Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Even More Awesome Presidential Election Thread
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 308 (671694)
08-29-2012 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Artemis Entreri
08-29-2012 3:17 PM


Re: YAWN
Like the current crop of Republicans it seems you do not want to be subject to fact checking.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-29-2012 3:17 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 62 of 308 (671696)
08-29-2012 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Taq
08-29-2012 10:36 AM


Re: More semantics from NoNukes...YAWN
really? how have they changed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 08-29-2012 10:36 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 08-29-2012 4:18 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 08-29-2012 4:32 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 308 (671700)
08-29-2012 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Artemis Entreri
08-29-2012 3:26 PM


Re: More semantics from NoNukes...YAWN
Well, a Catholic Democrat was elected president.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-29-2012 3:26 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 64 of 308 (671701)
08-29-2012 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Artemis Entreri
08-29-2012 3:26 PM


Re: More semantics from NoNukes...YAWN
really? how have they changed?
Before JFK was elected many doubted that he would be elected because catholicism was seen as heretical by the religious right. Now we have the religious right questioning the religiosity of a candidate because he didn't immediately add a catholic leader as one of his speakers. That just seems like a complete about face over the last 50 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-29-2012 3:26 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-29-2012 4:43 PM Taq has replied
 Message 66 by jar, posted 08-29-2012 4:43 PM Taq has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 65 of 308 (671702)
08-29-2012 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Taq
08-29-2012 4:32 PM


No thanks man.
Before JFK was elected many doubted that he would be elected because catholicism was seen as heretical by the religious right. Now we have the religious right questioning the religiosity of a candidate because he didn't immediately add a catholic leader as one of his speakers. That just seems like a complete about face over the last 50 years.
that is not the reason at all, but I understand the "game" of this website now, it just took me a couple of weeks.
I would prefer to not play it.
I know if I disagree with you I will be called names, and my words will be misrepresented and taken out of context against me. none of this will be noticed by the Admin, and then when I retaliate I will get into trouble because the Admin are in on the silly Charade of EvC.
I'll lurk and post occasionally, but I am pretty much finished with active participation on this dishonest and false website.
have a great day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 08-29-2012 4:32 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by NoNukes, posted 08-29-2012 5:03 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 08-29-2012 5:06 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 71 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2012 6:52 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 72 by AdminModulous, posted 08-29-2012 7:11 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 66 of 308 (671703)
08-29-2012 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Taq
08-29-2012 4:32 PM


Re: More semantics from NoNukes...YAWN
And hopefully in my lifetime we will see an openly Atheist, Muslim or Jewish President.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 08-29-2012 4:32 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 08-29-2012 5:04 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 67 of 308 (671706)
08-29-2012 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Artemis Entreri
08-29-2012 4:43 PM


Re: No thanks man.
The irony is strong in this one.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-29-2012 4:43 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 68 of 308 (671707)
08-29-2012 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
08-29-2012 4:43 PM


Re: More semantics from NoNukes...YAWN
And hopefully in my lifetime we will see an openly Atheist, Muslim or Jewish President.
Quite frankly, I am surprised that a Mormon candidate did so well. The Mormons were chased out of many midwestern states, and now a Mormon candidate for president is poised to win in some of those states. It would appear that people are becoming more tolerant of finer theological beliefs as long as views on other social issues align. It wouldn't surprise me if an anti-abortion, small government, anti-taxation on the rich, atheist Republican did well in a Republican primary. I think the Republican party is more secular than even the Republicans want to admit. It is no longer based on christian values. It is based on the rich getting richer which really doesn't sound like christian theology to me.
As Choaticskunk is showing, it really doesn't matter what Obama does. He will always claim that Obama is not good enough for him no matter what. Obama is evil if he doesn't let the Cardinal speak. Obama is evil if he does let the Cardinal speak. Go figure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 08-29-2012 4:43 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Modulous, posted 08-29-2012 7:19 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 75 by caffeine, posted 08-30-2012 3:29 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 69 of 308 (671709)
08-29-2012 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Artemis Entreri
08-29-2012 4:43 PM


Re: No thanks man.
I know if I disagree with you I will be called names, and my words will be misrepresented and taken out of context against me. none of this will be noticed by the Admin, and then when I retaliate I will get into trouble because the Admin are in on the silly Charade of EvC.
I think you just described the Republican political strategy to a T.
It doesn't matter if Obama lets the Cardinal speak or not. Either way, you will call Obama whatever epithet is popular amongst the religious right this week.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-29-2012 4:43 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 70 of 308 (671713)
08-29-2012 6:25 PM


Look . . . over there!! It's a red herring!!!
I think Obama has done a good job of framing the debate going forward. Do you want to go with the Republican strategy of letting rich people hold onto even more money in hopes that they will use this extra money to create jobs while getting rid of social programs that protect the middle class? Or do you want to strengthen the social safety nets and increase the taxes on the most wealthy?
Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the Republicans will want to reframe this debate into a long list of non-issues like the one that ChoaticSkunk brought forward. Instead of focusing on how to fix the national debt, healthcare, Medicare, Social Security, and defense spending we will instead spend time on discussing why Obama did not okay a catholic speaker in what Republicans consider a necessary time schedule.
Will the public keep falling for this bait and switch, dog and pony show that the Republicans put on each 4 years. It would appear so, sadly.

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 71 of 308 (671716)
08-29-2012 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Artemis Entreri
08-29-2012 4:43 PM


Re: No thanks man.
Door. Ass. Don't let them hit. You might hurt the door.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-29-2012 4:43 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 72 of 308 (671717)
08-29-2012 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Artemis Entreri
08-29-2012 4:43 PM


Re: No thanks man.
I know if I disagree with you I will be called names, and my words will be misrepresented and taken out of context against me. none of this will be noticed by the Admin, and then when I retaliate I will get into trouble because the Admin are in on the silly Charade of EvC.
You can avoid the getting into trouble part by not retaliating and instead alerting the moderators to someone that is calling you names or causing other discussion problems. We're not all-seeing, and we have our biases - we accept such frailties and ask the membership to put some effort into helping keep discussion civil.
You, chaoticskunk, have posted one message in Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0, it was Message 642. You reported Theodoric. He was warned, and then he apologized. It seems for you, the system worked. But now, instead of using the system, you just condemn it. If you think someone else is being problematic, you could still alert the moderators (preferably with links to the most obvious examples of the problem), rather than getting upset at the moderators for not noticing the problem (or in this case, getting upset that the moderators will at some time in the future, fail to notice a problem until you retaliate).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-29-2012 4:43 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-29-2012 9:17 PM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 73 of 308 (671718)
08-29-2012 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
08-29-2012 5:04 PM


We're all Christians together!
Quite frankly, I am surprised that a Mormon candidate did so well. The Mormons were chased out of many midwestern states, and now a Mormon candidate for president is poised to win in some of those states. It would appear that people are becoming more tolerant of finer theological beliefs as long as views on other social issues align.
I think a Mormon candidate was an unintentional result of the rebranding of beliefs that American politics underwent. In order to get the various Protestants and Catholics under one tent, they started calling themselves 'Christian'. There's an article by Penn Jillette that argues that it was Roe vs Wade that served as the catalyst for the rebranding.
I assume, if it was conscious at all, including the Mormons wasn't really considered at the time. But now that they're all Christian, they have difficulty rebutting Romney's claim to the name without causing further divisions to form by the same arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 08-29-2012 5:04 PM Taq has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 74 of 308 (671721)
08-29-2012 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by AdminModulous
08-29-2012 7:11 PM


Re: No thanks man.
You can avoid the getting into trouble part by not retaliating and instead alerting the moderators to someone that is calling you names or causing other discussion problems. We're not all-seeing, and we have our biases - we accept such frailties and ask the membership to put some effort into helping keep discussion civil.
I am sorry but to me that is a total bitch move. and there aint no bitch in me, I feel like its your job as Admin to Administer the site (I am not a rat nor a snitch). But from reading the public record forum it just seems like the Admins are part of the whole thing; I do not find them to be very objective. Hence the charade. I am just glad I figured this cleverly disguised liberal flame site as soon as I did, instead believing the lie.
You, chaoticskunk, have posted one message in Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0, it was Message 642. You reported Theodoric. He was warned, and then he apologized. It seems for you, the system worked.
I felt bad about that, it was more of an inquiry as I was really new and trying to figure out if name calling was allowed here on your debate site, for I had never had one interaction with Theodoric and he comes out of left field accusing me and attacking me, and being insulting. I was really wondering if I could tell him off or if his actions were allowed around here.
But now, instead of using the system, you just condemn it. If you think someone else is being problematic, you could still alert the moderators (preferably with links to the most obvious examples of the problem), rather than getting upset at the moderators for not noticing the problem (or in this case, getting upset that the moderators will at some time in the future, fail to notice a problem until you retaliate).
I am by no means upset. Disappointed maybe (I thought I found a good debate site), but not upset and surly not at the moderators (when you say mods do you mean admin, for I have seen no mods). All I am trying to say is I get it.
I see this site for what it really is:
One person has an opinion that is not radical left.
Five or more people dogpile ontop of that person, accusing them of various things they never stated, insinuating many things (straw manning), and pilling up the responses.
While another group of 3-5 people just make snide snarky remarks, in ALMOST every thread. For example take Jar and click his name, and look at the last 10 -20 posts he has made.are any of them adding to the debate? Are any of them more than two lines of text (my reply to you is probably equal to the trolls that run rampant here, last 3-5 posts added together) or even 50 words? He is not alone (anyone who posts here or lurks knows who adds and who talks smack all day long); unfortunately there is no ignore button and I can’t ignore the trolls (something in my brain auto reads texts when my eyes see it).
I was trying to figure out why there is the huge site with many forums and there are rarely more than 10-15 people on at any given time, and why there are many forums who only have one thread active in them and why the next thread is from last year. I wanted to see why a site like this that looks like it has so much potential, is so stagnant. I think I figured it out. I think this is a flame-site that is run as a charade of this debate style with a topic that is only supported by one side. I mean you have people like Buzzsaw who aren’t even allow to post in science forums (talk about silencing the opposition so no one can disagree with you). Take Foreveryoung, he was permanently banned for sticking up for himself, and un permanently banned probably because there was no one else in the opposition.
I think this is a fairly poorly run site, that is about ran into the ground, and I can see why. (I am sure I will be edited and then banned for speaking the truth) As a new and observant member, who doesn’t know the community (of 15+) and doesn’t have the history and built up biases, I am speaking only in terms of observable evidence that I have seen and read in the past 6 weeks (though one can go back and read about the decline of this site over the years).
Let the trash talking and straw-manning about me commence. You seem like a decent person so I wanted to answer you instead of trying to ignore you with the rest of the trolls/flamers/smack talkers.
Back to lurking

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by AdminModulous, posted 08-29-2012 7:11 PM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 75 of 308 (671750)
08-30-2012 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
08-29-2012 5:04 PM


Re: More semantics from NoNukes...YAWN
Quite frankly, I am surprised that a Mormon candidate did so well. The Mormons were chased out of many midwestern states, and now a Mormon candidate for president is poised to win in some of those states. It would appear that people are becoming more tolerant of finer theological beliefs as long as views on other social issues align. It wouldn't surprise me if an anti-abortion, small government, anti-taxation on the rich, atheist Republican did well in a Republican primary. I think the Republican party is more secular than even the Republicans want to admit. It is no longer based on christian values. It is based on the rich getting richer which really doesn't sound like christian theology to me.
Any big political party is made up of a variety of different ideological strands. This is especially true in the US, where people who'd rather be running as a Libertarian or a Green join the Democrats or Republicans because they know they have no chance on the national stage otherwise. The religious right may be one of the most vocal and noticeable parts of the Republican party nowadays, but it's also the party you join if your political hero is Ayn Rand - one of the most militant atheists the right has ever produced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 08-29-2012 5:04 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by dwise1, posted 08-30-2012 4:33 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024