Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Really? I keep hearing that but all I see are lack of jobs, lack of services, and lack of feeling like things are going well. I dont tend to vote one way or the other but Im having trouble figuring out why this is supposed to be better than the Last guys term. I keep hearing it but personally it doesnt feel that way. And everyone I talk to seem to be in the same boat. Even the ones that agree with whats being said seem to not have any of those benefits in their own lives. They say things like "well of course personally things arent going well but the country is doing much better" </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Under the "Last guy" I was employed. Now I'm not. Nor are several of my friends who also, like me, were employed at high-paying jobs. I see lots of low-paying service sector job openings. The jobs I used to do? Gone to India. If and when I do manage to find a job, it'll be for less money than I used to make. How is the country better off, when the best jobs have and are disappearing, and at the same time we're getting deeper into debt as a nation, our image globally is horribly tarnished, and we're systematically destroying the nation's ecology and educational system, not to mention becoming ever less secure ... and free?

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

Vigabrand you are a perfect example why everyone should not be allowed to vote.

Who cares if everyone got something. What matters is how much did everyone get back vs. how much did they lose in services. If you are at the federal 35% marginal rate ( or above ) you probably did well. Otherwise you did not.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">BWHAHAH! I stated some examples, friend. Sorry you could not counter them. The sad truth is that Canadian medical facilities are woefully under equiped vs. the US ones, further the Canadian staff members are simply inferior, on average, to the us staff members.

You should really go to a US hospital. It's amazing the difference.And you should do the lawyer thing I mention. It's amazing the difference.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You are quite comical. Indeed the US tort system PROTECTS those who get treatment here. I'm sorry to say that you have no idea what you are talking about.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Wow. All I can say is that you are either willfully ignorant or I totally misjudged your SES. If it is the latter I am sorry.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

Gandalf, what exactly did it kill? Taxes are no higher this year than Last. It's turning out to be a pretty good year for me. I think it's going to depend on where you live as to how well the economy is doing (I don't think the midwest is doing that much better). A million new jobs, record numbers in homeowner growth, a resurgence in the tech industry (at least in Atlanta), things definately look better than they did after 9/11, when I lost my job. At least from my perspective.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think the evidence is pretty poignant. The economy is surging, because people used the money to pay their bills or buy things. I don't see any reduction in services. Actually, I see private sector services dramatically increased. The gov't services are still status quo. Your argument is based on things that might happen in the future. You don't use facts to argue, instead you attack me personally by claiming I shouldn't be allowed to vote, and make predictions based on the democrat talking points. You don't have to listen to me about the tax cuts, listen to Allen Greenspan.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Maybe its a California thing, and me being in tech. We do have the additional help of Arnold. I see the same numbers you are quoting but Im wondering if you are getting them from the news or if you actually SEE those things around you. Ive had 2 sons job hunting and this seems an extremely low year for that. The unemployment place seemed swamped until that ran out. I see alot of people trying very hard to sell things like boats and cars they can no longer afford. We have been trying for a year to sell my Dads house on Corpus Christi lake in Texas (more retirement/vacation home than someplace to move to). I see my favorite companys going under, cutting back, canceling projects. Conventions being cancelled. Concerts and concert tours cancelled. Im seeing REAL lacks in police, fire, schools, highway (they always complained they wanted more but now Im seeing things not done that they obviously want to be able to do).

Im just as willing as the next guy to want to see the things I keep hearing on the news. I just am not seeing it so I wondered if you see it there or is it the news numbers you see.

[ July 27, 2004, 17:25: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Anecdotal examples are not evidence, nor are they statistics.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Once again, please provide actual evidence that this is the case instead of simply stating it to be true.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, all you've shown is that the U.S. tort system is as litiguous and broken as ever. Lawsuits after the fact do not protect those people that experienced harm in the first place.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">SES? Please don't use meaningless acronyms.

I am not willfully ignorant, I am telling you that I do not know anyone that has gone to the U.S. for treatment. I'm also still waiting for something other than your baseless assertion that this is anywhere near as prevalent as you seem to think it is.

Come on, I've provided my statistics, where are yours.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think that a much more likely reason for the economy to be surging is that the government has added over a hundred billion dollars into the economy through deficit spending.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">To add to this, for the sake of attempting to educate Viga, that deficit spending was/is the Iraq situation. And the surge is mainly in defense-related industries, and the local areas the plants are located in. Atlanta happens to be one of those fortunate areas. Houston isn't, hence I'm not reaping the alleged benefits of the government's (unsound) policy of mortgaging the future to cater to the present.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

yah, massive deficit spending is the traditional way to get the economy revving. spend now, pay later. the hundreds of billions in deficit spending this Last year quite dwarf the few billion in tax cuts.

as to canadians going down to the states for medical care, I can't say i've ever known anyone to do that either. I'm sure it happens, especially for rare procedures, but it doesn't seem to be statistically significant.

as to our doctors and nurses being inferior to american health care workers, that's just silly. If it were true, they wouldn't be in such demand down in the states.

statistics fairly consistently show Canadians as being healthier and having somewhat higher life expectancies than Americans.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 27, 2004, 17:58: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">They are indeed evidence. They are not statistics.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Google it yourself willfully ignorant boy.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Lawsuits ( a ) give compensation for damage , ( b ) provide a strong disincentive to perform malpractice and ( c ) remove people who commit malpractice from the medical system.

But, of course, you know this. Much like you know that Canada's health system is worthless compared to the US system *if* you can pay in the US.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ahh I see your definition of meaningless. If you do not understand something it is meaningless. If you disagee with something being evidence it is not. I think I start to understand.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And I explained why the statistics you provided show that free medical coverage increases aggregate health figures. However that does not mean that the health system is "better." Of course as always you fail to realize this.

How lame.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

uh, huzurdaddi, your response is itself quite lame, as you still have provided no evidence for your claims. and i have no ****ing clue what SES stands for either. perhaps it is an americanism?

edit: the top google results for "ses" involve geosyncronous satellites, New South Wales State Emergency Service, school evaluation service, standards engineering society...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">yes, bad evidence

"Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence." - Lionel Hutz

[ July 27, 2004, 18:16: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">To add to this, for the sake of attempting to educate Viga, that deficit spending was/is the Iraq situation. And the surge is mainly in defense-related industries, and the local areas the plants are located in. Atlanta happens to be one of those fortunate areas. Houston isn't, hence I'm not reaping the alleged benefits of the government's (unsound) policy of mortgaging the future to cater to the present. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">First off, you aren't educating anyone. These are the same arguments leftists made when Reagan did the same thing. Sorry to burst your bubble, but those policies led to the good economy of the 90's. That and a repulican controlled Congress. Iraq is not the only thing causing deficit spending, perhaps you were not paying attention when Bush aided Ted Kennedy in the largest education bill ever. Perhaps you were sleeping when Bush got the prescription drup program passed. Congressional spending is rampant and I'm not happy with a lot of Bushes domestic spending, but I whole heartedly support spending in Iraq and wherever we decide to kick butt. Iraq aside, spending has got to be curbed and the budget balanced, WITH tax cuts. There is plenty of room to trim the fat while leaving more money for us to fuel the economy. You guys might argue that the gov't is what fueled the economy, but again I say, ask the experts. All consumer product selling companies are reporting greater earnings since the tax cuts, as are consumer creditors, real esatate is on the rise, tech is slowly recovering, health care is on the rise (private). Not everyone is feeling the effects, but most Americans are.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The tax cut isn't a "few" billion. It's well over 300 billion over ten years. For more info, check out this link, and this link, and this link.

To quote from the first article:

Economic Effects. Tax cuts have often been rationalized on the grounds that they would stimulate long-run economic growth, but that argument is implausible for this package. Relatively few taxpayers would see a reduction in their marginal tax rate beyond 2005 when the temporary AMT relief is set to expire. As a result, there would be negligible effect on incentives to work, save, or invest in unproductive tax shelters. Moreover, by adding to the burgeoning budget deficits, the tax cuts would raise interest rates and discourage investment by businesses and purchases of homes and cars by consumers. These responses would tend to stifle economic growth.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sure they are evidence. They also happen to be useless in drawing conclusions about the actual state of something.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Failure to provide the evidence to support your own claims has very little difference from being unable to provide evidence to support your own claims. Failure to provide evidence indicates that the evidence doesn't even exist in the first place.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, they do all of these things. In fact, they provide such a strong "disincentive to perform malpractice" that many doctors are leaving the profession.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, I don't "know" that the U.S. system is superior if one has the money. Are you telling me that you would rather get treatment for Parkinson's disease in the U.S. instead of in Saskatchewan? After all, one of the leading Parkinson's researchers in the world works in Saskatoon. I also take it that you would ignore the Edmonton protocol for implanting pancreatic islets into diabetics. I can name numerous examples of areas where you would be better off receiving treatment in the Canadian health care system, which blows your claim that the Canadian system is "worthless" out of the water.

You've yet to do anything other than continually repeat the assertion that "Canadian Health Care sucks". You haven't made a useful argument until you can back up your statement with something more than "Because I say so".

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Right, so the acronym doesn't actually mean anything. Thanks for clearing that up. If you aren't willing to define your terms, then your argument is worthless.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Aggregate health statistics are the _only_ meaningful measurement of whether a health care is better at serving a population.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You are massively clueless. If you think that deficit spending leads to a good economy you should talk to former Soviet economists. Deficit spending was the ultimate cause of the collapse of the USSR. The US (along with NATO) bankrupted them by forcing them to spend more on their military than they could afford. Contrary to Khrushchev's famous line "we shall bury you", we buried them -- in debt.

EDIT: what led to the good economy of the 90s was the so-called "peace dividend" when we dramatically cut back on how much money we spent on defense after the USSR collapsed. IOW, when we quit deficit spending.

[ July 27, 2004, 18:52: Message edited by: Arryn ]

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">in the context in which i was speaking, that of a yearly 400 billion dollar deficit or so, the comparable tax cut for that year does qualify as a "few billion" and is still dwarfed by the deficit, which was my claim.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You are massively clueless. If you think that deficit spending leads to a good economy you should talk to former Soviet economists. Deficit spending was the ultimate cause of the collapse of the USSR. The US (along with NATO) bankrupted them by forcing them to spend more on their military than they could afford. Contrary to Khrushchev's famous line "we shall bury you", we buried them -- in debt.

EDIT: what led to the good economy of the 90s was the so-called "peace dividend" when we dramatically cut back on how much money we spent on defense after the USSR collapsed. IOW, when we quit deficit spending. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your argument is based on a comparison to the USSR? You obviously don't remember the economy during the Carter years. Reagans policies pulled us out of the worst and kept us afloat until the economy was able to create a wider tax base. More people employed + higher paying jobs = more tax dollars. Yes the money saved from defence helped, but you leave out other great things, like welfare reform, the first balanced budget in decades, cutbacks to almost all social programs. You could look at the defense return as a result of Reagans investment in the military. Looks like the deficit spending was eventually fixed when congress cut their spending. Meanwhile the bandaid it gave primed us for the 90's. I'm no fan of deficit spending, but the fix is not raising taxes. BTW please keep your arrogant personal comments to yourself. I'd like to keep this civil.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your kidding right? I know its common to say the good things are because of my guy in office or my guy who just left office (depending on your party) and all bad things are because of their guy in office or their guy who just left office (whoever the other party is). And usually Id consider such things not worth commenting on. But thats with the 4 year thing.

Clinton had 2 terms and I remember first election of his. Much of it was all fear of communism and the horrible debt that looked like it would be with us forever. At then end of Clintons second term we had balanced budget, no debt, no russia, no job problem, no real wars, and the important topics of the day were things in tabloids and entertainment magazines. I got a tax refunds. I bought a house. I put kids thru school. Life was good.

Now I admit that I havent studied the subject but really are you STILL trying to say that ALL of the good stuff was from the guy BEFORE Clinton? And all the bad stuff now I guess was done by him? I didnt vote for him but still I have some problem swallowing that fish whole.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

No Gandalf, I was specifically talking about Reagan's economic policies enabling the 90's boom. Had the economy persisted as they were under Carter, Clinton and/or Bush Sr. would have been dealing with what Reagan had to. Whether you want to give credit to Clinton or the Republican Congress for jump starting it and keeping it going into 9/11, that's up to you, I won't argue. I don't really know what the heck Clinton did to help, but take a look at how much he wanted to spend, and then how much he spent. Look at the wars we were in like Somalia, Haiti, Serbia, bombing Baghdad. The debt was erased, but do you remember how much congress had to fight him, and override his vetoes, in order to get a balanced budget? He did act to have defense cut, but he wanted giant increases in almost all social programs. I guess the fact is, good things happened when he was president so he gets credit. Oops, I said I wasn't going to argue, sorry.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your kidding right? I know its common to say the good things are because of my guy in office or my guy who just left office (depending on your party) and all bad things are because of their guy in office or their guy who just left office (whoever the other party is). And usually Id consider such things not worth commenting on. But thats with the 4 year thing.

Clinton had 2 terms and I remember first election of his. Much of it was all fear of communism and the horrible debt that looked like it would be with us forever. At then end of Clintons second term we had balanced budget, no debt, no russia, no job problem, no real wars, and the important topics of the day were things in tabloids and entertainment magazines. I got a tax refunds. I bought a house. I put kids thru school. Life was good.

Now I admit that I havent studied the subject but really are you STILL trying to say that ALL of the good stuff was from the guy BEFORE Clinton? And all the bad stuff now I guess was done by him? I didnt vote for him but still I have some problem swallowing that fish whole. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, actually USSR collapsed 1 year before Clinton took office Gandalf. But the rest of your comments are correct and I generally share your position. I am certanly not big fan of Kerry, but Bush irritates me too much with his self-righteuous attitude that he applys to each and every policy issue. "Consolidator" my arse! I mean, the guy who lost a popular vote should at least *try* to govern from the center and *try* to be somewhat moderate, as he humbly promised during his election compain. As it is, he is most radical USA president that I know since Nixon.


To be fair, I have to say that I do approve several of his major actions as a president, including even some controversial ones. However I disaprove significantly more of his deeds both in internal and external policies.


But what worries me most is that during his first term Bush had to always keep in mind the reelection year, and moderate his retoric and his urges somehow, to avoid alienating too many people with his policies. But it is scary to think what he may do during his 2nd term, if he gets reelected, since than he will likely to pull all breaks off, reshaping the America according to his vision during his future 4 years in the office. I mean, think about it - if during the Last 4 years we have seen "careful, compasionate, moderate" Bush, as he proclaimed himself, than what the hell he will do during his next 4 years, when he will no longer have any 2nd thoughts due to his need to be reelected?!? Frankly I think it is scary. This guy is loose cannon and I don't trust him and his extremely self-righteous attitude. I am not democrat. I share a lot of GOP's values. I don't like Kerry at all. But I think he is certanly a lesser of two evils here, and I don't want to live in the USA shaped acording to Bush's image for the next 4 years.

-Stormbinder

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

So Clinton gets credit for the good things that happen in the 90's, but Bush doesn't get credit for anything because he's self righteous? Seems hardly fair. At the very least, he kicked alqaeda's booty and we haven't been attacked since. Any credit? Anyone? What about the economy? Whether he's responsible or not, shouldn't he get credit?

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, as I said I agree with certain Bush's decisions, including some controversial ones, such as his tax cuts program(mostly), invasion to Afganistan, several others. He deserve to take credit for it in my opinion. Hell, I even approve the invasion in IRAQ in principle (althouth I do NOT approve his reasons for it, no do I approve the way the occupation policy was conducted and his lying to the public about WMD, and I certanly don't approve him totally ruining USA image in the eyes of entire world because of his clumsy and very narrow-minded foreing policies) But I disagree with significantly more of his policies. And I simply do not trust him to lead USA for the next 4 years. The combination of extremely self-righteous attitude, with very low IQ(let's be frank about it) and with strong "religious right" positions would be very dangerious during 2nd term, when he will not longer have whatever little regard for public opinion he still had during his 1st term. As I said, this guy will be loose cannon if he gets reelected, and I think USA in its current position just can't afford it.


And Vigabrand, I have voted myself for the Bush in 2000, I think that should tell you something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

Stormbinder, it's too bad we'll lose your support this go around. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I couldn't agree more. I tend to straddle the fence along political lines, Pro Death Penalty, Pro Choice, more into old school republican minimization of government influence on individuals (although thats decidedly not the republican party of nowadays). But I believe Bush is absolutely horrendous, his administration has consistently misinformed and misled the public, taken an extremely aggresive and negative stance in the re-election war, while blatantly pandering to the rich over the common man. I'm not voting Kerry in this election, not at all. Im voting best chance to get rid of Bush and get Mccain in 4 years.

Furthermore, while i think Kerry's proposed "health care for everyone" is a absolutely horrible idea, i'd much rather flush my money away into a healthcare nightmare than pony it up to the oil company's and inflation like we are doing now.

And on the issue of people calling themselves catholic while dissagreing with the church. Its possible to like, aspect, and be part of an organization while not agreeing with its every directive. Do all republicans think the Patriot Bill was a good thing? This becomes even more prominent when you have a single group or individual telling everyone what line they should be toeing, as is the case with the pope and the papal hiarchy. In point of fact, according to the strictest of sexual guidelines, any form of sex other than straight missionary is taboo. But im willing to bet more than a few very catholic people out there that enjoy a hummer now and again. In point of fact, almost nobody can follow all the guidelines all the time, thats why we are humans and there has only ever been 1 Jesus Christ. And yes i recognize that there is a difference between succumbing to temptation and conciously differing in policy from the guidelines of the church, but if you think about it the guidlines of the church HAVE been wrong before (flat earth, anyone?) and could easily be wrong again. Thats no reason to cut all ties with the organization that you might respect and love deeply.

[ July 27, 2004, 22:39: Message edited by: Cheezeninja ]

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

Yay! It took several edits, but I think I understand the quote system better now.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Keep in mind that the Catholic church is defined by a very specific set of beliefs and expectations. I think its a miscalculation to use the republican party as a parallel here. Republicanism is a broad Category with many subdivisions - not specific enough. Republicans can be subdivided into moderate and ultra-conservative beliefs just to name two - then there are special interests. Protestants could be Lutherans, Baptists, or any of several other belief systems (and yes, they're all Christian, but can be of very different dogmas - just compare Lutheranism to Mormonism.) Catholics, on the other hand have one set of beliefs. It's even recited at mass every week - "I believe in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church." (Before someone gets upset - yes, there are Eastern and Western Rites Catholic churches, but the differences are in heirarchy of the bishops and the liturgy - not the beliefs and teachings. The dogma for both is the same.) So in answer to your question about if it's possible to respect and belong to a group but not hold all of its ideals (paraphrased), I have to say in the area of religion - no. You either believe in the religion's teachings, or you don't. Not good or bad, not right or wrong...just yes or no.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I can't speak on this one too much because I'm not familiar with who's guidelines these are. Evidently someone stricter than the Catholic church. Humanae Vitae spells out that the only specifically physical requirement of sexual relations is that all encounters "must be open to the transmission of life" (plus the stress on the couple being husband/wife, of course). As long as that requirement is met, the hummer you refer to is perfectly allowable. An appetizer, so to speak.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Agreed. It's impossible to be perfect. But as you stated, there is a difference between "slipping up" and outright defiance.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which brings me back full circle to my original point. If a person feels that a belief system is incorrect in one of its basic and heavily touted precepts, why would that person claim to share that belief system?

[ July 28, 2004, 00:26: Message edited by: daesthai ]

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

Because its not so much the belief system they are dissagreeing with as the way the issue has been interpreted by the pope. Catholisism was around way before abortion and already had all of its beliefs and rules defined and categorized. With the advent of abortion they had to go to a non-divine, humanly selected person to make the call (the pope), and its entirely possible he made the wrong call. Not being a catholic myself i dont know if divinity is attributed to the pope or not, so that entire argument might be moot.

In any event however, the person in question (John Kerry) does NOT believe in abortion. He simply believes other individuals (who may not be catholic) should have the ability to choose for themselves. I dont believe (but dont know for sure) the directive of the pope is that all Catholics should be required to restrict the rights of others by attempting to illegalize abortion. I believe they are only required to personally be against it, and he is. In any event, if the catholic church is indeed attempting to require its members to not only be against abortion, but see to it that others cannot do it either... well i think this would be yet another attempt of an organization (in this case a church) to interfere with state where i personally believe it has no business, and don't fault Kerry at all in that he doesnt think its his place to impose his beliefs on others. In the end it just gets right down to the bones of the abortion issue wherein Anti-Abortion people think you are killing a baby and should be stopped, and Pro-Choice people think you are destroying a zygote with the genetic complexity of a snail and feel the Anti-Abortion people are attempting to take away one of their rights.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which brings me back full circle to my original point. If a person feels that a belief system is incorrect in one of its basic and heavily touted precepts, why would that person claim to share that belief system? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">i think you quoted that a bit bad and left out the main point :
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">so a question : galilei was the one who discovered that . i am pretty sure you know the story . the catholic church forced him to deny his ideas . he did .

but now some hundred years later the pope spoke galilei holy .

so even the catholic church recognizes severe mistakes and corrects them even if only slowly .
so if they change it themselfes it is good or what ?
while when luther did that 500 years ago he was a devil ?

and it is the best proof that the catholic church + the pope aren't inerrant as they always claim .
ihmo the catholic church is just hypocritical.
furthermore there is nothing in the bible that justifes the catholic worship of saints .
one of the 10 commandmends says you should have no other gods beside me .
but in the catholic church the worship for especially maria is more important than for jesus .
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">the claiming of the catholic church that it is the one and only true belief is just offending to me . what about that :
the jews already believed in god thousands of years before the catholic church was founded . so their claiming to be the first true and only belief is historical legitimated .

furthermore jesus founded the catholic church but he has gotten pretty unimportant in the catholic belief .
luther had to recover that .

i am a protestant as you may have noticed perhaps http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

i just think the catholic church is the most hypocritical in the world ( expect perhaps some sects ) . they are more intolerant than every one else though they always claim moslems and protestants are .

the catholic church is the church which broke the rules of the 10 commandments frequently very serious :
examples :
-the inquisition
-the crusades
-the 30 years war
-selling of indulgences
-quite modern one : the catholic pope supported hitler

in the middle ages the pope was also a ruler of the popal states and waged endless wars to conquer whole italy .

so the pope is just blasphemy .

finally one Last argument for the hypocrisy of the catholic church :
the first popes like petrus were marriaged .
so why may now priests + the pope not marriage anymore ?

protestants don't have a pope because he is really just blasphemy and the priests may marry .

i think even the muslim priests which are the most inferior belief in catholic eyes may marry .

in my eyes the catholic faith is just a misinterpretation of the christian belief .
the popes abused their believers just for their own profit . especially the selling of indulgences is a good example for that .

if you can name me one other belief in the world which has done as many evil things as frequent as the catholics then i will excuse but if you can't i think that is enough that i am proven to be right .

edit : i excuse if my tone is too harsh but i hope you see that the catholic church just tries to blind you and the from the catholic church damned protestant and moslem beliefs are 1000 times more christian than the catholic one .

[ July 28, 2004, 04:09: Message edited by: Boron ]

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Geeze. Well no more empirical science. Graeme hath decreed that it is "useless." Too bad all sciences are emperical. Bummer for us.

So, like I said in one of my 1st Posts I'm an ex-pat and ths I have actually seen the health care on both sides of the fence. Since you are flapping your mouth off I have to assume that you are also an ex-pat with a differing experience. I mean, gosh I hope you have some actual experience in the matter. I mean, gosh I hope you are not just uselessly flapping your mouth off when you don't even have any idea what you are talking about. I *really* hope that is not the case.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Phew. I am *so* glad that you continually define the terms of the argument to suit your purposes. Sadly it's not what I asserted. Which was *if* you can pay the US system is better. Sadly you seem incapable of understanding that.

You are a funny and sad at the same time. Congratulations!

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

Oh goodie, a religious flamefest! Count me in http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">On the other hand, there is at most one distinct religious belief that is true. And many Groups (not just the Catholic church) claim that theirs is it. If anyone finds this offensive, they can count on being offended rather a lot.

It's better, I think, to understand that religious belief is, by its nature, exclusive. Religious tolerance is a good thing, of course, but largely out of reach of heavily committed religious people.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Catholicism is not defined and distinguished by a belief in one god. Both Judaism and Islam share this belief. It's the Catholic interpretation of scripture, most particularly around the person of Jesus and his mother, that defines the Catholic faith. And all of that could be true, even if all Jewish belief prior to Jesus was also true. The first 5 books of the Bible are, after all, Jewish scripture.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, I think Peter founded the Catholic Church as a vehicle to facilitate the worship of Jesus. But yes, it's interesting to note the emphasis that has been placed on Mary at the expense, some would say, to Jesus himself.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Me too!

Voodoo, astrology, palm-reading, numerology, Scientology, Unification, Judeo-Christianity-Islam, et cetera. It's all myth, superstition, and outright bunk. Pablum for the masses and power/wealth for the clerics.

Have I offended *everyone*? If not, I need to try harder. All of you take the above nonsense far too seriously.

-- Arryn, resident agnostic.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you believe this, then you're not ...

Quote:

-- Arryn, resident agnostic.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">... you're a strong atheist. Agnostics believe that the question of the existence of god(s) is intrinsically unsolvable, as opposed to "bunk".

I classify myself as an "agnostic weak atheist", i.e. someone who regards the problem as unsolvable and, in addition, has not adopted a religious faith. Agnostic theists exist - people who know there's no way of proving it but choose to believe in a god anyway.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

I think there are really two fundamental questions about a "god" or other related being.

Firstly, does one exist? It has not been proved that one does, and it's obviously an impossibility to prove that such a thing cannot exist.

However, the real question is....assuming such a thing does exist, is it deserving of worship? This is a question we certainly CAN answer. Personally, I have to say that the answer is "no". I cannot attribute anything I'd actually be thankful about that has occurred in my life to anything other than my own efforts, so I can't say I'd find any such being deserving of my worship. I'd like to see some verifiable miracles before I start worshipping anyone. It should be noted that, technically, an evil miracle is still a miracle, and while highly effective at inducing belief, tends to produce more terror than actual worshipfulness. Which is probably more amusing anyway.

[ July 28, 2004, 06:06: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
so a question : galilei was the one who discovered that . i am pretty sure you know the story . the catholic church forced him to deny his ideas . he did .

but now some hundred years later the pope spoke galilei holy .


Actually, I think most of the stories about people thinking the world is flat are apocryphal. Certainly, the Greeks knew it was round and the flat earth was not the reason Galileo was persecuted.

The issue there was whether the Sun or the Earth lay at the centre of the solar system. Catholic teaching demanded that it be the Earth, but Galileo knew otherwise.

And yes, official recognition of the error was only forthcoming from the Catholic church in recent times.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You assume here a system of ethics, a judgement of who "deserves" what, independant of the god in a godfull universe. There's no agreement on that. Many people argue that if there is a god, then that god defines and dictates the only system of ethics that can be used for such judgements.

In other words, God deserves worship if He says He does.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you believe this, then you're not</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Wrong. You have confused religion, which is the practice of worship and a system of beliefs, with the question of the existence or non-existence of a deity. It is possible to accept the existence of (some) god, yet not accept *any* of the beliefs commonly associated with that entity, including human-written codices and bureaucratic power structures.

The question of whether a god may or may not exist is a question of philosophy and science. Only after you accept the existence of something does belief (or religion, if you prefer) enter into the picture. It's a fallacy to confuse belief with logic, and philosophy & science deal with logic, not dogma.

Atheism is no different than any other religion. They have come to conclusions (100% sure of things one way or another) about that for which no logical proof has be obtained. IOW, their minds are closed. Or if I want to be really nasty about it, they're drones, tools to be used for the gratification of religious leaders (be they seeking wealth, power, destruction, or whatever).

-- Arryn, resident agnostic.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You are a complete idiot. That is the only word that can be used to describe someone as stupid as yourself. Please, why don't you outline the "empirical evidence" that you've provided. Note that an unsupported claim that "The U.S. system is better." is not empirical evidence. It is supposition.

You haven't supplied evidence, you've supplied anecdotes. In fact, you really haven't even done that. You've simply stated "This is true.", and expected me to believe it. Guess what, if you can't provide _actual evidence_ to support your point, then your point is nonsense.

I've provided the evidence to support my argument. Where's yours? I've also provided evidence that shows that your argument is wrong, that Canadian healthcare is obviously not worthless since it is the best in the world in certain areas. What's your response to this? You simply ignore what I've written and continue to spout your ignorance. I shouldn't have even had to provide any evidence to disprove your arguments at all, since you have yet to provide any to support them.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ahh yes, an appeal to authority. It's nice to see that you've started to trot out the fallacies. Please provide hard evidence to support your assertion. Note that your personal experience is irrelevant if you can't provide actual examples.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't need experience. I need you to provide some actual hard evidence other than your completely unsupported assertions about the health care system.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh go cry me a river. If you really believe that the valid way to measure a health care system is by what the wealthiest people can afford then your grip on reality is very poor indeed. I suppose that next you'll tell me that Zaire has a great health care system since the richest people there can afford to go to the U.S. for their treatment. I'm fully capable of understanding what your assertion means, which is why I can see that it would be a meaningless statement even if it were true. Since you haven't even been able to demonstrate that it's true, I can safely assume that it isn't.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And you're a moron with all the logical skills of a rather stupid rock. An argument made without supporting evidence is one that can be ignored, as it contains no useful information.

[ July 28, 2004, 06:26: Message edited by: Graeme Dice ]

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It was for heresy. The following Catholic page The Galileo Controversy has an excellent overview of it, despite playing semantic games about it being for heresy.

EDIT: offending the pope is heresy, since it goes against Catholic dogma, and by definition, violating dogma is heresy.

[ July 28, 2004, 06:33: Message edited by: Arryn ]

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That assertion makes no sense, because obviously, Zaire does not have a great health care system if people there are leaving the country to seek their health care. Nobody goes *TO* Zaire to get treatment. Canada may have a system in which people who have money go to the US to seek health care....but this just underscores the point that Canada's healthcare system, while more ubiquitous, is still of inferior quality. You certainly can't deny that people do this: I've known several Canadians who do this exact thing: Travel to the US to get some operation performed....at their own expense.

Now, whether you feel the ubiquity of the healthcare system compensates for the fact that, apparently, it is not as good, as people apparently *DO* leave the country for treatment on a not-uncommon basis, is something that can be subjected to debate. Healthcare, in whatever form, however, is not free, even in Canada. You STILL have to pay for it, but instead of paying for your OWN problems, you're ending up paying for someone ELSE's problems. I don't see this as a good thing, as it certainly provides a strong disincentive for people to deal with their own personal problems. Just observe the level of service you can get in Communist countries, where nobody is motivated to do anything because they gain little from their own actions. If people have to deal with their own problems, the ones that are willing to work to overcome their issues succeed, the slackers perish. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is really false, why are we living in society? It is not for the sake of the economist as it seem you are believing, nor it is to solve our own problems, with a good social system, you may at a time pay for another, but in the main time other are paying for you for other thing, it comes back!!!we aren't a pack of lonely bears in a forest as you seem to believe it we are HUMANS, it is normal to help each other (Oh and don't come up with your Christian charity bull****, that has no relevance and is only arrogant).
As for the communist countrys there are a lot people who think, it was better then, even if you hadn't such a high lifestile (at least in east germany), so this can't be the point. And the purpose discussed here isn't to make a the USA a communist State, no one want this, you should better make comparision with european lands like say Sweden, you would be surprised how good there lives,despite the fact of there high taxes and high social system.
The point is does feel people better with private health care or not. And it seems not.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I have to say, despite not having the energy to delve too deeply into defending one way or the other, pretty much anything spouted by catholic.com is about as suspect as it can get.

And if anyone read the article, did you get that feeling of zombification creeping over you as the reasonable tone of the words just dulled you into submission ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Spiro

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"You are getting sleepy ... very sleepy. When I snap my fingers, you will awaken, refreshed and reborn, and believe everything I tell you to believe." hehe

Well, what did you expect? After all, the actors have had HUNDREDS of YEARS to practice their lines and perfect their technique ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">cackle, yup, couldn't agree more. But they sure as hell didn't see Darwinism coming did they.

Spiro

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree, and don't believe I said otherwise, nor confused religion with metaphysics. My comment was based on your usage of the term agnostic, which I continue to claim means a belief in the unsolvability of a question. Your usage of the word "bunk" implies that you know a particular belief set is wrong, and hence have gone some way towards solving the problem.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It mis-represents the facts. Galileo's hand-written confession, forced from him by the Inquisition, included these words:

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I know some germans who went to America for some special treatment. But I am not sure whether this is proof for a general superiority of your system. It only shows that in certain regions of medicine one might be better of with your health system.

[ July 28, 2004, 09:57: Message edited by: PrinzMegaherz ]

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Of course it does, and should not come as a surprise, given that the Church took 500 years to even come up with as little admission of stupidity as it managed to. But, when I said it was an "excellent overview", my intent was that it stated the issues in dispute, and why. I could have also pointed out that the page is full to bursting with misleading statements and self-serving, obfuscatory excuses for the Church's behavior. But I didn't because I felt that such should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of open-mindedness and some ability to comprehend written English. In short, being able to determine for oneself whether to take things at face value, or needing to read between the lines. Which, having such capabilities yourself, you noted. For those lacking, nothing I might have added would help.

I don't feel it's my place, nor do I have the time (unlike Graeme), to try to enlighten the willfully ignorant. So I tend to not include caveats and warnings, or speak in simple language. I expect people to be educated to a minimal standard, and I have little patience for the semifunctionally-illiterate.

Thankfully, Zap, you are one of those rare folks that has a clue.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Coming to the US for special treatment does not mean that the US has a better system. All it shows is that there may be a doctor, team, or hospital here that is better at something than can be found somewhere else. The US does not have a monopoly on all the best doctors and medical technology on this planet. However, in many areas, we do. But it's a fallacy to generalize from specifics. Not to mention being impolitic and rude (arrogant) to the folks living somewhere other than the US.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">However, almost all "evangelical" Groups, be they Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, or even Hindu, are intolerant. Kinda makes you wish the world had only one faith: Buddhist. Ever seen an evangelical Buddhist monk? I haven't.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, it is. In any form. Especially PETA. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Can you name an "extreme" Catholic sect that exists *today*? (And cite examples of what makes them "extreme" and "almost violent".)

Disregarding small Groups of disaffected people such as hard-core IRA, Orangemen, fanatical Israelis (the aforementioned three Groups mainly being about matters of tradition, vengeance, or land-ownership and not about religious differences), and the occasional sociopathic Christian anti-abortionist, can you name me any Judeo-Christians that go around blowing themselves up? Or brutally murdering hostages in the name of God? I don't think so. Not even Serbs and Croats commit their atrocities for the sake of their faith. Only practicioners of Islam have this reprehensible practice today. The rest of the world became, more or less, civilized and ceased such things as crusades, inquisitions (if we ignore the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security), and burnings-at-stakes. Despite all that you can say about Islam being a peaceful religion, a far larger percentage of its followers remain stuck in medieval barbarism than do the followers of any other religion. Please explain why this is so ...

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, it simply illustrates that you can't judge whether a system works by ignoring all the cases where it doesn't. After all, that's what hius argument really is.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I wasn't aware that the proper way to judge whether something was good was to ignore every single instance where that thing fails.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I won't deny that some people do this. I will still ask to see that the number of people who do this is statistically significant.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">But so what really? When it comes down to it you pay less than if you weren't paying for everyone else's problems, and all of society benefits as a whole.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, because people don't bother to work hard when that means that they will make more money. I suppose that you also support the privatization of police forces, since only people that require them should have to pay for them.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yep. The standard "people who fail are always lazy" fallacy of false causes.

Re: OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Fan of the sweeping generalisation are we old bean ?

I think you will find that almost all major religions have a bloody past and to single out Catholics as having some kind of monopoly, past and present on attrocities is what's arrogant, never mind the MASSIVE insult you just curve ball'd at Europeans.

I think were I to be arsed digging up some information I would find that the US has had a fantastic record in crackpot religious cults slaughtering and generally making a nuisance of themselves in the name of God or Goverment. Lets face it, You have Bush right now, so that practically invalidates any arguement the US has for not being right at the top of psuedo-nutjob leaders list be they religious or not.


Spiro

[ July 28, 2004, 13:51: Message edited by: spirokeat ]