now i know why conservatives hate science

[yermom]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?hpt=C2

:D


The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.

[XingTheRubicon]

Maybe you should ask your conservative boss what he thinks about it.

http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=114



Party Breakdown By Quintile:

Upper Income Quintile (Annual household income above approx. $92,000, in 2005 dollars): In 2005, the GOP edge over Democrats among people in this income bracket is 38%-27% (with the remainder unaffiliated with either major party); back in 1992, the GOP edge was nearly identical, 37%-26%.

Upper Middle Income Quintile (Annual household income of approx. $58,000 to $92,000): The Republicans have a small edge over Democrats among all people in this bracket, 36%-31%, and a larger edge among whites, 40%-27%. Back in 1992, the GOP's margins were smaller among all people (32%-29%) and among whites (34%-26%).

Middle Income Quintile (Annual household income of approx. $35,000 to $58,000): Among whites in this bracket, Republicans have opened up an 8 percentage point margin over Democrats (36%-28%), up from the 4 percentage point margin the GOP enjoyed in 1992 (32%-28%). When nonwhites are included, the overall public in this income range is divided almost evenly (33% Democrat, 32% Republican).

Lower Middle Income Quintile (Annual household income of approx. $19,000 to $35,000): Here is where the GOP gains have been strongest. Republicans still trail Democrats among all people in this bracket by 35%-28%, but the GOP now leads among whites in this bracket, by a slim 33%-29%. Back in 1992, the Democrats led the GOP among whites by 33%-28% and among all people by 38%-24%.

Lower Income Quintile (Annual household income below approx. $19,000): Republicans continue to trail by sizable margins in this income bracket. Currently the Democrats enjoy a 42%-20% advantage overall, comparable to their 43%-18% edge in 1992. Among whites, the Democratic edge is 37%-24% now and had been 37%-22% back in 1992.heh


liberals paint pictures and play pretend, conservatives get **** done.

[jkjsooner]

I don't know that either of these posts are surprising. Younger people tend to be more idealistic and also tend to be more liberal. As they become older, their concerns change and they tend to be a little more conservative. These are generalizations, of course, and shouldn't be assumed about any specific individual.

It's not surprising that those who make more money would vote for the party that would tend to protect their interests.

I had a real conservative political science professor in college who stated how people tend to become more conservative as they get older. I can only assume he was attempting to convince us that older = wiser = conservative. I don't look at it that way at all. As we get older our conditions change and we change our beliefs because of it. It doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong. It's just a different perspective.

I'm more conservative than I was at 18. I'm sure in some ways I'm wiser but I'm also just a different person. IMO we need all perspectives represented in our political discourse.

[King Crimson]

i just like how today's new "philosophical" conservative likes to talk about civil liberties and small guv but spent the last 8 years saying hooray to Cheney's neocon fantasy of concentrating power in the executive branch.

tea parties and such.

[Collier11]

tea bags maybe, for you!!!

[King Crimson]

tea bags maybe, for you!!!

more your specialty. i've heard good things, though i don't pay for it. ;)

[Collier11]

Yea im pretty good at tea-bagging, are you asking cus I wont charge

[picasso]

Most dolts don't even know the real difference between the two terms.

[Collier11]

Well when they are combined it simply means to place ones scrotum on another persons face :D

[Leroy Lizard]

Perform a similar study on ethnicity and liberals will come out of the woodwork blasting the research methods and questioning the entire meaning of IQ. It just goes to show how we love those studies that support our own political positions and ignore others.

[yermom]

if anything, that should have swung the results the other way ;)

[yermom]

Maybe you should ask your conservative boss what he thinks about it.

http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=114


heh


liberals paint pictures and play pretend, conservatives get **** done.

you only slightly missed the mark on my boss or perceived income level or whatever you are getting at here. heh.

i guess i'll go paint pretty pictures now

[Leroy Lizard]

if anything, that should have swung the results the other way

Not necessarily. Ethnic groups may vote overwhelmingly for a particular party but not identify themselves as liberal according to the definition used in the study.

It's just another garbage study. The social sciences and political sciences are loaded with them.

[Fraggle145]

you only slightly missed the mark on my boss or perceived income level or whatever you are getting at here. heh.

i guess i'll go paint pretty pictures now

Where's picasso when you need him? :confused:

[TUSooner]

Maybe you should ask your conservative boss what he thinks about it.

http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=114


heh


liberals paint pictures and play pretend, conservatives get **** done.

And lots of bosses and people who have money are ****-heads, too.
Let's all build some strawmen so we can convince ourselves that everybody else is full of it.

[OklahomaTuba]

Well, i'm sure this typical cross dressing anti war liberal had a rather high IQ as well.


[W]hen agents executed search warrants in late-2007, an FBI supervisor asked Ivins if he was worried about those raids. Ivins said he was, noting that he did things a "middle age man should not do," adding that his actions would "not be acceptable to most people."
He then noted that agents searching his basement would find a "bag of material that he uses to 'cross-dress,'" according to an interview report.

During a January 2008 meeting with agents, Ivins described his bizarre decades-long "obsession" with the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority, and detailed how he broke into two KKG chapters to steal ritual books used by the group. He also told of "another of his obsessions, blindfolding or bondage."

Three months before his suicide, surveillance agents sifted through trash Ivins left at his curb and discovered that the beleaguered scientist was disposing of pornographic magazines, fetish titles, and 15 pairs of stained women's panties.

When an FBI lab analysis of the underwear showed that semen was detected on 14 of the garments, a grand jury directive was issued to obtain DNA from Ivins. That sample was taken July 21, 2008, five days before the scientist's Tylenol overdose (Ivins died on July 29 at age 62). The FBI records show that some Ivins acquaintances shared with the FBI e-mail and instant message communications exchanged with the scientist.

In a July 2008 e-mail, Ivins wrote that "Dick Cheney scares me. The Patriot Act is so unconstitutional it's not even funny." He added, "I'm voting for Obama!"http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0301101ivins1.html

He's probably rolling in his grave knowing his boy Obama just extended the patriot act.

[TUSooner]

Tuba took me literally, I guess. :rolleyes:

[OklahomaTuba]

Tuba took me literally, I guess. :rolleyes:No, but I do think it is safe to assume that Obama probably got close to 100% of the lunatic cross dressing vote. Perhaps some of the lefties on this board can confirm that??? ;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Republican Congressmen and heads of the FBI tend to be more frequent cross dressers, Tuba. ;)

[PDXsooner]

Studies are flawed and ridiculous when they don't support your views. Otherwise, they're awesome!!!

[Chuck Bao]

Exactly how many cross dressers do you know? Is that a good enough sample size? If not, shut the **** up.

[85Sooner]

Bull**** on that study, it is a fraud.

[LosAngelesSooner]

^^^ The resident cross dresser has weighed in. ;)

[yankee]

as a young adult whose political leanings are very conservative....eh, i really don't even give a **** about this study.

[MrJimBeam]

Built in excuse for losing elections, everyone is just to dumb to vote for ya.

[crawfish]

I'm sure it would bother conservatives more if there was any correlation between IQ and accomplishments. :)

[OklahomaTuba]

Exactly how many cross dressers do you know? Is that a good enough sample size? If not, shut the **** up.So lemme guess, you're a cross dresser, aren't you??

That's messed up man, really ****ing messed up.

[Jacie]

Income distribution in the U.S. can be accurately modeled using an L-Curve. From low to high the rise of the curve is so slight as to resemble a horizontal line. At the extreme right end however, it goes straight up.

That is income. When comparing wealth across the population, the numbers get even more extreme.

Ten years ago, 1% of the U.S. population controlled one third of the wealth, 9% controlled another third, while 90% had the other third (where were you 10 years ago?).

Today, that 1% controls almost half of the wealth in the U.S.

That breakdown of Republican/Democrat versus income makes nice statistics but in terms of influence it is moot. People at the high end of the table are still horizontal liners, having more in common with the people at the bottom of that table than anyone in the 1% of the population as mentioned above.

[Half a Hundred]

The major factor that determines political orientation as one grows older is whether you have a cognitive bias toward anticipating gain or fearing loss. If you're more inclined to anticipate gain, you'll likely be more liberal. If you're more inclined to fear loss, you'll likely be more conservative.

Then again, these are fairly apparent by the names alone.

[C&CDean]

The major factor that determines political orientation as one grows older is whether you have a cognitive bias toward anticipating gain or fearing loss. If you're more inclined to anticipate gain, you'll likely be more liberal. If you're more inclined to fear loss, you'll likely be more conservative.

Then again, these are fairly apparent by the names alone.

Now that's some hokie crapola right there.

If you're strictly talking financial orientation then your example is correct. Political orientation, not so much. Most people's political orientation is much more centered around their moral/religious/social beliefs than money. Hell, I spend money like a drunken sailor, and I'm anything but a liberal.

[starclassic tama]

i hate bull**** studies/statistics or experiments trying to be passed off as fact more than anything in this world. completely ridiculous, almost as bad as the girl in my government class who said 72% of men cheat on their wives.

[SCOUT]

Income distribution in the U.S. can be accurately modeled using an L-Curve. From low to high the rise of the curve is so slight as to resemble a horizontal line. At the extreme right end however, it goes straight up.

That is income. When comparing wealth across the population, the numbers get even more extreme.

Ten years ago, 1% of the U.S. population controlled one third of the wealth, 9% controlled another third, while 90% had the other third (where were you 10 years ago?).

Today, that 1% controls almost half of the wealth in the U.S.

That breakdown of Republican/Democrat versus income makes nice statistics but in terms of influence it is moot. People at the high end of the table are still horizontal liners, having more in common with the people at the bottom of that table than anyone in the 1% of the population as mentioned above.
I would be interested in a link to that study. I am not doubting it, I would just be curious to look through it.

[PDXsooner]

Most people's political orientation is much more centered around their moral/religious/social beliefs than money.

i couldn't disagree more. maybe in oklahoma, where it's more extreme religiously. but traditional fiscal conservatives, which are the ones that are much more prevalent on the east and west coasts (not so much in the south/midwest) are conservative for fiscal reasons, not religious.

[OklahomaTuba]

Considering conservatives outnumber liberals +2-1 in this country (and growing every day now), i'm sure it has a lot more to do with the repeated failures of big government liberalism/neo-socialism than any moral/religious or social reason.

Unfortunately everyone is currently witnessing that liberalism is not only a failure, but a lie.

[yermom]

2:1? really?

[SoonerProphet]

Considering conservatives outnumber liberals +2-1 in this country (and growing every day now), i'm sure it has a lot more to do with the repeated failures of big government liberalism/neo-socialism than any moral/religious or social reason.

Unfortunately everyone is currently witnessing that liberalism is not only a failure, but a lie.

link?

by the sounds coming outta cpac awhile back, sounds like conservatives are the kooky fringe...not this imaginative mainstream.

[Collier11]

all of you are retarded and a perfect example of why nothing gets done in Washington anymore, there are lots of good conservatives and good libs, and there are lots of kooks on both sides.

[C&CDean]

Yeah, the only problem is all the ****ing kooks are either on this board, or in Congress.

[SoonerProphet]

Yeah, the only problem is all the ****ing kooks are either on this board, or in Congress.

Nope, tis all mainstream bull**** from those clowns. Maybe we actually need kooks in congress, like cutting taxes and spending.

[Jacie]

I would be interested in a link to that study. I am not doubting it, I would just be curious to look through it.

http://www.lcurve.org/

From the site:

Our economy produces tremendous wealth but it also produces tremendous poverty. Sure, some people can be lazy, but when large numbers of hard working people live in poverty and the middle class is shrinking, it is a systemic, not an individual problem. There is plenty to go around, but it doesn't adequately go around. It goes to the top, and leaves the masses to fight over the crumbs.

We recently went through an economic boom where people on the horizontal line showed little if any improvement in their condition while those in the vertical spike showed huge gains. Can this be considered "prosperity"? Do we really want to gear up our national policies to repeat this performance?

Is the vertical spike just Bill Gates? NO. In 1997 over 144,000 tax returns were filed with adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more [up to 240,000 in 2004]. As the vertical spike rises it thins down to a few individuals, but there is a growing class of billionaires that collectively holds a substantial fraction of the wealth of the country. [In March 2006 Forbes reported 793 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $2.6 trillion. In March 2007 Forbes reported 946 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $3.5 trillion. That is a 1-year increase of 19% in the number of billionaires and an increase of $35% in their net worth during a time of increasing poverty. Severe poverty is at its highest point in three decades.]

People on the vertical spike can use their influence single-mindedly and very effectively. A single billionaire can get the undivided attention of any politician he wants, any time he wants. If he doesn't get what he wants he can, in fact, "fight city hall," the statehouse, and even the federal government. People on the horizontal spike must pool their limited individual power and organize to have any effect at all. This is a very difficult thing to manage, in practice.

So SF posters, argue all you want amongst yourselves over which side in the consies vs. libbies battle is better than the other. The Gang of 946 (possibly a few more now) billionaires are sitting there laughing their collective butts off at all of us working poor, while their only concern is over how they can possibly spend even a fraction of their net worth before they die. Once you come to the realization that it truly does not matter if you are Democrat, Republican, liberal or conservative, you will be a step closer to enlightenment whereupon you may ultimately understand that the only thing that matters is whether or not you are rich.

[C&CDean]

Actually, I laugh at those billionaires who live hollow empty lives that are centered around nothing but $$$. I'm comfortable, I help those I choose to be comfortable, and that's good enough for me. Besides, I remember reading in the Bible somewhere that a camel could fit through the eye of a needle easier than a rich man can get to heaven.

[NormanPride]

I know it is completely un-American, but I wonder what it would be like if we could impose a limit on how much people could be worth. Put a cap on personal worth and the rest would go to the masses or to charity or something. I know, I know, communism, socialism, blah blah blah. But it's getting silly. I just wonder what it would be like.

[SCOUT]

http://www.lcurve.org/

From the site:

Our economy produces tremendous wealth but it also produces tremendous poverty. Sure, some people can be lazy, but when large numbers of hard working people live in poverty and the middle class is shrinking, it is a systemic, not an individual problem. There is plenty to go around, but it doesn't adequately go around. It goes to the top, and leaves the masses to fight over the crumbs.

We recently went through an economic boom where people on the horizontal line showed little if any improvement in their condition while those in the vertical spike showed huge gains. Can this be considered "prosperity"? Do we really want to gear up our national policies to repeat this performance?

Is the vertical spike just Bill Gates? NO. In 1997 over 144,000 tax returns were filed with adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more [up to 240,000 in 2004]. As the vertical spike rises it thins down to a few individuals, but there is a growing class of billionaires that collectively holds a substantial fraction of the wealth of the country. [In March 2006 Forbes reported 793 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $2.6 trillion. In March 2007 Forbes reported 946 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $3.5 trillion. That is a 1-year increase of 19% in the number of billionaires and an increase of $35% in their net worth during a time of increasing poverty. Severe poverty is at its highest point in three decades.]

People on the vertical spike can use their influence single-mindedly and very effectively. A single billionaire can get the undivided attention of any politician he wants, any time he wants. If he doesn't get what he wants he can, in fact, "fight city hall," the statehouse, and even the federal government. People on the horizontal spike must pool their limited individual power and organize to have any effect at all. This is a very difficult thing to manage, in practice.

So SF posters, argue all you want amongst yourselves over which side in the consies vs. libbies battle is better than the other. The Gang of 946 (possibly a few more now) billionaires are sitting there laughing their collective butts off at all of us working poor, while their only concern is over how they can possibly spend even a fraction of their net worth before they die. Once you come to the realization that it truly does not matter if you are Democrat, Republican, liberal or conservative, you will be a step closer to enlightenment whereupon you may ultimately understand that the only thing that matters is whether or not you are rich.

Hmmm. I was hoping for more of an actual study than a blog.

FYI,

The richest people in the world have gotten poorer, just like the rest of us. This year the world's billionaires have an average net worth of $3 billion, down 23% in 12 months. The world now has 793 billionaires, down from 1,125 a year ago.

After slipping in recent years, the U.S. is regaining its dominance as a repository of wealth. Americans account for 44% of the money and 45% of the list's slots, up seven and three percentage points from last year, respectively. Bill Gates lost $18 billion but regained his title as the world's richest man. Warren Buffett, last year's No. 1, saw his fortune decline $25 billion as shares of Berkshire Hathaway fell nearly 50% in 12 months. Mexican telecom titan Carlos Slim Helú maintains his spot in the top three but lost $25 billion.

45%* 793 =356

[starclassic tama]

link?


facts aren't his forte. making **** up is. so how does obama win the election 2-1 if that was true?

[Jacie]

I know it is completely un-American, but I wonder what it would be like if we could impose a limit on how much people could be worth. Put a cap on personal worth and the rest would go to the masses or to charity or something. I know, I know, communism, socialism, blah blah blah. But it's getting silly. I just wonder what it would be like.

Of course, the mere suggestion that there is a problem with the distribution of wealth in the U.S. elicits screams of "Socialist!" but, aren't the billionaires doing everything in their power to influence said distribution to themselves? Oh yeah, that is just citizens exercising their right to practice capitalism and free enterprise so it's okay. Thus having the wealth to influence or direct the way senators and congressmen vote, that is, the ability to affect the way we are governed, is just capitalism. I see.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Considering conservatives outnumber liberals +2-1 in this country (and growing every day now), i'm sure it has a lot more to do with the repeated failures of big government liberalism/neo-socialism than any moral/religious or social reason.

Unfortunately everyone is currently witnessing that liberalism is not only a failure, but a lie.Well, MY most recent study shows that Liberals outnumber Conservatives in the U.S. by a margin of 98 - 3. Not only that, but Tomatoes are decidedly better than cucumbers by a scientific margin of 54 - 1.

Also, approximately 102% of the statistics that you and RLiMC quote are made up out of thin air.

In the meantime...I'm glad that the past 13 months have proven that "liberalism" fails so we can stop this silly experiment and get back to the Republican system that worked so well for the past 8 years.

You know...a proven winner.

[XingTheRubicon]

You're really hard on your party.

[Collier11]

Well, MY most recent study shows that Liberals outnumber Conservatives in the U.S. by a margin of 98 - 3. Not only that, but Tomatoes are decidedly better than cucumbers by a scientific margin of 54 - 1.

Also, approximately 102% of the statistics that you and RLiMC quote are made up out of thin air.

In the meantime...I'm glad that the past 13 months have proven that "liberalism" fails so we can stop this silly experiment and get back to the Republican system that worked so well for the past 8 years.

You know...a proven winner.

LAS prematures 60% of the time, everytime

[SCOUT]

LAS prematures 60% of the time, everytime

That doesn't make sense...
http://carefullyaimeddarts.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/ron-burgundy.jpg

[LosAngelesSooner]

You're really hard on your party.You bet your *** I am. They have been letting me (and all of us) down since 1998.

And the sooner the Republicans return to their true form and start acting like fiscal conservatives who stay out of people's private lives and allow the States to govern more and the Fed to govern less will be a GOOD day for America.

But for this to happen, we have to jettison the wing-nut wackos, Tea Baggers, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck and Religious Zealots who have driven our party into the ground.

[Leroy Lizard]

So who do you want leading the party? Just curious.

[Collier11]

I can tell you as a Repub that I dont see anyone currently that I have a lot of faith in and even if I did they would go the exact opposite way

[LosAngelesSooner]

There really isn't anyone right now. That's the effed up thing. Nobody. All of them keep scrambling so damn hard to "appeal to their base" and fear that losing the Tea Baggers and their ilk will lose them elections. Case in point: John McCain getting Palin to be his running mate. If he had gotten Kay Bailey Hutchinson the race would have gone down to the damn wire. As it was he got his butt handed to him.

Rage only goes so far. It's exhausting and it offers no solutions. None. Just conspiracies and anger. That's it.

Ultra-Libz whine and cry and moan and bitch.
Ultra-Pubz yell and scream and believe every conspiracy and tell you to "git out if you don't like it!"

Both are suck asses who ruin political discourse in this country.

I'm waiting to see a Republican leader step up and OPENLY distance himself from Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck and the Tea Baggers. I'm waiting for one to stand up and say "Smaller government. Less spending. Balance the budget. Increase state's rights. Reform elections and campaign financing. Reform lobbyists. Reform Wall Street. Reform health care. But regulations back on the banks and traders." etc...etc... I want the leader to condemn Limbaugh and Coulter and Beck when they spread hate and ignorance EVEN THOUGH they claim that they are "Entertainers" and aren't REALLY trying to control/influence people. YEAH...RIGHT.

The problem is...if one finally DID do that stuff...you'd have RLiMC and Tuba (and the other wingnuts) jumping all over them calling the guy/gal a "Socialist."

It's freakin' annoying.

[Harry Beanbag]

I know it is completely un-American, but I wonder what it would be like if we could impose a limit on how much people could be worth. Put a cap on personal worth and the rest would go to the masses or to charity or something. I know, I know, communism, socialism, blah blah blah. But it's getting silly. I just wonder what it would be like.

Seriously?

[Leroy Lizard]

Both are suck asses who ruin political discourse in this country.

I'm waiting to see a Republican leader step up and OPENLY distance himself from Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck and the Tea Baggers. I'm waiting for one to stand up and say "Smaller government. Less spending. Balance the budget. Increase state's rights. Reform elections and campaign financing. Reform lobbyists. Reform Wall Street. Reform health care. But regulations back on the banks and traders." etc...etc... I want the leader to condemn Limbaugh and Coulter and Beck when they spread hate and ignorance EVEN THOUGH they claim that they are "Entertainers" and aren't REALLY trying to control/influence people. YEAH...RIGHT.

Hasn't Obama placed some of the wingnuts in influential positions? Say what you want about the Republicans, but I have never seen Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck handed a czar position by any U.S. president.

I also find it amusing that while you condemn both parties in general, you only point to Republicans when discussing specifics.

So to translate your post: "While I will say that both parties need to change so as to make me look objective, in truth I think Republicans are the only truly evil force in the country and it is they who have to change."

Does that sum it up?

[Crucifax Autumn]

That's not entirely fair Leroy. There were wingnuts in the previous administration much like there are in this one. Neither side has put the leading talk radio and Fox/MSNBC opinion guys in big positions. You could say Bush had one as press secretary, but that would be a stretch. This admin AND the last needed more centrist members, but the few that are either get a lame and powerless position or get overridden by the idiots.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Hasn't Obama placed some of the wingnuts in influential positions? Say what you want about the Republicans, but I have never seen Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck handed a czar position by any U.S. president.

I also find it amusing that while you condemn both parties in general, you only point to Republicans when discussing specifics.

So to translate your post: "While I will say that both parties need to change so as to make me look objective, in truth I think Republicans are the only truly evil force in the country and it is they who have to change."

Does that sum it up?No. Not even close.

I'm a Republican. I want my party to get it right. You don't hear me complain if the Offensive Coordinator at Arkansas is sucking. Why? Because I'm not a Razorback. But if the O.C. at O.U. sucks balls, I'm gonna be concerned.

I think the Dems, in general, are a bunch of spineless whiners who spend too much time trying to please everyone. But I also don't really care, because they aren't my team. Get it?

[NormanPride]

Seriously?

Yes. Just out of curiosity.

[StoopTroup]

Hasn't Obama placed some of the wingnuts in influential positions? Say what you want about the Republicans, but I have never seen Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck handed a czar position by any U.S. president.


You might want to take some time to think about why that is. You do know that being a Czar would require you to become a Public Servant and do some actual work right? Those two spend every hour of their day figuring out how to keep the idgets that think they are 100% right hooked on their show.

Why would they want to take a job that would require them to actually do something to help America?

[PDXsooner]

I know it is completely un-American, but I wonder what it would be like if we could impose a limit on how much people could be worth. Put a cap on personal worth and the rest would go to the masses or to charity or something. I know, I know, communism, socialism, blah blah blah. But it's getting silly. I just wonder what it would be like.

i agree. makes no sense to have billionaires. it seems excessive. and who defines "excessive"? ME!

[PDXsooner]

Say what you want about the Republicans, but I have never seen Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck handed a czar position by any U.S. president.


dick cheney, john ashcroft, karl rove (not a czar but a HIGHLY influential confidant)

[Bourbon St Sooner]

become a Public Servant and do some actual work right?

Does not compute

[NormanPride]

i agree. makes no sense to have billionaires. it seems excessive. and who defines "excessive"? ME!

:D Therein lies the problem, yes? I realize it's completely unrealistic and tyrannical, but it would be nice if we could get the filthy rich to realize that having that much money has no point. It ceases to be relevant, and the people who live like that often become detached with reality...

[Collier11]

if they put a cap on income, the rich folk would just put an account in someone elses name and still get all of their wealth

[badger]

I am just tuning in. I read through the little linked article and was reminded of this cartoon that I saw a few months ago on another site.

First guy: I believe there's air on Mars.
Second guy: What makes you think that?
First: Well, it just makes sense to me.
Second: Sounds good!

(next panel!)

First: I believe there is a God.
Second: What makes you think that.
First: Well, it just makes sense to me.
Second: STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR RELIGION ON ME! YOU ARE AN IDIOT! YOU PROBABLY BELIEVE IN THE TOOTH FAIRY TOO. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

It went something like that :D

[47straight]

You might want to take some time to think about why that is. You do know that being a Czar would require you to become a Public Servant and do some actual work right? Those two spend every hour of their day figuring out how to keep the idgets that think they are 100% right hooked on their show.


If running as a candidate for lower office is sufficient experience, I don't see why what they do doesn't qualify...



But then again, I don't think either is sufficient.

[NormanPride]

if they put a cap on income, the rich folk would just put an account in someone elses name and still get all of their wealth

They'd eventually run out of family members to open accounts under. Also, if it was illegal we could prosecute them for it. :) And since they wouldn't have all THAT much money compared to everyone else, then they wouldn't be able to buy their way out of it. Of course it's a silly idea, but it would be nice if there wasn't that huge disparity between people.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I get what you're saying about "capping total personal wealth," but I could never support such a thing. That goes completely against what this country was founded on.

If people want to be greedy *******s, then that's their right. And if the US DID have a personal wealth cap, then those people would just move to another country...one that didn't.

No, the BIG tragedy is the way the wealth is being used to fleece the general public, deny them affordable health care, strip Social Security, etc. One aspect of this are the lobbyists. Absolutely OUT OF CONTROL. That's one of the big reasons we get so much pork and have so much gridlock in Washington.

Another problem is the recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to spend as much money on campaigns as they want because "Corporations are people and money is the way they talk."

BULL****.

Corporations are CORPORATIONS. They are NOT people...money is NOT words...wallets are NOT mouths. **** THAT ****.

That single thing ALONE is one of the greatest threats to our actual personal freedom that's happened in the last 50 years. The ripples from that decision will be felt for a very, very long time.

First step: declassify corporations as people. Make them CORPORATIONS.
Second step: limit the amount of funding that corporations AND people can give to campaigns.
Third step: limit the amount of funding that any campaign can use in a single year.
Fourth step: across the board term limits. (8-12 years for Reps, 18-24 years for Senators)
Fifth step: kick the lobbyists out of Washington. Limit the amount of access that they have to elected officials and staffers. Make experience working as a lobbying firm a disqualification for any government post for a certain number of years after having worked there (5-10).

Those are some of the first things that need to be done before anything REAL will happen.

Of course...that's all just my opinion.

[badger]

I don't think that elections can be bought always. Take the election that got us Senate/Doctor Tom Coburn. I dunno about y'alls television sets, but ours was FLOODED with commercials for Kirk Humphries, because he was the hand-picked choice by the Nat'l Republicans to be the next Oklahoma Senator. To a million-percent lesser degree, there were ads for the corporation commish, who was also running. His name escapes me.

I don't recall any Tom Coburn ads... but he won the Republican nomination (and ultimately the election) and I don't even think it was close. Kirk Humphries outspent every candidate in that race by a longshot and still lost... in the primary!

[NormanPride]

I agree completely that it is a horrible affront to personal freedoms. Just saying I would be curious how things would work out.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Badger...you don't think elections can be bought nowadays? Really? I mean, maybe you've got one exception there...but on a national stage when was the last time that the person who raised more money lost the national election? Just curious...I don't know, but I'd like to see the figures on that.

And either way, once you're elected...you immediately start raising money and campaigning to be re-elected. That's where all the lobbyists, special interests and corporate donations really weigh in...

[PDXsooner]

I don't think that elections can be bought always. Take the election that got us Senate/Doctor Tom Coburn. I dunno about y'alls television sets, but ours was FLOODED with commercials for Kirk Humphries, because he was the hand-picked choice by the Nat'l Republicans to be the next Oklahoma Senator. To a million-percent lesser degree, there were ads for the corporation commish, who was also running. His name escapes me.

I don't recall any Tom Coburn ads... but he won the Republican nomination (and ultimately the election) and I don't even think it was close. Kirk Humphries outspent every candidate in that race by a longshot and still lost... in the primary!

you could put a used tampon on the republican ticket in oklahoma and they'd win. because it's red.

[PDXsooner]

I get what you're saying about "capping total personal wealth," but I could never support such a thing. That goes completely against what this country was founded on.

If people want to be greedy *******s, then that's their right. And if the US DID have a personal wealth cap, then those people would just move to another country...one that didn't.

No, the BIG tragedy is the way the wealth is being used to fleece the general public, deny them affordable health care, strip Social Security, etc. One aspect of this are the lobbyists. Absolutely OUT OF CONTROL. That's one of the big reasons we get so much pork and have so much gridlock in Washington.

Another problem is the recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to spend as much money on campaigns as they want because "Corporations are people and money is the way they talk."

BULL****.

Corporations are CORPORATIONS. They are NOT people...money is NOT words...wallets are NOT mouths. **** THAT ****.

That single thing ALONE is one of the greatest threats to our actual personal freedom that's happened in the last 50 years. The ripples from that decision will be felt for a very, very long time.

First step: declassify corporations as people. Make them CORPORATIONS.
Second step: limit the amount of funding that corporations AND people can give to campaigns.
Third step: limit the amount of funding that any campaign can use in a single year.
Fourth step: across the board term limits. (8-12 years for Reps, 18-24 years for Senators)
Fifth step: kick the lobbyists out of Washington. Limit the amount of access that they have to elected officials and staffers. Make experience working as a lobbying firm a disqualification for any government post for a certain number of years after having worked there (5-10).

Those are some of the first things that need to be done before anything REAL will happen.

Of course...that's all just my opinion.

solid post.

[Turd_Ferguson]

solid post.room....now.

[LosAngelesSooner]

You disagree with the sentiment? Or just the display?

[Collier11]

he wants you two to do it

[Fraggle145]

There really isn't anyone right now. That's the effed up thing. Nobody. All of them keep scrambling so damn hard to "appeal to their base" and fear that losing the Tea Baggers and their ilk will lose them elections. Case in point: John McCain getting Palin to be his running mate. If he had gotten Kay Bailey Hutchinson the race would have gone down to the damn wire. As it was he got his butt handed to him.

Rage only goes so far. It's exhausting and it offers no solutions. None. Just conspiracies and anger. That's it.

Ultra-Libz whine and cry and moan and bitch.
Ultra-Pubz yell and scream and believe every conspiracy and tell you to "git out if you don't like it!"

Both are suck asses who ruin political discourse in this country.

I'm waiting to see a Republican leader step up and OPENLY distance himself from Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck and the Tea Baggers. I'm waiting for one to stand up and say "Smaller government. Less spending. Balance the budget. Increase state's rights. Reform elections and campaign financing. Reform lobbyists. Reform Wall Street. Reform health care. But regulations back on the banks and traders." etc...etc... I want the leader to condemn Limbaugh and Coulter and Beck when they spread hate and ignorance EVEN THOUGH they claim that they are "Entertainers" and aren't REALLY trying to control/influence people. YEAH...RIGHT.

The problem is...if one finally DID do that stuff...you'd have RLiMC and Tuba (and the other wingnuts) jumping all over them calling the guy/gal a "Socialist."

It's freakin' annoying.

I thought a guy named Ron Paul did do that stuff? at least more than anyone else has? :confused:

[yermom]

and RLiMC hates him :D

i haven't heard Tuba's opinion on him

[Fraggle145]

Hasn't Obama placed some of the wingnuts in influential positions? Say what you want about the Republicans, but I have never seen Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck handed a czar position by any U.S. president.

I also find it amusing that while you condemn both parties in general, you only point to Republicans when discussing specifics.

So to translate your post: "While I will say that both parties need to change so as to make me look objective, in truth I think Republicans are the only truly evil force in the country and it is they who have to change."

Does that sum it up?

I'm not saying that LAS isnt necessarily a closet lib ;) but perhaps arent people sometimes the harshest critic of what they identify with?

And I would argue that it is a possibility that to some extent Obama has put some of the republican wingnuts in influential positions (e.g. Glenn Beck and Limbaugh) in more influential positions by emphasizing their effect on America on purpose to objectify them...

[Harry Beanbag]

I'm not saying that LAS isnt necessarily a closet lib ;)

Oh, he's definitely out of the closet. :)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

OK, so what's the consensus? DO conservatives hate science? If they do, then has it been decided why? I require the definitive answer in the next post.

[C&CDean]

you could put a used tampon on the republican ticket in oklahoma and they'd win. because it's red.

You could put a gay smurf couple on the D ticket in orygun and they'd win. Cause they're gay. And blue.

[Half a Hundred]

Now that's some hokie crapola right there.

If you're strictly talking financial orientation then your example is correct. Political orientation, not so much. Most people's political orientation is much more centered around their moral/religious/social beliefs than money. Hell, I spend money like a drunken sailor, and I'm anything but a liberal.

It's exactly the same for social issues. Social conservatism - the fear of the loss of societal stability and happiness through social change. Social liberalism - the anticipation of the gain of greater social stability and happiness through social change.

[C&CDean]

No it's not. At least not with me. My whole orientation is based on what I feel is morally/ethically right, and what is morally/ethically wrong. Societal happiness (whatever the **** that is) be damned. Some **** just ain't right, and any semi-deep thinking person can see that. You're confusing "social stability and happiness through social change" with "do whatever the **** you want to with whoever the **** you want to, and kill the little **** before he gets born if you want to, etc."

[PDXsooner]

You could put a gay smurf couple on the D ticket in orygun and they'd win. Cause they're gay. And blue.

good one, except it's not the case. portland is a liberal city but overall the state of oregon isn't as much as you'd think. this state was VERY close to electing bush in 2000 and kerry only won by four percentage points in 2004.

their is a fair amount of gayness here, though. you'd love it! :D

[PDXsooner]

No it's not. At least not with me. My whole orientation is based on what I feel is morally/ethically right, and what is morally/ethically wrong. Societal happiness (whatever the **** that is) be damned. Some **** just ain't right, and any semi-deep thinking person can see that. You're confusing "social stability and happiness through social change" with "do whatever the **** you want to with whoever the **** you want to, and kill the little **** before he gets born if you want to, etc."

it's funny that you use the word semi-deep and proceed to marginalize the parties in such black and white. your view of politics may seem clear-cut to you, but it's not so much linear as much as it's a round donut.

i don't think it's that simple. it seems easier to process and justify when you make it that way, but that's simply not how people think in my opinion.

[C&CDean]

Oh I know Portland, and I do love visiting up there. Worked out in Newberg quite a bit back in the 90's. There's a good magic shop in Portland, and you can't beat Rose's for a sammich. But the vacant-eyed losers with all the facial piercings do turn me the hell off. And there are a BUTTLOAD of them up there.

[C&CDean]

it's funny that you use the word semi-deep and proceed to marginalize the parties in such black and white. your view of politics may seem clear-cut to you, but it's not so much linear as much as it's a round donut.

i don't think it's that simple. it seems easier to process and justify when you make it that way, but that's simply not how people think in my opinion.

Oh you think about the whole donut, check it all out, but then you rationalize, mature, and make sound decisions based on all the facts. Some things are just truths - to me, and to all who are willing to go through the whole process. One man kissing another man on the mouth with tongue action is wrong. Chopping up an unborn infant is wrong. Taking money from people who earned it to pay for social programs for people who haven't worked a day in their life is wrong. Pretty simple when you get down to it.

Of course if you wanna swap spit with another dude, I don't have a problem with it. Doesn't make it right, it's just your choice. You wanna kill your own kid? Go for it. I can't control that **** because people are stupid. The taking money from workers to fund the lazy thing I can at least vote on sometimes.

[PDXsooner]

Oh you think about the whole donut, check it all out, but then you rationalize, mature, and make sound decisions based on all the facts. Some things are just truths - to me, and to all who are willing to go through the whole process. One man kissing another man on the mouth with tongue action is wrong. Chopping up an unborn infant is wrong. Taking money from people who earned it to pay for social programs for people who haven't worked a day in their life is wrong. Pretty simple when you get down to it.

Of course if you wanna swap spit with another dude, I don't have a problem with it. Doesn't make it right, it's just your choice. You wanna kill your own kid? Go for it. I can't control that **** because people are stupid. The taking money from workers to fund the lazy thing I can at least vote on sometimes.

i'm not arguing with your beliefs. i'm saying that affiliating yourself with a political party (republican) doesn't put you on the "right" side of those beliefs. you say you vote based on moral beliefs. cool, i get it. but i think the two main parties as a whole are morally bankrupt.

[PDXsooner]

But the vacant-eyed losers with all the facial piercings do turn me the hell off. And there are a BUTTLOAD of them up there.

i agree with you on this. i'm a firefighter here and we deal with the sidewalk "trustafarians" (kids pretending to not care about the world while sitting on a trust fund somewhere back east) every f-ing day.

[TopDawg]

Actually, I laugh at those billionaires who live hollow empty lives that are centered around nothing but $$$. I'm comfortable, I help those I choose to be comfortable, and that's good enough for me. Besides, I remember reading in the Bible somewhere that a camel could fit through the eye of a needle easier than a rich man can get to heaven.

I agree with your sentiment and what I'm about to say is probably tangential to the point you were making but you made me think of it. In my opinion one of the ways that the church has failed Jesus (for centuries) is in allowing its members to not view themselves as the rich.

According to my interpretation of the scriptures, I agree with you that it's probably going to be very hard for many of those billionaires to get into heaven. And it helps me feel comfortable to define "rich man" as someone much more wealthy than I am. But I'm pretty certain that in the grand scheme of things, the fact that my family has two cars and an HDTV makes me more of a rich man than I'd like to admit. I hate that I see things this way yet have such a hard time doing anything about it. My comfort is perhaps my biggest sin.

[Collier11]

We are mostly all comfort creatures, I dont need two flat screen tvs but I bought them instead of helping someone out with the money, that makes me selfish in the eyes of God.

Sometimes we just dont really think about things like that as Christians, or atleast I dont

[PDXsooner]

i'm not a christian, but from my perspective on christianity i find it hard to believe that by christian standards from 2000 years ago every damn person in this country isn't going to hell*.

* i don't believe in hell, either :cool:

[Collier11]

Well there is a little thing called forgiveness which I basically live off of :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

i'm not arguing with your beliefs. i'm saying that affiliating yourself with a political party (republican) doesn't put you on the "right" side of those beliefs. you say you vote based on moral beliefs. cool, i get it. but i think the two main parties as a whole are morally bankrupt.This coming from you...what a surprise haha

[TopDawg]

i'm not a christian, but from my perspective on christianity i find it hard to believe that by christian standards from 2000 years ago every damn person in this country isn't going to hell*.

* i don't believe in hell, either :cool:

I believe there are a lot of people who may be surprised that they'll end up in hell, but there are some people in this country who I feel are living the type of life Jesus instructs us to live.

I don't know what role forgiveness plays in it all. Forgiveness may be the way that the gates to heaven are unlocked for us, but I don't think you can just **** your life away and still get into heaven because you identified yourself as a Christian. The idea of forgiveness for living a life of comfort or even having committed bad acts seems very prevalent in many Christian circles and has a great deal of appeal to it, but at the same time it seems to fly in the face of much of Jesus' teachings.

Don't get me wrong...I do believe that we are forgiven for our sins, but to what extent? I was raised to think it was inexhaustible...we are forgiven. Period. But how does the "camel through the eye of a needle" verse factor into that? If we are forgiven PERIOD, then why is it easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven? Maybe the "Forgiven. Period." theology is misleading.

[JohnnyMack]

The concept of hell is relevant as the Easter Bunny.

[PDXsooner]

I believe there are a lot of people who may be surprised that they'll end up in hell, but there are some people in this country who I feel are living the type of life Jesus instructs us to live.

I don't know what role forgiveness plays in it all. Forgiveness may be the way that the gates to heaven are unlocked for us, but I don't think you can just **** your life away and still get into heaven because you identified yourself as a Christian. The idea of forgiveness for living a life of comfort or even having committed bad acts seems very prevalent in many Christian circles and has a great deal of appeal to it, but at the same time it seems to fly in the face of much of Jesus' teachings.

Don't get me wrong...I do believe that we are forgiven for our sins, but to what extent? I was raised to think it was inexhaustible...we are forgiven. Period. But how does the "camel through the eye of a needle" verse factor into that? If we are forgiven PERIOD, then why is it easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven? Maybe the "Forgiven. Period." theology is misleading.

it's good that you're thinking about it. in my opinion, it is all unknowable, which is why i am agnostic. the only people that know are dead, and anyone that tells you they know what happens after you die is simply perpetuating what they were told or making it up.

[PDXsooner]

The concept of hell is relevant as the Easter Bunny.

my cousin claims she saw the easter bunny as a kid. she said he was sneaking through the fence.

[Collier11]

I believe there are a lot of people who may be surprised that they'll end up in hell, but there are some people in this country who I feel are living the type of life Jesus instructs us to live.

I don't know what role forgiveness plays in it all. Forgiveness may be the way that the gates to heaven are unlocked for us, but I don't think you can just **** your life away and still get into heaven because you identified yourself as a Christian. The idea of forgiveness for living a life of comfort or even having committed bad acts seems very prevalent in many Christian circles and has a great deal of appeal to it, but at the same time it seems to fly in the face of much of Jesus' teachings.

Don't get me wrong...I do believe that we are forgiven for our sins, but to what extent? I was raised to think it was inexhaustible...we are forgiven. Period. But how does the "camel through the eye of a needle" verse factor into that? If we are forgiven PERIOD, then why is it easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven? Maybe the "Forgiven. Period." theology is misleading.

I would never suggest to anyone that they go through life screwing around and just ask for forgiveness in the end, for one it might not be sincere but just desperate and for two, you never know when the end is.

Having said that, it does say in the Bible that any sin can be forgiven and forgiveness is the way to Heaven. No matter your sins or how much you sin, you can be forgiven if you are in sincere in asking for it. Of course I try to live a good life and be good to people but I like alot of people am lazy at times. If you are a believer, God knows what type of person you are

[TopDawg]

it's good that you're thinking about it. in my opinion, it is all unknowable, which is why i am agnostic. the only people that know are dead, and anyone that tells you they know what happens after you die is simply perpetuating what they were told or making it up.

I'm with you on the unknowable part. Even the things that I strongly believe are things that I admit are unknowable. Have you seen The Invention of Lying? You might like it.

[Collier11]

it's good that you're thinking about it. in my opinion, it is all unknowable, which is why i am agnostic. the only people that know are dead, and anyone that tells you they know what happens after you die is simply perpetuating what they were told or making it up.

I think thats true and its not, I cant prove to you that when I die im going to Heaven but I know personally that when I pass on I will be spending eternity with the Lord. I know thats a simple statement but I hope you understand what im getting at

[Bourbon St Sooner]

The concept of hell is relevant as the Easter Bunny.


Once a thread turns to the subject of religion, it's like flashing the Batman Beacon to JM.

[C&CDean]

Yeah, and someday JM is gonna be going "damn, I didn't know the easter bunny has horns and carries a pitchfork."

[TopDawg]

Having said that, it does say in the Bible that any sin can be forgiven and forgiveness is the way to Heaven.

I do agree that sins can be (are) forgiven, but I don't know that it says forgiveness is the way to heaven. Here are some of the verses that cause me to think twice about that. These are Jesus' words from Matthew:

Matthew 5:20
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 18:3
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:23
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Of course there are lots of references to heaven in the Bible. But those are the verses from the Gospels that talk about entering heaven. Those are Jesus' words and all of them are based on action, not statement of belief or forgiveness.

I'm inclined to think that forgiveness has made us "eligible" for entry into heaven, but there's a lot more to actually getting there. I don't know. There are certainly parts of the Bible that I haven't read or at least read in a long time, so if I'm missing a critical part of what you were saying, please let me know.

[Collier11]

Well we will be judged for our good deeds on earth, I do know that. I also know that is why it is important to ask for forgiveness because once you are forgiven it is done, like it never happened. The more stuff you take with you to be judged for cant be good.

Having said all of that, I mispoke a bit. Forgiveness isnt the WAY to Heaven, accepting the Lord as your Savior is the way to Heaven, once you have accpeted him, you need to lead the best life possible and ask for forgiveness when you fail. Thats the way I understand it and the only unforgiveable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit





Mark 3:22-30 states,

"And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, 'He has Beelzebub,' and, 'By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.' …'Assuredly, I [Jesus] say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation;' because they said, 'He has an unclean spirit'" (NKJV, emphasis added / Note: The Pharisees made the same charge in Mat 9:34.).

In Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus says to the Pharisees,

"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come"

[LosAngelesSooner]

Oh, Jesus...BIBLE verses...:rolleyes:

[Collier11]

theres our West Coast Conservative when we dont need him :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

Oh, he's definitely out of the closet. :)Yay! Another tired and worn out gay joke from the poster named after a man's scrotum!!! :D

[TopDawg]

I feel ya. I just wonder what "the best life possible" is. Or, rather, how close do we have to be to "best life possible"? I'm inclined to believe what I think you're getting at (correct me if I'm wrong)...that ultimately we will be judged on our hearts/love for others.

We can say we love others (and even point to good deeds that demonstrate that love) and we can say we believe that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, but if we put our comfort above the comfort of others, is Jesus really our Lord (because doing so seems to go against what he told us to do)? Sure, we're going to slip up from time to time...and that's where forgiveness comes in...but if we're striving to be loyal Christians, how can we be comfortable in a world that is so uncomfortable for so many other people? How can we be comfortable in the midst of so much injustice, hurt and discomfort? We don't just need to embrace the forgiveness, we need to repent...which means we need to work to make this world better and not settle for our own comfort...or disgusted discomfort. Right?

[Collier11]

...that ultimately we will be judged on our hearts/love for others.

I think this is a huge part of it ^ If you have accepted the Lord as your Savior I think it comes down to this and repenting


We don't just need to embrace the forgiveness, we need to repent...which means we need to work to make this world better and not settle for our own comfort...or disgusted discomfort. Right?

I also agree with this whole heartedly, I do believe that we will be judged for every single sin that we dont repent for.

I was once told that the measure of a Good Christian is how strong of a Conscience you have. It doesnt necessarily come down to doing bad things but how you deal with those things once youve done them and if you even recognize what youve done as being bad, no matter how big or small.

[TopDawg]

I see what you're getting at. I think it goes one step further, though. I agree that it's what you've said, but I think it's more. It's not just not doing bad things, but doing good things. To me, that's the underlying message of the Sermon on the Mount. "You've heard it said 'Don't do this bad thing' but I tell you 'Go a step further. Don't just avoid doing that bad thing, do a good thing. Do this thing that is so good that people might wonder what's wrong with you.'"

This discussion reminds me of a quote I heard not too long ago. "Unconsciousness is the root of all evil." The way I interpret it is that a lot of Christians do a pretty good job of responding to needs when they are shown those needs, but too often we get caught up in day-to-day meaningless stuff that diverts our attention away from the important things. Our unconsciousness allows complacency, comfort or whatever other thing to set in and make us unaware of our evil selfishness (or carelessness). We're not really actively doing bad things, but we're certainly not doing good things...which, as a Christian, is a bad thing.

[Collier11]

I agree completely, dont just do good stuff when you are called upon, do it all the time

[Half a Hundred]

No it's not. At least not with me. My whole orientation is based on what I feel is morally/ethically right, and what is morally/ethically wrong. Societal happiness (whatever the **** that is) be damned. Some **** just ain't right, and any semi-deep thinking person can see that. You're confusing "social stability and happiness through social change" with "do whatever the **** you want to with whoever the **** you want to, and kill the little **** before he gets born if you want to, etc."

Criminalizing abortion isn't a conservative position, because it doesn't preserve the status quo. Depending on your perspective, it's a progressive position, because it makes society a better place, or it's a reactionary position, because it returns us to a previous time.

[C&CDean]

Criminalizing abortion isn't a conservative position, because it doesn't preserve the status quo. Depending on your perspective, it's a progressive position, because it makes society a better place, or it's a reactionary position, because it returns us to a previous time.

WHOA. That's way too deep right there. I keep forgetting you were a merit scholar:dolemite:

[LosAngelesSooner]

theres our West Coast Conservative when we dont need him :D

What on EARTH does being a Conservative have to do with the Bible??? THAT is the first place the Republican Party went wrong...

[Collier11]

you didnt get it, I was being sarcastic

[TopDawg]

I like Jim Wallis' book God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. I don't really have a problem with a lot of the fundamental conservative ideals, but the way so many Conservatives represent/use Christianity in politics is repulsive to me. In my opinion, they get it wrong and therein encourage irresponsible or misguided Christian ethics to many Christians and create or enforce a negative stereotype of Christianity to many non-Christians. That gets under my skin like nothing else.

And that's not to say that Liberals have it figured out. Like Wallis says, they don't get it. But I'm less repulsed by that.

[Chuck Bao]

Dean and I are polar opposites. It is only because of his types that I would ever think of myself as liberal. Does anyone else feel that Dean gets a bit too graphic in describing love between two men? He is judging and if he reads the Bible it is clear that judgement is God's. Jesus did talk more about the problems of the wealthy entering heaven then he did about the queer folk. I don't think Jesus ever talked about abortions. It was even harsher back in Jesus time when new born babies were left out to the elements to die a very slow and sickening death. The thing is that the religious in the US has been hi-jacked by the conservative crowd about sanctity of marriage and that souls are created at conception. No parent wants their daughter to have an abortion or their sons to be sucking dick and taking loads up their bum. If the politics of today is driving my this, that is a pity. We have many other issues that go far beyond that way of thinking.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I agree completely, dont just do good stuff when you are called upon, do it all the time

No YOU didn't get it. I was being dense.

[PDXsooner]

I'm with you on the unknowable part. Even the things that I strongly believe are things that I admit are unknowable. Have you seen The Invention of Lying? You might like it.

i'll check it out, i'm always open to different ideas.

[Collier11]

No YOU didn't get it. I was being dense.

yea, whats new :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

yea, whats new :D

Clearly not...your FACE!

[Collier11]

dont be mad at me cus your GF makes you 'tuck' on Thursdays

[LosAngelesSooner]

Nuh-uh. "WRAP," not "Tuck." After a certain length you have to wrap because tucking still doesn't get the job done. But you know this, Sir Tucks-a-lot.

[Collier11]

you do have roomy cheeks

[LosAngelesSooner]

Your hands were really cold that night.

[Collier11]

that doesnt even make sense, ghey joke fail

[Harry Beanbag]

Yay! Another tired and worn out gay joke from the poster named after a man's scrotum!!! :D

As opposed to a woman's scrotum? :D :confused: :) :rolleyes: ;) :cool: :eek:

[LosAngelesSooner]

As opposed to a woman's scrotum? :D :confused: :) :rolleyes: ;) :cool: :eek:

If anyone could manage it...Herr Scrotal...;)

[Harry Beanbag]

Manage what? You seem infatuated with scrotums lately, mine in particular. :confused: :O :( :) ;) :mad: :cool: :rolleyes: :eek: :D :P :pop: :texan: :hot: :gary:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Well it's so soft and downy...

[sooner59]

I'm not going to pretend like I know what happens exactly when we die. But even the smartest scientist can't come up with a reason why we exist. Even if you trace it back to the Big Bang.....what banged? What made it happen? That makes me whole-heartedly believe there is a God and everything that is.....well, that's God's doing. I don't know about Divine Intervention, so I can't say if it occurs one way or another. A lot of really bad stuff happens for reasons I can't imagine, but maybe it isn't for me to imagine. It may be beyond me.

I am guilty of a lot of things, but I also have a conscience....and I look back on some things I have done and realize I chose poorly and feel badly, and I try to use that to make me a better person. Other than that I try to do good things for people any chance I get. I have ambitions in the future that will likely make me well off if I succeed, but I don't care about being rich, just have enough to not need to worry about my family. If I can help others with the excess, I truly plan to.

That being said, I can't call myself a bonified Christian, because I don't go to Church and I don't honestly know if any one religion is right or wrong. But honestly believe Christianity at its core has great moral and ethical values that we all can learn from. And I try my best to lead a life that if when I am gone, God will say, "You may not have been completely right, but you definitely weren't wrong in the way you lived your life."

I don't know that doing good things for others will be rewarded, because I'm not dead yet. But I would still do them even if I knew that I wouldn't be. Regardless, I try to live by the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would want them to do to you. Or love thy neighbor. Whichever you prefer. Religion has jack to do with a specific political party. But if your beliefs lead you to vote a certain way because of a stance on certain issues, then I don't see anything wrong with it. Its a lot better than someone voting a certain person/party just because their mom or their friends did, which I see more often than I would care to. But we should all realize that in any party, there are good and there are bad......there are educated and posers. And sometimes media can blur the lines because we don't know politicians personally for the most part. I am not a big fan of politicians, but the media who try to demonize them or play them as saviors or saints are just as bad.

[Leroy Lizard]

Other than that I try to do good things for people any chance I get.

You can start by agreeing with my posts. Or at least say, "Y'know, Lizard has a good point..."

[Collier11]

the problem Liz is that your points are usually so irrational that it is hard to even try to make you feel better :D

[King Crimson]

historically, conservatives see religion as a way to control the peeps and masses. Leo Strauss, Bill Kristol and his Dad were not exactly southern baptists. but they knew how to control them. example: aw shucks hunter Sarah Palin. i'm just a regular gal who likes freedoms and not big government?

conservatism is not the power to the people thing we seem to have fallen in love with. it's the opposite. it's the maintenance of power in the few, not the many. just because you believe in Christ and the GOP pushes your buttons on that and some shoddy rhetoric about manifest destiny and the brown people suck....is pure brainwashing at this point.

that we think it's the opposite, should cause one to think about the true nature of ideology.

[Fraggle145]

I'm not going to pretend like I know what happens exactly when we die. But even the smartest scientist can't come up with a reason why we exist. Even if you trace it back to the Big Bang.....what banged? What made it happen? That makes me whole-heartedly believe there is a God and everything that is.....well, that's God's doing. I don't know about Divine Intervention, so I can't say if it occurs one way or another. A lot of really bad stuff happens for reasons I can't imagine, but maybe it isn't for me to imagine. It may be beyond me.

I am guilty of a lot of things, but I also have a conscience....and I look back on some things I have done and realize I chose poorly and feel badly, and I try to use that to make me a better person. Other than that I try to do good things for people any chance I get. I have ambitions in the future that will likely make me well off if I succeed, but I don't care about being rich, just have enough to not need to worry about my family. If I can help others with the excess, I truly plan to.

That being said, I can't call myself a bonified Christian, because I don't go to Church and I don't honestly know if any one religion is right or wrong. But honestly believe Christianity at its core has great moral and ethical values that we all can learn from. And I try my best to lead a life that if when I am gone, God will say, "You may not have been completely right, but you definitely weren't wrong in the way you lived your life."

I don't know that doing good things for others will be rewarded, because I'm not dead yet. But I would still do them even if I knew that I wouldn't be. Regardless, I try to live by the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would want them to do to you. Or love thy neighbor. Whichever you prefer. Religion has jack to do with a specific political party. But if your beliefs lead you to vote a certain way because of a stance on certain issues, then I don't see anything wrong with it. Its a lot better than someone voting a certain person/party just because their mom or their friends did, which I see more often than I would care to. But we should all realize that in any party, there are good and there are bad......there are educated and posers. And sometimes media can blur the lines because we don't know politicians personally for the most part. I am not a big fan of politicians, but the media who try to demonize them or play them as saviors or saints are just as bad.

Why does there have to be a reason? :confused:

[TopDawg]

i'll check it out, i'm always open to different ideas.

Oh, no. What you said actually reminded me of the movie.

[OhU1]

But even the smartest scientist can't come up with a reason why we exist. Even if you trace it back to the Big Bang.....what banged? What made it happen? That makes me whole-heartedly believe there is a God and everything that is.....well, that's God's doing.

I get what you're saying. Any thinking person has to have coptemplated the mystery of existance and consciousness. However, the explantion of a God creating the universe does not really solve any question in my opinion. The existance of a God only leads me to ask how this God came into being. How did He "bang" into existance from nothing? If the answer is "he was always here" or "we don't know" are we not back to where we started before introducting God into the equation?


Why does there have to be a reason? :confused:

Exactly. There is a human need for answers and order. When there is no order we are very adapt at finding patterns where one may not exist and finding something to fill the gap in our lack of knowledge.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

historically, conservatives see religion as a way to control the peeps and masses. Leo Strauss, Bill Kristol and his Dad were not exactly southern baptists. but they knew how to control them. example: aw shucks hunter Sarah Palin. i'm just a regular gal who likes freedoms and not big government?

conservatism is not the power to the people thing we seem to have fallen in love with. it's the opposite. it's the maintenance of power in the few, not the many. just because you believe in Christ and the GOP pushes your buttons on that and some shoddy rhetoric about manifest destiny and the brown people suck....is pure brainwashing at this point.

that we think it's the opposite, should cause one to think about the true nature of ideology.OK, there's your answer to why constitutionalists are really authoritarians. Make sense? me, neither. great thread, haha.

[sooner59]

You can start by agreeing with my posts. Or at least say, "Y'know, Lizard has a good point..."

Haha, I don't "always" disagree with you. Remember not long ago I absolutely agreed with you on the college football celebration thing. You suggested making them write an essay. I said it was a great idea. See, there is progress.

[sooner59]

I get what you're saying. Any thinking person has to have coptemplated the mystery of existance and consciousness. However, the explantion of a God creating the universe does not really solve any question in my opinion. The existance of a God only leads me to ask how this God came into being. How did He "bang" into existance from nothing? If the answer is "he was always here" or "we don't know" are we not back to where we started before introducting God into the equation?

I see what you are saying. And I guess my only answer to it is this. Just for me personally, if there is one thing that I know about God, existence, or consciousness.....it is that I know nothing. I get only get so far until I stop and say, "I'm just not meant to know yet...or at all." So I control what I can, which is what I do and how I treat people here and now. I just as guilty as the next person of screwing that up, but I try to fix it for the sake hopefully just making someone else's life, or even day or afternoon, better. And you are right, the explanation may not solve it, but rather lead to more questions. But I do know that whether it was meant to be or just dumb luck, I was born into a great family in a great country and I have been lucky enough to have my hard work pay off and give me options and a bright future. And I just feel like best thing I can do is feel grateful and do what I can for others and make the most of my time while I am here. I am not going to tell anyone they are right or wrong on the issue, because I don't know. But that is as far as I have gotten in my 25 years.

Exactly. There is a human need for answers and order. When there is no order we are very adapt at finding patterns where one may not exist and finding something to fill the gap in our lack of knowledge.

Yeah. I didn't exactly know which part of my post that Frag was speaking to, but I agree with this sentiment. We do tend to fill gaps in our lack of knowledge. I don't supposed there needs to be a reason for anything. When you study the universe outside our little bubble we call Earth, it is basically chaos.....no rhyme nor reason, just physics slowly catching up to gradually understand what is happening out there. And I don't guess anyone needs a reason to do good things for people. Sometimes you may just hold a door open for someone and not even realize it until 5 minutes later. It is just instinctual for me. I don't plan it or think what will happen if I do. And some people do bad things without a reason. Most of the time, however, that weird conscience thing in my head talks me out of it, though. :D

I am not making a case for anything, just saying that I am not ruling anything out. I am feel comfortable not knowing for now. Though I am always open to hear thoughts and learn if I can.

[jkjsooner]

The major factor that determines political orientation as one grows older is whether you have a cognitive bias toward anticipating gain or fearing loss. If you're more inclined to anticipate gain, you'll likely be more liberal. If you're more inclined to fear loss, you'll likely be more conservative.

What about the whole safety net concept?

Some conservatives feel that their life is entirely under their control and therefore safety net is not at all necessary. In this regard they anticipate gain - or at least anticipate the ability for gain if they choose to take it.

Some liberals feel that their success is a combination of both their own actions and external factors. In this respects they fear a potential loss and like the security provided by at least a minimal safety net.

[starclassic tama]

But even the smartest scientist can't come up with a reason why we exist.

wrong. the reason we exist is to live, and reproduce (keep on living).

[Collier11]

misinterpretation ^

[Half a Hundred]

What about the whole safety net concept?

Some conservatives feel that their life is entirely under their control and therefore safety net is not at all necessary. In this regard they anticipate gain - or at least anticipate the ability for gain if they choose to take it.

Some liberals feel that their success is a combination of both their own actions and external factors. In this respects they fear a potential loss and like the security provided by at least a minimal safety net.

Conservatives fear loss of self-control and a cultural value of self-responsibility (not to mention their money to pay for it). Liberals anticipate the gain of better social outcomes by protecting against unfortunate circumstances.

This isn't a political position. This is pretty much textbook behavioral economics and political psychology. Countless empirical studies consistently indicate that a conservative outlook is correlated with a fear-oriented worldview, while a liberal outlook is correlated with a perpetually optimistic worldview. Both strategies are effective in different circumstances.

[jkjsooner]

Conservatives fear loss of self-control and a cultural value of self-responsibility (not to mention their money to pay for it). Liberals anticipate the gain of better social outcomes by protecting against unfortunate circumstances.

This isn't a political position. This is pretty much textbook behavioral economics and political psychology. Countless empirical studies consistently indicate that a conservative outlook is correlated with a fear-oriented worldview, while a liberal outlook is correlated with a perpetually optimistic worldview. Both strategies are effective in different circumstances.

That may be the general case but I don't buy that it applies to all issues or reasoning behind all issues.

I think you're twisting to make my example fit what you're saying. For starters your reasoning is heavily based on change and which direction that change is going. If, for example, rather than instituting a safety net we're discussing removing one, I could say that conservatives are anticipating the gain that will occur from the removal of the safety net (lower taxes, less economic drag) and liberals fear the loss of the safety net.

[Half a Hundred]

That may be the general case but I don't buy that it applies to all issues or reasoning behind all issues.

I think you're twisting to make my example fit what you're saying. For starters your reasoning is heavily based on change and which direction that change is going. If, for example, rather than instituting a safety net we're discussing removing one, I could say that conservatives are anticipating the gain that will occur from the removal of the safety net (lower taxes, less economic drag) and liberals fear the loss of the safety net.

And I'd say that you're twisting the example to fit what you're saying, too. It's called "spin". Both sides do it.

It all comes down to ultimate motivations. Why do conservatives want to take down the safety net? You said it yourself - lower taxes and less economic drag. Why do they want to take down the safety net to do this? Because they ultimately believe that taxes take away from their own wealth and where the economy "should be", that is, also their own wealth. They want this change because they fear their current and future perceived loss from taxes, whereas liberals see taxes as payment for a better, more stable society, and chafe at being prevented from working toward that better society.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I get what you're saying. Any thinking person has to have coptemplated the mystery of existance and consciousness. However, the explantion of a God creating the universe does not really solve any question in my opinion. The existance of a God only leads me to ask how this God came into being. How did He "bang" into existance from nothing? If the answer is "he was always here" or "we don't know" are we not back to where we started before introducting God into the equation?
That brings up an excellent point. Why is it when scientists bring up things like the Big Bang and then explain it as being either a) inexplicable or b) a continuing, reoccurring phenomenon, do the Religious discount that "scientific faith assertion" as being "illogical and flawed," but the religious can turn right around and explain everything by saying, "God did it. He is, always has been and always will be, so don't question it!"

Seems like a faith/logic/philosophical double standard. No?

[Collier11]

you can turn that around as well LAS, why is it that when scientific folk say things are inexplicable like that yet they still believe in it to a point, why then are they so dismissive of religion since it cant be "proven". Seems like a double standard as well

[yermom]

science doesn't ask for 10% off the top ;)

[Turd_Ferguson]

science doesn't ask for 10% off the top ;)No, they usually get more...

[Half a Hundred]

No, they usually get more...

Yeah, that whole "actually working" thing's a killer selling point.

[Leroy Lizard]

Why do they want to take down the safety net to do this? Because they ultimately believe that taxes take away from their own wealth and where the economy "should be", that is, also their own wealth.

As if all conservatives are wealthy.

I know a lot of people who don't have much money but are conservative. To them, it's the principal of the thing. "I work hard for what little I have. Why should my money go to someone that doesn't work as hard?"

People are conservative for a lot of reasons.

[sooner59]

LL has a valid point. See, told ya I don't always disagree. I may not know many wealthy folks who aren't conservative, but I do know quite a few considerably UNwealthy folks who are. Different strokes for different folks.

[Fraggle145]

No, they usually get more...

Let me know when that happens... I'd like some. :D

[Fraggle145]

you can turn that around as well LAS, why is it that when scientific folk say things are inexplicable like that yet they still believe in it to a point, why then are they so dismissive of religion since it cant be "proven". Seems like a double standard as well

The difference is that for many of those things it is theoretically possible to prove or disprove them. It isnt possible to do that with something that by definition requires faith.

[Leroy Lizard]

But that doesn't make faithful beliefs wrong. We must not forget that.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Only 6 MONTHS til SOONER FOOTBALL!!!

[Collier11]

Thank GOD :D

[Leroy Lizard]

How can you thank God if you don't know if He exists?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

How can you thank God if you don't know if He exists?

you never thanked Santa?...or, were you Grinched?

[Collier11]

How can you thank God if you don't know if He exists?

Oh I know, its the others who dont

[Leroy Lizard]

They're clearly deluded.

[Collier11]

they are whatever they want to be, im just a believer

[Fraggle145]

And then I saw her face...

[Collier11]

your face

[Half a Hundred]

As if all conservatives are wealthy.

I know a lot of people who don't have much money but are conservative. To them, it's the principal of the thing. "I work hard for what little I have. Why should my money go to someone that doesn't work as hard?"

People are conservative for a lot of reasons.

What you wrote doesn't contradict anything I said. They don't want to lose what little they have. It's not the size that's the motivator, it's the not wanting to lose it.

[Turd_Ferguson]

What you wrote doesn't contradict anything I said. They don't want to lose what little they have. It's not the size that's the motivator, it's the not wanting to lose it.so whats your point?....nevermind



Countless empirical studies consistently indicate that a conservative outlook is correlated with a real worldview, while a liberal outlook is correlated with a big rock candy mountain worldview.fixed.

[Leroy Lizard]

What you wrote doesn't contradict anything I said. They don't want to lose what little they have. It's not the size that's the motivator, it's the not wanting to lose it.

But that's not even true. Poor conservatives are not necessarily conservative because they are afraid of losing their possessions. Conservatism is far more than about money.

I love the Left's convenient definitions of "conservative."

[Fraggle145]

your face

**** off dip****.

[Collier11]

**** off dip****.

pay tention

[LosAngelesSooner]

But that's not even true. Poor conservatives are not necessarily conservative because they are afraid of losing their possessions. Conservatism is far more than about money.

I love the Left's convenient definitions of "conservative."And I love the Neo-Con's appropriation and subsequent bastardization of the term.

[jkjsooner]

That brings up an excellent point. Why is it when scientists bring up things like the Big Bang and then explain it as being either a) inexplicable or b) a continuing, reoccurring phenomenon, do the Religious discount that "scientific faith assertion" as being "illogical and flawed," but the religious can turn right around and explain everything by saying, "God did it. He is, always has been and always will be, so don't question it!"

Seems like a faith/logic/philosophical double standard. No?

First, I want to correct something. The Big Bang is not intended to be an explanation of how or why the Universe came into being. A lot of its criticisms are based on the assumption that is attempts to answer these questions.

What the Big Bang is is a theory that traces observed behavior and known scientific laws and models back to some initial condition. It is not an explanation on how those initial conditions came to be nor was never meant to answer the big question.

[jkjsooner]

And I'd say that you're twisting the example to fit what you're saying, too. It's called "spin". Both sides do it.


Then it sounds more like a philosophical debate than a well established sociological phenomena. Nevertheless, I'm not saying you're wrong. I am saying that for some individuals and some issues your reasoning does not fit.

[Leroy Lizard]

First, I want to correct something. The Big Bang is not intended to be an explanation of how or why the Universe came into being. A lot of its criticisms are based on the assumption that is attempts to answer these questions.

What the Big Bang is is a theory that traces observed behavior and known scientific laws and models back to some initial condition. It is not an explanation on how those initial conditions came to be nor was never meant to answer the big question.

Well stated.

[jkjsooner]

Well stated.

I must have said something wrong... ;-)