Politics

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

What is your political affiliation?

  • Democrat

    Votes: 70 46.1%
  • Republican

    Votes: 38 25.0%
  • Independent

    Votes: 29 19.1%
  • I do not care/follow politics

    Votes: 15 9.9%

  • Total voters
    152
mynamewastaken said:
Zuras: evolution and creationism (which intell. design attempts to explain) are mutually exclusive. There is a subtle but important difference between them.

Well, that's pretty obvious. Though, interestingly enough, it's possible they are not. Intelligent design merely suggests that some intelligent force in the universe somehow gave rise to life. It's entirely possible that something could have intelligently designed the spark that began all life on our planet,and then evolution took its natural course from then on out.

Members don't see this ad.
 
mynamewastaken said:
Exxxxxactly...the US dollar has suffered. There is no tangible negative effect on the American people. What you think is a problem just doesn't matter.

I've been reading this discussion and have so far stayed out of it because I don't have the background in politics and economics to seriously debate anything. However, I do have to disagree with the above comment. I don't know how a suffering US dollar will not have a negative effect on the American people. If the US dollar continues to lose value, prices on import products will consequently go up, no? I spent the summer in Europe and whinced every time I had to give up $1.30 for every euro I spent. I remember times when I could get a euro for under one dollar. I know there are other factors that cause that specific exchange rate to fluctuate, but it's just an example of how a weak dollar does hurt the American people. I may be talking nonsense, so correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I see it.
 
bwells46 said:
I wasn't plugging - I was putting it into context. I didn't want to come off sounding like I'm a professor teaching economics. I just wanted to be honest about it.

I looked into going out-of-state and attending Wharton, Sloan, or Harvard but my family and my wife's family are all here in Florida so I ended up staying. However, I'm sure you're enjoying your education there.

Anyways, I've got a research proposal to write up for Amgen but I'll try to come back and we can debate some more.

BTW - the word you are looking for is "reek" not "wreak".

thats cool, i prob would have stayed in FA also. But thanks, I am enjoying my education very much. I've actually never even heard the word reek but I will gladly take your word for it...good luck on your paper.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Zuras said:
Well, that's pretty obvious. Though, interestingly enough, it's possible they are not. Intelligent design merely suggests that some intelligent force in the universe somehow gave rise to life. It's entirely possible that something could have intelligently designed the spark that began all life on our planet,and then evolution took its natural course from then on out.

yeah i agree....i have a religious background but i tend to think along those lines also.
 
mynamewastaken said:
Thats true and well said....and i'm a christian who would like to see it taught. I think the empirical evidence behind the issue is indisputable...there is none. While there are many other ways to support this idea I think the best one would be to teach darwinism and evolution with heavy emphasis because it is so scientifically supported but also acknowledge there is much debate on this topic and perhaps provide a neutral survey type lesson on other theories. I think too often we forget school is not to be professed too, it is to learn knowledge to think independantly....these kids deserve to learn other theories as long as they're taught honestly and appropriately.

What other theories? Intelligent design/creationism isn't a theory, it's a story.
 
DarkFark said:
What other theories? Intelligent design/creationism isn't a theory, it's a story.

some other time. i'm leaving work now.

I don't care if you have faith in religion or not. I also don't care that over a trillion people worldwide disagree with you. peace be with you.
 
mynamewastaken said:
some other time. i'm leaving work now.

I don't care if you have faith in religion or not. I also don't care that over a trillion people worldwide disagree with you. peace be with you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't kids learn religion in Sunday school? Also, I never said I didn't believe in God, I'm only arguing that this sort of thing has no place in a science classroom. Perhaps a history classroom, or a sociology classroom, but associating creationism with science is like teaching Darwin in Bible class.
 
DarkFark said:
What other theories? Intelligent design/creationism isn't a theory, it's a story.

I don't have a problem learning intelligent design (which I think sounds funny) or creationism or whatever even though I don't believe in them. I still think it's interesting to learn how other people think. I do not understand, however, how intelligent design can be taught to encompass all religious beliefs that differ from evolution. Inevitably, that sort of curriculum is going to be modeled after one set of beliefs or another. Just because Christianity is dominant in the United States doesn't mean you can teach it's basic beliefs alongside evolution. There are many other people out there who would find this discriminatory and who would probably prefer just to have to learn evolution. Like someone said before, in the end you'd have to teach all belief systems in order to really allow children to "choose" and that's not possible. My solution? Just don't teach any of it in mandatory courses (at least not in high school) and instead offer optional classes. That way people can learn what they're interested in learning and if they disagree with something, they don't have to deal with it.
 
jtank said:
thats dispicable. its not mandatory yet, is it? :thumbdown:

I think it is a good idea to teach Creationism alongside Evolution in schools. As someone who has studied both, there are alot of things Evolution is lacking in its explanations.
 
Shredder said:
the country was built on republican principles, and thats how it became great. social conservatism and economic liberalism (in the classical definition). the dems are trying to ruin both of those fronts and thats why i cant stand them, go ruin some other country!

wow tigress likes paying taxes! but thats conceding that the govt knows better how to spend your money than you do, how can this be? it would be better to voluntarily give your money to the projects you like, and let others do the same rather than forcing them to do it. anything in the "public interest" means one thing--some people want something, and they want it at others' expense.

I would have to agree with this post. America was founded by Imperialists, and the economic strength of America was created by Republican ideals. Let the people spend their money the way they want to and strengthen the economy. This is the economic principle of Republicans.

I can't say I want the government telling me how to spend my hard earned money....
 
mynamewastaken said:
I would take your own advice and worry about more pertinent things like murdering innocent embryos...

It is great to see someone else in premed who believes this is terrible!!! You have made my day better. Thank you.
 
Zemus said:
I would have to agree with this post. America was founded by Imperialists, and the economic strength of America was created by Republican ideals. Let the people spend their money the way they want to and strengthen the economy. This is the economic principle of Republicans.

I can't say I want the government telling me how to spend my hard earned money....

I would agree with this if it wasn't for the fact that GWB and his neo-conservative cronies are exactly the OPPOSITE of tradional "small government minded" republicans. This is why I mostly align myself as a pseudo-objectivist libertarian. VERY fiscally conservative, yet VERY socially liberal. I want the government OUT of my wallet AND my bedroom. Bush likes to hide in both. Funny thing: GWB has increased discresionary spending more than any other US president save for one...FDR.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/pr/spending_001.shtml

http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html
 
OrnotMajestic said:
I would agree with this if it wasn't for the fact that GWB and his neo-conservative cronies are exactly the OPPOSITE of tradional "small government minded" republicans. This is why I mostly align myself as a pseudo-objectivist libertarian. VERY fiscally conservative, yet VERY socially liberal. I want the government OUT of my wallet AND my bedroom. Bush likes to hide in both. Funny thing: GWB has increased discresionary spending more than any other US president save for one...FDR.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/pr/spending_001.shtml

http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html

I support George Bush 100%

When 4300 unborn children are murdered everyday by their 'mothers', something is not right. When men are having sexual relationships with other women rather then their wives, something is not right. When women worry more about their jobs than about their children and homes, something is not right. I have to support Bush because he stands for Christian family values.

- Zemus
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Zemus said:
I support George Bush 100%

When 4300 unborn children are murdered everyday by their 'mothers', something is not right. When men are having sexual relationships with other women rather then their wives, something is not right. When women worry more about their jobs than about their children and homes, something is not right. I have to support Bush because he stands for Christian family values.

- Zemus

Did I just trip and fall into an alternate universe where America is suddenly a theocracy in which your post would make a single troy ounce of sense?

Oh yeah, no.
 
OrnotMajestic said:
Did I just trip and fall into an alternate universe where America is suddenly a theocracy in which your post would make a single troy ounce of sense?

Oh yeah, no.

America was founded on Christianity. In my opinion, the past 50 years have not been a good time for America. I have to support George Bush when he stands for Christian values. You seem to be forgetting that 1/5 American's is an Evangelist. We are not some small minority with no political influence...
 
Zemus said:
America was founded on Christianity. In my opinion, the past 50 years have not been a good time for America. I have to support George Bush when he stands for Christian values. You seem to be forgetting that 1/5 American's is an Evangelist. We are not some small minority with no political influence...

May I acquaint you with the first ammendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
 
Zemus said:
America was founded on Christianity. In my opinion, the past 50 years have not been a good time for America. I have to support George Bush when he stands for Christian values. You seem to be forgetting that 1/5 American's is an Evangelist. We are not some small minority with no political influence...

America was NOT founded on christianity. The founding fathers were masons and deists.

I don't doubt the political authority of the religious-right and their babbling heads...what was your point? Was that a threat? If 1/5 of the nation was moslem, would you cede power because they stood for "traditional moslem family values"? How about if we were 1/5 Nichren Buddhists? 1/5 Hindu? You can support George W Bush because he has a cute smile for all I care....just rest assured that you have the undeniable ability to add nothing to a political discussion. Now run along and dance for the nice puppetmaster.
 
^ You do understand America was founded by English Imperalists right?

You do understand American Imperalists were generally POOR CATHOLICS WHO WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY PROTESTANTS IN ENGALND AND THUS MOVED TO AMERICA TO HAVE A BETTER LIFE

To the poster who posted our first ammendmant, you do realize that The First Ammendmant refers to different sects of Christianity, not religions in general. Way to not know what the hell you're talking about!
 
OrnotMajestic said:
America was NOT founded on christianity. The founding fathers were masons and deists.

I don't doubt the political authority of the religious-right and their babbling heads...what was your point? Was that a threat? If 1/5 of the nation was moslem, would you cede power because they stood for "traditional moslem family values"? How about if we were 1/5 Nichren Buddhists? 1/5 Hindu? You can support George W Bush because he has a cute smile for all I care....just rest assured that you have the undeniable ability to add nothing to a political discussion. Now run along and dance for the nice puppetmaster.

Too bad you are the minority liberal. :D You're a smart guy, you do the math. If 'religious right' women tend to have more children than 'non-religious' women, which is the truth, than in 18 years what does that mean for the liberals? :D

Face it buddy, more people agree with us than with you.
 
Zemus said:
To the poster who posted our first ammendmant, you do realize that The First Ammendmant refers to different sects of Christianity, not religions in general. Way to not know what the hell you're talking about!

Oh really? Please show me where that's written in the constitution. Although your revisionist history is most entertaining.

I can play a turn at the indignant citation game too. Read Locke's treatises and tell me what you think it says about the relative value of different religions.
 
Zemus said:
I support George Bush 100%

I have to support Bush because he stands for Christian family values.

- Zemus

Ha! That's exactly what he wants you to think. If we could actually believe politicians, this country would be a better place. Democrat or Republican, they'll all do what it takes to get elected. It's sad that the people no longer demand perfection, but rather you get whole parties of people who won't ever question their leader. We have a country divided by people who think everything Bush does is foolish, and the fools that stand behind every move he makes. If the 2 party system wasn't so good at keeping this country divided, we may actually make some progress in demanding higher standards from the country's leaders.
 
Zemus said:
Too bad you are the minority liberal. :D You're a smart guy, you do the math. If 'religious right' women tend to have more children than 'non-religious' women, which is the truth, than in 18 years what does that mean for the liberals? :D

Face it buddy, more people agree with us than with you.

You are a self-righteous fool. I hope one day you will realize this and move beyond your childish sense of logic.

And yes, I am a Christian.

edit: Oh wait. "0+" posts? Troll!
 
Zemus said:
Too bad you are the minority liberal. :D You're a smart guy, you do the math. If 'religious right' women tend to have more children than 'non-religious' women, which is the truth, than in 18 years what does that mean for the liberals? :D

Face it buddy, more people agree with us than with you.

OOH YAY! BUZZWORDS! If you were trying to be offensive, you failed. I never have, nor will I ever, wear a label on me. Thanks for assuming I'm a "liberal". You are indeed very incorrect, as I already identified my stance earlier. Thanks for reading and paying attention. Oh, by the way, I'm being sarcastic just in case the yardage between your goal-posts is a bit beyond regulation standard (just in case you didn't get that, I'm making fun of you and calling you a dumb-dumb).

You seem to like this "me" versus "us" stance, as if a united front of thumping bibles will come hurling over a nearby hill to devour all unbelievers for Jesus. I'm not sure if you are trying to be persuasive, threatening, or if you are a low-brow troll acting the perfect caricature of the single-track minded fundie. I hope it's the latter, because anything else merely proves that bad Al Franken stereotypes of opposing thought might actually hold water. Trust me, that's not a GOOD thing.
 
Zemus said:
^ You do understand America was founded by English Imperalists right?

You do understand American Imperalists were generally POOR CATHOLICS WHO WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY PROTESTANTS IN ENGALND AND THUS MOVED TO AMERICA TO HAVE A BETTER LIFE

To the poster who posted our first ammendmant, you do realize that The First Ammendmant refers to different sects of Christianity, not religions in general. Way to not know what the hell you're talking about!

So tell me, how do you like your ass served back to you? With all the trimmings on a silver platter? They were NOT catholics, but puritans born out of the Reformation and die-hard Calvinists. They rejected the Anglican (church of england) because although the Church of England split from the Catholics, they instead adopted the King as the head of church instead of the Pope. They were labeled "nonconformists", many fled to Holland, only to return later where they formed up and went to America on the Mayflower (1620). About ten years later, under the watchful eye of the Massachussets Bay Company, is when the major Puritan migration happened. So you see, they were actually five point Calvinists (presbyterian style) reformed protestants, battling the Church of England (which was a break off of the Catholic Church). NOW how do you like them apples?

By the way...you cursed!! You said "what the hell"!! What happened to those Christian Family Values? Would you let your children hear such coarse talk from your mouth? SOMEONE GET SOME SOAP!! ZEMUS HAS BEEN NAUGHTY AND NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED!
 
Zemus said:
I support George Bush 100%

When 4300 unborn children are murdered everyday by their 'mothers', something is not right. When men are having sexual relationships with other women rather then their wives, something is not right. When women worry more about their jobs than about their children and homes, something is not right. I have to support Bush because he stands for Christian family values.

- Zemus

that is funny. Learn to vote for your pocket book.
 
tigress said:
See, I actually like paying taxes. I know that puts me in a tiny minority. But I would be perfectly willing to give up a significantly higher percentage of my money to taxes if it meant the country could be more like how I want it, on a more European model (yes, more "socialist," if you'd like to call it that).

But to people who hate taxes, do you like having an interstate system? Paved roads? Sewers and sanitation? Public education is necessary; how else would we educate our workforce to do all of the jobs that need to be done (from engineers to construction workers, people need at least a basic education)? EVERYBODY benefits from the public education system, which is why the school voucher issue bothers me so much. A huge part of our infrastructure is supported by tax dollars. How about the military? Do you think we should try supporting the military with privately raised money?

That's what I don't really understand about the strict Libertarian ideals: how in the world can you run the country without things like taxes and centralized government? I think you could make a good argument that our country is huge, and perhaps should be more decentralized, with more local governing power, but even so you need a centralized state government with a tax system, a police force, etc.

Holy crap!!... I didn't think people like you existed.. First, you must not work or pay taxes because nobody likes working and having their money taken away..

Let me explain something for you..
Libertarians are not Anarchists.. We do not want to abolish taxes.. We want fiscal responsibility and constant streamlining to run the most lean and efficient government possible.. Provide the services.. leave us alone if it doesn't affect public safety.. (ie.. who cares about making laws about how far away your deck should be from your house.. (could be argued that it's for safety reasons but in which case, that person should be shot..etc)

Yes, I like my highways and roads. Yes, I will pay taxes for them. No, I do not think they are efficient. Superpave has been around for 15 years. It includes strong rubber with the asphalt and other binders to prevent it from developing pot holes, to uphold the stress of modern heavy semis, and to withstand the stress of freezing and grilling of the seasons. However, it took them 15 years to get state governments to start adopting it. Why? Because asphalt that breaks.. needs to be fixed.. which adds jobs to the local economy. By extending the life of asphalt x 3, you eliminate jobs. These are the stupid things I do not agree with..

And your increased taxes... If they just used the money they have right now efficiently, we wouldn't need higher taxes.. go to www.cagw.org and see the list of Pork belly reps and their spendings.. if you're lazy.. here's a quick list for 2005 of what YOU are paying for..

The Sapping the Taxpayers Award
for $6.3 million for wood utilization research.
.. If it's needed, the industry would do it itself.. not rely on gov't funding..

The Halls of Shame Award
for $1.4 million for various Halls of Fame, including: $75,000 for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame and $70,000 for the Paper Industry Hall of Fame.
... Most colleges and sports teams use revenues or donations to build halls of fame..

La Pork-a-Racha Award
for $25,000 for the Clark County School District in Nevada for
curriculum development to study mariachi music
... Really? Do you need to give each school district money instead of just telling the teacher to have the students do a research project on mariachi music? (I'm for big education spending but for good teachers and facilties and basic books.. all fringe knowledge is now researchable from the internet and libraries..)

The Burrowing a Hole in our Wallets Award
to Representative John Peterson (R-Pa.) for adding $100,000 for the
Punxsutawney Weather Discovery Center Museum.

.. First, where is Punxsutawney.. why are FEDERAL $'s going to a museum instead of state $.. and if the museum is not attracting patrons, stop bailing it out with taxes instead of reinventing it to re-attract patrons.. (or just close it and realize that people don't like museums that much anymore and if they want to see one, they'll go into the nearest big city museum..)

$4 million per year for PENILE implants.. part of Congress/Senate's budget.. I mean.. so the dude got his penis chopped off.. or he wants it bigger.. or he was born with a defect.. Do you really think the country should pay for this crap??

WORST OF ALL:
Many people who recieve funding use it all, and request an increase year after year.. If some group doesn't use all the money, they will make sure to spend it on something or risk having their funding cut in the following budget..

I know many organizations who have come under budget.. but in the last month create a "committee to investigate..." and then spend the rest so they can request more..
 
Reimat said:
If the 2 party system wasn't so good at keeping this country divided, we may actually make some progress in demanding higher standards from the country's leaders.

I totally agree with you here. I'm sick of the us vs. them mentality. People and politicians should be looked at for their views not whether they are republican, democrat, ect. Instead the mentality is that all republicans are this and that while all democrats are the extreme opposite. That is just not the the case and this mentality is severly dividing the nation. If you have boards like this, radio talk shows, news media, ect. criticizing people for being democrat or republican just based on those "lables", there is something wrong.
 
Top