To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush. This is not to say Obama hasn’t made mistakes himself, but even they can be blamed on Bush insofar as Bush’s incompetence led to the election of a Democrat. If he had done half as good a job as most Republicans have talked themselves into believing he did, McCain would have won easily..
LOL. That one sentence says more about the author than the rest of the article.
"Obama's mistakes can be blamed on Bush's incompetence." Following that logic, Clintons mistakes lead to Gore's loss to Bush so it's all Clintons fault.... etc...
There's no bias in that piece what-so-ever. Riiiiighhhhhhtttttt.
dagny wrote:Also, I've already had private discussion with him regarding this, and being respectful to others. As you can see, he puts great effort into that.
PFiDC is by far the most patient, open-minded, and intelligent Christian I have ever "spoken" with. A lot of our brethren would do well to live by that philosophy.
I appreciate this.
This is yet another testament to God. Before I came to know Him I was SO angry and VERY impatient. He has helped me turn from both.
Kraftster wrote:Well that's an interesting reading of Dawkins. I certainly will acknowledge the fact that Dawkins comes off pretty strongly and that he is quite inflammatory. Sometimes its a shame how pejorative he is in many of his comments because he's a skilled logical thinker/philosopher. Militant is an interesting way of putting it, although I think I'd have to respectfully disagree.
I think you have to understand a bit about Dawkins' social/political philosophy for his pro-atheist rants to be something a bit more palatable. I don't mean to suggest that you are unfamiliar, I don't know whether you are or not. I'm by no means a Dawkins expert, but, I think his secular-based philosophies (if accepted) bring the "atheists' struggle" (as he'd probably put it) a lot closer to the struggle of gay rights/civil rights issues. And I mean no disrespect and don't intend to step on any toes by saying that.
In certain areas of the country I think its certainly possible that an atheist/agnostic individual may feel shunned. Dawkins is probably right that an openly atheistic political candidate would struggle to obtain support. He often points to the lack of a secular voice in government as evidence that atheism is shunned by the American society. I think even he would admit that it is less overt than the civil rights/gay rights parallels, but, I think for him, the covert nature of things makes it even more pugnacious.
Another point would be that Dawkins' evolutionary-based beliefs leave him with secular ideals that clash with many theistic ideals, i.e., the theistic (in several religions) view that all humans are equal. Dawkins would probably be willing to say that the less sophisticated individuals are drawn to religion. So, if we reached a point where he thought atheists were duly accepted, he might rail against theists a bit less and just say that the, for lack of a better word, "dumb" people follow religion. That might still seem to be scathing, but, again, based on his underlying philosophies it would be very matter of fact to Dawkins.
I hear what you are saying. I don't really have a problem with the fact that an openly atheist member of Congress would be unlikely. Americans want to vote someone that represents their beliefs, and we were(despite what certain presidents may say) founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
If Dawkins wasn't such an obnoxious ****, I might be more open to what he has to say. There are plenty of atheists that don't do their cause any favors. You know the ones I am talking about. The ones like Dawkins, that go around constantly repeating "I don't NEED a crutch to get through life...I am not a SLAVE to religion" as their noses are pointed proudly upward. What is ironic is that a lot of these atheists don't realize how hard it is to lead a truly devout life. There are way too many snobby, holier-than-thou (ironic, isn't it) atheists out there that go on and on about how WISE and INTELLIGENT and SOPHISTICATED they are. It's nauseating.
I hear what you are saying. I don't really have a problem with the fact that an openly atheist member of Congress would be unlikely. Americans want to vote someone that represents their beliefs, and we were(despite what certain presidents may say) founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
Hmmm. I question if this president is really very religious. I don't think he is, but had to be to win in this country. Why can't you have the same beliefs and not believe in god, it has nothing to do with morality to me. We were founded by Judeo-Christian principles? Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, really?
Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect.
In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large extent, the CBO’s estimate simply represented the $482 billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last summer’s budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress in September over strenuous conservative objections. Thus the vast bulk of this year’s currently estimated $1.8 trillion deficit was determined by Bush’s policies, not Obama’s.
I think conservative anger is misplaced. To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush. This is not to say Obama hasn’t made mistakes himself, but even they can be blamed on Bush insofar as Bush’s incompetence led to the election of a Democrat. If he had done half as good a job as most Republicans have talked themselves into believing he did, McCain would have won easily.
Conservative protesters should remember that the recession, which led to so many of the policies they oppose, is almost entirely the result of Bush’s policies. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began in December 2007—long before Obama was even nominated. And the previous recession ended in November 2001, so the current recession cannot be blamed on cyclical forces that Bush inherited.
Oh come on. I’d love to read on, but this is just nonsense. Aren’t we past this yet? Or are we still debating this recession within the Keynesian bubble as if Keynesian economics weren’t the problem itself.
REPUBLICAN anger is misplaced. True paleo-conservatives, or classical liberals, know that the command economy structure, with the Federal Reserve at its apex, is the cause of this recession – not Obama, nor Bush, nor Clinton. It’s as ridiculous to blame the recession on Bush as it is to blame it on Obama. Oh sure, they’ve both done a good deal to make it worse, but they and their minions surely aren’t the first inflationists and market-manipulators.
More to the point, until we finally reach a point where we stop being so easily manipulated by this fifth-grader game of musical chairs and come to the conclusion that it really doesn’t matter which party was left standing each time the damned music stopped and that the problem is the game itself, we’ll be left with nothing but the childish satisfaction of not being associated with the “standing” party when the economy is completely collapsed. This is a collective (pun intended) case of Nero fiddling while the bloody city burns.
Oh come on. I’d love to read on, but this is just nonsense. Aren’t we past this yet? Or are we still debating this recession within the Keynesian bubble as if Keynesian economics weren’t the problem itself.
No, becasue a lot of economist don't think that at all, probably the majority, maybe the problem is market fundamentalism or neo-liberalism?
Oh come on. I’d love to read on, but this is just nonsense. Aren’t we past this yet? Or are we still debating this recession within the Keynesian bubble as if Keynesian economics weren’t the problem itself.
No, becasue a lot of economist don't think that at all, probably the majority, maybe the problem is market fundamentalism or neo-liberalism?
Gee, I wonder why? And why, pray tell, weren't this majority of economists predicting the recession like the "crank" austrians? Why were they all so caught off guard? Krugman and the boys are just flat wrong.
The problem IS a the command structure of the economy.
Oh come on. I’d love to read on, but this is just nonsense. Aren’t we past this yet? Or are we still debating this recession within the Keynesian bubble as if Keynesian economics weren’t the problem itself.
No, becasue a lot of economist don't think that at all, probably the majority, maybe the problem is market fundamentalism or neo-liberalism?
Gee, I wonder why? And why, pray tell, weren't this majority of economists predicting the recession like the "crank" austrians? Why were they all so caught off guard? Krugman and the boys are just flat wrong.
The problem IS a the command structure of the economy.
They have been predicting a recession since hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom in 1944. That is what they do because until the market is "free" they will never be happy. I'm pretty sure more then just austrians were saying the economic was in bad shape.
Firebird wrote:I thought that I'd point that that I'm automaticaly a racist now beacuse I'm not an Obama fan.
Who said that?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09 ... sequences/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Jimmy the Jag Carter and fellow imbeciles. The new mantra is if you don't like liberal policies you're an evil racist. Billy was the only Carter worth a damn. Their sister was a faith healer and Jimmy's wife said she talked to God every day and he talked back to her, as in a conversation like you'd have with a clerk or fellow passenger on a bus. The evangalist sister was trying to save Larry Flynt's soul and he was offering her mega bucks to pose in Hustler. Someone missed out on a Helluva comedy movie on the Carter clan.
doublem wrote:
They have been predicting a recession since hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom in 1944. That is what they do because until the market is "free" they will never be happy. I'm pretty sure more then just austrians were saying the economic was in bad shape.
von Mises was in front of the Great Depression, too. And they were right all along. The boom-bust cycle is the inevitable result of the Keynesian model.
Pretty much no one but austrian economists were saying, from 2003-2006, that the housing boom would eventually bust.
They made the same Batman poster of Bush; how is that racist? The Al Jolson poster is assinine if someone is using that in refrence to Obama. But no lefties were concerned about a hate-mongering radical racist like Van Jones was added to the adninistration. David Duke would rise to the level of Van Jones only if he formally joined a Nazi party and advocated an American revolution to formulate a facist state. In other words while Dukes and Jones were kindred racist bigots Jones was even more reprehensible. Until opposition to big government policies are proven as racism the lefties should STFU about racism until they clean up their own party.
David Duke would rise to the level of Van Jones only if he formally joined a Nazi party and advocated an American revolution to formulate a facist state. In other words while Dukes and Jones were kindred racist bigots Jones was even more reprehensible. Until opposition to big government policies are proven as racism the lefties should STFU about racism until they clean up their own party.
Lol You just went over the top with that one. I can't even see the most remote comparison between the two of them. David Duke was the grand wizard of the KKK.
David Duke would rise to the level of Van Jones only if he formally joined a Nazi party and advocated an American revolution to formulate a facist state. In other words while Dukes and Jones were kindred racist bigots Jones was even more reprehensible. Until opposition to big government policies are proven as racism the lefties should STFU about racism until they clean up their own party.
Lol You just went over the top with that one. I can't even see the most remote comparison between the two of them. David Duke was the grand wizard of the KKK.
Jones is as big a racist as Duke. The difference being Jones is an un-American traitor who gave a speech the day after 911 praising & declaring solidarity with Muslims & 3rd world"victims of American imperialism"and crowed about his hope for revolution in the U.S. with a marxist state. IMO Duke would have to advocate overthrow of the U.S. for a facist state to approach Jone's venomous hatred of our country. Duke is routine landfill garbage; Jones is toxic wate. Most of the far left think Jones is a peachy guy so inabilty to compare 2 such pieces of crap are understood.
David Duke would rise to the level of Van Jones only if he formally joined a Nazi party and advocated an American revolution to formulate a facist state. In other words while Dukes and Jones were kindred racist bigots Jones was even more reprehensible. Until opposition to big government policies are proven as racism the lefties should STFU about racism until they clean up their own party.
Lol You just went over the top with that one. I can't even see the most remote comparison between the two of them. David Duke was the grand wizard of the KKK.
Jones is as big a racist as Duke. The difference being Jones is an un-American traitor who gave a speech the day after 911 praising & declaring solidarity with Muslims & 3rd world"victims of American imperialism"and crowed about his hope for revolution in the U.S. with a marxist state. IMO Duke would have to advocate overthrow of the U.S. for a facist state to approach Jone's venomous hatred of our country. Duke is routine landfill garbage; Jones is toxic wate. Most of the far left think Jones is a peachy guy so inabilty to compare 2 such pieces of crap are understood.
Why are conservatives still so afraid of Marxism? The system doesn't work, and we won. Remember? What speech was that? Now that 9-11 truth stuff is a problem, but he claims he didn't read it. Chris Hitchens was a former Marxist, now is is in the pro-war crowd, so what? David Horowitz former Marxist now neocon, oh no? Remember Sarah Palin's loser husband? He was a secessionist. The cold war is over, we don't need to be afraid of the evil soviets anymore, just the Muslims
MWB wrote:Are we only allowed to discuss what is in the title of the thread?
Of course not. I think you may need to re-read my posts. I believe I've been very clear.
I saw a slippery slope starting, it's my job to head that off.
PFIDC had no input, he mistakenly thought that I was directing my "be respectful" post AT him, when it was really placed where it was to protect him from being ganged up on.
(and, fyi, i do not agree with most of his views, but I have the utmost respect for his devotion to them. "Protecting" him has nothing to do with being in agreement. At some point, I told people not to gang up on doublem, too. If that doesn't show my impartiality, I don't know what does. )
Yes, I read your post a couple times. However, when you say this:
As long as everyone is comfortable discussing this, feel free to continue, but let's not turn this into a debate about whether or not god exists. We each have our religious beliefs, and this is a political thread.
it makes it seem as if we shouldn't debate the existence of God and that we should be keeping this in political terms, since it's a political thread. In one part you say keep discussing it, in the next breath you say what shouldn't be discussed.
Apologies for not being clear. My reference was to point out that we are mixing discussion of religion and politics. As all well know, a dangerous recipe. However, I would like to be able to continue the discussion, so I give gentle reminders to keep it civil, or I will be overruled by the big gorilla in the sky and, poof, it will all be gone.
Lol You just went over the top with that one. I can't even see the most remote comparison between the two of them. David Duke was the grand wizard of the KKK.
Jones is as big a racist as Duke. The difference being Jones is an un-American traitor who gave a speech the day after 911 praising & declaring solidarity with Muslims & 3rd world"victims of American imperialism"and crowed about his hope for revolution in the U.S. with a marxist state. IMO Duke would have to advocate overthrow of the U.S. for a facist state to approach Jone's venomous hatred of our country. Duke is routine landfill garbage; Jones is toxic wate. Most of the far left think Jones is a peachy guy so inabilty to compare 2 such pieces of crap are understood.
Why are conservatives still so afraid of Marxism? The system doesn't work, and we won. Remember? What speech was that? Now that 9-11 truth stuff is a problem, but he claims he didn't read it. Chris Hitchens was a former Marxist, now is is in the pro-war crowd, so what? David Horowitz former Marxist now neocon, oh no? Remember Sarah Palin's loser husband? He was a secessionist. The cold war is over, we don't need to be afraid of the evil soviets anymore, just the Muslims
Marxism never existed. Do you mean Lenonism?
Oh, an according to Carter (who, by the way, is an excellent example of the failure of anything liberal), I'm afraid of any non-Anglo.
