correct State Religion? Only when they have successfully outlawed the rest of them. |
That's a charge that's been flying about of late. Ann Coulter has written a book that takes that tack, something along the lines of "Godless, the new religion of the left."
I think she's reading a bit of her own way of looking at things onto others and then finding fault with it. Whenever somebody talks about ethics or morality, well of course, that can only be religion. Goes without saying, according to Ann Coulter. That's just the way her mind works. Ethics, morality, religion can only exist together in Ann Coulter's mind. To her mind there's just no alternative to that way of thinking.
And so, when a secular guy, such as myself, makes a statement such as "it'd sure be a good idee for humans not to trash the planet, seeing as we depend on it for everything we hold dear," the likes of Ann Coulter rise up and say "Foul. Foul, I say. There you go again, trying to impose your atheistic Godless religion upon othes."
No. That's not a religion, unless the aim of folks continueing to be supported on this planet is some kind of a religious notion. Maybe it should be a religious notion a bit more than it has been. Yeah, that'd be good. But this isn't necessarily a religious notion. This comes from something even more basic than religion, the notion that life is good and worth defending and worth maintaining.
You can have that notion and worship God, or you can worship 11.3 Gods, or you can worship no God at all and still think that doing what's needed to go on living is a pretty good idea.
Hey Guys!
| QUOTE (Onthestreet @ Dec 20 2007, 12:27 AM) |
| Jim said: I don't think secularism or liberalism were associated with non-religion before the conservative movement got all wrapped in religiosity...These conservative dickheads today are "evangelicals" which is old testament based. The same mix of churches is around, but today it's the pointy headed ones that are making the most noise. We have this guy at work, who's very sharp and actually is a very thoughtful and kind man, in arenas where his religion/politics don't partition his mind. But in those areas, he's a pointy headed old testament guy with no compassion. Once we got in an argument, which was pretty much this same discussion. I said USA is secular. He got all worked up and finally he said "This is a Christian nation and if you don't like it you should leave". Now, here's the deal. I was born in the USA. I am 60 years old and I don't know any other country I could go to. I have never in my life been told that I wasn't welcome in the country I was born in before this f...ing Christian came along. So, maybe that helps you see why I think these dickheads are a threat. |
Two Masters, One Party
"This is a Christian nation, and by kwap if you don’t take our kwap so you can be well fertilized, leave our great fiefdom to us and the Devil whom we serve in the name of religion”. Yup, Jim Bob, you know you are so right to be incensed by this sanctimonious, hypocritical, raping, baby-killing, “Christian-Mormon-Athiest-Secular” culture posing as righteous law and order, and God’s gift to man, while justifying every sin and crime in the book. As long as they control the courts, the executive, and law-making powers, and the media outlets, they can cover up for each other (sometimes). This is what the FLDS has been saying all along, you good ole fundamentalist. You know good fundamentals when you see it, don’t you? You know that God was right then, in saying they are ALL CORRUPT, having a form of goodness and godliness, but denying the power thereof, preferring the powers from beneath where wealth and pleasure and even the environment and human life itself can be stolen with impunity.
Wrong. The devil has lied to them, and now the stage is set for God to do battle, even if Jim hates that idea of God destroying what God hates, and what Jim hates. What, baby-killing conservatives, even Mormons? Just this week, Mit Romney was on Face The Nation with Tim Russert, saying that life starts at conception. Yet, Mr. Russert put him in a mighty tight box, showing video clips of him saying that he would never compromises on the certain positions like the destroying of new babies (what they call fetuses to maybe sterilize the slayings). Then, this week before the nation, Romney glorified the harvesting of live fetuses for scientific study and stem cells, the slaying of little children. You’d think he was hired by the evangelicals to embarrass and destroy the Mormon Church. Indeed, evangelical leaders have endorsed him for President. Yes, he is in bed with them, and with every corrupt thing that can give him an edge.
Prolife is Prochoice. Republican is Democratic. Mormon is Christian, and Christian is Mormon and Atheist and Secularist. They are all the same party, running around one another grasping for advantage wherever, and regardless of the price, sold to the highest bidder, the Devil, if Christ spoke the truth. “There are only two masters (Mt. 6:24). If you do anything against God and His Word, you serve the master of this world and go down with him to oblivion, one of three hells, or worse (perdition or outer darkness): D&C 76.
Hell, ask any of them. With all the kwap they feed on, and force on the public in their media outlets and their schools and public forums and institutions, they’ll tell you that their turds, all their corrupt cult doctrines and policies, are righteous and yummy, good for public policy and the food chain of society, and very yummy and required fare at any banquet. This is what I’ve been saying all along, Jim Bob, but you seem to have been taken up into their heavenly hell and indignation against a strict fundamental faith, a faith that only proves their guilt and seals their fate, while they try to maneuver around every corner at high speed, with a high hand, trying to hide from the mountain of evidence falling upon them, and the disasters of the times, until they cry for these mountains to fall on them to cover their shame, to seal their fate.
Jim Bob, secularism has taken up the mantra of the Mormons and Evangelicals, in order to garner their votes and public acceptance, like whores selling their bodies and souls for momentary gain and acceptance, with the promise of official favors and official status and legal actions in return.
Does this make secularism any more sweet and innocent? Think about it, honey. It’s about as profitable as the substantial deposits you make in your toilet every day. Oh, by the way, if there's a post outside of my little box that you sought to stick me in, that I feel deserves the dignity of a reply, by heaven or by hell, I'll reply to it. If that ruffles the feather stuck in your hiney, finey. Go piney in your tiny jiny, with a smiley
Okey Dokey.Street
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Dec 10 2007, 03:33 AM) |
| Street, for christ sakes, I gave you your whole entire goddam forum to rant your lunacy on . Why don't you just keep it over there? The idea is, see, some of us don't want to have to see this goodam gibberish nor do we want to read your stupid condemnations nor have you sit in judgement as if you had enough brains to judge a nat. Go away. Quit bothering the normals. |
Talking Presidential
The topic is “Let US talk presidential”. It’s a public forum, dummy. The title of the sub-forum is Ramblings and Rants, and the forum title is Polyg Talk. So if anyone has the right to Ramble or Talk on the Polyg TALK Forum, it would by a Polyg. Only polygabusers would seek to censure and abuse peoples’ rights, and to pigeon-hole them into a corner, like dictators throughout the world. I would judge better of you, as someone with some basic human decency in allowing free speech. Human stupidity is what has led to the political, social, and environmental crisis in the world today, especially in a nation of sheep bleeting their continual support for political nit-wits. So when your brother invites all to talk politics and someone replies to see if stupidity can be corrected, that is the very purpose of a public forum. Only Red Green would get out the duct tape and try to put it over peoples’ mouths, or tape their fingers censure bureau. If you don’t like talk of Polyg doctrine, don’t sponsor a forum called “Polyg Talk”. Or maybe you just want to limit the talk to their buttons and toes, and not their muttons and bows, the meat and the crown of the matter.
You have as much choice to ignore my replies throughout the forum, as you do to not click on my own forum. Just because I reply to someone in a public forum doesn’t force you to click on it and scroll down and then read my replies, unless they are just totally irresistible and you have no self-control and can’t help yourself. Mr. Zombie himself. Or is it that nothing is more painful than the truth, and you can’t stand the truth. Either way, nobody is standing over you forcing you to read it, unless your grandson Tyler is totally hooked on Streetology and is forcing old grandpa down the street with the stick of Judah. What you’re saying is that anybody can bash the FLDS like your brother just did in the above post, but no FLDS is allowed to defend themselves.Romney’s speech on religion is the veiled LDS attack on religion.
Now, you be a good boy, or I’ll feed your cashew nuts to the monkeys, because you going nuts over my posts is making others go bananas. Not even the ladies will want your nuts, or your banana. All you do is make people choke, and then you end up clamming up your own forum tighter than that granny-knot on your shoes. Hey, what’s that old wrinkly thing on grandpa? Grandma.
Loosen up, you’re way too tight, you old tight-wad. Talk about Presidential, you never want to get as tight, abusive, or deceptive as a damn politician. Jesus damned the publicans, and we know you love Jesus, at least around Christmas time, as long as Santa-Jesus doesn't just give you a lump of coal. So you better watch out, you better not shout, you better not cry I'm telling you what. Jesus Christ is coming to town. Street
Trade. That’s going to be a campaign issue. I think we need another Ross Perot who will split the Republican vote again. Yeah. That’s what we need.
And Ralph Nader, Palease Palease Palease don’t run again. Palease.
I don’t know. I can kind of see the argument in favor of free trade agreements. I can see how it works on a national scale. Here in Utah we try to attract industries through having a first rate education system and also to some extent by saying, hey, unions don’t have much of a presence here.
And environmental regs? Nooooooooooo Problemo.
But we don't seek to erect trade barriers to keep out say Idaho potatoes or Detroit cars. Utah easily has a net benefit from being well integrated into a national economy.
So, I can see how this would work at a global level too.
It’s funny how our right wingers are right on board with the concept of a global economy, while anything remotely suggestive of a global organization such as the UN is regarded as the anti-Christ. Go figure.
I guess the key there, if it’s about cheap labor and circumventing environmental or health and safety regs, God smiles upon it. If it’s about anything else than that, God specifically has proscribed it. Says so right in the Bible.
That’s what bothers me about free trade. After decades of slow but steady improvements in air quality, for example, our west coast cities are starting to see air quality degrade again. Pollution is coming all the way across the Pacific from China. You name it, it’s coming from China, pesticides that’ve been banned for decades elsewhere, NOX, SOX, PCPs. Oh yeah, it’s a regular chemical alphabet soup emanating from China these days. What they really need to do, I guess, is hire that outfit Yankie was citing the other day - what was it? - the American Council on Why Chemicals Are Our Friends, or something like that. America’s preeminent position in the slick sales job industry is still uncontested around the world. There’s something for us to take pride in.
Other industries, though, seem to be finding that we Americans just aren’t worth our asking price anymore. That, or our safety, health, and environmental standards have priced us out of the market. You say that there’s one word for who’s to blame for this, liberals? Well yes, we do have a lot to answer for there, I’ll grant you that. We should hang our heads in shame over this?
Here locally, for example, Bourns, a company that makes electronic potentiometers, used to have a plant here but a few years back closed up the local plant, packed it up, and shipped it off to China. China got the jobs and our west coast cities got the NOX, SOX, PCPs, and so on. There’s a bitter pill for all the lefties on the West coast.
Course, yes, we consumers do get lead-contaminated toys at a real bargain now. So what are we complaining about?
And yes, the U.S. GNP has been growing at a good clip. It’s just that the middle class of America hasn’t gotten much of a share of the growth. In fact, the American middle class has actually been loosing ground over the past few decades in terms of real buying power. I guess it’d be un-Christian of me to suggest that we ought to be getting a piece of this.
Is it just I, or is the American middle class being sold a bogus bill of goods here? The middle class gets to absorb the downsides of free trade in terms of entire sectors of our economy being loaded up and shipped abroad. Buck up, middle class, stop whining and go get yourselves some more education. And what do the beneficiaries get besides super duper rich beyond your wildest dreams? A tax break. I guess I need it explained to me again how this is a great deal for all concerned.
As I recall, the tax break for the super rich is a concept known as “trickle-down economics”, a very old concept re-discovered by Ronald Reagan. It used to be known as the po’ getting pissed on yet again before it had an image overhaul. He also re-discovered the Southern Democratic and gave them a whole new spiffed up image too. He was good at that, taking a tired old discredited cast off form of skullduggery, spiffing it up with a nice friendly new image, and giving it a whole new lease on life. He was known as “the great communicator” for being so handy at that.
Ole Belzabub. There’s another of your great communicators.
I see free trade as a good concept Provided you have something approaching equitable environmental, health, and safety standards among the participants. Utah can compete head to head with Idaho because both have something like equitable standards. That I can live with.
But China? Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I see our trade with China as one big race to the bottom of no standards, standards that took a century to wrangle one hard won step at a time out of humorless penny pinching shotgun wielding company ginks and company finks. It’s one big race backwards to no standards and maybe no middle class.
You know what really depresses me? The thought that we might have to go past Go, do not collect $200, and go right back to square one from say 1900 and repeat that whole miserable blood soaked process all over again for regular working class folk to get a living wage and a few health and safety and environmental standards. What a freaking drag that would be. But that’s what happens to a society that has contempt for history. It just has to take the history class over.
A thing we might have to learn all over again from square one, the American middle class Is the engine that produces the wealth that is enjoyed here. You wipe that out, your nice little golden parachute will sink like a stone.
And Ralph Nader, Palease Palease Palease don’t run again. Palease.
I don’t know. I can kind of see the argument in favor of free trade agreements. I can see how it works on a national scale. Here in Utah we try to attract industries through having a first rate education system and also to some extent by saying, hey, unions don’t have much of a presence here.
And environmental regs? Nooooooooooo Problemo.
But we don't seek to erect trade barriers to keep out say Idaho potatoes or Detroit cars. Utah easily has a net benefit from being well integrated into a national economy.
So, I can see how this would work at a global level too.
It’s funny how our right wingers are right on board with the concept of a global economy, while anything remotely suggestive of a global organization such as the UN is regarded as the anti-Christ. Go figure.
I guess the key there, if it’s about cheap labor and circumventing environmental or health and safety regs, God smiles upon it. If it’s about anything else than that, God specifically has proscribed it. Says so right in the Bible.
That’s what bothers me about free trade. After decades of slow but steady improvements in air quality, for example, our west coast cities are starting to see air quality degrade again. Pollution is coming all the way across the Pacific from China. You name it, it’s coming from China, pesticides that’ve been banned for decades elsewhere, NOX, SOX, PCPs. Oh yeah, it’s a regular chemical alphabet soup emanating from China these days. What they really need to do, I guess, is hire that outfit Yankie was citing the other day - what was it? - the American Council on Why Chemicals Are Our Friends, or something like that. America’s preeminent position in the slick sales job industry is still uncontested around the world. There’s something for us to take pride in.
Other industries, though, seem to be finding that we Americans just aren’t worth our asking price anymore. That, or our safety, health, and environmental standards have priced us out of the market. You say that there’s one word for who’s to blame for this, liberals? Well yes, we do have a lot to answer for there, I’ll grant you that. We should hang our heads in shame over this?
Here locally, for example, Bourns, a company that makes electronic potentiometers, used to have a plant here but a few years back closed up the local plant, packed it up, and shipped it off to China. China got the jobs and our west coast cities got the NOX, SOX, PCPs, and so on. There’s a bitter pill for all the lefties on the West coast.
Course, yes, we consumers do get lead-contaminated toys at a real bargain now. So what are we complaining about?
And yes, the U.S. GNP has been growing at a good clip. It’s just that the middle class of America hasn’t gotten much of a share of the growth. In fact, the American middle class has actually been loosing ground over the past few decades in terms of real buying power. I guess it’d be un-Christian of me to suggest that we ought to be getting a piece of this.
Is it just I, or is the American middle class being sold a bogus bill of goods here? The middle class gets to absorb the downsides of free trade in terms of entire sectors of our economy being loaded up and shipped abroad. Buck up, middle class, stop whining and go get yourselves some more education. And what do the beneficiaries get besides super duper rich beyond your wildest dreams? A tax break. I guess I need it explained to me again how this is a great deal for all concerned.
As I recall, the tax break for the super rich is a concept known as “trickle-down economics”, a very old concept re-discovered by Ronald Reagan. It used to be known as the po’ getting pissed on yet again before it had an image overhaul. He also re-discovered the Southern Democratic and gave them a whole new spiffed up image too. He was good at that, taking a tired old discredited cast off form of skullduggery, spiffing it up with a nice friendly new image, and giving it a whole new lease on life. He was known as “the great communicator” for being so handy at that.
Ole Belzabub. There’s another of your great communicators.
I see free trade as a good concept Provided you have something approaching equitable environmental, health, and safety standards among the participants. Utah can compete head to head with Idaho because both have something like equitable standards. That I can live with.
But China? Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I see our trade with China as one big race to the bottom of no standards, standards that took a century to wrangle one hard won step at a time out of humorless penny pinching shotgun wielding company ginks and company finks. It’s one big race backwards to no standards and maybe no middle class.
You know what really depresses me? The thought that we might have to go past Go, do not collect $200, and go right back to square one from say 1900 and repeat that whole miserable blood soaked process all over again for regular working class folk to get a living wage and a few health and safety and environmental standards. What a freaking drag that would be. But that’s what happens to a society that has contempt for history. It just has to take the history class over.
A thing we might have to learn all over again from square one, the American middle class Is the engine that produces the wealth that is enjoyed here. You wipe that out, your nice little golden parachute will sink like a stone.
Well. I was kind of happy to see McCain make a comeback of sorts in Iowa.
I think McCain would be good for the country. As I see things through my oversimplified liberal filter, things went to hell with Ronanld Regan. Regan made the disovery that, even though the evnagelicals aren't a majority, they do tend to vote as solid block. So, if you can appeal to that block and also achieve just a little additional support elsewhere, you can win. Thing is, I think that has been very divisive and polarizing to the nation. Where that has gotten us is to a state of paralysis as a nation.
Another aspect of that was that Regan popularized this notion that government is the problem, and so the thing to do is run government into the ground. That has succeeded, but it has been disastrous.
Case in point, tubercluosis was on the way to extinction until Regan pulled the plug on that effort. Not only has tubercluosis made a big come back; now we're seeing a bunch of new strains that are antibiotic resistant. The people who tend to be carriers of tubercluosis ok don't tend to be your model citizens. What they'll do is tend to be sketchy at best in sticking to a program of taking antibiotics, which is exactly the optimal program for encouraging the development of antibiotic resistant strains of tubercluosis.
Societal problems like that ok aren't solved by throwing money at them but neither are they solved by ignoring them. Societal problems often need societal approaches and societal approaches need some resources devoted to them. To some extent we need a return to that model. Not a return to Johnson's Great Society, that was too in the direction of getting people dependent upon a nanny state, but a return to effective societal problem solving.
But beyond that even, we really need a return to a president who has a broad appeal across the board. That's what I see in McCain. He has support among centrist Republicans, but he also has a broad support among centrist Democrats too.
Huckabee and Romney have some good points, but I see them as essentially continueing with the Ronald Regan formula of pandering to Christian fundamentalists and then as many other people as they can after they've satisfied that narrow in every sens constituency. I think that would be a disaster for this country.
I think McCain would be good for the country. As I see things through my oversimplified liberal filter, things went to hell with Ronanld Regan. Regan made the disovery that, even though the evnagelicals aren't a majority, they do tend to vote as solid block. So, if you can appeal to that block and also achieve just a little additional support elsewhere, you can win. Thing is, I think that has been very divisive and polarizing to the nation. Where that has gotten us is to a state of paralysis as a nation.
Another aspect of that was that Regan popularized this notion that government is the problem, and so the thing to do is run government into the ground. That has succeeded, but it has been disastrous.
Case in point, tubercluosis was on the way to extinction until Regan pulled the plug on that effort. Not only has tubercluosis made a big come back; now we're seeing a bunch of new strains that are antibiotic resistant. The people who tend to be carriers of tubercluosis ok don't tend to be your model citizens. What they'll do is tend to be sketchy at best in sticking to a program of taking antibiotics, which is exactly the optimal program for encouraging the development of antibiotic resistant strains of tubercluosis.
Societal problems like that ok aren't solved by throwing money at them but neither are they solved by ignoring them. Societal problems often need societal approaches and societal approaches need some resources devoted to them. To some extent we need a return to that model. Not a return to Johnson's Great Society, that was too in the direction of getting people dependent upon a nanny state, but a return to effective societal problem solving.
But beyond that even, we really need a return to a president who has a broad appeal across the board. That's what I see in McCain. He has support among centrist Republicans, but he also has a broad support among centrist Democrats too.
Huckabee and Romney have some good points, but I see them as essentially continueing with the Ronald Regan formula of pandering to Christian fundamentalists and then as many other people as they can after they've satisfied that narrow in every sens constituency. I think that would be a disaster for this country.
Nah. McCain's too damn old. Take as miserable as I'm getting at age 60 and tack on another decade point two - just too dam old. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogvu7hgJu1Y&feature=related
Well, McCain's age is one of his pluses to my mind. Here may be my last chance to vote for somebody older than me.
All seriousness aside, hey, his mother is still kicking.
All seriousness aside, hey, his mother is still kicking.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Dec 19 2007, 09:45 AM) |
| I don't really think that anything in Mormonism is a big threat to presidential politics. What? Are they afraid the President in this election might just end being a crooked money grubbing sanctimonious kiss up to the Jews like all the others? No Mormon would do THAT, surely not. |
In that one paragraph, Say, you're not exactly giving me a whole lot of confidence in Mormon influence on politics, local or national. Anti-semitesm, for example. Oh yeah, that for sure was a big part of my upbrringing within the heart of Mormon country. Course, that's not necessarily a product of Mormonism, but it sure do seem to be popular amoung a goodly number of the saints. Amen halliluya to that.
Which kind of surprises me. I kind of got the impression from my upbringing that we Mormons are Jew wanna-bes. We like to think of ourselves as God's chosen people, for example, liiving in the land of ZION. Zion, Say. Where does that come from but from that we Mormons see ourselves as a kind of Jew?
Maybe that's where the rankle come from. Hey, we're the authentic Jews here, the real God's Chosen People, not those imposters, not those loathsome pretenders what done in our Messiah. Meanwhile forgetting what? That our so callled messiah was himself what? A Jew himself. What is Christianity but an offshot of Judaism?
Seems to me that we ought to grow up and stop believing in Messiahs in the first place. That'd be good for us on its own mertis, plus it'd help us to get along with Jews better.
I'm not siding with Romans here and, yes, probably some Jewish collaborators, who had executed some guy who might have existed for his having made some kind of a claim to being some sort of a "king". The Romans were quite humorless about that sort of thing. I don't much care for the Roman management style. It was all based on cheap labor and keeping them dumb and down and powerless. No wonder a few of them tried to throw off that oppressive regime. We can do better than that.
I think the Soviet Union was pretty much just modeled after the Roman Empire more than anything else.
http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?program...-00001#feature1
HUCKABEE: We don't own this earth. We are simply stewards of it—caretakers. We have done no harm if we take better care of this planet and give it to our children with cleaner air, cleaner soil, and cleaner water.
YOUNG: But Huckabee's taken a curious stand. He says he'll put a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions. But he's not sure those emissions are really to blame.
So, it seems Huckabee is seeing the writing on the wall politically, that climate change has become an issue even Republican voters are taking seriously these days. But what does the above amount to in terms of actual policy?
I’m still harboring bitter memories of GW Bush’s campaign stance on climate change back in ’00 where he out-Gored Gore on the topic and then his policies in office were 180 degrees out of sync with that. Those who see Gore as a communist for calling for carbon caps, hey, don’t you remember where GW Bush was on that back in the campaign of ’00? So why isn’t Bush a communist too? Because he was just lying through his teeth on it, that makes him not a communist?
Still, ok, Huckabee isn’t GW Bush, but I’ve got to wonder how seriously he takes this when he sends out this conflicting message of that reducing carbon emissions isn’t doing harm but there’s still that tiresome old “No one knows for sure” attitude. That’s not quite up to the level of determination you need to kick an addiction.
“I’m going to quit smoking even though no one knows for sure there’s any harm to it.” How would you rate the chances of a person saying that of actually quitting?
My father’s kind of a Republican wouldn’t take a stance so wishy washy, indecisive, and weak kneed as “No one knows for sure,” I can tell you that. My father would know for sure about it. He might be wrong, but he’d know for sure.
HUCKABEE: We don't own this earth. We are simply stewards of it—caretakers. We have done no harm if we take better care of this planet and give it to our children with cleaner air, cleaner soil, and cleaner water.
YOUNG: But Huckabee's taken a curious stand. He says he'll put a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions. But he's not sure those emissions are really to blame.
So, it seems Huckabee is seeing the writing on the wall politically, that climate change has become an issue even Republican voters are taking seriously these days. But what does the above amount to in terms of actual policy?
I’m still harboring bitter memories of GW Bush’s campaign stance on climate change back in ’00 where he out-Gored Gore on the topic and then his policies in office were 180 degrees out of sync with that. Those who see Gore as a communist for calling for carbon caps, hey, don’t you remember where GW Bush was on that back in the campaign of ’00? So why isn’t Bush a communist too? Because he was just lying through his teeth on it, that makes him not a communist?
Still, ok, Huckabee isn’t GW Bush, but I’ve got to wonder how seriously he takes this when he sends out this conflicting message of that reducing carbon emissions isn’t doing harm but there’s still that tiresome old “No one knows for sure” attitude. That’s not quite up to the level of determination you need to kick an addiction.
“I’m going to quit smoking even though no one knows for sure there’s any harm to it.” How would you rate the chances of a person saying that of actually quitting?
My father’s kind of a Republican wouldn’t take a stance so wishy washy, indecisive, and weak kneed as “No one knows for sure,” I can tell you that. My father would know for sure about it. He might be wrong, but he’d know for sure.
Nancy Nord, Bush’s pick to head up the Consumer Products Safety Commission, in a speech before the National Press Club spoke of the controversy the ’07 recalls of lead-contaminated toys from China. A former lawyer for the Eastman Kodak company, she’s seen by some as more a friend of industry than about enforcement of safety standards.
“Products are safer today than they have ever been,” she said. “An increase in recalls indicates better enforcement, not an increase in unsafe products.”
She mentioned the “Aqua Dots” case, where the toy dots’ coating, made at a factory located in Shenzhen in China's southern Guangdong province, contained a chemical that can turn toxic when many are ingested. Two children in the U.S. who swallowed the beads became comatose. Nord charged that the media coverage failed to mention how quickly the CPSC responded in this case.
Ok, nice save. Still, wouldn’t have a gram of prevention been worth a kilogram of cure here? The two U.S. children who swallowed the beads recovered, but still.
Nord pledged to “re-make the agency” to increase its effectiveness but also claimed that Congress has over-reacted in its current proposed legislation to increase CPSC staffing and inspections. The CPSC has been shrinking since 1981, including the Clinton administration. Nord opposes the proposed legislation and has taken some criticism for this stance as being a bit too friendly to industries she’s charged with keeping an eye on. She made the case that recent events were more of an indication of how the agency performed as intended rather than an indication of a need for the agency to be expanded.
The reason, she said, we had the spike in toy recalls, she said, after the Thomas the Tank Engine recall, the agency began to look more aggressively at similar toys and found other problems, to which the CPSC, she said, responded effectively. Furthermore, she said, there were no reported cases of injury or illness from these toys.
Ok, true, but still. As a parent, “No reported cases of injury or illness from these toys” isn’t completely reassuring.
Ok, yes, that is the Republican philosophy that we are to be responsible for ourselves and not look to “Big Brother” to watch over every aspect of our health, safety, and welfare. Still, when I buy some electrical cable, as I did awhile back, for example, and there’s this funny looking grayish powder sandwiched between the individual wires, I’d just as soon not have to wonder whether that stuff might be asbestos or some other god awful stuff that will give me cancer.
You know what? If I had to pay an extra nickel a foot for that cable in order to be assured that it’s not going to give me cancer, that’d be worth it to me.
Nord pointed out that the CPSC, unlike the FDA, has no authority to evaluate products for safety before they are made available to the public. She defended the “voluntary” approach to product safety. “We can’t inspect everything,” she said. “It’s better to have standards in place rather than excessive regulations.”
But there’s the problem. Where are the standards? Is perhaps trade with those running dog capitalists of China all about circumventing standards?
Maybe Congress is missing the point here in focusing exclusively on the CPSC and should be focusing some attention to standards, or lack of them, when it comes to our trading partners.
Still, another point. The worst of all worlds is to have the expensive government agency charged with keeping an eye on industry and then to staff it with people who’s purpose it is to not enforce anything. I’m not saying that’s the case with Nord, but that does seem to me to be the motis operandus of our GW Bush administration.
Case in point. GW’s EPA has just recently granted a license for a 200 MW coal fired power plant to be built in Sigurd, Utah. It’s my impression that the licensing process moved right along with greased skids. As in, “Let’s get this thing built and grand fathered in while GW/Cheney are still there.” The Sierra club filed a lawsuit, but that was dispensed with in short order.
By the way, the Sierra Club takes a lot of flak for being a “lawsuit mill”, but is that necessarily the fault of the Sierra Club? Say you have this neighbor who’s been trashing your place, and after trying to negotiate with him to no avail and calling the cops on him and so on, you sue him. And so the neighbor stops that behavior but then just takes the next opportunity to be a dufus moron and so you sue him again. Is it necessarily your fault for being so lawsuit happy? Doesn’t the dufus moron neighbor deserve some of the rap?
The proposed design of the Sigurd plant is state of art for handling stuff like SOX and NOX, but it does nothing about reducing mercury emissions, and it does nothing about reducing CO2 emissions.
To my mind, our EPA, as it is operating at present, is an expensive agency that has been specifically staffed with the purpose of not fulfilling its purpose, the purpose being environmental protection. It’s a waste of money and, worse, the environment is going to hell.
Republicans are right. With Republicans in charge, government is the problem. It’s a rather self-fulfilling prophecy.
“Products are safer today than they have ever been,” she said. “An increase in recalls indicates better enforcement, not an increase in unsafe products.”
She mentioned the “Aqua Dots” case, where the toy dots’ coating, made at a factory located in Shenzhen in China's southern Guangdong province, contained a chemical that can turn toxic when many are ingested. Two children in the U.S. who swallowed the beads became comatose. Nord charged that the media coverage failed to mention how quickly the CPSC responded in this case.
Ok, nice save. Still, wouldn’t have a gram of prevention been worth a kilogram of cure here? The two U.S. children who swallowed the beads recovered, but still.
Nord pledged to “re-make the agency” to increase its effectiveness but also claimed that Congress has over-reacted in its current proposed legislation to increase CPSC staffing and inspections. The CPSC has been shrinking since 1981, including the Clinton administration. Nord opposes the proposed legislation and has taken some criticism for this stance as being a bit too friendly to industries she’s charged with keeping an eye on. She made the case that recent events were more of an indication of how the agency performed as intended rather than an indication of a need for the agency to be expanded.
The reason, she said, we had the spike in toy recalls, she said, after the Thomas the Tank Engine recall, the agency began to look more aggressively at similar toys and found other problems, to which the CPSC, she said, responded effectively. Furthermore, she said, there were no reported cases of injury or illness from these toys.
Ok, true, but still. As a parent, “No reported cases of injury or illness from these toys” isn’t completely reassuring.
Ok, yes, that is the Republican philosophy that we are to be responsible for ourselves and not look to “Big Brother” to watch over every aspect of our health, safety, and welfare. Still, when I buy some electrical cable, as I did awhile back, for example, and there’s this funny looking grayish powder sandwiched between the individual wires, I’d just as soon not have to wonder whether that stuff might be asbestos or some other god awful stuff that will give me cancer.
You know what? If I had to pay an extra nickel a foot for that cable in order to be assured that it’s not going to give me cancer, that’d be worth it to me.
Nord pointed out that the CPSC, unlike the FDA, has no authority to evaluate products for safety before they are made available to the public. She defended the “voluntary” approach to product safety. “We can’t inspect everything,” she said. “It’s better to have standards in place rather than excessive regulations.”
But there’s the problem. Where are the standards? Is perhaps trade with those running dog capitalists of China all about circumventing standards?
Maybe Congress is missing the point here in focusing exclusively on the CPSC and should be focusing some attention to standards, or lack of them, when it comes to our trading partners.
Still, another point. The worst of all worlds is to have the expensive government agency charged with keeping an eye on industry and then to staff it with people who’s purpose it is to not enforce anything. I’m not saying that’s the case with Nord, but that does seem to me to be the motis operandus of our GW Bush administration.
Case in point. GW’s EPA has just recently granted a license for a 200 MW coal fired power plant to be built in Sigurd, Utah. It’s my impression that the licensing process moved right along with greased skids. As in, “Let’s get this thing built and grand fathered in while GW/Cheney are still there.” The Sierra club filed a lawsuit, but that was dispensed with in short order.
By the way, the Sierra Club takes a lot of flak for being a “lawsuit mill”, but is that necessarily the fault of the Sierra Club? Say you have this neighbor who’s been trashing your place, and after trying to negotiate with him to no avail and calling the cops on him and so on, you sue him. And so the neighbor stops that behavior but then just takes the next opportunity to be a dufus moron and so you sue him again. Is it necessarily your fault for being so lawsuit happy? Doesn’t the dufus moron neighbor deserve some of the rap?
The proposed design of the Sigurd plant is state of art for handling stuff like SOX and NOX, but it does nothing about reducing mercury emissions, and it does nothing about reducing CO2 emissions.
To my mind, our EPA, as it is operating at present, is an expensive agency that has been specifically staffed with the purpose of not fulfilling its purpose, the purpose being environmental protection. It’s a waste of money and, worse, the environment is going to hell.
Republicans are right. With Republicans in charge, government is the problem. It’s a rather self-fulfilling prophecy.
| QUOTE (chaster @ Jan 14 2008, 12:09 PM) |
| Republicans are right. With Republicans in charge, government is the problem. It’s a rather self-fulfilling prophecy. |
Yeah, but who doubts for two seconds that if the pres was a democrat you'd be covering their butt instead of bitching. Not me.
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?prog...002&segmentID=3
Mitt Romney on the environment via NPR's Living on Earth.
ROMNEY: I believe the planet's getting warmer and I believe that human activity is contributing to the planet getting warmer. I'm not a scientist so I don't know how much is human and how much is due to other cyclical factors we don't understand. I just don't know.
(Is that perhaps another of the sort of read between the lines hint off "No one knows for sure" excuse # 537B for continued business as usual?)
But I do know this; we can reduce the impact of human activity by reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases. And the best way I know to do that is to put us on a track to becoming energy independent of foreign oil. Because getting us to do that would mean less use of oil and more use of liquefied coal, where you sequester the CO2, nuclear, solar, wind power, biodiesel, biofuel, ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and more efficient vehicles and homes and business. You do those things: our greenhouse gas emissions come down a lot. ... Energy independence is Romney's highest domestic economic priority, so he's proposing a program on the size and scale of the Apollo Moon Project. Here he is in the last New Hampshire Debate from ABC News, Facebook, and WMUR-TV:
(Yes, there is some overlap between energy independence and reducing carbon emissions, but the above suggests to me the emphasis will be more reliance on coal and, if there's a concurrent reduction in CO2 emissions, it'd be a good deal, but that's not the true objective here.)
GELLERMAN: Romney supports drilling for oil in ANWR, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, and in off-shore coastal waters—but not near Florida. And he opposes the Kyoto Climate Accord because it doesn't require developing countries to cap their climate changing emissions.
(I'll be dog damned if I can get that logic for not signing on with Kyoto. Again, it's an indication there's committment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in name only, as in "I'm going to quit smoking even though know one knows for sure there's a substantial need to and the proposed methods for quitting are flawed.")
GELLERMAN: If Yogi Berra were a reporter trying to learn about Romney's environmental record, he might say 'you can learn a lot about history by studying the past.' So, I found people familiar with Mitt Romney's environmental record when he was governor of Massachusetts. Sonia Hamel worked as a senior official in various state environmental offices for 25 years, under seven governors.
HAMEL: Actually Governor Romney is a wonderful manager. He was a very metrics-oriented manager and I think he was good at that.
GELLERMAN: Romney managed the Governor's Office like the businessman he was and won praise from environmentalists for filing first-in-the nation legislation to protect coastal waters. He signed a bill phasing out mercury in consumer products, and brokered a deal to clean up the state's dirtiest power plants. Romney even weather stripped the windows in his home, saving $128 a year on his heating bill.
But he got the highest praise for creating a new cabinet position overseeing energy, transportation, housing and the environment and appointing the president of the Conservation Law Foundation—an ardent environmental advocate—as its head.
The move pleased George Bachrach, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts and a former Democratic state senator.
BACHRACH: I think many of us in the state were excited by Mitt Romney. We may not have agreed with him on issues. He may not have been our cup of tea in many ways but we were impressed by his degree of intellect, entrepreneurial spirit, reform-minded, fresh set of eyes, and I think many of us were greatly disappointed when he became something else.
GELLERMAN: Critics say the transformation of Mitt Romney took a few years. Romney—who said he supported wind power—joined forces with opponents, including Ted Kennedy, against a wind project off Cape Cod. He cut the state's environmental budget, and spending on parks and land preservation.
Then, three year's into his term he stunned environmentalists when he pulled Massachusetts out of an historic pact of northeast states called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI. A first of its kind in the nation—it was the brainchild of New York Republican Governor George Pataki, designed as a market-driven system to control CO2 emissions from businesses. Sonia Hamel was Massachusetts chief architect of RGGI.
HAMEL: In my 25 years of doing program development in state government I never had been involved in a program as well analyzed and as well modeled as RGGI. We spent three years designing it and had a great deal of certainty that price increases would be extremely modest—probably on the order of two or three percent. And that actually if we did good work on energy efficiency we could reduce that to having no price increase.
GELERMAN: Romney had whole-heartedly supported the regional curb on greenhouse gases. In November of 2005 he said—quote: 'this is a great thing for the Commonwealth. I'm convinced it's good for business.'
Then, suddenly, just a month later, on the same day he announced he wasn't seeking re-election, Governor Romney said he was withdrawing from RGGI. Here's Romney explaining his change of heart on New Hampshire public radio's program the Exchange:
ROMNEY: I had literally one of our largest employers tell me they would not build another facility in our state if we signed the bill as it was without a cap. So I insisted that the other parties put a cap in. The other states would not and I said, very simple: 'if the other states aren't going to allow us to have a cap I can't sign it.'
GELLERMAN: Again, Sonia Hamel, the Massachusetts official who negotiated the greenhouse agreement:
HAMEL: I was personally really surprised and disappointed because we had done our homework on that program and it was designed very cautiously. So yes, it was a terrible disappointment to me.
GELLERMAN: So, what happened? What changed?
HAMEL: I can't tell you exactly. I wish I could look into the mind of Governor Romney when he was making these decisions but he faltered. In terms of making the decision he listened a lot to scare tactics. I don't know.
GELLERMAN: The upcoming Michigan primary could be the make or break vote for Mitt Romney. The role his environmental record and platform will play won't be known until the votes are analyzed, or as Yogi Berra would say; 'it ain't over til it's over.' For Living on Earth I'm Bruce Gellerman.
(That's what worries me about Romney's environmental record. He's for the environment right up to but excluding when it requires anything of anybody. Well, you just can't quit an addiction with that level of committment. It aint gonna happen.)
Mitt Romney on the environment via NPR's Living on Earth.
ROMNEY: I believe the planet's getting warmer and I believe that human activity is contributing to the planet getting warmer. I'm not a scientist so I don't know how much is human and how much is due to other cyclical factors we don't understand. I just don't know.
(Is that perhaps another of the sort of read between the lines hint off "No one knows for sure" excuse # 537B for continued business as usual?)
But I do know this; we can reduce the impact of human activity by reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases. And the best way I know to do that is to put us on a track to becoming energy independent of foreign oil. Because getting us to do that would mean less use of oil and more use of liquefied coal, where you sequester the CO2, nuclear, solar, wind power, biodiesel, biofuel, ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and more efficient vehicles and homes and business. You do those things: our greenhouse gas emissions come down a lot. ... Energy independence is Romney's highest domestic economic priority, so he's proposing a program on the size and scale of the Apollo Moon Project. Here he is in the last New Hampshire Debate from ABC News, Facebook, and WMUR-TV:
(Yes, there is some overlap between energy independence and reducing carbon emissions, but the above suggests to me the emphasis will be more reliance on coal and, if there's a concurrent reduction in CO2 emissions, it'd be a good deal, but that's not the true objective here.)
GELLERMAN: Romney supports drilling for oil in ANWR, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, and in off-shore coastal waters—but not near Florida. And he opposes the Kyoto Climate Accord because it doesn't require developing countries to cap their climate changing emissions.
(I'll be dog damned if I can get that logic for not signing on with Kyoto. Again, it's an indication there's committment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in name only, as in "I'm going to quit smoking even though know one knows for sure there's a substantial need to and the proposed methods for quitting are flawed.")
GELLERMAN: If Yogi Berra were a reporter trying to learn about Romney's environmental record, he might say 'you can learn a lot about history by studying the past.' So, I found people familiar with Mitt Romney's environmental record when he was governor of Massachusetts. Sonia Hamel worked as a senior official in various state environmental offices for 25 years, under seven governors.
HAMEL: Actually Governor Romney is a wonderful manager. He was a very metrics-oriented manager and I think he was good at that.
GELLERMAN: Romney managed the Governor's Office like the businessman he was and won praise from environmentalists for filing first-in-the nation legislation to protect coastal waters. He signed a bill phasing out mercury in consumer products, and brokered a deal to clean up the state's dirtiest power plants. Romney even weather stripped the windows in his home, saving $128 a year on his heating bill.
But he got the highest praise for creating a new cabinet position overseeing energy, transportation, housing and the environment and appointing the president of the Conservation Law Foundation—an ardent environmental advocate—as its head.
The move pleased George Bachrach, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts and a former Democratic state senator.
BACHRACH: I think many of us in the state were excited by Mitt Romney. We may not have agreed with him on issues. He may not have been our cup of tea in many ways but we were impressed by his degree of intellect, entrepreneurial spirit, reform-minded, fresh set of eyes, and I think many of us were greatly disappointed when he became something else.
GELLERMAN: Critics say the transformation of Mitt Romney took a few years. Romney—who said he supported wind power—joined forces with opponents, including Ted Kennedy, against a wind project off Cape Cod. He cut the state's environmental budget, and spending on parks and land preservation.
Then, three year's into his term he stunned environmentalists when he pulled Massachusetts out of an historic pact of northeast states called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI. A first of its kind in the nation—it was the brainchild of New York Republican Governor George Pataki, designed as a market-driven system to control CO2 emissions from businesses. Sonia Hamel was Massachusetts chief architect of RGGI.
HAMEL: In my 25 years of doing program development in state government I never had been involved in a program as well analyzed and as well modeled as RGGI. We spent three years designing it and had a great deal of certainty that price increases would be extremely modest—probably on the order of two or three percent. And that actually if we did good work on energy efficiency we could reduce that to having no price increase.
GELERMAN: Romney had whole-heartedly supported the regional curb on greenhouse gases. In November of 2005 he said—quote: 'this is a great thing for the Commonwealth. I'm convinced it's good for business.'
Then, suddenly, just a month later, on the same day he announced he wasn't seeking re-election, Governor Romney said he was withdrawing from RGGI. Here's Romney explaining his change of heart on New Hampshire public radio's program the Exchange:
ROMNEY: I had literally one of our largest employers tell me they would not build another facility in our state if we signed the bill as it was without a cap. So I insisted that the other parties put a cap in. The other states would not and I said, very simple: 'if the other states aren't going to allow us to have a cap I can't sign it.'
GELLERMAN: Again, Sonia Hamel, the Massachusetts official who negotiated the greenhouse agreement:
HAMEL: I was personally really surprised and disappointed because we had done our homework on that program and it was designed very cautiously. So yes, it was a terrible disappointment to me.
GELLERMAN: So, what happened? What changed?
HAMEL: I can't tell you exactly. I wish I could look into the mind of Governor Romney when he was making these decisions but he faltered. In terms of making the decision he listened a lot to scare tactics. I don't know.
GELLERMAN: The upcoming Michigan primary could be the make or break vote for Mitt Romney. The role his environmental record and platform will play won't be known until the votes are analyzed, or as Yogi Berra would say; 'it ain't over til it's over.' For Living on Earth I'm Bruce Gellerman.
(That's what worries me about Romney's environmental record. He's for the environment right up to but excluding when it requires anything of anybody. Well, you just can't quit an addiction with that level of committment. It aint gonna happen.)
| QUOTE (chaster @ Jan 16 2008, 12:23 PM) |
| (That's what worries me about Romney's environmental record. He's for the environment right up to but excluding when it requires anything of anybody. Well, you just can't quit an addiction with that level of committment. It aint gonna happen.) |
I think it's extremely naive to think that any other Chief Executive would be any different. Including Al Gore if he had gotten that far. It's just who's bs you want to chose to believe so you can feel good.
Koyoto isn't about reducing emission as much as who gets rich for creating them. It's not like they expect you to quit smoking.. you are an incurable addict and they know it. At issue is who gets to sell you the smoke. Not the cigarette.. oh no, don't get me wrong, this is not an affront to capitalism, you can buy that anywhere you want, you can even roll your own, no the smoke, if you light it up, you pay the UN for the smoke.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Jan 16 2008, 07:46 PM) |
| I think it's extremely naive to think that any other Chief Executive would be any different. Including Al Gore if he had gotten that far. It's just who's bs you want to chose to believe so you can feel good. Koyoto isn't about reducing emission as much as who gets rich for creating them. It's not like they expect you to quit smoking.. you are an incurable addict and they know it. At issue is who gets to sell you the smoke. Not the cigarette.. oh no, don't get me wrong, this is not an affront to capitalism, you can buy that anywhere you want, you can even roll your own, no the smoke, if you light it up, you pay the UN for the smoke. |
I'd use the word idealistic rather than naive, Say, but I suspect you're right. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. You and your fellows' being cynically sure that there's never going to be any real change in our addiction to fossil carbon make that a reality.
What's harder than the hardest alloy and the flimsiest of all barriers? Peoples' attitudes. No force on earth and certainly no public official can change how people think about a thing. But then, one day, peoples' attitudes just up and change by themselves and then people wonder why the heck it took so long. That's what I'm trying to make happen here, which is naive of me, I suppose. It's like trying to push a noodle.
The idea is just to keep pressing around the margins, a bit here and a bit there. Nothing can happen from a single person. Nothing can happen from a single public official. Still, you get a little change in attitude from this public official here, this individual there, next thing you know, why things change. This has happened before, so it's not entirely naive of me to presume it can happen again.
But will it occur in time for us to have saved ourselves a whole lot of grief?
The smart money would likely be with your cynical attitude, Say. Still, it's worth the effort to me. It sure beats cynicism and being resigned to our fate.
| QUOTE (chaster @ Jan 16 2008, 01:39 PM) |
| But will it occur in time for us to have saved ourselves a whole lot of grief? The smart money would likely be with your cynical attitude, Say. Still, it's worth the effort to me. It sure beats cynicism and being resigned to our fate. |
The smart money is the guys like Romney though, imo, who are in spite of their flip-flopping (which is usually the unavoidable political compromises) are going to be the ones who will actually do something proactive about alternate energy if anybody is going to.
As opposed to the Al Gores who gulfstream around bitching about it and capitalizing on the fear with a bunch of junk self-serving so called science.
I listened to Dennis Miller talk about what great "learning tool" Algore is for kids. What not to do scientifically, and how not to be politically, and how to not be unethical about scaremongering innocent ignorant people... it was great fun.
| QUOTE (chaster @ Jan 16 2008, 08:39 PM) |
| Posted Jan.16, 08:39 PM But will it occur in time for us to have saved ourselves a whole lot of grief? The smart money would likely be with your cynical attitude, Say. Still, it's worth the effort to me. It sure beats cynicism and being resigned to our fate. |
Root Cause
Nothing physical occurs until there is a spiritual essence or cause. Unless you address the spirit, you are resigned to your fate and cannot help yourself. Addressing only the physical environment ignores the foundational cause, like putting a bandaid on a decapitated head. Can that save you? You must get to the root cause, or no solution will be forthcoming to save you.
I’m encouraged to see John McCain win in S. Carolina, sort of the bastion state for conservatism. But surprisingly, seems McCain didn’t win by the conservative vote but by the undefined voters. It’s hard to put a face on your McCain voter, say the pundits. What is a McCain voter? Well, your McCain voter is hard to pin down. I'm leaning in the direction of being a McCain voter. So your McCain voter is an ultra-chaster-like sort of a winger? No. McCain isn't any kind of an ultra-winger. That's his appeal. Your McCain voter might be a Ronald Reagon Republican or a Bill Clinton Democrat or an evangelical or a Buddhist. Thing is, your McCain voter isn’t mostly drawn from any one or two of these narrow categories. And McCain isn’t pandering to any one or two of these narrow groups. McCain is a departure from the Ronald Reagon formula for political success: Mostly pander to your evangelicals and then as many others as you can get, but your evangelicals are your must-have-the-support-of foundation. McCain hasn’t applied that formula, which is why I am encouraged by the success of John McCain.
God love our evangelicals who are most certainly welcome at the political free-for-all we call democracy but you’re not invited to subdue and take dominion over all that too. Would you stop with the subduing and dominating for one minute? Give it a rest. Aren’t there any other things God told you to do but to subdue and dominate constantly?
McCain does have a large reservoir of credibility to draw upon. His service to his country goes without saying. He’s been a champion of reducing CO2 emissions even back when that cause had very few friends, and even more rare, a friend within the Republican senate. To my mind, he’s been a voice of sanity within the Republican Party while GW Bush and the gang was shootin’ up the town on a Saturday night.
It has been the case since Reagon that the Republican candidate who wins S. Carolina also goes on to be the Republican nominee. Course that was because it was the conservative litmus test that the Republican candidate had to be vetted by to have a prayer of getting the nomination. Now that McCain has won in S.C. but not from the conservative vote, what does it mean?
I hope it’s some kind of an indication that the nation generally is coming back from being dominated by ultra-x-wingers to something more centrist. Maybe there's a chance for us to meet the challenges ahead effectively for a change.
God love our evangelicals who are most certainly welcome at the political free-for-all we call democracy but you’re not invited to subdue and take dominion over all that too. Would you stop with the subduing and dominating for one minute? Give it a rest. Aren’t there any other things God told you to do but to subdue and dominate constantly?
McCain does have a large reservoir of credibility to draw upon. His service to his country goes without saying. He’s been a champion of reducing CO2 emissions even back when that cause had very few friends, and even more rare, a friend within the Republican senate. To my mind, he’s been a voice of sanity within the Republican Party while GW Bush and the gang was shootin’ up the town on a Saturday night.
It has been the case since Reagon that the Republican candidate who wins S. Carolina also goes on to be the Republican nominee. Course that was because it was the conservative litmus test that the Republican candidate had to be vetted by to have a prayer of getting the nomination. Now that McCain has won in S.C. but not from the conservative vote, what does it mean?
I hope it’s some kind of an indication that the nation generally is coming back from being dominated by ultra-x-wingers to something more centrist. Maybe there's a chance for us to meet the challenges ahead effectively for a change.
A confession, Democrats aren’t exactly brimming with credibility either just now. Generally, in America we have the luxury of a plan B. Ok so we might accidentally select a real bone head for a president. And ok, we might even select a bone head president twice in a row. That’s a bit unusual, but these things happen. But we have all these checks and balances to provide reality checks by which a bone headed executive can’t do too much damage. Except that didn’t happen this time around. Where were the reality checks?
I’m still standing all amazed that we have for the first time in our history a president, as did GW Bush in ’03, deliver a state of the union address largely based on information derived from torture. This information, which later, surprise surprise, turned out that the guy told his torturers what they wanted to hear and it wasn’t true, was substantially the basis on which this country went to war in Iraq. Aren’t you at all amazed that we would fall from our ideals so abruptly and to such a low as that? What, didn’t you believe all that stuff you were taught in school about this country being a standard bearer of high principles? Am I the only fool who fell for that?
Course that fact wasn’t generally known at the time, but still. Where were the reality checks? Well, we’d just had 9-11 and there was a great deal of fear and war fever in the air. In times of national emergency we tend to rally around the leadership, however piss poor an excuse for leadership it is.
But still. Where were the reality checks?
I have to say the Democrats on Iraq aren’t exactly brimming with credibility either even lately. Had we followed our Democratic Congress’s initiative to withdraw from Iraq immediately, for example, we’d have an Al Qaida celebrating in the streets, and their recruitment drives would be overflowing.
In all honesty neither Clinton nor Obama fill me with much confidence. They both seem kind of like air heads to me. Not much there there to them. That’s a superficial take on them admittedly. I guess I should check out their web sites and see their detailed brilliant plans for things.
Maybe I’m getting to sound like an old curmudgeon conservative in that I wonder whether this country is going soft, soft in the belly and soft in the head. I fear we’re forgetting the hard won lessons we learned from the school of hard knocks by which we achieved such wonderful things as being standard bearers for science, secular governance, and ethics. We seem all to eager to sell out these standards for the pot of porridge, to employ a biblical image.
Case in point, the disgrace of our refusing to participate with Kyoto. What’s the favorite excuse for that? China? We can’t afford to be a standard bearer here; why it’d put us at a disadvantage with China. It’s the “values” people who take this stance today, the “morals” people.
What, so China is the standard bearer now? When did that happen?
I’m still standing all amazed that we have for the first time in our history a president, as did GW Bush in ’03, deliver a state of the union address largely based on information derived from torture. This information, which later, surprise surprise, turned out that the guy told his torturers what they wanted to hear and it wasn’t true, was substantially the basis on which this country went to war in Iraq. Aren’t you at all amazed that we would fall from our ideals so abruptly and to such a low as that? What, didn’t you believe all that stuff you were taught in school about this country being a standard bearer of high principles? Am I the only fool who fell for that?
Course that fact wasn’t generally known at the time, but still. Where were the reality checks? Well, we’d just had 9-11 and there was a great deal of fear and war fever in the air. In times of national emergency we tend to rally around the leadership, however piss poor an excuse for leadership it is.
But still. Where were the reality checks?
I have to say the Democrats on Iraq aren’t exactly brimming with credibility either even lately. Had we followed our Democratic Congress’s initiative to withdraw from Iraq immediately, for example, we’d have an Al Qaida celebrating in the streets, and their recruitment drives would be overflowing.
In all honesty neither Clinton nor Obama fill me with much confidence. They both seem kind of like air heads to me. Not much there there to them. That’s a superficial take on them admittedly. I guess I should check out their web sites and see their detailed brilliant plans for things.
Maybe I’m getting to sound like an old curmudgeon conservative in that I wonder whether this country is going soft, soft in the belly and soft in the head. I fear we’re forgetting the hard won lessons we learned from the school of hard knocks by which we achieved such wonderful things as being standard bearers for science, secular governance, and ethics. We seem all to eager to sell out these standards for the pot of porridge, to employ a biblical image.
Case in point, the disgrace of our refusing to participate with Kyoto. What’s the favorite excuse for that? China? We can’t afford to be a standard bearer here; why it’d put us at a disadvantage with China. It’s the “values” people who take this stance today, the “morals” people.
What, so China is the standard bearer now? When did that happen?
| QUOTE (chaster @ Jan 24 2008, 11:45 AM) |
| Maybe I’m getting to sound like an old curmudgeon . Maybe????????????????????????????????????????? |
[QUOTE]I’m still standing all amazed that we have for the first time in our history a president, as did GW Bush in ’03, deliver a state of the union address largely based on information derived from torture. This information, which later, surprise surprise, turned out that the guy told his torturers what they wanted to hear and it wasn’t true, was substantially the basis on which this country went to war in Iraq. Aren’t you at all amazed that we would fall from our ideals so abruptly and to such a low as that? What, didn’t you believe all that stuff you were taught in school about this country being a standard bearer of high principles? Am I the only fool who fell for that?
Um , interesting twist on things Chas , this Sunday on 60 minutes there should a episode you need watch if your trying to suggest WMD's was the only cause for this war . Chas, It hurts to be wrong and I do feel your pain LOL.
The "Kyoto China Connection " would make for a good name on the book you're been writing on this subject , I cant wait to see if the if the Democrats will ride in at the end of the day and see if Kyoto is a hill they feel worth dieing on , for over eight years they haven't invested one drop of blood and even in this Presidential election Global warming aint much of a growing concern now is it ? The betrayal you must feel. But your hate for Bush must still give you comfort on these lonely winter nights , sleep well Chas .
Perhaps first a little bed time story
Once upon a time global warming as a trend shared the same death as acid rain after being sucked for what little mileage Global Warming had left . And then its was R.I.P. Kyoto , look around Chas , reality was everywhere but sometimes you need to move towards IT to grasp IT . Time for sleep my little saver of the world , school starts in the morning .
Bullshit Yank. The glaciers are still melting. The oceans are still dying. Humans are still reproducing themselves toward a mass die off. The only thing that is dead is the brains of people who can't see what's happening right in front of them.
Laugh away. Chances are the bill won't come due before you die.
Laugh away. Chances are the bill won't come due before you die.
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Jan 24 2008, 11:34 PM) |
| Bullshit Yank. The glaciers are still melting. The oceans are still dying. Humans are still reproducing themselves toward a mass die off. The only thing that is dead is the brains of people who can't see what's happening right in front of them. Laugh away. Chances are the bill won't come due before you die. |
Well Bullshit my eye , Global warming , Kyoto protocol is loosing traction and interest daily through out this country , well is it not ?
Cactus I've been meaning to talk to you about something . With this election that's going on would it be too much to ask if you didn't vote for a Mormon ? I know it seems a pushy thing too ask but it ain't for me , nope its for Chaster your lil brother .
Somehow I would have to think it could turn his world upside down if Romney were elected . Maybe we wont have to worry about it but if it should come up lets both vote for Lady Clinton shall we ? Thanks Cactus I knew you'd understand , always the big brother .
Your friend , Yank
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Jan 25 2008, 07:46 AM) |
| Well Bullshit my eye , Global warming , Kyoto protocol is loosing traction and interest daily through out this country , well is it not ? Cactus I've been meaning to talk to you about something . With this election that's going on would it be too much to ask if you didn't vote for a Mormon ? I know it seems a pushy thing too ask but it ain't for me , nope its for Chaster your lil brother . Somehow I would have to think it could turn his world upside down if Romney were elected . Maybe we wont have to worry about it but if it should come up lets both vote for Lady Clinton shall we ? Thanks Cactus I knew you'd understand , always the big brother . Your friend , Yank |
OK Yank, it's a deal. I hadn't actually planned on voting for ol Hil but if you want, Ill do er. By the way, I was only a couple miles from her actual presence a couple days ago
. I would have gone over to see her but I didn't learn of it til later.You're right about Romney. He's too much like a patronizing condescending puffed up Stake President for me to be comfortable.
You are right that environmental issues aren't generating the heat in this election. It's there though. People are pushing a more environmentally conscious era. It's just not a hot button issue like Iraq or the economy. Faced with the prospects that we've reproduced beyond the capacity of the planet to maintain our population in the long run, or the fact that our homes, jobs, health care and retirement may be in jeopardy, we will look at the short term urgent problems.
Who knows though, maybe we'll learn to like eating jellyfish. Maybe we can heat our homes with Salt Cedar.
Think about this Yank. I was watching the History Channel the other night. They were talking about how when Rome was sacked by one of the Barbarian attacks, the Barbs busted their aqueducts down. In the good times Romes Aqueducts provided more fresh water per capita than we use today. At it's peak Rome had 1.2 million people. After the Barbs got done Rome's population was 12,000. What happend to the other 1,188,000? It would be nice of we could say they just moved out to the country, but I don't think ithere is any evidence that population in the small surrounding towns went up much.
Those old Romans had it good. They figured they were entitled to the good life. They were pretty smug, pretty much like us today. So, sometime in the future, when we reap the rewards of ignoring the signs we are over extended, if the USA populaiton goes from 300 million plus down to a couple million, where do you suppose one would look for the other 298 million plus?
Those old Romans had it good. They figured they were entitled to the good life. They were pretty smug, pretty much like us today. So, sometime in the future, when we reap the rewards of ignoring the signs we are over extended, if the USA populaiton goes from 300 million plus down to a couple million, where do you suppose one would look for the other 298 million plus?
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Jan 25 2008, 08:01 AM) |
| You're right about Romney. He's too much like a patronizing condescending puffed up Stake President for me to be comfortable. |
[QUOTE]You're right about Romney. He's too much like a patronizing condescending puffed up Stake President for me to be comfortable.
Naw Romney isn't so much that to me . Remember back in boy scouts there was always a overachiever who had every Merritt badge there ever was and you just knew in years to come this kid would be really something ? That's Romney , but he's this same kid the scout leader would put in charge of a group scouts for a two day week end camp . Well if you were inclined to be a follower he was just the kid for the others , however if there was others who needed to be pushed to get something done this overachieving scout fell way short .
Saying something like " Get off your lazy no good ass if you dont want me to kick it " just wasn't part of this persons make up . Well that's how I see Romney , incredibly successful with every merit badge known to God but only leading those of the same persuasion and direction .
Now it could be I'm wrong , We've both seen good ol Mormon boys who wouldn't say shit about shit and then one day something happens and that person changes for good and leaves everyone else wondering what the hell just happened .
I'd vote for Mitt if he could show more stick it up your ass anger , sometimes having the best answers comes second to the best anger , just sometimes .
Something else If Roosevelt and Patton had time traveled back to the time of the Romans I doubt Rome would have fallen , if these two were in charge today what we dabble at today they'd had for lunch years ago .
Think about that Cactus a gimpy polio leg and a dyslexic mind sure knew how and when to kick some butt when needed , Yup just mongrels , we need to get away from this pure bred thinking that did in the Roman empire, British empire and soon us because its a dog eat dog world and will always be that way .
I really hate politics, but Hillary gets my vote. And no, it's not because she's a woman (although that's pretty darn close).Sorry, Yankie, but I do not think Roosevelt or anyone could have saved the Romans. They were just like we are today. We all think we have the answers to everything and we are ripe to fall on our asses. One strong man's opinion will not stop the preprogrammed mind set of 300 million Americans from going to auto self destruct.
Save the planet! (It's the only one with chocolate!!!).
No, seriously. I agree with Cactus Jim. The Earth will not support us forever and we need to do something about it. It's like knowing you Mom is about to walk into you room but telling yourself she won't notice all the crap under the bed even though you know she will and all the while you lay on you bed with your ipod and she's walking down the hall toward your door. Now, we can either get up quick and do something about it, or we can continue to lie to ourselves. After all, the cereal bowl has been under the bed all week and she didn't noticed it, why should we worry about it now? That's pretty much the equivalent of saying the Earth has been there for us for hundreds of millions of years and it will continue to be there for another hundred millions of years. At what point do we become responsible to the health of our own home, our own planet???!!!
Well I like you honesty and sense of humor , top notch qualities that must fit in well at your quilting circle as your singing praises to Hillary and funeral dirges towards the future of America.
I bet the hierarchy of the LDS church and goverment officials will never live down the day Utah became one of the first states in the Union to recognize the rights of the Lady vote . I mean for well over 100 years from the founding day of this country we men folk did just fine with out any help from the skirt patrol and now less than a hundred years since" Letting you have this right " your telling me we americans are doomed to self destruct ? Ever wonder why ? Um could the possibilities of a lady president have anything to do with it , just maybe ?
OK we men folk wouldn't have it any other way even if we could change the past anymore than change a determined Gals mind .