Obama State of the Union

[Massive Lee]

Yeah it annoys me too when people push their religion on me... Evolution included.

And there's this place called the Middle East.

What a fucktard you make. Evolution is not religion.

[ck_taft325is]

What a fucktard you make. Evolution is not religion.

Yet it's treated, defended and acted out just like one. That, moron, was the point.

[kronus]

Yet it's treated, defended and acted out just like one. That, moron, was the point.

...No, it isn't. Unless you are claiming that religion is a theory that people with a magic book that tells them what's right or not have been attempting to discredit since its first formulation.

[Bill 84 318i]

C.S. Lewis once wrote:

"No man who says I'm as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside of the strictly political field, is made only those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient (you) refuses to accept."

You seem to make a point of how intelligent you are, at the expense of everyone else. I don't even think you believe it when you say it.

The fact about Creationism/Evolution, even "dancing on the ID line", one has to accept that no one truly knows. Which just eventually bleeds into a system or series of beliefs which would make an individual feel as though he is better, or smarter or more enlightened than the next or than someone of the adjacent view point. The fact that you prop yourself up, as much more learned, self-righteous, condescending and despite all of everything you are, you're just a mild regurgitation of what has already been said by both sides. You bull headedly pigeon hole everyone or anyone that doesn't line up with your "facts" as weak minded. Or how did you put it so humbly? "...indicative of their ability to rationalize and solve problems". Not only this, but you go onto say how you wont budge nor change your stance.

While you're enlightened, or more versed, or better learned on any number of subjects, you would willingly if not enthusiastically lay blame for all the worlds problems at those not in line with your flagrant sense of what is. When I see religion and everyone of it's evil, nasty connotations, I see you.

I'll sum this up in the weak minded and lesser ability to solve problems since I believe in God...

Go fuck yourself.

I don't know if you're implying that I have an inferiority complex or the opposite; you said both. Regardless, I hope that tangent ends here.

But you're probably right. I may have come across as arrogant, and you have every right to call me out on it. But again, it's missing the point and redirecting the discussion. And on that note, I guess I don't know how to engage in an honest discussion about it without coming across that way, because the direction you've gone is the same way 90% of all other discussions with religious people go.

As for the fact that I won't "budge", it does come across that I said that. But when I said "I welcome any arguments on that", I hope that implied that I'm open for honest discussion. Nothing would excite me more than to hear a calm, rational argument that opposed my view. Learning is exciting.

So back to the real discussion, the interesting one.

I don't know that "no one truly knows" is a true statement. To paint our knowledge of the history of humans and animals and the earth as black and white is doing a disservice to it, as well as yourself. But as for the stuff we don't know, what I appreciate about science is that at least it tries. Sure, it misses sometimes, but that's the beauty of it. It's self correcting. And I think that people that turn a blind eye to it are not those I would want as a boss.

[jeff_b]

"Science misses sometimes" That's an understatement. I work for a company that makes scientific instruments (mass spec/gas analyzers) and systems using differing technologies (such as photo multiplier tubes/tunable laser diodes, etc.) I work with PhDs who, for whatever reason (except to maybe feed their own lofty over-educated egos?), don't believe in anything that science cannot prove, such as our current crises du jour. Such crises include climate warning, H1N1, and last but not least, the theory of evolution. Our PhDs at ThermoFisher are quite liberal, and blindly support the left, including every single candidate with a "D" after their name. In their viewpoint, people of faith are dim-witted, uneducated blue-collar losers who either refuse to believe the scads (kidding) of evidence of the above hot topics, are just too stupid to understand, or too drunk and lethargic on Bud Light to even care. You could say science missed the mark on all three of my examples, since there is no overwhelming evidence to support any of it, but they pick evolution to rally against. Perhaps they don't understand the concept of faith and one ultimate God. Call me dim-witted, but when I die, I know I have a promise of a perfect place where I have no needs, and the love of my almighty God is enough to light the sky. It makes me comfortable in my dim-witted loser life. What does your belief system promise you after death? (insert cricket noise here)

Oh yeah, why is it that Europe doesn't argue over evolution? Loss of Biblical faith, maybe because you killed 6 million educated, industrious Jewish citizens, and replaced them with a nearly equal number of uneducated, lazy, unemployed Muslims that are killing your culture in an ultimate effort to take over your countries. France is finally starting to see the detrimental effect of the Muslim influence. Wake up, Europe, before its too late.

[Leaf]

Man you guys have way to much time to piss, bitch and moan. Your mouths and hands would be way more useful on my cock then on your cum covered computer keyboards typing out regurgitated shit from FOX.

[chadthestampede]

Man you guys have way to much time to piss, bitch and moan. Your mouths and hands would be way more useful on my cock then on your cum covered computer keyboards typing out regurgitated shit from FOX.

Mediocre troll is mediocre.

[Bill 84 318i]

maybe because you killed 6 million educated, industrious Jewish citizens

Godwin's law, everyone.

As for your bosses, I chalk that up to just being how their brain works. I get it. It's a "show me" worldview, which I empathize with. So you say that they don't believe anything that there isn't evidence for...but then you say that they blindly support the left? It doesn't sound like they're the kind of people that would do that. Have you gotten into deep political discussions with them to see why they think what they do?

As for the "what's after death" question, your pithy "crickets" remark is right on target. I don't need anything. I look around the world and wonder how I could possibly want anything more - I don't want to waste this life living for the one that's next.

I know we've moved off-topic enough (though I don't feel badly, since the first seven pages weren't exactly constructive conversation), but let's try to keep it under control.

[jeff_b]

My bad on the editing. I meant to imply our PhDs fall in rank with the crises du jour, such as H1N1 and climate change without tangible evidence, yet still rally against creationism. I have discussed current-event politics (from which I extrapolated my opinion concerning their leftist lean) with them. Europe is screwed, though. I think we can all agree on that one. :D Arguing on the web is kinda dumb..

[kronus]

Obama's conversation with the House Republicans. What do you guys think?

[Aptyp]

^ when did this happen?

[Anthrax]

Oh yeah, why is it that Europe doesn't argue over evolution? Loss of Biblical faith, maybe because you killed 6 million educated, industrious Jewish citizens, and replaced them with a nearly equal number of uneducated, lazy, unemployed Muslims that are killing your culture in an ultimate effort to take over your countries. France is finally starting to see the detrimental effect of the Muslim influence. Wake up, Europe, before its too late.

I see so many flaws in this quote, I don´t even know where to start.

Loss of bliblical faith? Sure, there is some of that, but mostly religion is something very private here. It´s not something to show off on.

"We" killed 6 million jews? Seriously, as mrsleeve said, do you really want to go there?????

Replacing said 6 million with uneducated, lazy, unemployed Muslims that are killing our culture in an ultimate effort to take over our countries?

What the fuck do you know about our culture? And are all muslims lazy? Sure there are muslims like that, but most of them are hard workers, trying to support their families, in a country were the unemployement-rate is 26,9% among young people. I have never personally met a muslim person that didn´t show me any respect, even though I live in Malmö, one of the muslim densest cities in Sweden.

All this crap about how "they are going to take over our way of life" is so tireing to hear from someone not even experiencing it.

[Hallen]

I'm honestly eager to hear your side - I fully acknowledge not being an expert on economics or politics. So I ask that you don't take my questions as facetious or condescending. To be fair, I only quoted her once, and it was out of a book that she wrote - I don't believe I took anything unfairly out of context. And I don't think that I criticized her outside of that context, either.

I think that your circulatory system analogy is a bit dramatic, so much that I didn't bother to follow it. It was even more vague. Please don't condescend and speak in metaphors, and trust me that I'm intelligent enough to follow. I may not even disagree! Though I don't know why you're countering my Palin/Creationsim argument with a discussion of big government.

I do think that a person's position on creationism/evolution is indicative of their ability to rationalize and solve problems, and I won't step back from that. I welcome any arguments on this.

Well, CK kinda lined up the intellectual side of it. Other than the personal attack part, which was a bit vitriolic, he's pretty much right. When people believe something to be true, generally, they disdain any other perspective on that particular topic. We're all the same about that. However, it is extremely hard to distinguish between someone who really has facts and really understands the situation from somebody who's just manipulating perspectives to promote their beliefs and agenda.

Palin is religious. If she does not believe in evolution, then that's her perspective. The big question there is how does that affect her decision making capability as a leader? One could argue that she dismisses all other possibilities because of her beliefs and therefore is not open minded and could not make a rational decision on other topics. Or, one could see that it's based on her religious beliefs and doesn't impact her ability to make rational choices on other topics. It's really that simple. I don't agree with her views on a lot of things. But using a religious belief in something that has no impact on what is happening today and doesn't cause harm to others, as a basis for blindly assuming that she can't have an open mind and make informed and rational decisions on other topics, then, that's bigotry.

The economy is a complicated beast because it is society. It reflects billions of individual decisions from the individuals who interact together. There are no hard and fast rules that work all the time. There are generalities and amalgamations that can predict outcomes and results, but they cannot predict the minutia of the system. Remember, we all are the system, we are the economy. It's our free will and self interest that drives it.

Having said that, there are some basics of a free economy that do work. My analogy was trying to highlight in a simple way how monetary policy works. Money only represents a exchange system for goods and services so we don't have to use the barter system. Money must represent goods and services; it must be tied to something of value. When you pump gobs of money into the system, either by making interest rates stupidly low which allows fractional banking to create a 9x increase in the money supply, or by selling bonds to the fed (pretty much "printing" money), that money ceases to represent anything of value; there's no good or service to back it up.

That money has to go somewhere. It is in the system, it has to get used. That use can be in the form of savings, but that only drives up the asset levels at banks so they can loan more money which drives the supply higher. Investing in the stock market is another place that it goes because with the inflation that comes with more money supply, it's the only place where your money can stay ahead of inflation. Or, it can bulge out in other areas. This time it was the housing industry (mostly due to stupid government regulatory actions). The last big time, it was the stock market (the great depression). This kind of monetary policy ALWAYS leads to a boom bust cycle with their representative "bubbles". Those bubbles always burst when the system has hit its breaking point.

So, the cause of our current woes was too loose of a monetary policy for way too long. The bubble that formed was due to government manipulations of the market. The fix for the problem would have been higher interest rates and the fed selling bonds to banks to contract the monetary supply. That was not done by the previous two Fed chairmen. Why? Probably political pressure to keep the economy booming so those in power could stay in power. (Bush did try to stop it, but he was blocked by congress. He should have tried harder). Nobody wanted to stop the gravy train on their watch so it just kept going.

Obama and the Fed are doing exactly the opposite of what eventually must happen. We must contract the monetary supply and we must raise the interest rates. Unfortunately, that's not what was done and now we are stuck on a knife edge where falling off one side leads to rampant inflation, and the other side leads to deflation. The deflation side would be best for all of us, but would not be good for the government since we are way over-extended with debt and deflation would really hurt.

Government spending cannot revive an economy simply because the government does what is in its best interests. If that money were to stay with us instead of being taxed away from us, we would make rational decisions with it that would drive the economy back to stability. Instead, the government takes our money and then pushes it into areas that it decides in a 1 for 1, 0 sum game, that doesn't do anything for the economy since it does not produce what people want and need at that time.

It's a policy that has been proven to not work. Analysis of the great depression clearly shows this is the case. FDR's policies and actions increased the length of the depression by at least 10 years. Obama is using the same kind of policies. It's his, and his staff's, unwillingness to examine any other policy because of their blind faith in their methods is what the problem is here. Obama is that way with most of his policies and that closed mindedness was extremely evident in his SOTU address.

So the whole point is, people form illogical ideas, and put faith in things that don't exist all the time. Obama is no different than Palin or you or I in that way. It's just his faith exists in things that impact the real world and his faith is horribly misplaced. It has caused us all harm. Palin's faith in creation has 0 impact on you, me, the milk man, or the quality of Konky's porn.

[mrsleeve]

Hallen I must say I am glad that you posted that. I was going to type up a long counter point to how ones personal beliefs have no bearing on one ability for critical thought and problem solving skills or grasp of complicated concepts.

I think you have hit all my points perfectly and then some thus saving me the trouble. Thanks

[Bill 84 318i]

Well, CK kinda lined up the intellectual side of it. Other than the personal attack part, which was a bit vitriolic, he's pretty much right. When people believe something to be true, generally, they disdain any other perspective on that particular topic. We're all the same about that. However, it is extremely hard to distinguish between someone who really has facts and really understands the situation from somebody who's just manipulating perspectives to promote their beliefs and agenda.

Palin is religious. If she does not believe in evolution, then that's her perspective. The big question there is how does that affect her decision making capability as a leader? One could argue that she dismisses all other possibilities because of her beliefs and therefore is not open minded and could not make a rational decision on other topics. Or, one could see that it's based on her religious beliefs and doesn't impact her ability to make rational choices on other topics. It's really that simple. I don't agree with her views on a lot of things. But using a religious belief in something that has no impact on what is happening today and doesn't cause harm to others, as a basis for blindly assuming that she can't have an open mind and make informed and rational decisions on other topics, then, that's bigotry.

*snip economy part*

So the whole point is, people form illogical ideas, and put faith in things that don't exist all the time. Obama is no different than Palin or you or I in that way. It's just his faith exists in things that impact the real world and his faith is horribly misplaced. It has caused us all harm. Palin's faith in creation has 0 impact on you, me, the milk man, or the quality of Konky's porn.

Thanks for being civil. It seems like everyone has two speeds lately.

We'll go with the religion bit first. First, conceptually, I personally don't agree with consulting a higher power when making any decisions. When you do anything because it's "God's will", I think it's presumptuous - and when you use this "higher power" to justify things like going to war (how come God thinks that we should win instead of the other guy?), terrible things can happen. I will say that things such as war aren't necessarily caused by religion specifically - it's more often things like socioeconomic factors - but calling on that higher power as a rallying cry is manipulative at best and downright evil at worst. Now when you internalize it in a spiritual sense, that's different. But I don't like it when people in power consult an all-knowing deity in general. I can see how this can be construed as bigoted, but in a sense that's not the right word...I'm not against religion simply because it's different from my beliefs (and atheism is not a belief - it's a lack of it), and I'm not intolerant - I just think that at times it's anti-intellectual. And I think that's a shame.

But more to the earlier point, to cite a specific example of why someone like Palin's denial of evolution is a bad thing - how can we trust her to make any decisions based on evidence? It's clear that the jury is still out on climate change - I haven't taken the time to evaluate all evidence like I'd like to myself - but if she looks at the evidence of evolution and still turns back to Genesis, why on earth should she be trusted to look at the evidence for climate change? And to that extent, when does it end?

I agree that the poor girl's stupidity has been exaggerated by the media, but I don't think at all that she is fit for any position of power or influence.

As for the economy, I see your point, and thanks for elaborating on the analogy. And I will admittedly take a step back and say that I'm a layman when it comes to the economy, and I'm probably due for a course in macroeconomics. From what little I do know, a lot of what you said makes sense - but the one thing that you didn't address was a short term kick in the ass of the economy vs. long term plans and policies. i.e. - if we had raised interest rates as soon as the shit hit the fan, how would that have helped anything? Long term I see what you're getting at, and I'm not saying that the stimulus package was successful - it obviously didn't do everything they said it would - but I don't necessarily agree that the Obama administration is as one-sided as everyone implies.

Unemployment is still up and is the talk of the moment, but on the whole, the economy is looking pretty good, isn't it? Granted that I personally have not been affected in general (I've joked that I've chosen not to participate in the recession) so my perception might be a bit skewed, but things are on the up and up after only what, 15 months or so? That ain't bad.

I don't think that drawing a parallel between faith in god and Obama's faith in what he believed was the right solution is fair, because I don't think that they're equals. Yes, both people think that they're right, and some people will call it logical and some people won't; that doesn't mean that they're the same thing. Obama might have been wrong and made a bad decision - holding that and religion in the same light just isn't equal in my mind.