[quote]rainjack wrote:
Those are not facts. You want them to be, but they are not.[/quote]
Red herring. You asked what objective research has to do with gay marriage, and I pointed out several scientific questions that do relate.
Beyond that, you’re the one disagreeing with the consensus of every major medical and mental health organization. If it upsets you that those conclusions don’t conform to your narrow ideas about gays, that doesn’t mean the conclusions are any less scientifically valid.
Unfortunately, legal reform is a lot like campaign finance reform. There are so many in congress with a legal background that any reform bill is unlikely to pass, unless there is a mandate from the public. I haven’t seen that mandate yet for legal reform (not to say there shouldn’t be one).
The States have been more pro-active than the Federal Government with Legal reform (especially medical).
Sure; it’s often been when a State has their back against the wall (like Nevada ER and Orthopedic Physicians leaving the State in droves, and the North East loss of Obstetricians); but the States have acted more than the Federal Government.
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Those are not facts. You want them to be, but they are not.
Red herring. You asked what objective research has to do with gay marriage, and I pointed out several scientific questions that do relate.
Beyond that, you’re the one disagreeing with the consensus of every major medical and mental health organization. If it upsets you that those conclusions don’t conform to your narrow ideas about gays, that doesn’t mean the conclusions are any less scientifically valid.[/quote]
Get your quotes straight. I never said a fucking word about research. I said there is nothing objective about gay marraige. Period. I never asked you a fucking question. You are the one who presented a bunch of outcome based studies.
Shove the red herring up your ass.
Don’t matter to me, anyhow - you lose every election that is allowed on a ballot. So run and hide behind your bogus studies, and the “experts”. Until there is physical proof, all you have is their opinion, and They are a very stark minority.
Narrow minded would be you thinking every fucking issue can be solved if gay marriage were legalized.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Here’s the BBC’s analysis of the differences in how much money both camps raised.
What I found particularly fascinating, is that that only three professions/sectors have given more to McCain than his Democratic counterpart. And those are:
Retirees,
Oil and gas,
Insurances.
I have a few ideas why that is, but I’d love to hear your takes on it.[/quote]
Easily done.
-The retirees relate to McCain because of age
-Oil and gas and Insurances because the only businesses where stock has consistently gone up in the last 7-8 years are Oil and Gas and Insurance companies.
The currently environment created by this administration has been very good to them. Everyone else, whether they want to admit it or not, has been getting fucked.
The lawyer thing doesn’t surprise me. Lawyers are normally not a target of the democratic party.
The republican party likes to make lawyers look like they are evil (which they are, j/k) to distract people from the big business interests they are suing, whereas the democratic party likes to make big business look like they are evil (which they are as well, j/k).
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
-The retirees relate to McCain because of age
-Oil and gas and Insurances because the only businesses where stock has consistently gone up in the last 7-8 years are Oil and Gas and Insurance companies.
The currently environment created by this administration has been very good to them. Everyone else, whether they want to admit it or not, has been getting fucked.
[/quote]
Opie wants to impose a punitive ‘windfall’ profit tax on the oil companies - kinda like Carter. The increase in oil stocks is directly related to the increase in demand for oil - which is a global issue, not one that can be pinned on any president.
Insurance made a ton of money because of all the baby-boomers getting on Medicare, and needing a supplement.
Unless you can come up with some proof of some overt concessions given to these industries by the Bush admin - I am going to have to call bullshit. I’ll help you out with one.
The MSA’s probably helped the insurance industry some, but there was also a very definite benefit for regular folks as well in the form of lower taxes.
Everyone is not getting fucked. My income increased 15X during the Bush years, and I have nothing to do with gas, oil, or insurance. If taht’s getting fucked - I want some more.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
-The retirees relate to McCain because of age
-Oil and gas and Insurances because the only businesses where stock has consistently gone up in the last 7-8 years are Oil and Gas and Insurance companies. The currently environment created by this administration has been very good to them. Everyone else, whether they want to admit it or not, has been getting fucked.
Opie wants to impose a punitive ‘windfall’ profit tax on the oil companies - kinda like Carter. The increase in oil stocks is directly related to the increase in demand for oil - which is a global issue, not one that can be pinned on any president.
Insurance made a ton of money because of all the baby-boomers getting on Medicare, and needing a supplement.
Unless you can come up with some proof of some overt concessions given to these industries by the Bush admin - I am going to have to call bullshit. I’ll help you out with one. The MSA’s probably helped the insurance industry some, but there was also a very definite benefit for regular folks as well in the form of lower taxes.
Everyone is not getting fucked. My income increased 15X during the Bush years, and I have nothing to do with gas, oil, or insurance. If taht’s getting fucked - I want some more.
[/quote]
Let me clarify, Oil, gas and insurance have been going up consistently PRIOR to the last 7-8 years. This administration has made it even easier for them.
Are you going to say that Oil and Gas industry hasn’t made record profits in the last 7-8 years? Are you going to deny that wartime didn’t help the Oil and Gas industry? Please lets not go there.
He asked a question about why these industries are favoring donations to McCain over Obama. I gave a quick answer. I didn’t go into great detail and site links and spell it all out.
I am well aware that there are other factors involved in their profits, but to deny that this current administration’s policies along with a compliant Congress (Republican controlled up until 1 1/2 ago)didn’t make it even easier for them is intellectually dishonest.
I call bullshit on your call. You added a few details that I didn’t add, but it doesn’t invalidate what I said.
The fact that you personally made more money doesn’t offset the fact that the rest of country as a whole didn’t. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be where we are now. The little dribble of lower taxes for regular folks doesn’t help when they are losing their jobs and homes.
Everyone doesn’t have the ability, means or background to start their own business like you did. Face it, you do not represent the average American. You are way more fortunate than most. This is not a knock on you.
I respect the fact you were able to do this and I think it should be admired, but the fact remains, you aren’t the average. So comparing what you did and saying that things are alright because you are ok ignores the fact that everyone is not you. I am, in no way throwing insults towards you, just pointing things out.
However, if you want to go there, let’s get a few things straight. You can’t pull age on me because you and I are probably around the same age. I payed my own way through my education, so I am not some spoiled elitist.
I have been both a registered Republican and Democrat. I am now an Independent. I believe that for the most part government should stay the fuck out of my personal business, but I also believe that the government is there to serve the people and should help when we need it.
I’ve worked in corporate settings and industrial settings for around 20 years, so I have a clear understanding of corporations and how they operate. I like money and living a good life, which I do, but I don’t think that the pursuit of money should be an overriding #1 priority in life.
I’m not gay but I don’t have anything against gay people and I think that if they want to get married, find a CHURCH that will marry them and go to it.
I don’t believe that government (stay the fuck out of my business!)should be defining marriage for anyone (That part was for forlife so he doesn’t come in here and fuck up another thread). I have been faithfully married to my wife for 13 years and I have two kids.
I am a devoted family man. I am a Christian and have been all my life. I am active in my church as well as community programs. I have weight trained for over 25 years, competing primarily as a powerlifter, but have dabbled in olympic lifter and bodybuilding and have trained as a martial artist (That part for for ProfX).
So, now if you want to throw insults, you now know enough about me to start.
I think people are free to believe in whatever they want, whether Muslim, Christian, Pagan, or Buddhist. What I don’t agree with is these people making claims about the objective nature of the universe, without having any reliable evidence to support their claims beyond an emotional conviction that it is true.[/quote]
But that is exactly what your doing. What does science actually say? Very little. Just like in religion, people look at science and find meaning. Sometimes that meaning is not really there.
You say people are free to believe in whatever they want, then you attack them for those beliefs.
Now if you want a great example of religious science beliefs, global warming. The great profit (he has profited greatly,) Al Gore goes out and preaches the science of Global Warming.
Everyone who believes in Global Warming acts like any discussion of otherwise is blasphemy. Yet some of his proof would have to violate the laws of physics, or rewrite them. (Unless you can explain how effect can proceed cause by 800 years.)
But that is exactly what your doing. What does science actually say? Very little. Just like in religion, people look at science and find meaning. Sometimes that meaning is not really there.[/quote]
Exactly correct. Science is one of humankind’s greatest endeavors - incidentally, the church was involved in early science, trying to understand the universe, but don’t tell the secularists - but is abused in the name of politics.
Witness the “scientific” defense of the evolutionary necessity of homosexuality by suggesting Nature “needs” Walt Whitman around to contribute to society by penning Leaves of Grass. And so forth.
Science should inspire the Aristotelian (attributed) idea of “the more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know” - but instead, we have a new breed of quasi-“scientists” who arrogantly think they have “science” on their side of Truth when they come across a couple of half-baked facts and speculative conclusions, and no one else does.
Scientism is alive and well, and takes our eye off of what science really is and should do.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
-The retirees relate to McCain because of age
-Oil and gas and Insurances because the only businesses where stock has consistently gone up in the last 7-8 years are Oil and Gas and Insurance companies.
The currently environment created by this administration has been very good to them. Everyone else, whether they want to admit it or not, has been getting fucked.
Opie wants to impose a punitive ‘windfall’ profit tax on the oil companies - kinda like Carter. The increase in oil stocks is directly related to the increase in demand for oil - which is a global issue, not one that can be pinned on any president.
Insurance made a ton of money because of all the baby-boomers getting on Medicare, and needing a supplement.
Unless you can come up with some proof of some overt concessions given to these industries by the Bush admin - I am going to have to call bullshit. I’ll help you out with one.
The MSA’s probably helped the insurance industry some, but there was also a very definite benefit for regular folks as well in the form of lower taxes.
Everyone is not getting fucked. My income increased 15X during the Bush years, and I have nothing to do with gas, oil, or insurance. If taht’s getting fucked - I want some more.
[/quote]
Alaska added a windfall profit tax that effectively doubled their oil revenue from the year before. But according to a lot of the oil companies, that caused them to scrap their expansion plans.
And before you ask, I am against it, I think it is a stupid idea as the companies can easily pass on that cost to the consumers should they so choose. But its something your glory girl and Obama agree on.
[quote]Ren wrote:
rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
-The retirees relate to McCain because of age
-Oil and gas and Insurances because the only businesses where stock has consistently gone up in the last 7-8 years are Oil and Gas and Insurance companies.
The currently environment created by this administration has been very good to them. Everyone else, whether they want to admit it or not, has been getting fucked.
Opie wants to impose a punitive ‘windfall’ profit tax on the oil companies - kinda like Carter. The increase in oil stocks is directly related to the increase in demand for oil - which is a global issue, not one that can be pinned on any president.
Insurance made a ton of money because of all the baby-boomers getting on Medicare, and needing a supplement.
Unless you can come up with some proof of some overt concessions given to these industries by the Bush admin - I am going to have to call bullshit. I’ll help you out with one.
The MSA’s probably helped the insurance industry some, but there was also a very definite benefit for regular folks as well in the form of lower taxes.
Everyone is not getting fucked. My income increased 15X during the Bush years, and I have nothing to do with gas, oil, or insurance. If taht’s getting fucked - I want some more.
Alaska added a windfall profit tax that effectively doubled their oil revenue from the year before. But according to a lot of the oil companies, that caused them to scrap their expansion plans.
And before you ask, I am against it, I think it is a stupid idea as the companies can easily pass on that cost to the consumers should they so choose. But its something your glory girl and Obama agree on.[/quote]
I think it was an increase in production taxes - not a windfall profit tax. But I could be wrong.
I wouldn’t have a problem with it if they would lower personal income taxes accordingly and allow drilling everywhere we have proven reserves.
It would be a far more equitable tax. Everyone who drives a car would be forced to pay their fair share.
[i]During this US election cycle we are hearing a lot from the pundits and candidates about “heartland voters,” and “white working class voters.”
What they are talking about are rednecks. But in their political correctness, media types cannot bring themselves to utter the word “redneck.” So I’ll say it for them: redneck-redneck-redneck-redneck.
The fact is that we American rednecks embrace the term in a sort of proud defiance. To us, the term redneck indicates a culture we were born in and enjoy. So I find it very interesting that politically correct people have taken it upon themselves to protect us from what has come to be one of our own warm and light hearted terms for one another.
On the other hand, I can quite imagine their concern, given what’s at stake in the upcoming election. We represent at least a third of all voters and no US president has ever been elected without our support.
Consequently, rednecks have never had so many friends or so much attention as in 2008. Contrary to the stereotype, we are not all tobacco chewing, guffawing Southerners, but are scattered from coast to coast. Over 50% of us live in the “cultural south”, which is to say places with white Southern Scots-Irish values - redneck values.
They include western Pennsylvania, central Missouri and southern Illinois, upstate Michigan and Minnesota, eastern Connecticut, northern New Hampshire�?�
So when you look at what pundits call the red state heartland, you are looking at the Republic of Redneckia.
As to having our delicate beer-sodden feelings protected from the term redneck; well, I appreciate the effort, though I highly suspect that the best way to hide snobbishness is to pose as protector of any class of folks you cannot bear. Thus we are being protected by the very people who look down on us - educated urban progressives.
And let’s face it, there’s plenty to look down on. By any tasteful standard, we ain’t a pretty people.
We come in one size: extra large. We are sometimes insolent and often quick to fight. We love competitive spectacle such as NASCAR and paintball, and believe gun ownership is the eleventh commandment.
We fry things nobody ever considered friable - things like cupcakes, banana sandwiches and batter dipped artificial cheese�?�even pickles.
Her daughter had a baby out of wedlock? Big deal. What family has not?
And most of all we are defiant and suspicious of authority, and people who are “uppity” (sophisticated) and “slick” (people who use words with more than three syllables). Two should be enough for anybody.
And that is one of the reasons that, mystifying as it is to the outside world, John McCain’s choice of the moose-shooting Alaskan woman with the pregnant unmarried teen daughter appeals to many redneck and working class Americans.
We all understand that there is a political class which dominates in America, and that Sarah Palin for damned sure is not one of them. And the more she is attacked by liberal Democratic elements (translation: elite highly-educated big city people) the more America’s working mooks will come to her defence. Her daughter had a baby out of wedlock? Big deal. What family has not? She is a Christian fundamentalist who believes God spat on his beefy paws and made the world in seven days? So do at least 150 million other Americans. She snowmobiles and fishes and she is a looker to boot. She’s a redneck.
The term redneck indicates a lifestyle and culture that can be found in every state in our union. The essentials of redneck culture were brought to America by what we call the Scots Irish, after first being shipped to the Ulster Plantation, where our, uh, remarkable cultural legacy can still be seen every 12 July in Ireland.
Ultimately, the Scots Irish have had more of an effect on the American ethos than any other immigrant group. Here are a few you will recognize:
* Belief that no law is above God's law, not even the US Constitution.
* Hyper patriotism. A fighting defence of native land, home and heart, even when it is not actually threatened: ie, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Haiti and dozens more with righteous operations titles such as Enduring Freedom, Restore Hope, and Just Cause.
* A love of guns and tremendous respect for the warrior ideal. Along with this comes a strong sense of fealty and loyalty. Fealty to wartime leaders, whether it be FDR or George Bush.
* Self effacement, humility. We are usually the butt of our own jokes, in an effort not to appear aloof among one another.
* Belief that most things outside our own community and nation are inferior and threatening, that the world is jealous of the American lifestyle.
* Personal pride in equality. No man, however rich or powerful, is better than me.
* Perseverance and belief in hard work. If a man or a family is poor, it is because they did not work hard enough. God rewards those who work hard enough. So does the American system.
* The only free country in the world is the United States, and the only reason we ever go to war is to protect that freedom.
All this has become so deeply instilled as to now be reflexive. It represents many of the worst traits in American culture and a few of the best.
And that has every thinking person here in the US, except perhaps John McCain and Sarah Palin, worried.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Ren wrote:
rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
-The retirees relate to McCain because of age
-Oil and gas and Insurances because the only businesses where stock has consistently gone up in the last 7-8 years are Oil and Gas and Insurance companies.
The currently environment created by this administration has been very good to them. Everyone else, whether they want to admit it or not, has been getting fucked.
Opie wants to impose a punitive ‘windfall’ profit tax on the oil companies - kinda like Carter. The increase in oil stocks is directly related to the increase in demand for oil - which is a global issue, not one that can be pinned on any president.
Insurance made a ton of money because of all the baby-boomers getting on Medicare, and needing a supplement.
Unless you can come up with some proof of some overt concessions given to these industries by the Bush admin - I am going to have to call bullshit. I’ll help you out with one.
The MSA’s probably helped the insurance industry some, but there was also a very definite benefit for regular folks as well in the form of lower taxes.
Everyone is not getting fucked. My income increased 15X during the Bush years, and I have nothing to do with gas, oil, or insurance. If taht’s getting fucked - I want some more.
Alaska added a windfall profit tax that effectively doubled their oil revenue from the year before. But according to a lot of the oil companies, that caused them to scrap their expansion plans.
And before you ask, I am against it, I think it is a stupid idea as the companies can easily pass on that cost to the consumers should they so choose. But its something your glory girl and Obama agree on.
I think it was an increase in production taxes - not a windfall profit tax. But I could be wrong.
I wouldn’t have a problem with it if they would lower personal income taxes accordingly and allow drilling everywhere we have proven reserves.
It would be a far more equitable tax. Everyone who drives a car would be forced to pay their fair share.
[/quote]
It was an increase in the tax on oil profits, though an article I read said it amounts to a 400% increase in production taxes? So not sure exactly if the production tax was increased, but the profits tax definitely was.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Based on the viewership, I have to think that this election will have a higher turnout than we’ve seen in some time.
The choices over the last several elections have been like choosing between cherry red and fire engine red.
This time around, if one can’t tell the difference in the candidates, they really don’t need to be voting.
For the first time since Ronald Reagan, we actually have someone on the republican ticket who is charismatic, and appeals to the conservative base. Too bad it’s not McCain.
And the dems, for only the second time since JFK, have a charismatic candidate.
But this is the first time in my lifetime that both parties have tickets that people actually want to get behind and get excited about.
If Obama and Palin do noting else for this country, I hope they have awakened the apathetic dipshits from their slumber and entices them to the polls. [/quote]
Couldn’t agree with you more man, not only have people in general paid more attention to politics for this election I bet we’ll get about 75% voter turnout if not more
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Get your quotes straight. I never said a fucking word about research. I said there is nothing objective about gay marraige.[/quote]
You directly responded to my statement about the scientific method being a standard for determining objective truth. If you don’t want me to assume you are referring to research, don’t quote me on research:
[quote]I do remember learning about the scientific method as a standard for determining objective truth. If that standard leads to conclusions about gay marriage that conflict with your preexisting stereotypes, there’s nothing I can do about that.
Since there is nothing objective about gay marriage, I have to wonder what you have been smoking.[/quote]
The fact is, science has drawn a number of objective conclusions about questions that pertain to gay marriage. You can whine about those conclusions, but that doesn’t make them any less scientifically valid.
Guess we’ll find out in two months if you are right about the ballot always rejecting gay marriage. Every poll I’ve seen says you are wrong, but we’ll see what happens in the actual vote.
You have no evidence that the research of the medical and mental health organizations is bogus. You don’t like their conclusions, so you diss their research. Could it be any more obvious?
Nice scarecrow. I never said every issue could be solved by gay marriage. I only said that gay marriage would help provide stability to society and would be in the best interest of the couple and their children, just as straight marriage does.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
I’m not gay but I don’t have anything against gay people and I think that if they want to get married, find a CHURCH that will marry them and go to it.[/quote]
I couldn’t care less if a church recognizes my marriage. What is so hard to understand about this? It’s not about recognition by puffed up priests, it’s about being treated equally under the law. Until marriage provides the same federal responsibilities and benefits regardless of sexual orientation, the discrimination and inequity will continue to exist.
I wouldn’t mind if the government was responsible for recognizing civil unions, and marriage was kept to the churches. The legal responsibilities/benefits should be managed by the government as with any other contract.
That said, I’m not going to comment further on gay marriage in this thread because I agree it distracts from the main theme of the thread.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
What does science actually say? Very little. Just like in religion, people look at science and find meaning. Sometimes that meaning is not really there.
[/quote]
Scientists and priests both make claims about the objective universe.
The difference is that scientists provide proof for their claims. Priests tell you to have faith, and use their authority as proof.
You can test any scientific hypothesis, and objectively determine for yourself whether or not it is true. The more peer-reviewed studies there are which find the same results, the more confident you can be in the integrity of the conclusions based on those results.
Copernicus drew conclusions about the nature of the physical universe which directly contradicted the conclusions of the Catholic church.
He provided objective proof for his claims, and the Catholic church told people to have faith.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Science should inspire the Aristotelian (attributed) idea of “the more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know” - but instead, we have a new breed of quasi-“scientists” who arrogantly think they have “science” on their side of Truth when they come across a couple of half-baked facts and speculative conclusions, and no one else does.[/quote]
While it’s convenient to dismiss conclusions you don’t agree with as “half-baked facts and speculative conclusions”, that doesn’t mean those conclusions aren’t strongly supported by empirical evidence.
The question is not whether or not you agree with those conclusions, but how solid the science is behind those conclusions.
How do you determine if the science is solid or not? By educating yourself in the scientific method, and by responsibly reviewing the research that has been conducted. For those that don’t have the scientific background or expertise to thoroughly review the research, they can consider the consensus of the scientific organizations that have conducted the scientific research and drawn conclusions based on it.
What I see instead is a lot of people with preexisting ideas about the nature of the universe who refuse to consider anything that contradicts those views. Whenever science disagrees with their ideas, these people predictably dismiss the science as “half-baked” and “politically biased”.
It’s a nice way to keep your head buried in the sand, but it isn’t the most reliable path to enlightenment.
