|
|
Presidential Candidates .. Who do you like?
By Jetackuu 2012-06-15 17:34:49
In the same way that if Hitler never existed, there would still be good but there would still be just as much bad, yes. Religion's track record of death makes Hitler look like a common thug, though.
can't forget that Hitler's path was driven by religion as well.|
but seriously Godwin's law? The holocaust was not a religious war. It persecuted particular groups to achieve certain means. For various reasons Jews were unpopular in Germany during the early 1900s. But that was more a result of viewing Jews as a social group than a religious group.
The holocaust was more a result of Western imperialism, political, economic drivers, than it was of religious hatred, even though one of the major groups it targeted was in one sense a religious one.
Well sense we can't read Hitler's dead mind, going to have to agree to disagree.
 Cerberus.Eugene
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6999
By Cerberus.Eugene 2012-06-15 17:37:26
I disagree with your reasoning that society would emerge secular today with more or less the same foundational principles, were there no religion. It is particular difficult to untangle religion from society precisely because it is at the root of most if not all of modern civilization to some degree.
Even if there was a strictly secular society that developed some form of advanced democracy and capitalism, that wouldn't be proof-positive of the idea that religion is completely unnecessary to develop a functioning society. That society did not exist in a vacuum, it had influences of outside cultures. Additionally, there is no evidence that US capitalism and democracy is the paragon that all societies should strive for (meaning that maybe other forms of government may be at least equally valid).
Cerberus.Eugene
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6999
By Cerberus.Eugene 2012-06-15 17:45:14
In the same way that if Hitler never existed, there would still be good but there would still be just as much bad, yes. Religion's track record of death makes Hitler look like a common thug, though.
can't forget that Hitler's path was driven by religion as well.|
but seriously Godwin's law? The holocaust was not a religious war. It persecuted particular groups to achieve certain means. For various reasons Jews were unpopular in Germany during the early 1900s. But that was more a result of viewing Jews as a social group than a religious group.
The holocaust was more a result of Western imperialism, political, economic drivers, than it was of religious hatred, even though one of the major groups it targeted was in one sense a religious one.
Well sense we can't read Hitler's dead mind, going to have to agree to disagree.
The words religion, theology, Jew, or Semite, or reasonable derivations of each do not appear in the article.
The main causes of world war ii are listed as: anti-communism, imperialism, fascism, militarism, nationalism, racism, and economics.
Also, keep in mind that while Hitler may have lead the Nazi party, he was not the entirety of the Nazi party, Hitler alone could not have caused the Holocaust.
To clarify: whether you define Holocaust as the eradication of Jews or the eradication or all peoples that were targeted during the Nazi regime, many more people died than just Jews. Jews were certainly one of the most aggressively hit groups, but there is no questions that the Nazi's eventual goal was to wipe out many more people. Millions of non-jewish poles were killed as well. It was an exercise in extreme racism, with the goal of reaching a master Aryan race.
IIRC: one of the reasons Jews were such a target was that Germany was still suffering under difficult economic sanctions from WWI. Jews in Germany as a group were doing better than other Germans during the time. This made them an easier target to direct the Nazi party's outrage at. Jealousy is a powerful motivator.
 Cerberus.Tikal
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4947
By Cerberus.Tikal 2012-06-15 17:45:31
Never said it was possible, only amended a statement to make it more accurate. Anyway, everyone knows if you have a single-use time-machine ticket, you go back and kill Hitler.
Cerberus.Eugene
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6999
By Cerberus.Eugene 2012-06-15 17:46:59
Never said it was possible, only amended a statement to make it more accurate. Anyway, everyone knows if you have a single-use time-machine ticket, you go back and kill Hitler. Make sure not to muck it up and drop your cell phone while you're there.
Lakshmi.Flavin
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2012-06-15 17:48:22
Well you yourself had stated that if religion existed or didn't there would still be no change... there would still be good and there would still be evil... these aren't my beliefs just my take on your, what I feel to be, ignorant statements... It was not my intention to excuse anything... blame would still exist it would just shift by your logic... if a was gone be would appear and assume a's guilt...
you wish to get rid of something entirely because of your limited understanding of it throughout history based on your 21st century views... Then either A: you've misunderstood me, or B: you've built a strawman. I've never stated there would be no change, just mentioned that some things may still have happened, with or without religion. And no, blame would not shift, it just means that religion did not have as great a hand in it as to orchestrate it, and that other contributing factors reached a tipping point for it to occur.
And I'm eager to hear your benevolent and ascended perspective from pre-21st century. You're welcome to criticize without foundation, but if you want credibility, please do elaborate. You came out and said that nothing would be lost if religion were completely taken out of history and pretty much never existed yes? you also said that whatever good it contributed... something else would have done something equally good before religion would have... I asked you about the negative and you said that it was very possible that the bad would still happen no matter... just via b instead of a...
therefore you imply that the world would be a better place without religion... Eugene brought up some good examples of why your statement wouldn't be true...
you can look back at the past with your own views but you can not place your 21st century mindset on the people that lived in a completely different time... they do not have the same environment and would not act similarly...
Cerberus.Tikal
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4947
By Cerberus.Tikal 2012-06-15 17:49:43
Gotta get the right date too. Last guy went back to 1945, and we all know how that ended.
EDIT: @Flavin: Thank you for regurgitating everything.
As far as the 21st century mindset thing goes? DUH
Odin.Liela
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10191
By Odin.Liela 2012-06-15 18:04:44
So... erm... I'm sorry that I sort of caused a religious derail here. /blush.
As for presidential candidates, I'm teetering on voting for Obama and not voting at all.
The problem is, I don't want to vote for Romney. I don't like the guy. Obama is a lesser of the two evils, however, I'm not convinced that he's the right man for the job either. I feel like if I don't approve of either candidate, then voting for either of them is a bit against my grain. But then again, what if I don't vote and suddenly we have Romney as a president? Well I'll feel like if I had voted, maybe we wouldn't have that problem. Then again, I'm not convinced that a single vote can change anything. In the last presidential election, Idaho wasn't even counted. And never, not once, has Idaho voted for a democrat. So if I go vote Obama, it's not even going to change my city, county, or state, much less my country.
Then again though! Then again if everybody teetered like this, then nothing would ever get done. Presidential elections feel more like a contest between which candidate can terrify more senior citizens and adults away from the other than which candidate is better suited to be in charge of the country.
 Lakshmi.Glaciont
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 775
By Lakshmi.Glaciont 2012-06-15 18:07:18
Romney.
Seems like a well-rounded, down to earth, level headed guy.
Trollolol?
By Jetackuu 2012-06-15 18:10:13
In the same way that if Hitler never existed, there would still be good but there would still be just as much bad, yes. Religion's track record of death makes Hitler look like a common thug, though.
can't forget that Hitler's path was driven by religion as well.|
but seriously Godwin's law? The holocaust was not a religious war. It persecuted particular groups to achieve certain means. For various reasons Jews were unpopular in Germany during the early 1900s. But that was more a result of viewing Jews as a social group than a religious group.
The holocaust was more a result of Western imperialism, political, economic drivers, than it was of religious hatred, even though one of the major groups it targeted was in one sense a religious one.
Well sense we can't read Hitler's dead mind, going to have to agree to disagree.
The words religion, theology, Jew, or Semite, or reasonable derivations of each do not appear in the article.
The main causes of world war ii are listed as: anti-communism, imperialism, fascism, militarism, nationalism, racism, and economics.
Also, keep in mind that while Hitler may have lead the Nazi party, he was not the entirety of the Nazi party, Hitler alone could not have caused the Holocaust.
To clarify: whether you define Holocaust as the eradication of Jews or the eradication or all peoples that were targeted during the Nazi regime, many more people died than just Jews. Jews were certainly one of the most aggressively hit groups, but there is no questions that the Nazi's eventual goal was to wipe out many more people. Millions of non-jewish poles were killed as well. It was an exercise in extreme racism, with the goal of reaching a master Aryan race.
IIRC: one of the reasons Jews were such a target was that Germany was still suffering under difficult economic sanctions from WWI. Jews in Germany as a group were doing better than other Germans during the time. This made them an easier target to direct the Nazi party's outrage at. Jealousy is a powerful motivator.
The entire party, no but a motivational leader and manipulator of his subjects, yes.
So in terms of speaking of Hitler (which the statement was anyway) it can be said he was driven by religion, but yet again since we can't read a brain much less a dead man's brain, we'll never know for certain, but he used it as a big tool, whether or not he believed the nonsense himself is another story.
Cerberus.Eugene
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6999
By Cerberus.Eugene 2012-06-15 18:10:25
So... erm... I'm sorry that I sort of caused a religious derail here. /blush.
As for presidential candidates, I'm teetering on voting for Obama and not voting at all.
The problem is, I don't want to vote for Romney. I don't like the guy. Obama is a lesser of the two evils, however, I'm not convinced that he's the right man for the job either. I feel like if I don't approve of either candidate, then voting for either of them is a bit against my grain. But then again, what if I don't vote and suddenly we have Romney as a president? Well I'll feel like if I had voted, maybe we wouldn't have that problem. Then again, I'm not convinced that a single vote can change anything. In the last presidential election, Idaho wasn't even counted. And never, not once, has Idaho voted for a democrat. So if I go vote Obama, it's not even going to change my city, county, or state, much less my country.
Then again though! Then again if everybody teetered like this, then nothing would ever get done. Presidential elections feel more like a contest between which candidate can terrify more senior citizens and adults away from the other than which candidate is better suited to be in charge of the country.
Part of the problem is people want radical change (arguably a fair wish), but the people in control don't want to make radical changes. Obama has to work within a structure to influence policy and law as much as he can, but he is limited; Obama alone cannot create the laws, and for good reason.
There is not much one person can do if half our government is willing to hold a gun to the nations head and play chicken with government obligations. Not to say the democrats are any better.
I think Obama has done a reasonable job thus far. He cannot make every change he wants, which is good. But its also unfair to place the burdens of a stagnant bickering political system entirely at his feet.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2012-06-15 18:13:43
I think both men (and most of congress) lead too heavily towards fascism to solve their issues, aside from that I enjoy progress, neither will push towards less fascism, but only one will try to be progressive, and it certainly isn't Romney.
Unfortunately there's no anti-fascist/pro progressive movement or party that I know of.
Cerberus.Eugene
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6999
By Cerberus.Eugene 2012-06-15 18:14:22
The entire party, no but a motivational leader and manipulator of his subjects, yes.
So in terms of speaking of Hitler (which the statement was anyway) it can be said he was driven by religion, but yet again since we can't read a brain much less a dead man's brain, we'll never know for certain, but he used it as a big tool, whether or not he believed the nonsense himself is another story. I'm not sure why its an issue then. The true motivations for targeting Jews by the Nazi party were racism and political leverage, it wasn't a religious war. Hitler alone did not cause the Holocaust.
Cerberus.Eugene
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6999
By Cerberus.Eugene 2012-06-15 18:18:55
The libertarian party nominated Gary Johnson for president. I believe he is on the ballet in all 50 States. If you were interested in Ron Paul you may want to do some research on Gary Johnson.
By Jetackuu 2012-06-15 18:19:54
1. because my original statement was this:
In the same way that if Hitler never existed, there would still be good but there would still be just as much bad, yes. Religion's track record of death makes Hitler look like a common thug, though.
can't forget that Hitler's path was driven by religion as well.|
but seriously Godwin's law?
you're the one who brought up the holocaust as a whole, not me.
2. like I said, I disagree.
Cerberus.Eugene
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6999
By Cerberus.Eugene 2012-06-15 18:20:22
fair enough
By Jetackuu 2012-06-15 18:22:47
The libertarian party nominated Gary Johnson for president. I believe he is on the ballet in all 50 States. If you were interested in Ron Paul you may want to do some research on Gary Johnson.
my best hope for RP now (and really ever) is that he pulls enough right wing votes to keep Obama in, I'd rather have Obama for 20 years than Romney for a week.
[+]
By Oceanfury 2012-06-15 18:43:59
would rather have Romney over obama any day of the week.
Bahamut.Josseppi
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 106
By Bahamut.Josseppi 2012-06-15 18:47:11
would rather have Romney over obama any day of the week.
Cause nothing says American like selling out Americans so big businesses can send their jobs to China.
[+]
By Raborn 2012-06-15 19:12:24
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Good morals? If we stuck to the morals of the 18th century we'd still be enslaving human beings and treating the native population of the Americas like expendable chess pieces to be thrown away at our leisure. I guess we can't do the latter since natives are all but exterminated but I digress. The people of the 18th century had flaws much like we do but the difference is biblical literalism (and those who espouse it) want us to move backwards or stand still rather than learn of the mistakes of the past.
Lets start off with the issue of Slavery. According to -historians- the overall population at the peak level of Slavery in America was about 30 - 40 million. Now the best accurate record claims that roughly 22 million of those lived in the northern region of the country and 9 million lived in the southern region. In one of the pre-civil war history books, used in colleges across the US, notes that roughly 13% of the northern population were slaves AND indentured servants. On the other hand roughly 69% of the population of the south were slaves AND indentured servants.
So lets make the math a little easier and round the slave count in the north up to 15% and the south up to 70%.
This makes the slave population of the North 3,300,000.
The free 18,700,000.
Slave population of the South 6,300,000.
The free 2,700,00.
Now lets assume that the ratio of slaves to owners in the north is 1 to 1 and that all of the population in the south are slave owners.
meaning that roughly 6,000,000 Americans endorse slavery. Subtract 3.3 million from the base population of the north 18.7 million and you get 15,400,000 people that do not use slaves.
Now that's 15,400,000 to 6,000,000 over DOUBLE.
Now lets assume, benefit of the doubt for you, that in fact 25% (1/4, more than a generous amount) of that northern population was pro-slavery (not just owners or practitioners) for the south and disregard all together the south's anti-slavery supporters.
Equates to 3,800,000. So lets add that to the already 6,000,000 Approximating it to 9,800,000 (Pro-Slavery) to 11,600,000 (Anti-Slavery).
Historical records claim that most Northerners were against or had no concern for the Southerners use of slavery, I have no percentage to throw in so I'll leave it on that note.
We Agree,
Quote: how many slaves stories go untold? how many died because of persecution? how many treated in the most inhumane of ways? Our goal is to learn from this and to make every effort to avoid repeating the failings of our forefathers. Quote: There is far more to history than what you read in books, far more important events lost to the tides of time and deception. Emotions, Thoughts, but most importantly People, not just one man or 7, not even 20, but many men, and women who fought daily for what they believed to be the greater good for mankind.
And Not Agree,
Quote: This is my bone to pick with the extremes. History cannot be shaped to fit a narrow worldview and if some are too ignorant to read of how this very country was founded, to learn from the mistakes of days gone by and to avoid concocting the formula by which religion can yet again become a multi-pronged hydra that rains death down upon the citizenry then perhaps they should ask people who actually do historical research rather than fabricate facts to push forward an agenda.
This is my bone to pick with the extremes. Our narrow worldviews are no different from each other in the scheme of a larger picture. There is much to learn not only from reading but also from the people around us and what happened between the lines of the fabrications that people laid from the past for us to read now.
I stand under God not because my view is right, or yours is wrong, but because of what he represents to me, something I could never be. Something Good, even if he's not always understood as good.
For what is promised, what hasn't been given, what will be given.
I stand under no man, and in return I demand that no man stand under me.
I'll probably be a dying breed of human by the age my time comes. And you may not like the point of view I bring. But its no more fabricated and full of fallacy than your own.
The people I speak of in my original statement, the "good" looked out for one another, helped one another even when they didn't know each other. Underground Railroad and the men who strove to make regulations and reservations for those natives who were being killed off so they wouldn't be wiped from the face of the planet. (Using them as a direct example to your references).
If someone was lost would you actually stop and take the time out of your busy day to help them? The last time that homeless man stopped you in the shopping mall's parking lot did you spare a dime?
On a sub note I do support gay "Marriage".
In the respect that the state not force any church to wed gays, if they choose not to.
Justice of the Peace Yo.
So Obama what's up with not just getting that legi passed?
If a Republican goes in we all know it'll be another 4 years before we'll see any action on that topic.
By Oceanfury 2012-06-15 19:16:52
Romney has created jobs in the US private sector which has helped Americans.
Wannabe dictator obama doesnt know how to create jobs. This embarrassment of a president only wants to grow government through massive spending, run us deeper into debt, and force unconstitional laws down peoples throat. Obama = worst president by FAR. His whole notion of tax the rich does NOTHING to drive down the national deficit. It will only stifle job growth which hurts Americans. If he was a real man he would take responsibility for the past 3.5 years of his failed presidency. Instead he continues to whine and blame anyone but himself. November cant come soon enough.
By Jetackuu 2012-06-15 19:17:04
would rather have Romney over obama any day of the week.
the almighty: why?
By Oceanfury 2012-06-15 19:21:43
Romney = pro life/against abortion, marriage is between one man and one woman (the way it should be says "the ALMIGHTY")
Obama = gay/food stamp president.
By Jetackuu 2012-06-15 19:23:54
Romney has created jobs in the US private sector which has helped Americans.
Wannabe dictator obama doesnt know how to create jobs. This embarrassment of a president only wants to grow government through massive spending, run us deeper into debt, and force unconstitional laws down peoples throat. Obama = worst president by FAR. His whole notion of tax the rich does NOTHING to drive down the national deficit. It will only stifle job growth which hurts Americans. If he was a real man he would take responsibility for the past 3.5 years of his failed presidency. Instead he continues to whine and blame anyone but himself. November cant come soon enough.
Nowhere near as much as he helped himself.
How is Obama a dictator? In any sense of the word?
It's arguably not the government's job to create jobs.
Bush increased the size of the US government more than Obama could ever hope to.
What spending has he been doing that's out of control more so than Bush?
What laws has he signed that are unconstitutional? what laws has he signed that congress hasn't written?
Obama is far from the worst president.
Obama never increased taxes on the rich, he should of, our society relies on taxing the "rich", a society where everyone pays an equal share would put the middle class into poverty and would put those in poverty into the streets, they wouldn't be able to afford it.
The trickle-down economics of Reagon is failed in practice, and has never been proven to work.
The only thing stifling job growth is the 1% pocketing more profits, due to lax laws and lack of taxes.
Obama can't do everything, he came into a pigstye of a situation from 8 years of pure failure.
I'm no fan of Obama but you're delusional, and need to stop drinking the FOX "news" aide.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2012-06-15 19:24:57
Romney = pro life/against abortion, marriage is between one man and one woman (the way it should be says "the ALMIGHTY")
Obama = gay/food stamp president.
stop trolling.
 Phoenix.Fredjan
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2326
By Phoenix.Fredjan 2012-06-15 19:29:31
Romney = pro life/against abortion, marriage is between one man and one woman (the way it should be says "the ALMIGHTY")
Obama = gay/food stamp president. -1 to romney for supporting pro life, and -1 again for one man one woman marriage
-1 to obama for food stamps, +1 for you know what.
By Oceanfury 2012-06-15 19:33:35
Once again you blame anyone but your own liberal failed policies. Who has increased the debt during the last 3.5 years? Answer: Obama. Hes increased the debt more than all other presidents combined. Yet he continues to point fingers. Man up!
Obamacare, a 1000+ page document, have you read it? He promised he wouldnt pass anything until the American people had a chance to read the legislation he was passing through. Democrats rammed that through so fast through shady tactics. No one knew what was in it.
This isnt a Bush presidency. This is an Obama presidency that he has to defend and he cant do it.
By Jetackuu 2012-06-15 19:37:23
Once again you blame anyone but your own liberal failed policies. Who has increased the debt during the last 3.5 years? Answer: Obama. Hes increased the debt more than all other presidents combined. Yet he continues to point fingers. Man up!
Obamacare, a 1000+ page document, have you read it? He promised he wouldnt pass anything until the American people had a chance to read the legislation he was passing through. Democrats rammed that through so fast through shady tactics. No one knew what was in it.
This isnt a Bush presidency. This is an Obama presidency that he has to defend and he cant do it.
it's bad policy for any president to just end the last president's half ended endeavors, including but not limited to: bailouts, wars.
Not to mention that congress has to pass the budget, so it's just as much congress's fault, if not more so.
not ending the bush tax cuts sure as hell didn't help.
"Obamacare" is about the same legislation the Republicans attempted to pass in opposition to Clinton-care in the 90's, I've read overviews, I don't have the patience to read the entire document, but there's nothing unconstitutional about it, and republicans thought of the idea of the mandate for health insurance, which Romney had supported too.
By Jetackuu 2012-06-15 19:39:47
He can defend it, he had to go in and clean up one hell of a mess, and an economic collapse that was bound to happen with lax regulation, would have probably happened earlier if it weren't for the .com boost.
Romney has no more place being president than a Catholic Priest does being placed in charge of a daycare.
[+]
Caitsith.Sai
サーバ: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
Posts: 702
By Caitsith.Sai 2012-06-15 19:43:02
Once again you blame anyone but your own liberal failed policies. Who has increased the debt during the last 3.5 years? Answer: Obama. Hes increased the debt more than all other presidents combined. Yet he continues to point fingers. Man up!
Obamacare, a 1000+ page document, have you read it? He promised he wouldnt pass anything until the American people had a chance to read the legislation he was passing through. Democrats rammed that through so fast through shady tactics. No one knew what was in it.
This isnt a Bush presidency. This is an Obama presidency that he has to defend and he cant do it.
See how you are posting right now. An anon openly expressing your ideals and opinions.
Republican party isn't for that so much.
See repubs in NY just recently.
Like the title says... The time is coming soon, where we will vote for our new President...... Personally, I believe the only person that would actually be good for this country is Ron Paul, everyone else seems like a bullshitter!
so who do you like?
|
|
