Your Vote, Your Reasons

[Shastafarian]

So you're saying I never provide facts, so I guess an I'm an internet know it all of my opinion?

Sure, I'll admit to that.

Now who needs some help with reading comprehension? I'm asking you what facts you want me to refute.

[TheMadHatter]

The ones that are most often questioned by some liberal scholars are Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and us, not 1 Corinthians, which is cited by the earliest patristic sources.

Your remaining argument appears to be that 1 Corinthians cannot truly mention the resurrection because it was interpolated, and it had to have been interpolated because it mentions the resurrection.

As I have repeatedly said before, the burden of proof is on you to prove to me that the historicity of Jesus is true as indicated in the NT Gospels.

The situation we are in here is akin to you trying to explain to me that Bigfoot is real. The burden of proof is on you the believer to prove to me that Bigfoot indeed existed, not on me the disbeliever to come up with evidence to the contrary. If you cannot provide me with sufficient evidence then I can reasonably conclude that your argument is not valid, I cannot say that Bigfoot doesn't exist since I don't hold that proof but I can say that your argument isn't valid. Thus far you've provided me with no sufficient evidence to support your argument.

This is central to my point, Christians have no valid historical argument to make about the historicity of Jesus. I'm sorry the facts simply don't exist. What we do know is that the NT Gospels contain fabrications and that important early Christian writings were doctored by the Church to support the view of Jesus indicated in NT Gospel writings. In fact there is more evidence to suggest just the opposite, that the NT Gospel writings were completely fabricated.

[Shastafarian]

Oh I don't know if you're smart or not, but you definitely showed a lack of reading comprehension in this thread or you choose to disregard it in favor of making a non existent point so at the very least this thread has shown you as being intellectually dishonest.

Where did I lack reading comprehension? Did you or did you not claim she had at the very least an irrational fear of black men?

[clambake]

any human would have these visual associations/preconceived notions. i'm not saying i don't, but i don't cling to that notion. i interact with everyone until i see them for what they are and i handle them accordingly. show me a person in this world that doesn't have preconceived notions about an initial meeting. one doesn't exist. it depends on how you handle yourself after that initial meeting.

what?

[RandomGuy]

Where can we get more resources?

On another planet.

How do we get there?

Build a spaceship.

Can I do that?

No.

Why?

You don't have enough resources.

The interesting thing about investing in energy, is that you get a return on invested energy, just like you do on invested cash.

Build a few solar panels, and you have energy to build more solar panels, you drill for oil, and you have energy to drill for more oil.

At some rate, you can calculate the return of "free" energy you get out of of any unit of energy, just as you can for a return on invested capital.

Oil's return has been estimated at about 20-30:1 depending on where you get the oil, and how easy it is to refine into something usable. (i.e. one barrels worth of energy gets you 30, one of which has to be put towards the next 30 barrels, so you really have 29 barrels available for other purposes)

Coal has been estimated at about 10-25 depending and so forth.

wind and solar were estimated at about 5-10, but technology is likely making this a larger factor as we type.

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.php

[MannyIsGod]

any human would have these visual associations/preconceived notions. i'm not saying i don't, but i don't cling to that notion. i interact with everyone until i see them for what they are and i handle them accordingly. show me a person in this world that doesn't have preconceived notions about an initial meeting. one doesn't exist. it depends on how you handle yourself after that initial meeting.

Exactly my point. And I think we can both agree that the more likely preconceived notion that someone would have of a black man in our society would not be a favorable one. Now, I'd venture to say that the vast majority of us get past that rather quickly because I'd like to believe that as you say we all make up our own minds after gathering information on someone. For instance I don't believe that you're against Obama because he's black but because you have fundamental disagreements on how the country should be run.

That being said, when someone cannot explain why they believe about a certain candidate and explicitly states they distrust them but do not know why I believed it is certainly justified to examine what preconceived notions someone may have. I think even Veronica understood that and so as much in one of her posts.

[DarkReign]

what?

POTY

[101A]

This year, more than I can ever remember, we needed ANOTHER choice. The party in power was doomed; the party "out of power"; is really only out of power in a single office; and they are about to complete the trifecta. They are most likely going to obtain a fillibuster proof Senate.

A vote for McCain, IMO, is wasted; he has no chance. The best my vote can do this year is register a "none of the above". I will vote for Barr.

I am apprehensive as about what a Congress that is THAT far to the left can do in the two years before the (relatively much more conservative) population register buyer's remose. Obama's platform doesn't scare me; it is moderate and reasonable. Congress, on the other hand, will probably not be so. The Speaker of the House is from San Francisco for goodness sake!

The Congress WILL pass legislation to allow Unions to hold "signature" elections; meaning employee's votes will be public; at least to the Union organizers. How this is anything BUT against free-will is completely beyond me. It is wrong - but our new Congress will pass it. I don't know if Obama will sign it.

The "Fairness Doctrine" will be reinstated - and enhanced. Station's licenses will be up for renewal every TWO, and not EIGHT years. The party in power RIGHT NOW can threten your license if you don't adhere to their definition of "fairness". Scary stuff.

I watched the PBS biography on LBJ this week, and watched his speaches for the "Great Society". HIS plans were going to eliminate poverty and would give healthcare to all. The opponents claimed that those programs, along with Social Security would eventually take up over 25% of the Federal Government's budget. These people were shouted down as being alarmist, racist, elitist, and wanting to keep the poor down. "Impossible" was the response to the claim of out of control costs for the program. Well, their is no less poverty now, and their is less movement out of it. And the programs, combined, do now account for more than 25% of the Federal Budget; in fact, it is nearly 50%; and climbing rapidly. The programs, passed as LBJ had designed them, have been abysmal failures based on what the politicians AT THE TIME claimed they were going to accomplish. They have not; and they are more expensive than ANYONE dreamed at the time. Any more of that is not a good thing, but I feel their is nothing to do to stop it.

Trust me, I am NOT arguing that the past 8 years have been fantastic, and I can give a litany of reasons Bush has completly failed. However, the tantrum this country is going to throw next Tuesday is response might be something we regret, well, forever. Eventually we WILL be out of Iraq. New govt. en lement programs, however, are forever. If Barrack is who he says he is, we could be alright. If he has run to the middle to get elected - and is going to return to the left once that is accomplished, we are probably ed.

[MannyIsGod]

The interesting thing about investing in energy, is that you get a return on invested energy, just like you do on invested cash.

Build a few solar panels, and you have energy to build more solar panels, you drill for oil, and you have energy to drill for more oil.

At some rate, you can calculate the return of "free" energy you get out of of any unit of energy, just as you can for a return on invested capital.

Oil's return has been estimated at about 20-30:1 depending on where you get the oil, and how easy it is to refine into something usable. (i.e. one barrels worth of energy gets you 30, one of which has to be put towards the next 30 barrels, so you really have 29 barrels available for other purposes)

Coal has been estimated at about 10-25 depending and so forth.

wind and solar were estimated at about 5-10, but technology is likely making this a larger factor as we type.

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.php

Your doing your best to get energy into this thread too? Jesus Christ. When does the economic discussion start and when do the truthers get here?

[clambake]

Exactly my point. And I think we can both agree that the more likely preconceived notion that someone would have of a black man in our society would not be a favorable one. Now, I'd venture to say that the vast majority of us get past that rather quickly because I'd like to believe that as you say we all make up our own minds after gathering information on someone. For instance I don't believe that you're against Obama because he's black but because you have fundamental disagreements on how the country should be run.

That being said, when someone cannot explain why they believe about a certain candidate and explicitly states they distrust them but do not know why I believed it is certainly justified to examine what preconceived notions someone may have. I think even Veronica understood that and so as much in one of her posts.

you lost me on that one.

[BacktoBasics]

Exactly my point. And I think we can both agree that the more likely preconceived notion that someone would have of a black man in our society would not be a favorable one. Now, I'd venture to say that the vast majority of us get past that rather quickly because I'd like to believe that as you say we all make up our own minds after gathering information on someone. For instance I don't believe that you're against Obama because he's black but because you have fundamental disagreements on how the country should be run.

That being said, when someone cannot explain why they believe about a certain candidate and explicitly states they distrust them but do not know why I believed it is certainly justified to examine what preconceived notions someone may have. I think even Veronica understood that and so as much in one of her posts.

did he think he proved himself wrong or right?

[DWest30]

So, I got a discount on devil's advocate sneakers last week. Touting the benefits of open society doesn't just mean you get to applaud angel_luv's right to speak her own mind and state her religious beliefs and those who engage with her in what you deem to be civil discourse, but also the rights of those who challenge her, even if their tactics involve the name-calling you disapprove of.

Again, I don't understand why "I think you're going to if you don't agree with me, but I will pray for you" coming from a fundamentalist is any more or less offensive than "you are a few elephants short of a box of animal crackers" or, as some put it "you're ing nuts."

It's all really the same sentiment in different packaging and it's all speech. It's all valid. It's just not all pretty.

Yes?

Oh yeah?!?!?! Well....well....well....youre a HEAT fan!!!!eleventyone!!!

:P

[Shastafarian]

did he think he proved himself wrong or right?

I don't know. I'm a mental midget because I lack reading comprehension.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know. I'm a mental midget because I lack reading comprehension.

Apparently so because B2B wasn't talking about me.

[Shastafarian]

Apparently so because B2B wasn't talking about me.

Never said he was...

[TheMadHatter]

The problem with modern Christianity is that it is divisive at its core towards non-believers. There is no way around that, modern Christians fundamentally believe non-believers aren't joining them in heaven.

The problem is they have zero factual evidence to support this notion. They have zero historical evidence to support this notion. They refuse to admit that what they believe is COMPLETELY faith-based and not grounded in any sort of reality.

[BacktoBasics]

The more I read this stuff the more I wonder if Angel Luv masterbates.

Is her boyfriend allowed to kiss her....feel her up.... is he allowed to rub her leg? All in gods name of course.

[MannyIsGod]

The problem with modern Christianity is that it is divisive at its core towards non-believers. There is no way around that, modern Christians fundamentally believe non-believers aren't joining them in heaven.

The problem is they have zero factual evidence to support this notion. They have zero historical evidence to support this notion. They refuse to admit that what they believe is COMPLETELY faith-based and not grounded in any sort of reality.

Oh I don't think Angel Luv would deny what she believes is completely faith based at all. In fact I think she's stated the opposite.

[Shastafarian]

The more I read this stuff the more I wonder if Angel Luv masterbates.

Is her boyfriend allowed to kiss her....feel her up.... is he allowed to rub her leg? All in gods name of course.

He accepted Jesus as his one true path to salvation. He doesn't need bodily temptation.

[Tully365]

So, I got a discount on devil's advocate sneakers last week. Touting the benefits of open society doesn't just mean you get to applaud angel_luv's right to speak her own mind and state her religious beliefs and those who engage with her in what you deem to be civil discourse, but also the rights of those who challenge her, even if their tactics involve the name-calling you disapprove of.

Again, I don't understand why "I think you're going to if you don't agree with me, but I will pray for you" coming from a fundamentalist is any more or less offensive than "you are a few elephants short of a box of animal crackers" or, as some put it "you're ing nuts."

It's all really the same sentiment in different packaging and it's all speech. It's all valid. It's just not all pretty.

Yes?

You haven't been here very long, but I think you will soon see that many threads in the political forum quickly dissolve into a dozen rapid-fire posts that say 1) you your (sic) an idiot, 2) Oh yeah STFU you dumb 3) you ya pole-smoking 4) youre a moron i hope get cancer, etc., etc... The thread you jumped in on was astonishingly free of nastiness by comparison and full of passionate opinions. That's where my comment stemmed from.

Btw, I'll take this opportunity to use Whitman & inson as a contradiction to your O. Wilde quote... tho I do find him very entertaining as a 19th century Paul Lynde.

Welcome again. I think you're a great addition to the fray.

[TheMadHatter]

Oh I don't think Angel Luv would deny what she believes is completely faith based at all. In fact I think she's stated the opposite.

To them, faith-based is no different than fact based because they believe the Bible is factual.

[DarkReign]

This year, more than I can ever remember, we needed ANOTHER choice. The party in power was doomed; the party "out of power"; is really only out of power in a single office; and they are about to complete the trifecta. They are most likely going to obtain a fillibuster proof Senate.

[sic]

Trust me, I am NOT arguing that the past 8 years have been fantastic, and I can give a litany of reasons Bush has completly failed. However, the tantrum this country is going to throw next Tuesday is response might be something we regret, well, forever. Eventually we WILL be out of Iraq. New govt. en lement programs, however, are forever. If Barrack is who he says he is, we could be alright. If he has run to the middle to get elected - and is going to return to the left once that is accomplished, we are probably ed.

Big props to 101A and ES for stating their take on the election.

Its weird, I am constantly called a liberal here, yet I have almost universally agreed with 2 conservatives on almost every issue of (my personal) importance (abortion just doesnt rank for me, ES).

Could it be *GASP* that we are not all so entirely different as our country says we are? Nah, that cant be it. You guys are different because I was told so, and thats that.

[Tully365]

Could it be *GASP that we are not all so entirely different as our country says we are? Nah, that cant be it. You guys are different because I was told so, and thats that.

[RandomGuy]

Your doing your best to get energy into this thread too? Jesus Christ. When does the economic discussion start and when do the truthers get here?

Sorry. Bad habit. Do continue.

Perhaps I should simply stick to "what if resources were really infinite?", would we still have wars?

Better?

[DWest30]

Big props to 101A and ES for stating their take on the election.

Its weird, I am constantly called a liberal here, yet I have almost universally agreed with 2 conservatives on almost every issue of (my personal) importance (abortion just doesnt rank for me, ES).

Could it be *GASP* that we are not all so entirely different as our country says we are? Nah, that cant be it. You guys are different because I was told so, and thats that.

Welcome to a post-culture war America. We can all get along and merely disagree instead of demonizing each other.