Overnight Open Thread

Open • Views: 2,496

Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ‘til the end of time!

… But He loves you!

— George Carlin

Jump to bottom

415 comments
1 freetoken  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 10:24:10pm
Youtube Video
2 ClaudeMonet  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 10:26:35pm

While I agree with the late, great Mr. Carlin's assessment, it was the difference between what "God" allows to happen in this life vs. the claimed omnipotence, omni-benevolence, etc., that ultimately drove me out of any organized religion. I cannot worship or believe in a God that allows so much and such awful kinds of misery, hatred, and depravity to happen.

3 freetoken  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 10:31:26pm

re: #2 ClaudeMonet

Theodicy is one of the great sticking points in theological discussions. When I bring it up to the creationists they dismiss it as if it doesn't exist, but then again they willfully blind themselves to anything that might make them feel insecure.

4 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 10:43:22pm

re: #2 ClaudeMonet

The concept of the Tinkering God. The Intervening God. The One that directs the paths and fates of all our lives, and all of reality, at every step. The One that knows all because It has directed all from the very beginning.

If there is an Ultimate Creator that fits this bill, then It is a total dick. The most uncaring, calloused Asshole which the worst of humanity could never hope to equal.

But who am I too question? I did not lay the foundations of the earth, nor shut in the sea as it burst from the womb.

5 Mark Pennington  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:02:21pm

I own every Carlin DVD and even a few old VCR tapes. I miss that grumpy old codger.

6 boredtechindenver  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:21:50pm

If I were an omnipotent and omniscient god, the first thing I would do is make myself forget the ending to the story.

7 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:38:23pm

As it was taught to me...

The 10 commandments were not given to be obeyed.
They were given as a standard that G-d would require, as man was asking for them (moses up the mountain).
No one could meet then and therefore we all needed a savior.

8 Kragar  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:39:58pm

re: #6 boredtechindenver

If I were an omnipotent and omniscient god, the first thing I would do is make myself forget the ending to the story.

If I were in charge, there would be the one commandment of "Don't be a dick" and a lot more lightning strikes from a clear sky.

9 SpaceJesus  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:41:09pm

re: #7 ozbloke


huh?

10 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:41:48pm

re: #9 SpaceJesus

huh?

Are you being funny or did you forget?

11 SpaceJesus  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:42:46pm

re: #10 ozbloke


Neither. It's a comprehension and or disbelief issue actually.

12 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:43:16pm

re: #11 SpaceJesus

Neither. It's a comprehension and or disbelief issue actually.

What part are you having trouble with?

13 SpaceJesus  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:45:19pm

re: #12 ozbloke

What part are you having trouble with?


Oh, the part where you say the commandments weren't meant to be obeyed but were still required.

Ah, and the last part about meeting.

14 SpaceJesus  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:47:16pm

ah, I see, you meant to say "them" instead you said "then"

right?

15 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:48:32pm

re: #13 SpaceJesus

Oh, the part where you say the commandments weren't meant to be obeyed but were still required.

Ah, and the last part about meeting.

I was taught that 'The ten commandments' showed me my sin, they showed me that I could not meet the standard God would require.

But I didn't have to, as G-d had sent has Son ( you apparently) to pay the price of my sin.
John 3:16

Remember now?

16 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:48:58pm

re: #14 SpaceJesus

ah, I see, you meant to say "them" instead you said "then"

right?

Sorry, yes dyslexic fingers...

17 SpaceJesus  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:50:38pm

re: #15 ozbloke


Those were some wild times man, kind of a blur, but yeah, it rings a bell.

I still think not killing and stealing are pretty reasonable expectations.

18 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:52:45pm

re: #17 SpaceJesus

Those were some wild times man, kind of a blur, but yeah, it rings a bell.

I still think not killing and stealing are pretty reasonable expectations.

Amen, preach brother preach.

I really dug the feeding of the 1000's, those kids eyes were bulging I can tell ya.

Go on, tell me how you did it?

19 Mark Pennington  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:54:35pm

Something Roger Ebert linked today:
White Men With Guns--Reconstruction Redux

20 SpaceJesus  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:54:49pm

re: #18 ozbloke


My buddy Muhammed just happened to be the assistant manager at Jack in the Box back then, he hooked us up.

21 Kragar  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:54:58pm

re: #18 ozbloke

Amen, preach brother preach.

I really dug the feeding of the 1000's, those kids eyes were bulging I can tell ya.

Go on, tell me how you did it?

Magnets

22 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:55:45pm

re: #20 SpaceJesus

My buddy Muhammed just happened to be the assistant manager at Jack in the Box back then, he hooked us up.

Fibber, I know never reveal your tricks...

23 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Oct 10, 2010 11:56:23pm

re: #21 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Magnets

Works for me, better than the lame excuse SJ is offering.

25 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 12:11:41am

re: #24 WindUpBird

Also, that's a HuffPo article link, NJD, so I guess I must be an anti-semite now, lol

26 Kragar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 12:21:48am

Paladino: Homosexuality "not equally valid" to heterosexuality

New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino criticized gays Sunday, saying he didn't want children "to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option," compared to heterosexuality.

"It isn't," Paladino said at a stop in Brooklyn, New York.

A prepared version of his remarks obtained by CNN from New York affiliate NY1 said that "There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual," though Paladino did not wind up delivering that line.

"That's not how (God) created us," the prepared remarks continued, though Paladino did not say those words.

Paladino distributed copies of his prepared remarks to reporters at the event, an address to a group of Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn's Williamsburg neighborhood.

27 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 1:24:53am

re: #2 ClaudeMonet

Is free will possible without the ability to commit "evil?" (which in a world without God) is an irrelevant concept.

28 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 1:26:59am

If retribution is ultimately dealt to the "misery, hatred, and depravity" caused...would that be cause for justice?

if not...
Then this play we call our existence of madness is what it is (with or without God)

29 Kragar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 1:57:50am

re: #28 changomo

If retribution is ultimately dealt to the "misery, hatred, and depravity" caused...would that be cause for justice?

if not...
Then this play we call our existence of madness is what it is (with or without God)

A man has free choice to the extent that he is rational.
Saint Thomas Aquinas

Nothing matters, but it's perhaps more comfortable to keep calm and not interfere with other people.
H.P. Lovecraft

30 freetoken  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 2:49:02am
MP3 Audio
31 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 2:50:21am

re: #29 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Rationality is a construct that is irrelevant without external absolutes, that said Lovecraft (like Hitchins) are being at least intellectually honest.

32 freetoken  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 3:19:02am
MP3 Audio
33 cenotaphium  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 3:25:23am

re: #31 changomo

Rationality is a construct that is irrelevant without external absolutes

Expound.

34 cenotaphium  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 3:47:43am

re: #33 cenotaphium

In case you went to bed, I'd just like to add that the desperate need for absolutes is one of the most depressing things about fundamentalism, to me. It's the trusty steed of any creationist debate, the true seed of "atheist evil" - moral relativism, ooga-booga!
Which conveniently neglects to acknowledge long traditions of "non-absolute-requiring" moral philosophy.

It's easy to run into hurdles with the absolutism too. There are people who, in the classic case of hiding jews in the attic during WWII, insist they would have to tell the nazi patrols the truth, as not to break a "never lie" rule. Or the buddhist insistence on "no violence", which served them less than great in Tibet against China.
To me, it's missing the forest for the trees. Which is the very heart of fundamentalism. Absolute rules make for an easier life than one where you have to evaluate every situation and take personal responsibility for your choice.

Yes, that rant had been building steam earlier. ;)
Unless you actually are a fundamentalist, that was mostly tangential to the argument you presented - which is what I object to.

35 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 3:57:27am

Hey Freetoken. Did you ever get a frontal pick of naked guy?
[Link: wzlx.radio.com...]

36 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:01:27am

re: #34 cenotaphium

In case you went to bed, I'd just like to add that the desperate need for absolutes is one of the most depressing things about fundamentalism, to me. It's the trusty steed of any creationist debate, the true seed of "atheist evil" - moral relativism, ooga-booga!

...which is fairly amusing. Part of the reason Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are so "controversial" is because they explicitly reject moral relativism.

37 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:06:08am

re: #33 cenotaphium

Rationally is of course the exercise of reason of a human. What is defined as reasonable could either be based on external faculties or from humans themselves. As humans do not have omnipotent powers over the universe - reason in this sense has no validity beyond that of the individual definer. The only alternative to a defensible notion of reason would be if an external definition(s) of reason above current human consensus of rationality exists...

38 freetoken  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:07:59am
MP3 Audio
re: #35 Cannadian Club Akbar

Thanks. We sort of decided that the "...m.com" that we could decipher earlier did indeed make this guy part of the battlecam . com exercise.

39 freetoken  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:09:56am

re: #37 changomo

... As humans do not have omnipotent powers over the universe - reason in this sense has no validity beyond that of the individual definer. ...

That's just waayyy out there.

Human reason can deduce a very many items that are true totally outside not only the individual but all of H. sapiens.

40 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:11:14am

re: #34 cenotaphium

Cenotaphium, no argument was made on whether a functional atheist society can exist productively without moral absolutes (see Japan) - the argument simply was there is no such thing as "moral" or "evil" in a world without an external absolute definition of what "moral" or "evil" is....

Even Hitchens concedes that....which is one reason he is a respectable atheist.

41 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:13:02am

re: #39 freetoken

most....one man's madman is another's genius -

Simple question, with no external philosophical or real possibilities now into infinity, what made Hitler "bad"?

42 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:14:22am

re: #40 changomo

the argument simply was there is no such thing as "moral" or "evil" in a world without an external absolute definition of what "moral" or "evil" is...

Even Hitchens concedes that...which is one reason he is a respectable atheist.

That is demonstrably untrue. See chapters 11, 12, and 13 of "God is Not Great".

43 cenotaphium  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:15:17am

re: #37 changomo

As humans do not have omnipotent powers over the universe - reason in this sense has no validity beyond that of the individual definer. The only alternative to a defensible notion of reason would be if an external definition(s) of reason above current human consensus of rationality exists...

..right. Of course, the only thing that makes sense if you choose to define an issue in black and white is monochrome. But that sort of overlooks that it was you (the "individual definer", you know) who phrased it thus to begin with.

Meaning that there are indeed other alternatives. How about the collective understanding of us individual definers? That's usually how societies define their morality and reason. Even if it is just to collectively decide that the rules had to originate with the tribal god.

44 freetoken  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:23:37am

re: #41 changomo

Simple question, with no external philosophical or real possibilities now into infinity, what made Hitler "bad"?

This question, in respect to the conversation you've started here, is not well-formed.

"bad" is a human (English) word built around a set of (human) concepts. Outside of H. sapiens and our group (society), it has no meaning.

This is the point you've danced around.

"Bad", "good", and such constructs are creations of humans. Over at least the past 50 or 60 thousand years or so our creation of culture (that which we pass on to each other and following generations that is not in our cells) includes morality.

45 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:24:47am

Watch the debate between Prager, DSouza and Hitchens

Youtube Video

Hitchen's concedes that without an external moral definition, morality is a construct that is defined by humans. Of course as cenotaphium feels (perhaps you as well) as long as a society as a whole defines what morality *is* that in itself is sufficient (I do not disagree again, see Japan)

Please do not confuse the two arguments, they are not one in the same.

However, even if a large group by consensus agrees something is "moral" it is based on the "individual definer" or cenotaphium if you prefer the group. Thus slavery and Nazism, Communism were considered "moral" at their respective time/cultures....

46 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:26:37am

re: #44 freetoken

Exactly! That was my point all along "Bad", "good", and such constructs are creations of humans, and can vary based on context/group. See North Korea.

47 cenotaphium  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:28:44am

re: #40 changomo

Cenotaphium, no argument was made on whether a functional atheist society can exist productively without moral absolutes (see Japan) - the argument simply was there is no such thing as "moral" or "evil" in a world without an external absolute definition of what "moral" or "evil" is...

Even Hitchens concedes that...which is one reason he is a respectable atheist.

There is something very weak about hanging up your morality on an unprovable imperative from a supernatural entity. Every hole poked in the story about how said rules came about is not then just a strike against your personal convictions, but upon the very fabric of reality. Your decisions become less about doing what you think is right, and more about what you think someone (-thing?) else thinks is right. Redefining your position on some topic becomes a redefinition of the supernatural entitys conviction. Which, with the whole omnipotence and omniscience things have always seemed pretty odd to me.

It's not that absolutes are absolutely wrong. It's perfectly possible to have them without the need to ascribe what you think as the word of the creator. And it's no doubt possible to live a perfectly moral life believing in a creator and its rules. But the harmony of those beliefs will only resonate with the rest of society when they share points that are independent of that belief.
Religions fit into societies not by virtue of how true their source is, but in how well the adherents can adapt the teachings to reality.

48 freetoken  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:29:15am

re: #46 changomo

You're now into begging the question though...

At contention is not whether moral evaluations ("good", "bad", etc.) are human constructions, but if they are only human constructions.

You seem to have implied early on that you think that moral ideas exist outside of humans.

49 cenotaphium  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:34:02am

re: #45 changomo

However, even if a large group by consensus agrees something is "moral" it is based on the "individual definer" or cenotaphium if you prefer the group. Thus slavery and Nazism, Communism were considered "moral" at their respective time/cultures...

Exactly. And you'd find religious people justifying their belief that slavery was right through bible verse, like you'd find religious people justifying the opposite belief. That is precisely the point. The moral absolutes of religion are no less corruptable or ill-defined than anything else.

The point about needing an absolute lynchpin for morality becomes just a philosophical wankery, if the practical difference is nothing. And unless you were to somehow show the one true faith with the one true morality objectively, it could be anything. Just as the other stuff we make up in its place.

50 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:36:14am

re: #45 changomo

However, even if a large group by consensus agrees something is "moral" it is based on the "individual definer" or cenotaphium if you prefer the group. Thus slavery and Nazism, Communism were considered "moral" at their respective time/cultures...

You might enjoy(?) Sam Harris' latest book, "The Moral Landscape". Its topic is pretty much what you're talking about. Do check out the lengthy Q & A section at that Amazon link.

51 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:38:26am

News from Saudi Arabia:

[Link: www.somethingawful.com...]

(satire)

52 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:40:08am

oops, typo in #45 it should read: (I do not necessarily disagree again, see Japan)

cenotaphium :

Agreed, all beliefs (whether it be supernatural, or humanistic) is in the end are a "faith" Atheism is just as much as a "faith" as religion is. I know many atheists refuse to accept this, but it is true. Various religions have tenets based on what is "rational" behavior, and humanists have tenets based on a "societies consensus of what is rational" behavior at the time. Both are faiths, but in the end are cannot be proven/disproved or argued definitively on.

You need not extrapolate again on the possibility of a "moral*" atheist. I have acknowledged that of course it's possible to live a productive/happy "moral*" life being atheist (I've mentioned Japan now I think 3 times) The argument however is not that it's right or wrong to be an atheist, that simply there is no such thing as "moral" without an external reality that defines it beyond our own definition. This is a simple fact.

*Moral in the sense that it meets both supernatural/secular mainstream definitions of right.

53 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:41:52am

re: #45 changomo

Hitchen's concedes that without an external moral definition, morality is a construct that is defined by humans.

Thats not really a concession. Of course morality is defined by humans, on two levels: One, morality is what applies to humans. If we were different-- if we didn't feel, say, envy, morality would be changed. Two, morality is construction by humans based on first principles that humans hold dear; most of the struggle over morality is whether reduction of suffering, increase of happiness, or maximization of individual free will is the most moral thing.

54 freetoken  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:42:50am

re: #52 changomo

Agreed, all beliefs (whether it be supernatural, or humanistic) is in the end are a "faith" Atheism is just as much as a "faith" as religion is.

Are you going to try and convince us that Evolution is just as much a "belief" as creationism, too?

55 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:44:16am

re: #52 changomo


Agreed, all beliefs (whether it be supernatural, or humanistic) is in the end are a "faith" Atheism is just as much as a "faith" as religion is.

Absolutely not, in any way, shape, or form.

Various religions have tenets based on what is "rational" behavior, and humanists have tenets based on a "societies consensus of what is rational" behavior at the time.

Rational doesn't really have much to do with it. But given that you're attempting to say that humanists have tenets based on our best understanding of what is right and good and moral-- yes. But that's not faith, the key difference being that humanists admit that their views of morality are a construct, rather than having faith that they have objective reality.

That is the point where your argument falls down.

56 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:44:25am

re: #48 freetoken

Freetoken:

Thanks for the clarification of your query.

Morality of course is conduct defined by man and/or an outside source.

My argument is that morality absent any exterior reality (supernatural or other) is irrelevant. For if existence is compiled to this world, then as Krager quoted H.P. Lovecraft....everything is meaningless. Hitler is no more a "bad" or "good" as an Ant Eater committing a holocaust on several ant colonies.

57 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:46:59am

re: #53 Obdicut

Obdicut, an Monkeys feels bad when an Alpha Male eats another's young. Is this money immoral? When no exterior reality, when both you and I have died - do you feel like our lives have meanings in the year 2.2 MM?

58 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:47:30am

wow - sorry 5AM typos....(bear with my poor spelling above) :)

59 cenotaphium  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:47:38am

re: #52 changomo

The argument however is not that it's right or wrong to be an atheist, that simply there is no such thing as "moral" without an external reality that defines it beyond our own definition. This is a simple fact.

Fact as in a bold, unsupported assertion - yes. And I think you're skimming my posts, as that is the very point I've been addressing.

Atheism is just as much as a "faith" as religion is.

This seems to come as a surprise to someone everytime, but all atheists are not "strong" atheists. As in positively asserting the nonexistence of a god (or several). Weak atheism is usually what people think "agnosticism" is.
Compare "I do not believe there is a god" to "I believe there is no god".
In that sense, atheism is not a faith at all. You might want to assert that whatever philosophy takes its place is "faith", but that's another matter.

60 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:47:44am

re: #56 changomo

My argument is that morality absent any exterior reality (supernatural or other) is irrelevant

That's not really an argument.

Hitler is no more a "bad" or "good" as an Ant Eater committing a holocaust on several ant colonies.

First of all, try to avoid being offensive in your bad analogies (the Germans weren't eating the Jews, you know, and anteaters aren't trying to exterminate ants).

Second of all: Yes, Hitler is more a 'bad' or a 'good'-- as based on philosophically consistent moral precepts constructed by humans.

Why does that bug you, that humans can come up with ideas about what is moral and what isn't?

61 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:49:37am

re: #57 changomo

Obdicut, an Monkeys feels bad when an Alpha Male eats another's young.

Okay...

Is this money immoral?

I'm not really interested in judging the morality of things I don't consider to be sentient and conscious-- are you?

When no exterior reality, when both you and I have died - do you feel like our lives have meanings in the year 2.2 MM?

There is an exterior reality. And you seem to be arguing a bastardized version of Pascal's Wager; we should believe in eternal life-- not just the supernatural, but a very specific form of it-- otherwise life is meaningless because it ends.

Why on earth would you believe life is meaningless just because it ends? I don't get that.

62 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:49:58am

re: #54 freetoken

wow freetoken,

I have taken your views as face value, replied with my thoughts - and your response is to accuse me of being a creationist?

but since you ask, no - I do not believe the earth is 5,000 years old.

I believe it is 6,000

J/K

63 freetoken  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:49:59am

re: #56 changomo


My argument is that morality absent any exterior reality (supernatural or other) is irrelevant.

Yes, you've stated this before. But you've not shown it.

Hitler is no more a "bad" or "good" as an Ant Eater committing a holocaust on several ant colonies.

From the viewpoint of anything else but H. sapiens (individual or group) this is indeed true. You don't want it to be true, of course, but as above you've yet to show that there is indeed an absolute (universal, outside of humans) morality.

64 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:55:51am

re: #60 Obdicut

Obdicut,

Nothing bugs me at all that atheist humans can be productive (I've never argued or said otherwise - in fact I've for the 4th time now lauded the largely atheistic Japan) What is revealing is that you 3 seem to be troubled that the idea of "morality" is only as sound and foundational as the peer group defining it. That is my argument. Yes, I know all 3 of you do not believe in an absolute "moral" view. That has exactly been my point. I can no more prove that Islam is correct then I can prove that most Germans thought the Nazi's were good, or that Russians supported Stalin, or that the Chinese thought it was moral to support Mao.

Morality is defined by humans, hence it cannot be absolute, unless it is.

65 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:59:25am

re: #64 changomo

Nothing bugs me at all that atheist humans can be productive

That is not what I asked.

- in fact I've for the 4th time now lauded the largely atheistic Japan

Japan is not atheistic. They have a strong belief in Shinto. Are you defining "atheist" as "not believing in a monotheistic god"?

What is revealing is that you 3 seem to be troubled that the idea of "morality" is only as sound and foundational as the peer group defining it.

I'm not at all troubled by that, given that I readily accepted it and laid out why that makes sense. Why do you think I'm 'troubled' by it?

Morality is defined by humans, hence it cannot be absolute, unless it is.

You might want to try rewriting that sentence, since it makes no sense.

66 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:59:42am

and now, I must bid you all a Au revoir....

Think about that last sentence a bit...I know it seems like a contradiction...but I assure you - give it 5 minutes and stew on it...

Nice chatting with all of you.

67 cenotaphium  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:02:56am

re: #64 changomo

What is revealing is that you 3 seem to be troubled that the idea of "morality" is only as sound and foundational as the peer group defining it. That is my argument.

Actually, I don't think that bothers any of us, as we've all been speaking in favour of it. You should really re-read our posts.

Morality is defined by humans, hence it cannot be absolute, unless it is.

That's really cutesy. So you just gave up on trying to support your argument and wanted to end with a mysterious/passive-aggressive note?

and now, I must bid you all a Au revoir...

So long.

68 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:03:06am

re: #66 changomo

and now, I must bid you all a Au revoir...

Think about that last sentence a bit...I know it seems like a contradiction...but I assure you - give it 5 minutes and stew on it...

Nice chatting with all of you.

No, it really is just a contradiction that makes no sense. You might want to 'stew' on it yourself, and figure out a better way to express yourself.

And you might want to examine why the hell you think Japan is atheistic. They have widespread belief in Shinto and Buddhism, which, while not fitting monotheistic tenets, are certainly beliefs in supernatural things and external moralities.

69 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:06:19am

Update: The nekkid fat guy arrested at yesterday's Obama rally in Philadelphia is apparently NOT the same person who chucked a book at the president.
Mr. Lard-Bare-Ass has been identified as 24 year old Juan James Rodriguez. He was trying to win a $1 million prize offered by eccentric asshole billionaire Alki David for the first person to streak an Obama rally. This is apparently a publicity stunt for Alki's website.
Rodriguez had help from a couple of media pros, both of whom have connections with the Howard Stern show. Go figure.

70 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:08:08am

re: #69 Shiplord Kirel

Money can buy a lot of stupid.

71 freetoken  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:09:28am

re: #64 changomo

Yes, I know all 3 of you do not believe in an absolute "moral" view.

I've never actually stated it that way. Rather, I'm stating that you just haven't shown "absolute" morality to be true.

72 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:10:59am

re: #70 Obdicut

Money can buy a lot of stupid.

Note that Rodriguez was not available for comment since he is still in custody, having presumably been furnished with a jail uniform.

73 Usually refered to as anyways  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:11:53am

freetoken, Obdicut and cenotaphium.

Bugger you lot are patient.

74 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:11:54am

re: #72 Shiplord Kirel

Note that Rodriguez was not available for comment since he is still in custody, having presumably been furnished with a jail uniform.

Given that the money is reward for committing a crime, I think he might not be able to keep it.

75 Taqyia2Me  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:16:34am

re: #51 Obdicut

News from Saudi Arabia:

[Link: www.somethingawful.com...]

(satire)

Satire?
/

76 cenotaphium  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:16:54am

re: #68 Obdicut

And you might want to examine why the hell you think Japan is atheistic. They have widespread belief in Shinto and Buddhism, which, while not fitting monotheistic tenets, are certainly beliefs in supernatural things and external moralities.

Many studies rank Japan high on "lack of a belief in god", which by the way the question is usually posed eliminates many theist beliefs. It's not correct, but I would understand why someone would bring that up.
For atheistic hell-hole comparisons, I would personally recommend Scandinavia.

General superstitiousness and "spiritualism" can be dicey though. There's a large intersection by the atheist and skeptic communities for sure, especially the self-professing kind. But no conflict in definition.

77 cenotaphium  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:20:30am

re: #73 ozbloke

freetoken, Obdicut and cenotaphium.

Bugger you lot are patient.

It's one of my best non-absolute lynchpins. I try to give people a chance to express their arguments on the chance that they'll have found a better one than I have, or have heard before.

Sadly, as I grow older, this gives diminishing returns.

78 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:20:54am

re: #76 cenotaphium

Agreed. But by the definition Changemo was using-- belief in the supernatural, in some objective non-human reality-- the Japanese aren't largely atheist.

To me, there is no difference in believing in a god or a ghost. They both fall into the same category of irreality.

79 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:23:14am

re: #73 ozbloke

The whole "But then morality is just defined by the culture!" bit is always kind of funny to me, since, well-- look at the gods of the Romans. Rather clearly a reflection of the culture of the time.

80 Kragar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:30:18am

All morality eventually boils down to personal relationships. Religious devotion in particular are based upon having a strong personal relationship with a creator.

81 cenotaphium  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:35:11am

re: #79 Obdicut

The whole "But then morality is just defined by the culture!" bit is always kind of funny to me, since, well-- look at the gods of the Romans. Rather clearly a reflection of the culture of the time.

I've always liked this, from Xenophanes ca 500 BC.

Both Homer and Hesiod have attributed to the gods
things that are shameful and a reproach among mankind:
theft, adultery, and mutual deception.
And this he held was due to the representation of the gods in human form.

But mortals suppose that gods are born,
wear their own clothes and have a voice and body.

The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpture like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.

It's a bit sad that he still went on to believe in other gods even with this fundamental insight in hand, taking objection to the mundane gods instead of seeing the conclusion of the idea, that the attributes of the gods - be they trivial or cosmic - seem all too close to human projections.

82 pharmmajor  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:47:29am

Reason Magazine: The case for drug legalization

[Link: reason.com...]

83 cenotaphium  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:58:23am

re: #82 pharmmajor

From the article:

In a new study for the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron and research associate Katherine Waldock estimate that, nationally, legalizing and taxing marijuana would save $8.7 billion in enforcement costs and harvest $8.7 billion in revenue.

I just love nice numbers like that. They could have at least picked 8.6 for one and 8.8 for the other. It'd seem more science-y.

I also like how libertarian views on drug legalization seldom address the greater (and later) societal costs. Of course, for them, that might solve itself by saying that we obviously should just cut support for people foolish enough to do drugs.
Very neat.

I'm all for legal drug use, I just don't trust people to have the sense to use them right. ;)

84 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:04:52am

UK hostage probably killed by US forces during rescue attempt.

International forces there originally said the 36-year-old died on Friday when one of her captors detonated a suicide vest.

But the prime minister said new details had come to light suggesting her death may have resulted from a US grenade.

He said he had spoken to her family about the "deeply distressing" news.

Mr Cameron said he was told of the new developments in a phone call from Gen David Petraeus, the top US commander in Afghanistan, on Monday morning.

He said the general told him US forces were deeply dismayed at the outcome and said it was "deeply regrettable" that information published on Saturday about Ms Norgrove was highly likely to have been incorrect.

85 garhighway  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:05:39am

Morning all.

It's Monday morning, so that means it's Krugman day. His column this morning is particularly topical, since it deals with financial, economic and political myths that some here have bought into. it is too big for one post, so I'll reprise it in two pieces, and link at the end.

But the short version is that the "Obama blew up the federal budget and deficit with all of his big governement program and spending is a myth."

Part 1:

Here’s the narrative you hear everywhere: President Obama has presided over a huge expansion of government, but unemployment has remained high. And this proves that government spending can’t create jobs.
Here’s what you need to know: The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending. In fact, that has been the key problem with economic policy in the Obama years: we never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need.
Ask yourself: What major new federal programs have started up since Mr. Obama took office? Health care reform, for the most part, hasn’t kicked in yet, so that can’t be it. So are there giant infrastructure projects under way? No. Are there huge new benefits for low-income workers or the poor? No. Where’s all that spending we keep hearing about? It never happened.
To be fair, spending on safety-net programs, mainly unemployment insurance and Medicaid, has risen — because, in case you haven’t noticed, there has been a surge in the number of Americans without jobs and badly in need of help. And there were also substantial outlays to rescue troubled financial institutions, although it appears that the government will get most of its money back. But when people denounce big government, they usually have in mind the creation of big bureaucracies and major new programs. And that just hasn’t taken place.
Consider, in particular, one fact that might surprise you: The total number of government workers in America has been falling, not rising, under Mr. Obama. A small increase in federal employment was swamped by sharp declines at the state and local level — most notably, by layoffs of schoolteachers. Total government payrolls have fallen by more than 350,000 since January 2009.

Part 2 to follow.

86 garhighway  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:06:57am

Part 2:

Now, direct employment isn’t a perfect measure of the government’s size, since the government also employs workers indirectly when it buys goods and services from the private sector. And government purchases of goods and services have gone up. But adjusted for inflation, they rose only 3 percent over the last two years — a pace slower than that of the previous two years, and slower than the economy’s normal rate of growth.
So as I said, the big government expansion everyone talks about never happened. This fact, however, raises two questions. First, we know that Congress enacted a stimulus bill in early 2009; why didn’t that translate into a big rise in government spending? Second, if the expansion never happened, why does everyone think it did?
Part of the answer to the first question is that the stimulus wasn’t actually all that big compared with the size of the economy. Furthermore, it wasn’t mainly focused on increasing government spending. Of the roughly $600 billion cost of the Recovery Act in 2009 and 2010, more than 40 percent came from tax cuts, while another large chunk consisted of aid to state and local governments. Only the remainder involved direct federal spending.
And federal aid to state and local governments wasn’t enough to make up for plunging tax receipts in the face of the economic slump. So states and cities, which can’t run large deficits, were forced into drastic spending cuts, more than offsetting the modest increase at the federal level.
The answer to the second question — why there’s a widespread perception that government spending has surged, when it hasn’t — is that there has been a disinformation campaign from the right, based on the usual combination of fact-free assertions and cooked numbers. And this campaign has been effective in part because the Obama administration hasn’t offered an effective reply.
Actually, the administration has had a messaging problem on economic policy ever since its first months in office, when it went for a stimulus plan that many of us warned from the beginning was inadequate given the size of the economy’s troubles. You can argue that Mr. Obama got all he could — that a larger plan wouldn’t have made it through Congress (which is questionable), and that an inadequate stimulus was much better than none at all (which it was). But that’s not an argument the administration ever made. Instead, it has insisted throughout that its original plan was just right, a position that has become increasingly awkward as the recovery stalls.
And a side consequence of this awkward positioning is that officials can’t easily offer the obvious rebuttal to claims that big spending failed to fix the economy — namely, that thanks to the inadequate scale of the Recovery Act, big spending never happened in the first place.
But if they won’t say it, I will: if job-creating government spending has failed to bring down unemployment in the Obama era, it’s not because it doesn’t work; it’s because it wasn’t tried.

87 pharmmajor  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:08:25am

re: #83 cenotaphium

From the article:

I just love nice numbers like that. They could have at least picked 8.6 for one and 8.8 for the other. It'd seem more science-y.

I also like how libertarian views on drug legalization seldom address the greater (and later) societal costs. Of course, for them, that might solve itself by saying that we obviously should just cut support for people foolish enough to do drugs.
Very neat.

I'm all for legal drug use, I just don't trust people to have the sense to use them right. ;)

The numbers are even. If 8.7 billion aren't spent in cost, then it goes into revenue.

I don' t like drugs either, but the pointless laws and restrictions we have aren't doing any good for our society. And unlike you, I do think that the majority of recreational drug users will use them responsibly.

88 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:13:46am

Good morning lizards!

89 cenotaphium  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:17:35am

re: #87 pharmmajor

The numbers are even. If 8.7 billion aren't spent in cost, then it goes into revenue.

Oh, I see. I thought the phrasing indicated two distinct windfalls. My bad. I'd still maintain that the guesstimate level is pretty high on numbers like these.

I don' t like drugs either, but the pointless laws and restrictions we have aren't doing any good for our society. And unlike you, I do think that the majority of recreational drug users will use them responsibly.

Hrm. I generally agree when it comes to personal freedom and minimal laws, but I'm just too much of a pessimist to follow through. I would say that in the case of marijuana, there is a much better case for legalization than in other drugs, based on the reassessed harm and excessive legal costs of prohibition.
There is a lot of weirdness going on with drug classifications too, when you chart addictiveness/harmfullness and try to see a pattern. LSD, for instance, is classed as one of the "worst" drugs, when in fact it ranks pretty low on both axies.
The debacle with crack cocaine giving much harder sentences than pure white is another strange decision that seems based more on press fearmongering than actual facts.
I think drugs should be classed based on science, not how notorious they are.

90 lawhawk  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:17:57am

re: #85 garhighway

In a related development, the Nobel Prizes for Economics were announced, and among them was Larry Diamond, who is a MIT professor and mentor to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. The President has apparently nominated Diamond to the Fed as well, but the nomination is being held up because of the midterm elections and because the GOP claims that Diamond doesn't have enough experience dealing with the economy.

As for Krugman, the total expenditures of the US government in the past couple of years belies the claims that the budget didn't get exploded by Obama and Democrats. The problem is that most of the money went to sustain existing programs - transfer payments that the states found unsustainable and continued spending even as their revenues dried up. The federal government attempted to spend even more money to create jobs, and didn't get it done. It goes back to Krugman's longstanding argument that the stimulus wasn't big enough to kick start the economy.

Of course, that too ignores the fact that the NBER found that the recession ended before the ARRA of 2009 even kicked in.

91 steve_davis  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:23:39am

And the invisible man sent his only begotten son, whom he loved more than all of creation, to die on a cross so that we--on the whole, a filthy pack of teabaggers screaming incoherently for the blood of others--could be redeemed for the original betrayal that was ours, and ours alone.

92 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:26:31am

re: #90 lawhawk

Ending of recession is a very technical definition entirely unrelated to job creation. The recession ending just means annual growth is out of the red after two straight quarters.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator of economic performance - and much of the increased productivity in the economy is due to employees doubling down to save their own jobs and picking up work previously done by their now exited co-workers. A situation that is unsustainable for any serious length of time.

93 garhighway  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:28:43am

re: #90 lawhawk


As for Krugman, the total expenditures of the US government in the past couple of years belies the claims that the budget didn't get exploded by Obama and Democrats. The problem is that most of the money went to sustain existing programs - transfer payments that the states found unsustainable and continued spending even as their revenues dried up. The federal government attempted to spend even more money to create jobs, and didn't get it done. It goes back to Krugman's longstanding argument that the stimulus wasn't big enough to kick start the economy.

Of course, that too ignores the fact that the NBER found that the recession ended before the ARRA of 2009 even kicked in.

So are you agreeing or disagreeing with Krugman? I can't quite tell.

And the NBER numbers rather miss the point, don't you think? Economists define recessions as periods of negative GDP growth, and say one is over when there is positive growth. Citizens define it by other measures, mainly unemployment. Clearly, what everyone wants is for the employment numbers to improve. To criticize measures designed (however half-heartedly) to accomplish that because the recession by the classic measure was over sort of misses the point, doesn't it?

94 lawhawk  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:36:15am

re: #92 wozzablog

Ending of recession is a very technical definition entirely unrelated to job creation. The recession ending just means annual growth is out of the red after two straight quarters.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator of economic performance - and much of the increased productivity in the economy is due to employees doubling down to save their own jobs and picking up work previously done by their now exited co-workers. A situation that is unsustainable for any serious length of time.

And when that italicized portion extends for a length of time warrants job creation.

However, that isn't happening in the private sector this go-round for some reason. I would trace that reason to the Administration's economic policies, which include the stimulus package that has not delivered on what it was promised to be - creating jobs and keeping unemployment from getting out of hand.

Krugman is right that jobs aren't being created, but he thinks that the federal government is in the position to create jobs through spending (but only his brand of spending instead of say on the military, which would not only create jobs within the military, but within the defense contractors that are manufacturing jobs that are one area of the job sector that has been in steady decline for some time now). I would say that the private sector is in a position to create jobs.

95 garhighway  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:39:16am

re: #94 lawhawk


However, that isn't happening in the private sector this go-round for some reason. I would trace that reason to the Administration's economic policies, which include the stimulus package that has not delivered on what it was promised to be - creating jobs and keeping unemployment from getting out of hand.

Let's do this in pieces, taking the excerpted language first.

What, exactly, about "the Adminsitration's economic policies" do you think is the cause of the lack of private sector job growth? What policies, and how do those policies inhibit job growth?

96 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:41:16am

re: #95 garhighway


Lack of movement on tax cut extensions and the HCR bill both come to mind.

97 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:41:58am

Good morning from "always sunny" Philadelphia.

I sit here surrounded by very smug and happy sports fans. The Eagles won out in what appeared to be a battle to decide who was less incompetent and injury prone. And the Phillies finished off the Reds in another baseball example of "good pitching beats good hitting". (Plus the interesting show of watching a player manage to hit a 105mph fastball and get rewarded with a double as a result.)

98 garhighway  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:42:56am

re: #94 lawhawk

Krugman is right that jobs aren't being created, but he thinks that the federal government is in the position to create jobs through spending (but only his brand of spending instead of say on the military, which would not only create jobs within the military, but within the defense contractors that are manufacturing jobs that are one area of the job sector that has been in steady decline for some time now).

To the extent that Krugman is advocating any particular flavor of stimulus spending, I would gather that it is big infrastructure: train tunnels, high speed rail, sewer and water systems, etc... With hat spending, you employ a bunch of people, and when the project is over, you have something that makes the economy as a whole more productive. You seem to be contrasting that with military spending, and saying that:

a) we need more of it, and
b) it is a more efficient use of stimulus dollars than infrastructure.

Do I have that right, and do have any particular support for that? And do you have some particular bit of military spending you want to see increased?

99 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:43:28am

Axelrod: Chamber must prove foreign money allegations false

White House senior adviser David Axelrod said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has the burden of proving false the charge by Democrats that the business group is funneling foreign money to Republican campaigns.

Axelrod was pressed by CBS’ Bob Schieffer on Sunday for evidence that the foreign campaign contributions benefiting the GOP is more than “peanuts.”

“Do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?” Axelrod said on “Face the Nation.” “The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that, but they won’t release any information about where their campaign money is coming from. And that’s at the core of the problem.”

So the Obama administration is making shit up and instead of providing proof to validate their statement, they want the Chamber of Commerce to prove their innocence. How progressive!

100 garhighway  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:43:58am

re: #96 RogueOne

Lack of movement on tax cut extensions and the HCR bill both come to mind.

Did you read the piece?

Neither of those things have contributed to the deficit or government employment at all.

101 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:48:03am

re: #99 NJDhockeyfan

The CoC receives (at least) "hundreds of thousands" of dollars in dues from foreign corporations:

[Link: www.factcheck.org...]

The money goes into the CoC general fund. As a result, they can shift more of their regular general operations spending into political campaigning: effectively the foreign contributions are funding a political campaign.

I'm not enough of an accountant to know whether what they are doing is technically illegal or not. I do know that, at my organization (a higher education institution) it would be illegal for us to use restricted private donations to fund our regular activities.

102 Four More Tears  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:48:25am

Windows Phone 7 launch event: [Link: www.engadget.com...]

103 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:49:39am

re: #101 iossarian

As an aside: presumably, the reason that this is a legal gray area is that, until Citizens United, this issue would have been much less likely to arise, since it would have been harder for the CoC to funnel money into political campaigns.

104 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:50:49am

re: #101 iossarian

The CoC receives (at least) "hundreds of thousands" of dollars in dues from foreign corporations:

[Link: www.factcheck.org...]

The money goes into the CoC general fund. As a result, they can shift more of their regular general operations spending into political campaigning: effectively the foreign contributions are funding a political campaign.

I'm not enough of an accountant to know whether what they are doing is technically illegal or not. I do know that, at my organization (a higher education institution) it would be illegal for us to use restricted private donations to fund our regular activities.

David Axelrod should provide some proof to back up these allegations, don't ya think?

105 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:53:34am

re: #100 garhighway

Did you read the piece?

Neither of those things have contributed to the deficit or government employment at all.

re: #100 garhighway

Did you read the piece?

Neither of those things have contributed to the deficit or government employment at all.

You asked:


...about "the Adminsitration's economic policies" do you think is the cause of the lack of private sector job growth? What policies, and how do those policies inhibit job growth?

and I gave you two examples.

Are you not paying attention to your own statements?/

106 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:54:10am

re: #104 NJDhockeyfan

What do you mean, proof? The facts are:

a) the CoC receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign corporations, which go into its general fund, and

b) the CoC spends money (including money from its general fund) on political campaigns

The only question is whether accountancy law allows what is effectively the laundering of the foreign contributions (it is "laundering" because the money goes into a single general fund, out of which the contributions are made). What the WH is asking for is detailed accountancy that shows (literally "accounts") for where the different sources of money end up.

If there is no such accountancy, then the money is being laundered.

107 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:54:57am

re: #97 oaktree

Rays won to push a game 5 and the Bucs scored 10 points in the last 1:26
:)

108 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:55:17am

re: #106 iossarian

What do you mean, proof? The facts are:

a) the CoC receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign corporations, which go into its general fund, and

b) the CoC spends money (including money from its general fund) on political campaigns

The only question is whether accountancy law allows what is effectively the laundering of the foreign contributions (it is "laundering" because the money goes into a single general fund, out of which the contributions are made). What the WH is asking for is detailed accountancy that shows (literally "accounts") for where the different sources of money end up.

If there is no such accountancy, then the money is being laundered.

The DNC is using foreign money to fund their campaigns. The accusation is serious enough that they must prove their innocence even though I haven't provided a single shred of evidence. Still seem fair?

109 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:56:02am

re: #108 RogueOne

The DNC is using foreign money to fund their campaigns. The accusation is serious enough that they must prove their innocence even though I haven't provided a single shred of evidence. Still seem fair?

Where does the DNC's foreign money come from?

110 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:56:46am

re: #107 Cannadian Club Akbar

Rays won to push a game 5 and the Bucs scored 10 points in the last 1:26
:)

The NFL is seriously crazy this year. I think they've tried so hard over the last decade to make things even that they've turned the league into 32 mediocre teams.

111 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:57:09am

re: #99 NJDhockeyfan

Axelrod: Chamber must prove foreign money allegations false

So the Obama administration is making shit up and instead of providing proof to validate their statement, they want the Chamber of Commerce to prove their innocence. How progressive!

The only way you can know that the President is making "shit up" is if you have already seen a list of the CoC's foreign donors.
You don't have a problem with Middle Eastern oil money being used to influence your elections? That position doesn't make you much of a patriot.
It's rather sad to see that there are Americans, who rightly or wrongly, place party before country.

112 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:57:20am

re: #109 iossarian

Where does the DNC's foreign money come from?

Gaza, for one.

113 garhighway  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:58:03am

OK, point taken.

Do you have any evidence of those two things being the cause of lackluster employment numbers?

I know at my company, we have a pretty good handle on next year's health care costs. The health insurers price that on a calendar year basis, and we know what 2011 will cost. 2011 will be more expensive than 2010. Just like 2010 was worse than 2009 and 2009 was worse than 2008.

And I have yet to see a reasonable explanation that goes beyond talking point recitation of how the return to the very reasonable Clinton rates for the $250K and up band is a job killer.

But let's see what you have.

114 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:58:36am

re: #106 iossarian

What do you mean, proof? The facts are:

a) the CoC receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign corporations, which go into its general fund, and

b) the CoC spends money (including money from its general fund) on political campaigns

The only question is whether accountancy law allows what is effectively the laundering of the foreign contributions (it is "laundering" because the money goes into a single general fund, out of which the contributions are made). What the WH is asking for is detailed accountancy that shows (literally "accounts") for where the different sources of money end up.

If there is no such accountancy, then the money is being laundered.

Just because the WH is totally experienced on how to receive illegal donations doesn't mean everyone does it. I think Axelrod should pull out the evidence or STFU.

115 garhighway  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:58:55am

re: #112 Guanxi88

Gaza, for one.

Yeah. Lotta wealth there.

116 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 6:58:57am

re: #106 iossarian

As I heard on the Sunday chat-shows, the C of C takes in about $200K in foreign dues and contributions. Compared to their budget of ca. $20 mill, a drop in the bucket, a rounding error.

But the important thing is that our president has one more identified an enemy and is whipping up fear, hysteria, and bull-horned mobs to protest, no doubt, at some future date at the malefactors' homes.

117 Taqyia2Me  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:00:31am

re: #104 NJDhockeyfan

David Axelrod should provide some proof to back up these allegations, don't ya think?

Do we know why the CoC seems to be singled out in these allegations? Do not other politically active organizations also receive funds from international sources?

118 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:00:54am

re: #115 garhighway

Yeah. Lotta wealth there.

If Hamas contributed money to a political party in the US, you are OK with that?

119 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:01:09am

bbiab

120 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:01:09am

re: #109 iossarian

Where does the DNC's foreign money come from?

In this game all I have to do is make an accusation sort of like Axelrod. They're still taking money from credit cards, ala 2008. There isn't any evidence they've done anything wrong but the accusation is so serious they should have to prove me wrong. Not only are they using foreign money but they're also using cat blood to funnel SEIU buses.

Here's the amusing part, at least to me, they don't want to argue about the substance of their oppositions argument they want to argue about where they got their ideas and who gave them money in order to put up ads. Here's a novel idea, focus on the substance of the arguments being made and don't worry about where the argument originates.

121 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:01:39am

Interestingly, this link from a while back shows that the Republicans tried (more or less successfully) to make the foreign contributions claim against the DNC a while ago:

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

From the link, it seems that it wasn't entirely clear whether some of the groups were eligible to contribute (they were organizations that had some US holdings).

In any case, it looks as if the DNC returned some of the contributions.
re: #114 NJDhockeyfan

Just because the WH is totally experienced on how to receive illegal donations doesn't mean everyone does it. I think Axelrod should pull out the evidence or STFU.

As I've pointed out, the evidence is already in place: the CoC receives foreign contributions into their general fund and makes political contributions out of the same general fund. What other evidence are you after? Also, you appear to be saying: "just because not everyone does it doesn't mean everyone doesn't do it", which makes no sense at all.
re: #112 Guanxi88

Gaza, for one.

Rolling my eyes on that one.

122 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:02:12am

re: #115 garhighway

Yeah. Lotta wealth there.

Nice shopping malls, or hadn;t you heard?

[Link: www.ynetnews.com...]

Plenty of wampum for stuff what goes bang, and an endless stream of cash to support the permanently aggrieved.

They do all right.

123 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:03:43am

re: #112 Guanxi88

Gaza, for one.

They returned all foreign donations.

What are you talking about?

124 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:04:22am

re: #121 iossarian

Don't roll your eyes; it makes typing too difficult.

125 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:04:35am

re: #121 iossarian

As I've pointed out, the evidence is already in place: the CoC receives foreign contributions into their general fund and makes political contributions out of the same general fund. What other evidence are you after?

If that is true lets see the evidence. Are we all just supposed to accept David Axelrod's statement without seeing any proof of it?

126 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:04:48am

re: #120 RogueOne

In this game all I have to do is make an accusation sort of like Axelrod. They're still taking money from credit cards, ala 2008.

The whole point is that, before Citizens United, you had to explicitly record where all the money for a political campaign came from.

Look, I get it, you're happy that the CoC is making contributions to Republicans.

I just think it would be nice if people had the intellectual honesty to recognize that the Citizens United decision effectively allows foreign corporations to make political contributions in the US (for either side).

127 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:05:15am

re: #123 Obdicut

They returned all foreign donations.

What are you talking about?

So they took them, then.

And let's not forget the phone banks, dialing prospective and likely primary voters from Gaza to help get out the vote and overcome HRC. Contributions in kind, I'd call that.

128 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:05:19am

re: #117 Taqyia2Me

Do we know why the CoC seems to be singled out in these allegations? Do not other politically active organizations also receive funds from international sources?

True. In fact, one of the biggest things that bothers me about allowing corporations and other multi-national groups to run political ads is that they are, by definition, not wholly US entities. I am really, really leery of allowing foreign entities access to our political system, and by allowing corporations with foreign ownership to do so, we are allowing exactly that.

129 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:06:03am

re: #125 NJDhockeyfan

If that is true lets see the evidence. Are we all just supposed to accept David Axelrod's statement without seeing any proof of it?

How many times to I have to repeat this:

Foreign corporations make contributions to the CoC general fund. Fact.

The CoC makes political contributions from its general fund. Fact.

Are you disputing either of those?

130 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:06:15am

re: #128 Obdicut

I am really, really leery of allowing foreign entities access to our political system

Then you'll join me in telling Mexico, Guatemala, et al to STFU about Arizona and stop littering our courts with their briefs.

131 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:07:33am

re: #126 iossarian

The whole point is that, before Citizens United, you had to explicitly record where all the money for a political campaign came from.

Look, I get it, you're happy that the CoC is making contributions to Republicans.


Wish I could give this a few more updings, it hit the nail on the head.

132 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:07:59am

re: #127 Guanxi88

So they took them, then.

No, they returned any donations which were improperly submitted. I'm not sure what you're missing about this.

And let's not forget the phone banks, dialing prospective and likely primary voters from Gaza to help get out the vote and overcome HRC. Contributions in kind, I'd call that.

Wow. Where are you getting this from?

133 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:08:03am

re: #129 iossarian

How many times to I have to repeat this:

Foreign corporations make contributions to the CoC general fund. Fact.

The CoC makes political contributions from its general fund. Fact.

Are you disputing either of those?

Again, read the article:

White House senior adviser David Axelrod said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has the burden of proving false the charge by Democrats that the business group is funneling foreign money to Republican campaigns.

Show me the evidence.

134 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:09:11am

re: #130 Guanxi88

Then you'll join me in telling Mexico, Guatemala, et al to STFU about Arizona and stop littering our courts with their briefs.

Well, sure. Mexico and Guatemala, being completely fucking hypocritical on illegal immigration, should shut the fuck up on any number of grounds.

So now will you join me in saying that multinational corporations being able to influence US elections is a very dangerous thing?

135 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:09:43am

re: #133 NJDhockeyfan

Unless you tell me which of the two facts above you are disputing, I'm not going to play the goalpost game.

A refresher:

Fact A: The CoC receives foreign contributions into its general fund.

Fact B: The CoC makes political campaign contributions from its general fund.

136 Taqyia2Me  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:09:51am

re: #128 Obdicut

True. In fact, one of the biggest things that bothers me about allowing corporations and other multi-national groups to run political ads is that they are, by definition, not wholly US entities. I am really, really leery of allowing foreign entities access to our political system, and by allowing corporations with foreign ownership to do so, we are allowing exactly that.

Of course, problematic in this is the fact that so many, if not most, of the business world is now international. For better or worse, it's a global economy.

137 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:09:56am

re: #132 Obdicut

No, they returned any donations which were improperly submitted. I'm not sure what you're missing about this.

Wow. Where are you getting this from?

Al-Jazeera English service

Youtube Video

and here, from not so long ago:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

138 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:10:15am

re: #133 NJDhockeyfan

By law, they do have the burden of proving it that they've got sufficient internal controls to prevent foreign money from funding domestic political activity.

He's right.

139 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:11:50am

re: #137 Guanxi88

Heh. So, you're talking about one group of seventeen year olds as 'phone banks'. And this was during the election, and yet you're talking about it as though it was during HCR.

Care to straighten out your story at all?

140 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:11:55am

re: #113 garhighway

OK, point taken.

Do you have any evidence of those two things being the cause of lackluster employment numbers?

I know at my company, we have a pretty good handle on next year's health care costs. The health insurers price that on a calendar year basis, and we know what 2011 will cost. 2011 will be more expensive than 2010. Just like 2010 was worse than 2009 and 2009 was worse than 2008.

And I have yet to see a reasonable explanation that goes beyond talking point recitation of how the return to the very reasonable Clinton rates for the $250K and up band is a job killer.

But let's see what you have.

Increasing business costs and taxes when the economy is rolling along at a pathetic 1% growth rate is not an answer unless the question is "how can we drag the recession out as long as possible". HCR was never about lowering costs or lowering the jobless rate and to do it now when we're in the midst of the worst economy in 40 years wasn't "proper planning".

IMO, There are 3 distinctly different questions we need to answer. 1. How can we lower unemployment, 2. How can we lower the deficit, and 3. Can we do both at the same time?. Krugmans argument is we shouldn't worry about the deficit which everyone, including the president, realizes isn't a good answer.

141 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:12:15am

re: #134 Obdicut

Well, sure. Mexico and Guatemala, being completely fucking hypocritical on illegal immigration, should shut the fuck up on any number of grounds.

So now will you join me in saying that multinational corporations being able to influence US elections is a very dangerous thing?

Take it up with the supreme court. It's not immediately obvious to me that barry's BoogieMan of the evil multinationals manipulating our political has materialized or even exists in the first place.

But we are all prey to our own paranoia.

142 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:13:39am

re: #141 Guanxi88

I'm sorry, you don't think that corporations lobby and give money to groups that run political ads? Or you don't believe corporations are multinational?

143 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:13:46am

re: #126 iossarian

The whole point is that, before Citizens United, you had to explicitly record where all the money for a political campaign came from.

Look, I get it, you're happy that the CoC is making contributions to Republicans.

I just think it would be nice if people had the intellectual honesty to recognize that the Citizens United decision effectively allows foreign corporations to make political contributions in the US (for either side).

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

144 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:13:51am

re: #139 Obdicut

Heh. So, you're talking about one group of seventeen year olds as 'phone banks'. And this was during the election, and yet you're talking about it as though it was during HCR.

Care to straighten out your story at all?

There was no indication of chronology, just an observation that this went on without your finely-tuned regard for the sanctity of our political process being subject to foreign manipulations being too upset.

145 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:15:05am

re: #139 Obdicut

Heh. So, you're talking about one group of seventeen year olds as 'phone banks'. And this was during the election, and yet you're talking about it as though it was during HCR.

Care to straighten out your story at all?

17 year olds, in Gaza.

HAMAS-controlled Gaza.

Calling American primary voters.

On behalf of one American candidate against another.

It's not that complicated.

146 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:15:20am

re: #144 Guanxi88

There was no indication of chronology,

Oh, sorry, I read HRC as HCR.

just an observation that this went on without your finely-tuned regard for the sanctity of our political process being subject to foreign manipulations being too upset.


Do you think that has anything to do with it being 17 guys in an internet cafe instead of giant multinational corporations?

147 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:15:49am

re: #142 Obdicut

I'm sorry, you don't think that corporations lobby and give money to groups that run political ads? Or you don't believe corporations are multinational?

I believe both, and I agree with the Supreme Court, established law, and the Constitution that they have the first amendment right to do so.

148 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:16:07am

Here is one way in which the CoC could easily show themselves to be in the clear (this is how we do things at my organization, when such questions arise).

If they had some staff members whose sole responsibility was to help foreign corporations working with US companies (e.g., by facilitating meetings, translating regulations etc.) and who were paid out of the contributions made by foreign corporations, then this would be fine. Then they could account for the flow of money, and show that the foreign contributions were not financing the political campaign funding.

But apparently they can't do this. Again, from my own experience, if they had such a system in place, they would immediately have provided the details when this first came up.

re: #143 RogueOne

I condemn this on both sides. Political funding must be transparent. In an ideal world it would be far more restricted than it currently is.

149 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:16:21am

re: #145 Guanxi88

But what is your point? Do you think Obama orchestrated that, encouraged that, wanted that? Do you think it had as much of an influence on US politics, as, say, the millions upon millions of dollars spent by multinational oil companies to attack scientists and muddy the waters on global warming?

150 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:16:32am

re: #138 Obdicut

By law, they do have the burden of proving it that they've got sufficient internal controls to prevent foreign money from funding domestic political activity.

He's right.

Right but David Axelrod has already found them guilty of that. Is this something new...are we are all now guilty of any accusation until proven innocent?

151 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:16:38am

re: #146 Obdicut

Oh, sorry, I read HRC as HCR.


Do you think that has anything to do with it being 17 guys in an internet cafe instead of giant multinational corporations?

In HAMAS-stan?

You're too old to be so naive.

152 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:17:17am

re: #126 iossarian

The whole point is that, before Citizens United, you had to explicitly record where all the money for a political campaign came from.

Look, I get it, you're happy that the CoC is making contributions to Republicans.

I just think it would be nice if people had the intellectual honesty to recognize that the Citizens United decision effectively allows foreign corporations to make political contributions in the US (for either side).

You're continuing the axelrod tradition of making accusations without any evidence. Re-read the last paragraph of my statement.

I know it's hard to do when your ideas are taking a beating in an election year. Axelrod doesn't want to argue political philosophy he wants to argue about campaign spending. I'll say it again, instead of focusing on campaign financing how about we argue the actual philosophy? What is it about the CoC statements that you disagree with?

153 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:17:23am

re: #147 Guanxi88

I believe both, and I agree with the Supreme Court, established law, and the Constitution that they have the first amendment right to do so.

Okay. So you do believe that multinational corporations are having a large effect on US elections, but you think that it is right and proper that multinational corporations should be able to spend as much money as they want influencing US elections?

154 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:17:34am

re: #150 NJDhockeyfan

I see that you've abandoned your attempt to actually deny either of the existing pieces of factual evidence against the CoC.

155 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:17:43am

re: #149 Obdicut

But what is your point? Do you think Obama orchestrated that, encouraged that, wanted that? Do you think it had as much of an influence on US politics, as, say, the millions upon millions of dollars spent by multinational oil companies to attack scientists and muddy the waters on global warming?

Who says he orchestrated anything to do with folk in HAMAS controlled Gaza calling primary voters on his behalf?

He certainly didn't seem to mind the boost, though I imagine they're a bit disappointed (the phone-bankers) in what they got for their troubles.

156 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:18:14am

re: #151 Guanxi88

In HAMAS-stan?

You're too old to be so naive.

What on earth are you talking about? Naive about what?

Are you seriously trying to compare a tiny group of Palestinian teenagers with the influence of giant lobbying groups?

157 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:18:39am

re: #143 RogueOne

Do you not have anything thab isn't recycled from the 2008 campaign.? There must be some fresher talking points in play.

Would it be reasonable for me to conclude that you don't see anything wrong with foreign donors funneling money into this year's election? A simple yes or no would suffice.

158 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:18:44am

re: #149 Obdicut

But what is your point? Do you think Obama orchestrated that, encouraged that, wanted that? Do you think it had as much of an influence on US politics, as, say, the millions upon millions of dollars spent by multinational oil companies to attack scientists and muddy the waters on global warming?

Why not? If David Axelrod can pull that shit with CoC why can't someone do that with the WH?

159 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:18:49am

Happy Monday everyone... The 49ers lost (again). The Giants won (whew). The Vikings play the Jets tonight. Life is good.

No foreign money was spent in the making of this post.

160 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:19:03am

re: #156 Obdicut

Don't forget, this was a carefully-orchestrated plot by the DNC to steal the election with donkey-powered satellite phone banks. /

161 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:19:18am

re: #154 iossarian

I see that you've abandoned your attempt to actually deny either of the existing pieces of factual evidence against the CoC.

Link please.

162 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:19:44am

re: #150 NJDhockeyfan

Right but David Axelrod has already found them guilty of that. Is this something new...are we are all now guilty of any accusation until proven innocent?

Do you understand that Axelrod is not a court of law, and so is not bound to hold people as innocent until proven guilty?

Hell, even people 'proved' innocent can be guilty. I believe OJ Simpson was guilty of the murder of his wife. The standard for law is not the standard for personal opinion, and rightly so.

163 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:20:53am

re: #158 NJDhockeyfan

Why not? If David Axelrod can pull that shit with CoC why can't someone do that with the WH?

Again, with the CoC there is a paper trail - money goes in (from foreign corporations), money goes out (to political campaigns). I've asked you to deny this several times and you haven't, which implies that you accept that it is true.

There is nothing "made up" or "fabricated" about this. You seem to have a fixation with Axelrod, but he's just pointing out the facts.

164 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:21:03am

re: #157 Reginald Perrin

Do you not have anything thab isn't recycled from the 2008 campaign.? There must be some fresher talking points in play.

Would it be reasonable for me to conclude that you don't see anything wrong with foreign donors funneling money into this year's election? A simple yes or no would suffice.

I've been saying the same thing for over a decade. Quit arguing about who is financing what and argue the actual philosophy. This reminds me of the arguments the dems made during the early bush years by trying to force the VP into releasing who he had meetings with when they were formulating their energy plan. If you disagree with the plan then by all means make your argument but resorting to unfounded allegations regarding financing tells me you really don't have any argument to make.

165 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:21:05am

re: #158 NJDhockeyfan

Why not? If David Axelrod can pull that shit with CoC why can't someone do that with the WH?

Well, there was plenty of allegation that the Obama administration was receiving huge amounts of funding from overseas. Do you not remember that?

It was, of course, factually untrue.

166 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:21:12am

re: #153 Obdicut

Okay. So you do believe that multinational corporations are having a large effect on US elections, but you think that it is right and proper that multinational corporations should be able to spend as much money as they want influencing US elections?

That's what we in the world of rhetoric call a false option. Multinationals are not having a large effect on our elections, and I think it is right and proper that first amendment liberties not be infringed solely on the basis of economic organization or legal status.

Unless you propose we tell the amnesty protestors to discourage the undocumented foreign nationals among them to STFU. Then, we might be able to reach a middle ground.

So long as BHO decides to demagogue this issue - poor, sainted servant of a benighted people, heroically defending the last shreds of the electoral process against an onslaught from EEEEVILLL corporations - he will continue to show himself to be little more than an Al Sharpton writ large. he has a bigger bullhorn, and therefore shakes down more than just the mom-and-pop grocer.

167 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:21:41am

re: #161 NJDhockeyfan

[Link: factcheck.org...]

168 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:21:45am

re: #163 iossarian

Again, with the CoC there is a paper trail - money goes in (from foreign corporations), money goes out (to political campaigns). I've asked you to deny this several times and you haven't, which implies that you accept that it is true.

There is nothing "made up" or "fabricated" about this. You seem to have a fixation with Axelrod, but he's just pointing out the facts.

I get it. You keep repeating yourself. Link please!

169 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:21:56am

re: #156 Obdicut

What on earth are you talking about? Naive about what?

Are you seriously trying to compare a tiny group of Palestinian teenagers with the influence of giant lobbying groups?

I'm sorry - so it's admitted this went on, and so now the discussion is about scale?

170 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:22:13am

re: #166 Guanxi88

multinationals are not having a large effect on our elections

You do not think lobbying groups have a large effect on US elections?

171 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:22:39am

re: #165 Obdicut

Well, there was plenty of allegation that the Obama administration was receiving huge amounts of funding from overseas. Do you not remember that?

It was, of course, factually untrue.

I thought you said they returned foreign donations?

172 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:23:30am

re: #170 Obdicut

You do not think lobbying groups have a large effect on US elections?

Course they do. Are you suggesting that labor unions and transnational leftist groups do not as well?

Why should Capital be restricted from defending its interests?

173 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:24:00am

Obviously the CoC is making an argument that hurts axelrods feelings. Maybe if he could defend his position and arguments he wouldn't be so worried about evil foreigners.

174 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:24:10am

re: #172 Guanxi88

Course they do. Are you suggesting that labor unions and transnational leftist groups do not as well?

Brilliant. I knew it was only a matter of time until "transnational leftist groups" made its appearance.

175 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:24:47am

re: #174 iossarian

Brilliant. I knew it was only a matter of time until "transnational leftist groups" made its appearance.

They been here for a while, in case you hadn't noticed.

176 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:24:57am

re: #164 RogueOne

You didn't answer my question, what is so difficult with a simple yes or no?
Do you think it is ok to allow foreign corporations to funnel money through third parties into the current elections?

177 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:25:12am

re: #152 RogueOne

You're continuing the axelrod tradition of making accusations without any evidence. Re-read the last paragraph of my statement.

Axelrod didn't invent false accusations. They've been around for years...and you have to admit the sudden flood of money following Citizens United is impressive...but it's nothing compared to the amount of money we'll see spent in 2012. Even hard-liner defenders like yourself will be disgusted by the new lows the Chamber reaches for in that cycle.

And with the Republicans benefitting from this change in cash flow by taking seats in both houses, don't expect anything to be done about it for another three or four election cycles...until the Senate is filled with Christine O'Donnells and the house with Michele Bachmanns...the good news is noone will be worried about "under God" being removed from the pledge, as every other word will be replaced with "Praise Jesus!"

178 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:25:25am

re: #165 Obdicut

Well, there was plenty of allegation that the Obama administration was receiving huge amounts of funding from overseas. Do you not remember that?

It was, of course, factually untrue.

I remember that. Let's go down memory lane...

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

179 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:25:39am

re: #171 Guanxi88

I thought you said they returned foreign donations?

Wow.

A) That they were receiving huge amounts of funding from overseas was false.

B) That foreign nationals made a proportionally small number of improper donations that were then returned is true.

re: #169 Guanxi88

I'm sorry - so it's admitted this went on, and so now the discussion is about scale?

Admitted what went on? I totally believe a group of kids in Palestine called US voters. I'm not sure, exactly, what your point is about this-- it wasn't arranged for by any US group, wasn't funded by any US group, and their tactic is to call random people. You are somehow trying to compare this group to the millions and millions of dollars spent by lobbying groups. And calling me naive at the same time.

It's kinda funny.

180 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:25:48am

re: #176 Reginald Perrin

You didn't answer my question, what is so difficult with a simple yes or no?
Do you think it is ok to allow foreign corporations to funnel money through third parties into the current elections?

Is it happening?

Axelord says so, BHO says so, but is there any evidence? And I don't consider ThinkProgress to be a reliable source.

181 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:26:40am

re: #180 Guanxi88

Is it happening?

Axelord says so, BHO says so, but is there any evidence? And I don't consider ThinkProgress to be a reliable source.

Linked factcheck.org twice already, but here it is again:

[Link: factcheck.org...]

182 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:27:41am

re: #172 Guanxi88

Course they do. Are you suggesting that labor unions and transnational leftist groups do not as well?

They do, as well. Labor unions that are solely US entities are very different from groups that are multinational, though. That's my point. And I am just as against multinational 'leftist' groups donating money as I am multinational groups of any other flavor.

Why should Capital be restricted from defending its interests?

Can you decide whether your argument is that these groups don't have any effect on US elections or that they do but that's perfectly okay? That you keep vacillating between two contradictory arguments makes it hard to take you seriously.

183 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:27:45am

A little Buffalo Springfield for our progressive amigos:

Youtube Video
184 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:27:59am

Look, it's pretty clear that we all hate this when the other side do it. For us lefties it's the corporations, for you guys it's the unions.

Why not just band together and say: it would be better if there were tighter controls around political campaign finance?

185 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:28:49am

re: #181 iossarian

Linked factcheck.org twice already, but here it is again:

[Link: factcheck.org...]

yeah, and factcheck traces it back to the ThinkProgress folk, and there's no evidence of anything wrong having been done.

186 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:29:03am

re: #174 iossarian

Brilliant. I knew it was only a matter of time until "transnational leftist groups" made its appearance.

Where have I heard the term transnational before? Isn't that an expression the stalkers down at Troll Central use a lot. I hope he haven't been sipping kool-aid at the Troll's blog.

187 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:29:19am

re: #184 iossarian

Look, it's pretty clear that we all hate this when the other side do it. For us lefties it's the corporations, for you guys it's the unions.

Why not just band together and say: it would be better if there were tighter controls around political campaign finance?

Because it's a farce and a fraud, and we all know that one side or the other would rig the process.

188 webevintage  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:29:56am

re: #180 Guanxi88

Is it happening?

Axelord says so, BHO says so, but is there any evidence? And I don't consider ThinkProgress to be a reliable source.

Why not?
They do the hard work of getting this story out there and investigating it but they can't be trusted because....

189 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:30:19am

re: #187 Guanxi88

Because it's a farce and a fraud, and we all know that one side or the other would rig the process.

Why have laws at all? Silly things - the other side is always breaking them anyway.

We'd be much better off if we just let "capital" make all the decisions for us.

190 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:30:23am

re: #186 Reginald Perrin

Where have I heard the term transnational before? Isn't that an expression the stalkers down at Troll Central use a lot. I hope he haven't been sipping kool-aid at the Troll's blog.

Transnational is a term of long standing and use.

But just as you wish.

Howzabout "Bloody-Handed Butchers of the International Communist Conspiracy and its Dupes and Willing Stooges"

make you feel better.

191 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:30:26am

re: #184 iossarian

Look, it's pretty clear that we all hate this when the other side do it. For us lefties it's the corporations, for you guys it's the unions.

Why not just band together and say: it would be better if there were tighter controls around political campaign finance?

Well, first of all, I'm trying to draw a distinction between solely-US entities being allowed to contribute to electioneering and multinationals. I actually have much, much less of a problem with US-based companies with US owners spending money than I do multionational corporations. Similarly, I have a huge problem with international unions or other groups spending money on US elections, but much less of a problem with US-solely based groups.

There are two problems:

1. Limiting the influence of any group no matter where it's from.
2. Keeping foreign influence out of US elections.

192 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:30:56am

re: #189 iossarian

Why have laws at all? Silly things - the other side is always breaking them anyway.

We'd be much better off if we just let "capital" make all the decisions for us.

Well, we tried the other way, and sadly, the piles of skulls just take up too much space.

193 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:31:56am

re: #181 iossarian

Linked factcheck.org twice already, but here it is again:

[Link: factcheck.org...]

From your link:

The charge that the Chamber of Commerce might be using foreign money to help fund political ads arose in an Oct. 5 report by the left-leaning ThinkProgress, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, headed by John Podesta, former White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. The allegation has been picked up by the liberal group MoveOn.org Political Action, which calls it "potentially a very serious crime." MoveOn is running a "petition drive" urging an investigation by the Justice Department.

Those nice folks at ThinkProgress & MoveOn.org wouldn't ever make up anything, would they?

194 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:31:56am

re: #184 iossarian

Look, it's pretty clear that we all hate this when the other side do it. For us lefties it's the corporations, for you guys it's the unions.

Why not just band together and say: it would be better if there were tighter controls around political campaign finance?

Why not save the country all the money spent on campaigns and whatnot? Just declare the dictatorship, impound all contributions to be used to offset the deficit and move forward from there. And, to borrow a page from our cultural fore bearers, we make the new government have two executives a la the two kings of Sparta. Thus we get a Republican and a Democrat wearing the theoretical crowns and cut out all the spending used to disguise the reality of the situation.

///

195 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:32:24am

re: #193 NJDhockeyfan

Shoot the messenger. Weak.

196 Taqyia2Me  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:32:35am

re: #171 Guanxi88

I thought you said they returned foreign donations?

They returned those they verified themselves as foreign.

197 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:33:25am

re: #196 Taqyia2Me

They returned those they verified themselves as foreign.

And as BHO has declared himself, and all the rest of us, as Citizens of the World.....


/////

198 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:33:50am

re: #195 iossarian

Shoot the messenger. Weak.

Messenger? Do they have any proof posted on their websites?

199 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:33:52am

re: #194 oaktree

It has the advantage of brutal honesty, I'll give you that.

200 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:34:11am

re: #166 Guanxi88

That's what we in the world of rhetoric call a false option. Multinationals are not having a large effect on our elections,

US Troops are not entering Baghdad! We are defeating the American infidels!

201 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:35:58am

re: #188 webevintage

Why not?
They do the hard work of getting this story out there and investigating it but they can't be trusted because...

I am not sure if everyone out here know this little bit of Think Progress trivia.
The stalkers started off their illustrious careers trolling TP. What is even more interesting is the fact that the stalker/trolls were working with Eric Odom, one of the founders of the Tea Party movement.
Isn't it a strange coincidence that Think Progress' trolls became Little Green Football's stalkers?

202 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:36:10am

re: #198 NJDhockeyfan

[Link: thinkprogress.org...]

But I know, you can't trust the Chamber of Commerce, because they're a biased organization.

Sorry, I meant to say, you can't trust Think Progress, because they're a biased organization.

203 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:36:10am

re: #200 darthstar

US Troops are not entering Baghdad! We are defeating the American infidels!

Darth! I expect better from you.

Show the evidence of these nefarious "multinational corporations" influencing or manipulating our political process, or admit it's just a hunch.

Nothing wrong with hunches - a lot of them are dead-on.

204 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:36:58am

re: #203 Guanxi88

Show the evidence of these nefarious "multinational corporations" influencing or manipulating our political process, or admit it's just a hunch.

Are you just denying the existence of lobbying groups, or that they have an effect, or what?

205 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:37:24am

re: #202 iossarian

[Link: thinkprogress.org...]

But I know, you can't trust the Chamber of Commerce, because they're a biased organization.

Sorry, I meant to say, you can't trust Think Progress, because they're a biased organization.

yeah, the Chamber of Commerce support business and industry and economic growth. I thought that's what BHO et al wanted, too?

206 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:38:06am

re: #205 Guanxi88

At least people have stopped trying to deny the evidence now.

207 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:38:16am

re: #205 Guanxi88

yeah, the Chamber of Commerce support business and industry and economic growth.

And the DPRK is totally democratic.

//

208 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:39:01am

re: #199 Guanxi88

It has the advantage of brutal honesty, I'll give you that.

Well, most people want honesty in government, don't they? ;)

209 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:40:16am

re: #204 Obdicut

Are you just denying the existence of lobbying groups, or that they have an effect, or what?

It's precisely this sort of thing that makes these discussion so difficult:

1) Who can deny that lobbying groups exist? No sane or well-informed person.

2) Who can deny that lobbying groups have no effect? Well, aside from those who dropped big bucks and got no results, no sane or well-informed person.

Here's what I;m denying - the absurd charge that the Chamber of Commerce (the freakin' Chamber of Commerce, people! They've got chapters in nearly every town! How high does this plot go?) is funneling contributions from foreign multinationals (the POTUS' People's Enemy of the Month) to corrupt our political process and thereby impede the eschaton the Republican party have thus far denied us.

210 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:42:01am

re: #209 Guanxi88

It's precisely this sort of thing that makes these discussion so difficult:

1) Who can deny that lobbying groups exist? No sane or well-informed person.

2) Who can deny that lobbying groups have no effect? Well, aside from those who dropped big bucks and got no results, no sane or well-informed person.

Here's what I;m denying - the absurd charge that the Chamber of Commerce (the freakin' Chamber of Commerce, people! They've got chapters in nearly every town! How high does this plot go?) is funneling contributions from foreign multinationals (the POTUS' People's Enemy of the Month) to corrupt our political process and thereby impede the eschaton the Republican party have thus far denied us.

Hey, if Think Progress says it, it's got to be true!
//

211 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:43:05am

re: #210 NJDhockeyfan

Ha ha. Still not denying the evidence, I see (sarc tags or no).

212 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:43:20am

re: #209 Guanxi88

So you're admitting that multinational corporations do have a large effect on US elections, and you were wrong to say that they didn't?

By the way, I think that foreign money is spent on roughly equal rates on Democrats and Republicans. I'm not alleging in any way that the Republicans are the main beneficiaries of this. This is not a partisan issue, except that, in the current climate, only the Democrats are actually working on campaign finance reform and the Citizens United decision was a highly partisan one.

But the PACs and newer advocacy groups (since the CU decision) spend money on both parties. That they're spending more right in the current moment on the GOP is solely because the GOP is going to pick up seats. They'll continue to buy Democrats, too.

This is not a partisan issue.

213 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:43:26am

re: #203 Guanxi88

Darth! I expect better from you.

Show the evidence of these nefarious "multinational corporations" influencing or manipulating our political process, or admit it's just a hunch.

Nothing wrong with hunches - a lot of them are dead-on.

The key to manipulating people is to convince them they're not being manipulated. Your opinion is rock solid because it is your opinion. Stand proud. Wear a t-shirt proclaiming faith in the 100% honesty of your party (and the 100% dishonesty of the opposition). Whatever you do, don't consider the possibility that multinationals might have an interest in gaining more control of our House and Senate than they already have - they're still upset about losing their control of the presidency after eight years.

214 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:43:27am

re: #177 darthstar

Axelrod didn't invent false accusations. They've been around for years...and you have to admit the sudden flood of money following Citizens United is impressive...but it's nothing compared to the amount of money we'll see spent in 2012. Even hard-liner defenders like yourself will be disgusted by the new lows the Chamber reaches for in that cycle.

And with the Republicans benefitting from this change in cash flow by taking seats in both houses, don't expect anything to be done about it for another three or four election cycles...until the Senate is filled with Christine O'Donnells and the house with Michele Bachmanns...the good news is noone will be worried about "under God" being removed from the pledge, as every other word will be replaced with "Praise Jesus!"

I've been on record, here, as being in favor of the citizens united ruling. I'm more concerned about attempts to stifle political speech than I am about campaign financing. I would much rather argue about issues than who is funding what and where someone got their ideas.

The dems had the money advantage early this election cycle but the problem is they haven't been able to defend their positions so they look to use scare tactics using evil foreigners and jesus to change the subject. I notice they didn't seem to be so concerned with campaign financing during 2008 when our president spent almost a billion dollars during his campaign.

For the last time, how about we focus on the argument the CoC is making this election season in their ads instead of who is paying for them?

215 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:44:38am

re: #211 iossarian

Ha ha. Still not denying the evidence, I see (sarc tags or no).

I didn't see any evidence, just a claim by Think Progress. What if I said Obama has his own cigarette brand, would he have to prove he doesn't?

216 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:44:48am

re: #214 RogueOne

For the last time, how about we focus on the argument the CoC is making this election season in their ads instead of who is paying for them?

Why not do both?

217 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:45:08am

re: #195 iossarian

Shoot the messenger. Weak.

Which is what Axelrod is doing. Did he once say they were wrong in their ads? If so, I missed it.

218 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:46:05am

re: #214 RogueOne


For the last time, how about we focus on the argument the CoC is making this election season in their ads instead of who is paying for them?


Fine. What are they saying in their ads that you believe? I'm game to discuss it...until I leave for work in a half hour.

219 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:47:11am

re: #215 NJDhockeyfan

I didn't see any evidence, just a claim by Think Progress. What if I said Obama has his own cigarette brand, would he have to prove he doesn't?

OK, here is what the report says:

With each of these foreign board members to the USBBC contributing at least $10,000 annually, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce raises well over $100,000 a year in money from foreign businesses through its operation in Bahrain. Notably, the membership form provided by the USBBC directs applicants to send or wire their money directly to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The membership form also explicitly states that the foreign-owned firms are welcomed.

Are you denying that part?

Or this:

Like the USBBC, the USIBC generates well over $200,000 a year in dues for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from foreign businesses.

Or this:

The Chamber's Tita Freeman did not dispute that the Chamber's 501(c)(6) organization running attack ads receives foreign funds, and simply claimed, "We have a system in place" to prevent foreign funding for the Chamber's "political activities."
220 rhino2  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:47:51am

re: #193 NJDhockeyfan

From your link:

Those nice folks at ThinkProgress & MoveOn.org wouldn't ever make up anything, would they?

I'm no fan of either of those locations but it is humorous to me that one of the defenses to the whole "Argue the substance of the argument instead of where the funding comes from!" is "We shouldn't bother refuting the charges with any factual proof, just slam it because of where it originated".

221 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:47:57am

re: #217 RogueOne

Which is what Axelrod is doing. Did he once say they were wrong in their ads? If so, I missed it.

Guilty until proven innocent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mr. Axelrod. do you have any evidence that it’s anything other than peanuts?

AXELROD: Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?

222 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:48:17am

re: #215 NJDhockeyfan

I didn't see any evidence, just a claim by Think Progress. What if I said Obama has his own cigarette brand, would he have to prove he doesn't?

You taking debating lessons from Walter these days?

223 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:48:22am

re: #212 Obdicut

Show me where I said they had a large effect?

Reading comprehension is not your strength this morning.

224 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:49:17am

re: #216 Obdicut

Why not do both?

because it's a sign of a weak argument, If you can't win the war of ideas then tie it to some "evil". Hey, you know who else liked campaign finance laws?

225 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:49:21am

re: #223 Guanxi88

Show me where I said they had a large effect?

Reading comprehension is not your strength this morning.

Okay. So you are still denying that multinational corporations have a large effect on US elections. The millions of dollars they spend on lobbying, on PACs, on 527s, and on new groups in the wake of Citizens United-- do not have a large effect?

That is what you believe?

226 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:50:07am

re: #224 RogueOne

because it's a sign of a weak argument,

That would be you begging the question. I'm saying that letting foreign entities influence US elections is troubling in a large number of ways. What is your argument against that?

227 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:50:15am

re: #218 darthstar

Fine. What are they saying in their ads that you believe? I'm game to discuss it...until I leave for work in a half hour.

Ha! That's the kicker, I haven't even seen the ads. All I know is they obviously pissed off axelrod but I have no idea why.

228 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:51:05am

re: #220 rhino2

I'm no fan of either of those locations but it is humorous to me that one of the defenses to the whole "Argue the substance of the argument instead of where the funding comes from!" is "We shouldn't bother refuting the charges with any factual proof, just slam it because of where it originated".

It's only a matter of time before that becomes a successful defense strategy in US Criminal court trials. The public just needs to be seasoned a little more and they'll be ready to accept any strawman argument.

"Your honor, the defendant is on film shooting the victim."
"Your honor! I object. Look at how the prosecution is dressed!"
Jury: "Not guilty."

229 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:51:27am

re: #219 iossarian

The Chamber's Tita Freeman did not dispute that the Chamber's 501(c)(6) organization running attack ads receives foreign funds, and simply claimed, "We have a system in place" to prevent foreign funding for the Chamber's "political activities."

It's CoC's word against ThinkProgress & Axelrod's. Unless someone posts a paper showing ThinkProgress is right, I would say CoC is innocent until proven guilty.

230 Taqyia2Me  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:51:29am

re: #225 Obdicut

Okay. So you are still denying that multinational corporations have a large effect on US elections. The millions of dollars they spend on lobbying, on PACs, on 527s, and on new groups in the wake of Citizens United-- do not have a large effect?

That is what you believe?

IMHO, they have a much larger effect on law making and regulation writing.

231 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:53:32am

re: #226 Obdicut

That would be you begging the question. I'm saying that letting foreign entities influence US elections is troubling in a large number of ways. What is your argument against that?

I would argue restricting ideals, regardless of their source, does nothing to strengthen the union. Axelrod is attempting to change the subject from whatever claims the CoC is making to where they are getting their financing. Without even seeing the commercials I can assume they must be making a good point or Axelrod would stick to the argument.

232 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:53:46am

re: #227 RogueOne

Ha! That's the kicker, I haven't even seen the ads. All I know is they obviously pissed off axelrod but I have no idea why.

I've heard news clips about a few...there's one cookie cutter ad playing in about 19 races where the only thing different is the name of the Democratic candidate being slammed as anti-whatever...dark, scary music, ominous voice-over...but that kind of shit works with the WalMart crowd.

233 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:53:57am

re: #230 Taqyia2Me

IMHO, they have a much larger effect on law making and regulation writing.

And on proposition voting, in states that have that-- which is also troubling. But they do have an effect on elections too; and even when they're just putting out 'issue' ads-- like the ones denying global warming, they're having a huge effect on elections.

The reason that scientists have been smeared and the public is ill-educated on AGW and believes a lot of bullshit is that a large number of groups have been funding that bullshit. And now, the GOP is almost 100% AGW-deniers, and running on that in many elections.

That, to me, is a very dangerous thing.

234 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:54:26am

re: #231 RogueOne

I would argue restricting ideals, regardless of their source, does nothing to strengthen the union.

Then make that argument, Rogue. Not just assert it: make it.

235 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:54:41am

re: #232 darthstar

I've heard news clips about a few...there's one cookie cutter ad playing in about 19 races where the only thing different is the name of the Democratic candidate being slammed as anti-whatever...dark, scary music, ominous voice-over...but that kind of shit works with the WalMart crowd.

and obviously the dem crowd. Evil foreigners are scary./

236 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:54:46am

re: #226 Obdicut

That would be you begging the question. I'm saying that letting foreign entities influence US elections is troubling in a large number of ways. What is your argument against that?

Concern prog is concerned

237 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:54:59am

re: #229 NJDhockeyfan

It's CoC's word against ThinkProgress & Axelrod's. Unless someone posts a paper showing ThinkProgress is right, I would say CoC is innocent until proven guilty.

Then we need access to the CoC's records, in order to find out whether their "system" really exists.

Here's my take: if it were my organization, and the "system" existed, we would have demonstrated it more or less immediately. It's par for the course for any large organization that receives funds whose expenditure is legally restricted.

The fact that the CoC has not (AFAIK) released any records is interesting in itself.

But it's disingenuous to say that Think Progress needs to provide proof. They've provided all the proof they can (and the evidence they've presented so far would be sufficient at this point to demonstrate impropriety in my industry, in the absence of a credible CoC response).

238 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:55:25am

re: #236 Guanxi88

Concern prog is concerned

Try making an argument instead of totally inappropriate insults, dude.

239 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:55:38am

Lets not leave out the Koch's brothers and their 100 million dollars spent to muddy the waters.

240 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:56:36am

re: #239 Reginald Perrin

Lets not leave out the Koch's brothers and their 100 million dollars spent to muddy the waters.

Mega-rich serial polluters have our best interests at heart.

241 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:57:52am

re: #239 Reginald Perrin

There's this weird belief by some that in the marketplace of ideas, the best argument always wins, even if that argument is being made by a single person and the counterargument is being blasted on TV and radio 24/7; that there is no possible advantage in the marketplace of ideas, that it's a level playing ground no matter what.

Weirdly enough, most of those people also believe that their ideas are superior to the ones held by either party; this kind of contradicts their original belief in the marketplace of ideas.

242 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:58:12am

re: #238 Obdicut

Try making an argument instead of totally inappropriate insults, dude.

I'm not your dude, buddy.

And to the main point (ever-shifting, true, but the latest one at least):

In the absence of evidence - save Think Progress' word on it - of nefarious skullduggery by the Evil Chamber of Commerce (who's next? The Rotary Club?) to conceal the large and powerful role played by the pentavirate and its octopus of business interests in manipulating the sheep-like voter into enacting their designs, the whole thing is weak soup and classic paranoia.

243 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:58:58am

re: #239 Reginald Perrin

Lets not leave out the Koch's brothers and their 100 million dollars spent to muddy the waters.

Koch, as I heard it, took over Colonel Sanders' position in the Pentavirate when he went Tango Uniform.

244 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:59:12am

re: #240 iossarian

Mega-rich serial polluters have our best interests at heart.

So does Rupert Mudoch, that's why he gave the CoC one million News Corps dollars.

245 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:59:16am

re: #234 Obdicut

Then make that argument, Rogue. Not just assert it: make it.

I just did, did you miss it? I'm not sure I could make it any simpler for you. Why do you continue to look at philosophy like it's a math problem?

246 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 7:59:29am

re: #234 Obdicut

Then make that argument, Rogue. Not just assert it: make it.

The Supreme Court already did that, Obdicut. I defer to their expertise.

247 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:00:03am

re: #239 Reginald Perrin

Lets not leave out the Koch's brothers and their 100 million dollars spent to muddy the waters.

See, another attempt to change the subject. Lets not argue ideas, lets argue where those ideas originate.

248 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:00:18am

re: #242 Guanxi88

And to the main point (ever-shifting, true, but the latest one at least):

Why do you feel you get to define what the main point is?

I'm perfectly happy calling Axelrod duplicitous on this; the CoC is just one entity. Multinational corporations give shitloads of donations to Democrats, through PACs and other means. All of that is severely troubling, too.

The CoC thing is an attack on Citizen's United, or rather, a display of some of the effects that the CU decision is having.

249 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:00:39am

re: #240 iossarian

Mega-rich serial polluters have our best interests at heart.

I'm just happy that it's getting a little attention. I knew, when Citizens United came down, that there would be a September/October money flood from corporations...my biggest concern is that nobody would pay attention. But as reassuring as a little attention to this subject is, I know it's only a matter of days before an accusation of "they do it too!" puts this subject to bed for the next 12 years.

250 rhino2  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:00:45am

re: #231 RogueOne

I would argue restricting ideals, regardless of their source, does nothing to strengthen the union. Axelrod is attempting to change the subject from whatever claims the CoC is making to where they are getting their financing. Without even seeing the commercials I can assume they must be making a good point or Axelrod would stick to the argument.

And saying that while demanding absolute proof from Axelrod to make his accusations doesn't strike you as hypocritical at all?

"Having no personal evidence concerning the content of the commercials, I can only assume they make a slew of perfectly legitimate points because Axelrod questions how they were funded."

Shoot for some consistency, watch the commercials, then talk about their merit.

251 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:00:54am

re: #245 RogueOne

I just did, did you miss it? I'm not sure I could make it any simpler for you. Why do you continue to look at philosophy like it's a math problem?

Why do you continue to mistake assertion with argument?

You almost never manage to actually assemble an argument. You generally just assert things and think, somehow, you've actually made an argument.

252 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:01:05am

re: #237 iossarian

Then we need access to the CoC's records, in order to find out whether their "system" really exists.

Yes we do. That makes more sense they just accusing them of wrongdoing like ThinkProgress & Axlerod have, don't ya think?

253 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:01:12am

re: #247 RogueOne

See, another attempt to change the subject. Lets not argue ideas, lets argue where those ideas originate.

It is the same issue, open your eyes for goodness sake.

254 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:02:13am

re: #244 Reginald Perrin

So does Rupert Mudoch, that's why he gave the CoC one million News Corps dollars.

Technically, they were American dollars. Though seven per-cent of News Corp is Saudi owned, so you could say he gave 930,000 US dollars and 70,000 foreign dollars.

255 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:02:18am

re: #246 Guanxi88

Of course - the appeal to authority. Any decision made by whichever 9 people happen to have been picked by the various political parties over the last few decades is the correct one, for all eternity.

Any SC decisions you disagree with, at all?>

256 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:02:27am

re: #246 Guanxi88

The Supreme Court already did that, Obdicut. I defer to their expertise.

You think that all 5-4 decisions on a subject are perfect? Or just this one?

257 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:04:10am

re: #252 NJDhockeyfan

Look, I'm trying to be patient here, but this is the whole point, isn't it? We need to see the CoC records to verify whether they are indeed funneling foreign contributions to political campaigns, or not.

258 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:08:06am

re: #254 darthstar

Technically, they were American dollars. Though seven per-cent of News Corp is Saudi owned, so you could say he gave 930,000 US dollars and 70,000 foreign dollars.

Aw, shit...Murdoch's Australian...so all 1,000,000 dollars is actually foreign...my bad.

259 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:08:09am

re: #254 darthstar

Technically, they were American dollars. Though seven per-cent of News Corp is Saudi owned, so you could say he gave 930,000 US dollars and 70,000 foreign dollars.

Kick in the UK and (IIRC) Australian components of Murdoch's income. He is president of the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Cash.

260 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:08:39am

re: #259 Decatur Deb

Kick in the UK and (IIRC) Australian components of Murdoch's income. He is president of the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Cash.

Yep...just realized that a second ago.

261 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:09:59am

re: #254 darthstar

I am of the opinion that all unregulated corporate money is dangerous to the political system. The Koch's are an example of the worst case scenario, private corporations pouring unlimited money into the political sphere.

262 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:10:33am

re: #257 iossarian

Look, I'm trying to be patient here, but this is the whole point, isn't it? We need to see the CoC records to verify whether they are indeed funneling foreign contributions to political campaigns, or not.

I'm with you on that. Axlerod already said the business group is funneling foreign money to Republican campaigns. He has no proof but that did not stop him from saying it. Don't you think he should have evidence in his hand supporting his claims before making accusations that possible could be false?

263 rhino2  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:11:57am

re: #262 NJDhockeyfan

I'm with you on that. Axlerod already said the business group is funneling foreign money to Republican campaigns. He has no proof but that did not stop him from saying it. Don't you think he should have evidence in his hand supporting his claims before making accusations that possible could be false?

As opposed to an accusation that can't possibly be false? Man I wished I lived in that world...

264 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:12:08am

re: #258 darthstar

Aw, shit...Murdoch's Australian...so all 1,000,000 dollars is actually foreign...my bad.

At least we know he's a real person...

Another flashback:

NYT: Fictitious Donors Found in Obama Finance Records

265 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:13:38am

re: #258 darthstar

Aw, shit...Murdoch's Australian...so all 1,000,000 dollars is actually foreign...my bad.

Nah, he took American citizenship a few years ago to satisfy the requirement that only US citizens can own television stations.

266 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:14:08am

re: #263 rhino2

As opposed to an accusation that can't possibly be false? Man I wished I lived in that world...

Why can't they be false?

267 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:14:09am

Speaking of questionable financial sources...does anyone care to explain how a guy making 72,000 a year for the last four years as a mayor - with no declared stock or investment portfolios - suddenly lends himself 245,000 dollars...from a bank account he apparently just 'had' but failed to mention?

[Link: www.nashuatelegraph.com...]

Guinta, the Republican nominee in the 1st Congressional District, has drawn heat throughout the campaign after he initially failed to include a bank account between $300,000 and $500,000 in his federal campaign filings.

Calling the omission an oversight, Guinta quickly updated the filings to show that he loaned himself $245,000 for the campaign. “I made a very simple error,” he said last month in a debate leading up to the Sept. 10 primary election.

Never mind...it was a simple error.

268 reine.de.tout  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:14:19am

re: #239 Reginald Perrin

Lets not leave out the Koch's brothers and their 100 million dollars spent to muddy the waters.


Are they foreign?

Whew. I've been trying to follow this thread and becoming ever more confused.

"Proof", as I understand it, would be documents showing wrongdoing, that the entity being charged can respond to. "Proof" isn't a blanket statement by somebody, nor is it just general and broad knowledge, like "Foreign entities contribute to the CoC and the money goes into the general fund, which is used to make contributions". I may be off base with that, but having worked at a job where I had to show and document poor performance by an employee before we could fire him, I know that a simple blanket statement "You didn't do your job well" was not sufficient. We had to have witnesses and/or actual documentation (work records, whatever) showing the poor performance.

269 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:15:08am

re: #255 iossarian

Of course - the appeal to authority. Any decision made by whichever 9 people happen to have been picked by the various political parties over the last few decades is the correct one, for all eternity.

Any SC decisions you disagree with, at all?>


re: #256 Obdicut

You think that all 5-4 decisions on a subject are perfect? Or just this one?

That's seditious talk, my friend. Incitement, perhaps not, but certainly subversive of the rule of law and ordered liberty.

What are you, one of those wild-eyed mob?

270 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:15:40am

re: #264 NJDhockeyfan

At least we know he's a real person...

Another flashback:

NYT: Fictitious Donors Found in Obama Finance Records

The Times article shows they were sloppy, perhaps willfully so. "Test Person" certainly sounds like a hostile probe.

271 lawhawk  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:16:55am

re: #267 darthstar

He should rightfully take a whole lot of heat for the undeclared income, and loan under suspicious circumstances. Where did that money come from, and did that include tax evasion (on income gained but not declared to the IRS). Those questions are quite proper, and "I made a simple error" is insufficient.

Now, there's the possibility that he got the money as part of an inheritance and tax was paid on the transaction, but he'd have to show it. "Simple error" doesn't cut it.

272 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:17:02am

re: #268 reine.de.tout

Are they foreign?


Please read my post here..

273 mikefromArlington  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:17:26am

God is gonna strike you down for this post!!!

:P

274 rhino2  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:17:40am

re: #266 NJDhockeyfan

Why can't they be false?

You missed my point. You said he made an accusation that could be false. My point was that category (accusations with a possibility of falsehood) covers oh...all of them. That's what an accusation is. Let me save you some time:

ac·cu·sa·tion/ˌakyəˈzāSHən/Noun
1. A charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

Nothing in there about proving it first, then accusing. That's backwards.

275 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:18:32am

Meg Whitman's 120 million lark in CA suggests we are hitting the campaign spending problem from the wrong direction. Future constitutionally-tested campaign controls should be aimed at limiting expenditure, not sources.

276 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:18:44am

re: #268 reine.de.tout

The way the law stands appears to actually place the burden of proof on the organization to show that they are separating foreign funds off from funds used in elections.

277 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:19:17am

re: #270 Decatur Deb

The Times article shows they were sloppy, perhaps willfully so. "Test Person" certainly sounds like a hostile probe.

Why do you hate Test People?

///

278 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:19:48am

re: #277 NJDhockeyfan

Why do you hate Test People?

///

Horrible experience in 6th grade math.

279 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:19:54am

re: #250 rhino2

And saying that while demanding absolute proof from Axelrod to make his accusations doesn't strike you as hypocritical at all?

"Having no personal evidence concerning the content of the commercials, I can only assume they make a slew of perfectly legitimate points because Axelrod questions how they were funded."

Shoot for some consistency, watch the commercials, then talk about their merit.

It's a better argument than axelrod is making since I'm only discussing the argument and not making the claim that he's breaking the law in some way.

280 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:20:06am

re: #275 Decatur Deb

Meg Whitman's 120 million lark in CA suggests we are hitting the campaign spending problem from the wrong direction. Future constitutionally-tested campaign controls should be aimed at limiting expenditure, not sources.

I think we should do both, but I agree that limiting expenditure is more important.

281 lawhawk  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:20:55am

re: #268 reine.de.tout

The Koch brothers aren't foreign (even if their libertarian/JBS nonsense may be from another planet). And even the Koch brothers aren't above donating to both parties - David contributed to Andrew Cuomo's run for Governor, despite the fact that Paladino is of the Tea Party movement in NY.

282 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:21:04am

re: #275 Decatur Deb

Meg Whitman's 120 140 million lark in CA suggests we are hitting the campaign spending problem from the wrong direction. Future constitutionally-tested campaign controls should be aimed at limiting expenditure, not sources.

Meg's burn rate...it grows.

283 reine.de.tout  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:21:33am

re: #272 Reginald Perrin

OK, well, you may have a point that unregulated money from ANY large entity, the Kochs or or any other large and powerful entity, may have a negative effect and should be regulated. I don't know, and don't care to try to argue that. I do have, however, faith that people (voters) are not so completely stupid so as to be unduly influenced by powerful entities, and by people, I mean voters, not the politicians. And we don't like what our pols are doing, we vote 'em out (or should, few people seem to vote anymore).

284 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:21:47am

re: #281 lawhawk

The Koch brothers aren't foreign (even if their libertarian/JBS nonsense may be from another planet). And even the Koch brothers aren't above donating to both parties - David contributed to Andrew Cuomo's run for Governor, despite the fact that Paladino is of the Tea Party movement in NY.

Well, you can't blame them for backing a winner.

285 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:22:00am

re: #269 Guanxi88

re: #256 Obdicut

That's seditious talk, my friend. Incitement, perhaps not, but certainly subversive of the rule of law and ordered liberty.

What are you, one of those wild-eyed mob?

Accusing me of treason isn't funny.

You said you defer to the Supreme Court's argument. I defer to the Supreme Court's ruling in that it is the law of the land, but not that it settles the argument once and forever. I don't agree with them on this ruling, or on Kelo.

Do you understand that one can accept that the Supreme Court has ruled a certain way, meaning that is the law, but still agree with the dissenters on the court that the ruling was in error? How is that not a reasonable position? How does that lead to you accusing me of sedition?

286 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:22:03am

re: #282 darthstar

Meg's burn rate...it grows.

Like a '98 dot-com

287 reine.de.tout  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:22:43am

re: #276 Obdicut

The way the law stands appears to actually place the burden of proof on the organization to show that they are separating foreign funds off from funds used in elections.

Well, I would think, then, they would not put all that money into one "pot", but keep the foreign donations separate from domestic. If they didn't - then they need to account for their poor accounting, at the very least.

288 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:22:55am

re: #283 reine.de.tout

I do have, however, faith that people (voters) are not so completely stupid so as to be unduly influenced by powerful entities, and by people, I mean voters, not the politicians.

I don't think it has to do with intelligence. And I think that the statistics on, say, belief in AGW show how effective propaganda is at fooling people.

289 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:23:10am

re: #282 darthstar

Meg's burn rate...it grows.

It could get there, but the 140 included outside donations at last look. I'd have spent a million to make sure all my former employees were vacationing happily in Kuala Lampur.

290 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:23:55am

re: #285 Obdicut

Do you understand that one can accept that the Supreme Court has ruled a certain way, meaning that is the law, but still agree with the dissenters on the court that the ruling was in error? How is that not a reasonable position? How does that lead to you accusing me of sedition?

You give me three questions, I'll give you back two:

1) What's your problem with the rule of law?

2) Have you at last, sir, no sense of humor?

291 reine.de.tout  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:24:06am

re: #281 lawhawk

The Koch brothers aren't foreign (even if their libertarian/JBS nonsense may be from another planet). And even the Koch brothers aren't above donating to both parties - David contributed to Andrew Cuomo's run for Governor, despite the fact that Paladino is of the Tea Party movement in NY.

Thanks, I didn't think so.

I need to simply bow out of this, it started off as a conversation about foreign contributions, and now has moved on, and honestly, I'm lost and confused and need to just read.

293 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:25:02am

Obviously the Right Wingers seem to have no problem with the fact that the CoC, News Corps, and the Koch brothers are all Climate Change deniers. It's all about free speech.

294 lawhawk  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:25:42am

re: #285 Obdicut

The court has made some truly disastrous decisions since it was founded. Dred Scot in particular is one instance where the court's ruling and reasoning was so flawed that it enabled generations of discrimination (oh but the majority thought it was quite reasonable and within the meaning of the law as they construed it).

What may seem as reasonable now may in a generation's time be seen in a different light and no longer fit within the statutory or legislative prerogatives.

It's what makes the law so interesting and Court watching a spectator sport (imo of course).

295 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:26:01am

re: #283 reine.de.tout

OK, well, you may have a point that unregulated money from ANY large entity, the Kochs or or any other large and powerful entity, may have a negative effect and should be regulated. I don't know, and don't care to try to argue that. I do have, however, faith that people (voters) are not so completely stupid so as to be unduly influenced by powerful entities, and by people, I mean voters, not the politicians. And we don't like what our pols are doing, we vote 'em out (or should, few people seem to vote anymore).

Voters (consumers) can be induced to choose silly politicians (snuggies).

296 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:26:02am

re: #287 reine.de.tout

Well, I would think, then, they would not put all that money into one "pot", but keep the foreign donations separate from domestic. If they didn't - then they need to account for their poor accounting, at the very least.

I think part of the reason that this is coming up is that any irregularities or problems in these groups won't be revealed or-- unless something else is done-- investigated until after their tax filings, which are also after the elections. Then, if a group is found to have improperly done stuff, they can simply dissolve, having spent all their money anyway, and a new one be formed for the next election cycle. That means it's impossible to hold these groups accountable in any meaningful way.

And I'll reiterate that, even though the spending now is hugely in the GOP favor, that is, I believe, simply because the GOP is likely to win. The Democrats get large contributions from similar sources, and they vote and act accordingly in a large number of ways.

297 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:26:59am

re: #251 Obdicut

Why do you continue to mistake assertion with argument?

You almost never manage to actually assemble an argument. You generally just assert things and think, somehow, you've actually made an argument.

I made an argument, your understanding of the argument or the philosophical process notwithstanding.

Here is how it works. I made a philosophical statement not an assertion of fact. You either agree or disagree with said statement. Instead you continually challenge the meaning of the word "is" or "history". If you read carefully you'll notice I said "I WOULD argue...." meaning if pressed that would be the basis of said argument. I try to keep philosophical arguments as close to the issue as possible (with statements as general as possible) since this format doesn't really work well with in-depth discussions. Is that the part that confuses you?

298 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:27:04am

Jailhouse Confession: How the Right-Wing Media and Glenn Beck's Chalkboard Drove Byron Williams to Plot Assassination


"I would have never started watching Fox News if it wasn't for the fact that Beck was on there. And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind." - Byron Williams
Youtube Video
299 rhino2  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:27:32am

Much as I would love to continue this debate, I have to go get some lunch and then get some actual work done today. I'm leaving for vacation this Friday (10 days in Anaheim, CA, will be attending Blizzcon the 22nd and 23rd, fun times!)

Later all!

300 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:27:34am

re: #290 Guanxi88

Try just answering my questions, instead. Sure, I've got no sense of humor, whatever. Just answer the questions.

301 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:28:18am

re: #297 RogueOne


Here is how it works. I made a philosophical statement not an assertion of fact. You either agree or disagree with said statement.

Right. You made a statement, not an argument. That's called an assertion.

302 reine.de.tout  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:28:43am

re: #288 Obdicut

I don't think it has to do with intelligence. And I think that the statistics on, say, belief in AGW show how effective propaganda is at fooling people.

Ah, I think there's a difference when the discussion concerns contributions that may affect whether or not a politician takes policy stands that unduly favor foreign interests over US interests, and the idiocy that is anti-global warming. That should NOT be a partisan issue, not one bit, and I'm clueless as to why it seems to be. And because it is, people just won't listen to folks who they believe represent "the other side", will in fact, reject out of hand whatever it is "the other side" has to say.

303 Gus  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:30:01am

re: #298 Killgore Trout

Jailhouse Confession: How the Right-Wing Media and Glenn Beck's Chalkboard Drove Byron Williams to Plot Assassination

[Video]

Looks like we got ourselves a winner.

In an ironic twist. His defense attorney will probably belong to the ACLU.

304 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:30:27am

re: #299 rhino2

Much as I would love to continue this debate, I have to go get some lunch and then get some actual work done today. I'm leaving for vacation this Friday (10 days in Anaheim, CA, will be attending Blizzcon the 22nd and 23rd, fun times!)

Later all!

Blizzcon=tradeshow of milkshake re-enactors?

305 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:30:55am

re: #301 Obdicut

Right. You made a statement, not an argument. That's called an assertion.

I almost posted this upthread during the morality discussion:

[Link: www.google.com...]

It amazes me that some people don't have a better grasp of the differences between empirical study and philosophy so maybe this will help.

306 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:32:09am

re: #302 reine.de.tout

My point is that the groups that have done so much to distort the issue of AGW are the multinational energy corporations. So, the GOP, by taking up the banner of AGW-denial wholeheartedly, are espousing a bogus point of view that was laid down by self-interested multinational corporations.

So I think AGW denial is, in many ways, a case of 'foreign' interests being favored over US ones-- especially since the oil economy funds the states in the Middle East who are our ideological enemies.

307 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:32:39am

re: #306 Obdicut

Why do you hate Capital?
///

308 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:33:02am

re: #302 reine.de.tout

Ah, I think there's a difference when the discussion concerns contributions that may affect whether or not a politician takes policy stands that unduly favor foreign interests over US interests, and the idiocy that is anti-global warming. That should NOT be a partisan issue, not one bit, and I'm clueless as to why it seems to be. And because it is, people just won't listen to folks who they believe represent "the other side", will in fact, reject out of hand whatever it is "the other side" has to say.

The dangerous other side isn't the other party, or even foreign nations. It's corporations (persons) that hold allegiance to no nation.

309 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:33:09am

re: #305 RogueOne

I find it hilarious that you're attempting to use an argument from authority to assert that I don't understand what an argument is.

Seriously, dude: When you simply make a philosophical statement, without actually supporting that statement through argument, you are making an assertion, and not an argument. It's simple.

310 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:33:34am

re: #300 Obdicut

Try just answering my questions, instead. Sure, I've got no sense of humor, whatever. Just answer the questions.

That you, Adlai?

And as for answering your questions - there's no point. You're quite content to sit by as accusations of sedition are hurled about, as claims of international intrigue and domestic business conspiracy are enter our own political discussions as naturally and seamlessly as you please.

You're neither paranoid nor seditious, but you suspect your political opponents are using seekrit interntational funds to manipulate a dull and dimwitted public into opposing the wondrous bounty of benefits BHO bestows, and oppose the law and the First Amendment that permit these ne'er-do-wells, their fingers dripping with ill-gotten gains, to continue to play puppetmaster.

311 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:35:09am

re: #310 Guanxi88

You dodged the question, in order to set up and attack a strawman. Here is the question again:

Do you understand that one can accept that the Supreme Court has ruled a certain way, meaning that is the law, but still agree with the dissenters on the court that the ruling was in error?

312 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:35:41am

re: #310 Guanxi88

Which of the following two statements of fact do you deny:

A) The CoC receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from foreign corporations, which go into its general fund.

B) The CoC makes financial contributions to political campaigns out of its general fund.

?

313 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:36:06am

re: #303 Gus 802

Looks like we got ourselves a winner.

In an ironic twist. His defense attorney will probably belong to the ACLU.

lol

314 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:36:43am

re: #311 Obdicut

You dodged the question, in order to set up and attack a strawman. Here is the question again:

No, a dodge would be suggesting that your opponent is dodging the main question, which is:

What difference does your agreement with the dissenters on the Court make? They were the side who did not prevail, the CSA, as it were, to the majority's USA.

315 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:37:56am

re: #312 iossarian

Which of the following two statements of fact do you deny:

A) The CoC receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from foreign corporations, which go into its general fund.

B) The CoC makes financial contributions to political campaigns out of its general fund.

?

Both statements are true, but the second one is incomplete, and this because revealing that the CoC take care to segregate foreign funds would undermine the entire hysterical flap about Evil multinationals opposing our god-like Congress.

Booga! Booga!

316 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:40:41am

re: #315 Guanxi88

The CoC could easily reveal that they perform such segregation of funds, by publishing their accounts. But they haven't. Why?

317 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:40:45am

re: #314 Guanxi88

No, a dodge would be suggesting that your opponent is dodging the main question, which is:

You really don't get to determine what my main question is.


What difference does your agreement with the dissenters on the Court make?

What difference does your agreement with the majority make?


They were the side who did not prevail, the CSA, as it were, to the majority's USA.

Now you're comparing dissenting Supreme Court justices to the Confederate States? You have gone far afield, dude. Far, far, far fucking afield.


Where this started: You said that you accepted the argument of the Supreme Court. I asked you if you accept all Supreme Court arguments, or just this one. You are now attempting to compare dissenting Supreme Court judges to states seceding over the issue of slavery. The comparison to the civil war is incredibly stupid; there are many issues that have been re-examined by the Supreme Court and rulings that have changed previous interpretations by the court. 5-4 decisions show that there are solid arguments (constitutionally) on both sides. In this case, I feel the dissenters had the stronger argument, while I accept that the supporters view held and that this is now law.

Stop trying to make this about treason. It's stupid as shit.

318 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:41:14am

re: #316 iossarian

The CoC could easily reveal that they perform such segregation of funds, by publishing their accounts. But they haven't. Why?

Publish your own accounts to prove you're not laundering Colombian cocaine cartel funds.

319 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:41:34am

re: #315 Guanxi88

In what way do they take care to segregate the funds?

320 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:42:25am

re: #317 Obdicut

You really don't get to determine what my main question is.

Don't see why not. It's a courtesy I extend you.

321 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:42:56am

re: #320 Guanxi88

Just going to keep dodging, eh?

322 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:43:23am

re: #317 Obdicut


5-4 decisions show that there are solid arguments (constitutionally) on both sides.

5-4 decisions show that we've got 4 leftists on the Court.

323 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:44:22am

One of the usual suspects is placing effortful prose at the end of one of the dead threads. What possible prize is there for that?

324 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:44:33am

re: #309 Obdicut

I find it hilarious that you're attempting to use an argument from authority to assert that I don't understand what an argument is.

Seriously, dude: When you simply make a philosophical statement, without actually supporting that statement through argument, you are making an assertion, and not an argument. It's simple.

You obviously don't, I'm trying to be nice here. You made an assertion that I took at face value, that you believe foreign influence through campaign donations is a problem. I didn't ask you to back up that assertion because I took it as a philosophical question "Is foreign money/ideals bad in an election". I disagreed by stating that I don't believe ideals are "bad" based on their source. You responded by asking for quantification of a philosophical position. Hence an argument about the "meaning of the word "is"".

325 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:44:35am

re: #322 Guanxi88

5-4 decisions show that we've got 4 leftists on the Court.

You really prove out Poe's Law.

326 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:44:47am

re: #321 Obdicut

Just going to keep dodging, eh?

So. to clarify then, why don't you take it up the FEC and/or the CPA firm who handle the CoC's books?

my suspicion is that you'll find they are far better kept than perhaps your ideological bias would have you believe.

327 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:45:19am

re: #321 Obdicut

Just going to keep dodging, eh?

I asked two of them to make a simple yes or no answer. Neither were willing to give an answer. It's obvious they are not here to debate honestly.

328 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:45:38am

re: #325 Obdicut

You really prove out Poe's Law.

You get an upding for an obscure but useful theorem, even if erroneously applied.

329 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:46:26am

re: #327 Reginald Perrin

I asked two of them to make a simple yes or no answer. Neither were willing to give an answer. It's obvious they are not here to debate honestly.

So why don't you guys just talk to each other?

Meantime, I;ll be counting my Conglomo Multinational pay-offs while I await Koch's marching orders.

330 Gus  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:47:48am

[Link: twitpic.com...]

331 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:48:17am

re: #324 RogueOne

The difference is that if you asked me to support my assertion, I would. I didn't think I had to, given that I figured you accepted the truth of the statement. Since you don't, here you go:

1. The domestic interests of a nation are not the interests of other nations.
2. Therefore, allowing other nations to determine the domestic policies of a nation is not in the best interests of that nation.
3. Therefore, allowing other nations to influence elections, which are the determinants of policies, is not in the best interests of that nation.

Care to present a counteragument?

332 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:48:36am

re: #329 Guanxi88

So why don't you guys just talk to each other?

Meantime, I;ll be counting my Conglomo Multinational pay-offs while I await Koch's marching orders.

Why are you acting like a troll?

This is Little Green Footballs, you need to step up your game.

333 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:48:48am

re: #329 Guanxi88

So why don't you guys just talk to each other?

Meantime, I;ll be counting my Conglomo Multinational pay-offs while I await Koch's marching orders.

Isn't it amazing how corporations waste so much money on advertising, when it has no effect on anyone?

How can companies be run so irresponsibly? All that money spent, for nothing.

/

334 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:49:16am

re: #332 Reginald Perrin


This is Little Green Footballs, you need to step up your game.

I need this on a t-shirt.

335 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:49:51am

re: #326 Guanxi88

Why are you suddenly dodging away from the conversation on the Supreme Court ruling?

Why haven't you answered this question:


In what way do they take care to segregate the funds?
336 bratwurst  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:51:05am

re: #332 Reginald Perrin

This is Little Green Footballs, you need to step up your game.

Well tossing out highly meaningful terms like "prog" and "transnational leftist" is a type of game.

337 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:52:14am

re: #333 iossarian

Isn't it amazing how corporations waste so much money on advertising, when it has no effect on anyone?

How can companies be run so irresponsibly? All that money spent, for nothing.

/

Who says they don't spend to advertise? We're talking about the very specific - if baseless - charge that the most powerful elected official in the world is flummoxed, confounded, and blocked by powerful foreign interests who seek to corrupt our political process, and whose wrong-doing was not stopped by SCOTUS, who ruled - according to the legal scholar BHO - incorrectly, and who were chastised, albeit gently, from the podium for it.

Booga! Booga! Furriners and Koch are comin'!

338 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:52:58am

re: #335 Obdicut

Why are you suddenly dodging away from the conversation on the Supreme Court ruling?

Why haven't you answered this question:

Ask their CPA, or better yet, ask the son-of-a-bitch who leaked details of Koch's tax returns to some administration hack.

339 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:53:17am

re: #337 Guanxi88

So, you're simply again asserting that lobbying doesn't have a large effect in US politics?

340 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:54:26am

re: #338 Guanxi88

Ask their CPA, or better yet, ask the son-of-a-bitch who leaked details of Koch's tax returns to some administration hack.

If I asked their CPA anything about their finances and their CPA revealed it without their permission, that'd be an enormous breach of ethics.

So, when you stated that they segregated the funds properly, you were not actually saying something you know to be true?

341 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:55:47am

re: #337 Guanxi88

Dispute the facts or get lost. You're really clutching at straws here.

re: #340 Obdicut


So, when you stated that they segregated the funds properly, you were not actually saying something you know to be true?

Baseless accusations!

342 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:57:11am

re: #340 Obdicut

If I asked their CPA anything about their finances and their CPA revealed it without their permission, that'd be an enormous breach of ethics.

So, when you stated that they segregated the funds properly, you were not actually saying something you know to be true?

No, but in challenging them to prove their practices are legal, knowing full damned well that no one here could prove they WEREN'T illegal, you were engaged in a classical example of what we like to call "paranoia".

See, the CoC doesn't have to prove ANYTHING to you. They've satisfied all the legal and regulatory requirements. If I were to solicit input and guidance on their practices, Id be inclined to take CoC's word for it over Think Progress.

If BHO et al know something - let them bring a charge. Otherwise, it's just pointless and transparent incitement of paranoia, akin to Clinton's "dark forces" chatter from the '90's.

343 garhighway  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:57:54am

re: #140 RogueOne

Increasing business costs and taxes when the economy is rolling along at a pathetic 1% growth rate is not an answer unless the question is "how can we drag the recession out as long as possible". HCR was never about lowering costs or lowering the jobless rate and to do it now when we're in the midst of the worst economy in 40 years wasn't "proper planning".

IMO, There are 3 distinctly different questions we need to answer. 1. How can we lower unemployment, 2. How can we lower the deficit, and 3. Can we do both at the same time?. Krugmans argument is we shouldn't worry about the deficit which everyone, including the president, realizes isn't a good answer.

There's politics and there's economics. Increasing the deficit through stimulative spending is good economics right now. It's become bad politics because of the dishonest arguments of those who want tax cuts for their own reasons.

We used to have a broad consensus in America that the government had a role to play in managing the economic cycle, so the dips were shorter and shallower. It seems like, for this election cycle, the GOP has decided to throw sound economic policy to the wind because of short term electoral concerns. That is a rather sad trade.

But I shouldn't be surprised. If they'll do it on AGW, everything else is chump change, isn't it?

344 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:58:40am

re: #336 bratwurst

Well tossing out highly meaningful terms like "prog" and "transnational leftist" is a type of game.

"Transnational (Tranzi)"=high frequency version of "unpatriotic". I don't mind it if the user has a DD 214.

345 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:59:30am

Look out!

Koch's coming, with CoC cash.

Priceless paranoia.

Tell me, when the Congress slips from the fingers of our betters and leaders and into the hands of the slow-witted and evil stooges - their election by a populace of mouth-breathing degenerates and unreconstructed racist terrorists guaranteed by pockets full of Chamber of Commerce (and Rotary Club, hell, maybe even the Lions are in on it, too) loot from abroad, how ever shall this Republic endure?

346 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:59:32am

re: #342 Guanxi88

See, the CoC doesn't have to prove ANYTHING to you. They've satisfied all the legal and regulatory requirements. If I were to solicit input and guidance on their practices, Id be inclined to take CoC's word for it over Think Progress.

Do you understand that the argument is that, according to the law, it really is up to the CoC to demonstrate that they've separated the foreign funds from campaigning?

There are a large number of cases where the law demands that a group prove something. This is not an odd circumstance.

347 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:00:23am

re: #346 Obdicut

Do you understand that the argument is that, according to the law, it really is up to the CoC to demonstrate that they've separated the foreign funds from campaigning?


And it would appear they have, to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities. but not to your satisfaction, it would appear.

348 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:00:43am

re: #345 Guanxi88

Why do you feel goofy posts like this are better than actually trying to make an argument?

349 Gus  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:00:48am

Thomas J. Donohue
Current Position: President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (since 1997)

Campaign Contributions

As the head of the Chamber of Commerce, Donohue has personally donated $7,100 to political campaigns since 2001. This includes $1,000 to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) in 2007 and $2,000 to President George W. Bush in 2003.Center for Responsive Politics (14)Center for Responsive Politics

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce PAC donated $144,576 to various campaigns in the 2008 election cycle. In the House, the PAC donated $55,076 to Democrats and $46,000 to Republicans. Democratic Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) received $1,000 from the PAC; he was the only Democratic Senator to receive a donation. Republican senators received $42,500 from the PAC in the 2007-2008 cycle.Center for Responsive Politics(15)Center for Responsive Politics

Another way the chamber helps fund campaigns is through various independent expenditures. In the 2008 campaign, the chamber underwrote a variety of attack ads against now-Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), including one worth $750,000. Federal Election Commission, Form 9 outlining disbursements/obligations for electioneering communications Federal Election Commission, Form 9 outlining disbursements/obligations for electioneering communications Another chamber target was now-Sen. Kay R. Hagan (D-N.C.), who replaced ex-Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.). The chamber paid $1 million for an ad against Hagan in September 2008.Federal Election Commission, Form 9 outlining disbursements/obligations for electioneering communications Federal Election Commission, Form 9 outlining disbursements/obligations for electioneering communications

The chamber's political activity is detailed on the Federal Election Commission web site here.

350 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:01:27am

re: #345 Guanxi88

Whatever. You can't argue with the facts, so you're trying to make the argument look ridiculous by exaggerating it. Fair enough - if I had nothing else to fall back on and I was an unprincipled hack, I might try something similar.

351 Gus  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:01:43am

Hmm. Looks like they're playing good cop bad cop to me. CoC has backed Dem candidates.

352 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:01:49am

re: #347 Guanxi88

And it would appear they have, to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities. but not to your satisfaction, it would appear.

How so? I think you don't actually understand what argument is being made.

353 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:02:55am

re: #351 Gus 802

Hmm. Looks like they're playing good cop bad cop to me. CoC has backed Dem candidates.

Yes. It's standard for lobbying groups to give large amounts of money to both sides. That is what I've been saying the entire time; the problem is not a partisan one in the least.

355 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:03:27am

Franken calls for FEC investigation of Chamber of Commerce:

[Link: www.ibtimes.com...]

356 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:04:06am

re: #350 iossarian

Whatever. You can't argue with the facts, so you're trying to make the argument look ridiculous by exaggerating it. Fair enough - if I had nothing else to fall back on and I was an unprincipled hack, I might try something similar.


Hey, it works for Barry, why can't I use it, too?

357 Gus  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:04:08am

re: #354 Killgore Trout

Michigan Man Arrested With Bomb Materials, Loaded Gun, Bullet-Proof Vest and Picture Of Obama

Oh boy...

On the outside of the 48-year-old's vehicle were bumper stickers quoting Adolf Hitler. On the inside, police say there was a picture of Obama, a loaded gun, a bullet-proof vest and tips on how to build bombs.

358 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:04:59am

re: #355 iossarian

Franken calls for FEC investigation of Chamber of Commerce:

[Link: www.ibtimes.com...]

Hey, maybe they could call Colbert up to testify again!

359 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:05:21am

re: #355 iossarian

Franken calls for FEC investigation of Chamber of Commerce:

[Link: www.ibtimes.com...]

Al Franken stole the election!!!1 !

///

360 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:05:23am

re: #357 Gus 802

I'm more amused by this:

On the inside, police say there was a picture of Obama

He needed a picture of Obama to try to shoot him? Guess all black people look the same to him.

361 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:05:50am

re: #348 Obdicut

Why do you feel goofy posts like this are better than actually trying to make an argument?

I don't, but you insist on doing them.

362 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:06:25am

re: #356 Guanxi88

Usually, the idea is that, if you're going to condemn a certain type of behavior in others, you try to refrain from using it yourself.re: #358 Guanxi88

Hey, maybe they could call Colbert up to testify again!

Or they could apologize to BP some more? Either would be fine with me.

363 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:06:43am

re: #354 Killgore Trout

Michigan Man Arrested With Bomb Materials, Loaded Gun, Bullet-Proof Vest and Picture Of Obama

He did everything short of an advertising buy to declare his intentions.
That's a new one.

364 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:07:33am

re: #362 iossarian

Usually, the idea is that, if you're going to condemn a certain type of behavior in others, you try to refrain from using it yourself.re: #358 Guanxi88

Or they could apologize to BP some more? Either would be fine with me.

See, I'm not principled or any foolish nonsense like that. If politics is the art of the possible, if it is really little more than a matter of getting things done, then you look to methods and techniques, and ethics almost not at all.

365 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:07:44am

re: #358 Guanxi88

Hey, maybe they could call Colbert up to testify again!

S'OK. C-SPAN needs the ratings bump.

366 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:08:22am

re: #364 Guanxi88

See, I'm not principled or any foolish nonsense like that.

Our conversation is now at an end.

367 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:09:26am

re: #363 Rightwingconspirator

He did everything short of an advertising buy to declare his intentions.
That's a new one.

Seems to be critical to these people that they swim in a vast sea of imaginary friends. "They Surround Us."

368 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:11:12am

re: #343 garhighway

There's politics and there's economics. Increasing the deficit through stimulative spending is good economics right now. It's become bad politics because of the dishonest arguments of those who want tax cuts for their own reasons.

We used to have a broad consensus in America that the government had a role to play in managing the economic cycle, so the dips were shorter and shallower. It seems like, for this election cycle, the GOP has decided to throw sound economic policy to the wind because of short term electoral concerns. That is a rather sad trade.

But I shouldn't be surprised. If they'll do it on AGW, everything else is chump change, isn't it?

...but they didn't use "sound economic policy" in passing the stimulus package. What they passed was a band-aid approach topped off with wish list items that had no effect on stimulating the economy. Even Krugman points it out in his article:


Of the roughly $600 billion cost of the Recovery Act in 2009 and 2010, more than 40 percent came from tax cuts, while another large chunk consisted of aid to state and local governments. Only the remainder involved direct federal spending.
And federal aid to state and local governments wasn’t enough to make up for plunging tax receipts in the face of the economic slump. So states and cities, which can’t run large deficits, were forced into drastic spending cuts, more than offsetting the modest increase at the federal level. .....

...while completely missing connecting the dots. We spent billions of dollars propping up economic models that were doomed to fail and anyone who couldn't see that the cuts the states had to make this year were inevitable is either a liar or a partisan. Not to mention, a pet-peeve of mine, that tax credits aren't tax cuts.

The argument that we didn't spend enough is flawed. If he wants to make the argument that we didn't spend effectively then he would be more in league with his local tea party.

369 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:12:36am

re: #368 RogueOne

anyone who couldn't see that the cuts the states had to make this year were inevitable is either a liar or a partisan.

That is your typical form of argument, right there.

What a joke.

370 Gus  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:13:17am

re: #353 Obdicut

Yes. It's standard for lobbying groups to give large amounts of money to both sides. That is what I've been saying the entire time; the problem is not a partisan one in the least.

Right. In the end the primary driver to the American political system is money. Whoever, or whichever, political candidate promises or delivers the largest return is who will get the most financial backing. The driver is nothing nebulous like patriotism or the Constitution -- it's cash.

This is interesting. Here's an FEC CoC report indicating a video spot produced by Craft Media. Odd media company to say the least. As usual all you get to see is the lump sum of $100,000 from the CoC to Craft Media.

371 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:13:49am

re: #354 Killgore Trout

Michigan Man Arrested With Bomb Materials, Loaded Gun, Bullet-Proof Vest and Picture Of Obama

FTA:


On the outside of the 48-year-old's vehicle were bumper stickers quoting Adolf Hitler. On the inside, police say there was a picture of Obama, a loaded gun, a bullet-proof vest and tips on how to build bombs.

The incident caught the attention of federal law enforcement. McLeod faces charges for illegally possessing body armor and a loaded gun.

No bomb making materials.

372 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:14:06am

re: #369 Obdicut

Exactly. Because we're obviously spending far too much on schools and road maintenance. Lots of waste there, no question!

/

373 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:14:53am

re: #369 Obdicut

That is your typical form of argument, right there.

What a joke.


Ones man's joke is another man's talking point.......

Maybe we should leave the little guy alone to wallow in his imaginary world.

374 Gus  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:15:07am

Politics as a for profit industry. There's something wrong with that.

375 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:15:19am

re: #369 Obdicut

That is your typical form of argument, right there.

What a joke.

Even with all the evidence in front of you you still cling to your faith. You're right, that is a joke.

376 garhighway  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:15:28am

re: #368 RogueOne

...but they didn't use "sound economic policy" in passing the stimulus package. What they passed was a band-aid approach topped off with wish list items that had no effect on stimulating the economy. Even Krugman points it out in his article:

...while completely missing connecting the dots. We spent billions of dollars propping up economic models that were doomed to fail and anyone who couldn't see that the cuts the states had to make this year were inevitable is either a liar or a partisan. Not to mention, a pet-peeve of mine, that tax credits aren't tax cuts.

The argument that we didn't spend enough is flawed. If he wants to make the argument that we didn't spend effectively then he would be more in league with his local tea party.

I'm not clear on what are you saying. Are you against stimulus spending per se, or against the particular stimulus bill from 2009?

If the former, why? Are you in league with those who say that is simply not an appropriate governmental function?

If the latter, what exactly was your beef with it?

377 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:15:36am

re: #371 RogueOne

FTA:

No bomb making materials.

"Materials" as in "instructions".

378 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:17:20am

re: #371 RogueOne

FTA:

No bomb making materials.

Did you bother reading the entire article that was linked? If you had, there was a link to the bomb making materials he possessed.

379 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:20:05am

re: #376 garhighway

I'm not clear on what are you saying. Are you against stimulus spending per se, or against the particular stimulus bill from 2009?

If the former, why? Are you in league with those who say that is simply not an appropriate governmental function?

If the latter, what exactly was your beef with it?

I was against the bloated bill in '09. I understand and accept that government spending is a necessity and keynes had a good theory, but it wasn't implemented in any way that would have been a success. We propped up state governments that had put themselves in untenable positions by overspending and relying on tax models that had failed. The only way for the states to fix their problems was by cutting. All that the stimulus package managed to do, in regards to state budgets, was to delay the inevitable.

380 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:23:03am

re: #378 Reginald Perrin

Did you bother reading the entire article that was linked? If you had, there was a link to the bomb making materials he possessed.

I read the:
[Link: www.myfoxdetroit.com...]

which came from the article.

It's not a very long piece:


Richard Scott McLeod of Brighton was arrested Monday in Webberville on weapons charges and is under suspicion for potential threats against President Barack Obama.

On the outside of the 48-year-old's vehicle were bumper stickers quoting Adolf Hitler. On the inside, police say there was a picture of Obama, a loaded gun, a bullet-proof vest and tips on how to build bombs.

The incident caught the attention of federal law enforcement. McLeod faces charges for illegally possessing body armor and a loaded gun.

He's currently behind bars in the Ingham County jail.

381 engineer cat  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:23:55am

"Do you think the federal government can balance its budget just by cutting wasteful spending, or do you think it would also have to cut some useful government programs?"

Just by cutting waste 50%
Have to cut useful services 47%

i really didn't think americans were stupid enough to believe that we could balance the budget by "cutting waste"    
 
   
             

382 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:25:54am

re: #377 Decatur Deb

"Materials" as in "instructions".

It's not a good story so I don't see the need to exaggerate the situation. Bomb making materials explode, bomb making instructions just sit there.

383 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:26:35am

Off to do my part to stimulate the economy.

384 iossarian  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:26:41am

re: #379 RogueOne

This is a good point, but I think there are two separate issues in play:

1) the size of the stimulus (too much/not enough)

2) the broken (?) state fiscal model

For part 2, I don't think that the "answer" for the states is to cut, necessarily, because a lot of what the states actually pay for (schools, infrastructure, public safety and so on) is pretty important. It would be interesting to see the spending breakdown.

I think the answer for part 2 is to figure out how much we need to spend on these various items, and then to determine how to raise the necessary funds. Maybe the only way to do it is to transfer responsibility for some items to the feds? I do agree with you, though, to the extent that the past way of paying for these items was flawed.

The answer to part 1 is separate from this.

385 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:28:29am

re: #380 RogueOne

I read the:
[Link: www.myfoxdetroit.com...]

which came from the article.

It's not a very long piece:

I give up, it is a waste of time arguing with a troll. I was referring to the article that KT originally linked at Crooks and Liars.
I am done feeding the trolls

386 Gus  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:28:39am

re: #380 RogueOne

I read the:
[Link: www.myfoxdetroit.com...]

which came from the article.

It's not a very long piece:

Yeah. Why exaggerate. I mean just because the guys was caught with "a loaded .22-caliber semiautomatic handgun, a military-style ballistic vest, an additional 60 rounds of ammunition, a first-aid kit and anti-government propaganda in McLeod’s vehicle as well as bumper stickers making reference to Adolf Hitler on the vehicle" and gun powder doesn't mean anything. No cause for alarm.

Yep.

387 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:28:45am

Billionaire won't fire assisant for KKK link

Billionaire sugar baron Pepe Fanjul is refusing to fire his executive assistant, Chloe Black, despite her being married first to a former Ku Klux Klan leader, and then to the founder of a white-supremacist group.

Chloe, who has worked for the Cuban-born owner of Florida Crystals for more than 35 years, is the ex-wife of former KKK leader David Duke, and the current wife of Don Black, a former KKK grand wizard and member of the American Nazi Party. He now runs white-supremacist Web site StormFront.org.

Chloe's role with the powerful Palm Beach-based Fanjul family, which Page Six reported on in 2008, caused an outcry from civil-rights groups. Ironically, her duties include working with Fanjul's wife, Emilia, on The Glades, a Florida charter school that aims to help poor black and Latino children.

Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, told us: "Chloe Black is married to one of the most active white supremacists. We do not understand why she has not been fired by the Fanjul family. Her connections to white supremacists run so deep that it seems unthinkable that she work for a school for minority children." Chloe couldn't be reached for comment.

Reps for Fanjul yesterday confirmed Black was still working for the firm.

388 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:28:57am

re: #382 RogueOne

It's not a good story so I don't see the need to exaggerate the situation. Bomb making materials explode, bomb making instructions just sit there.

For some of the stuff, information is the hard part. You can make beautiful fireworks out of a Yamaha engine block.

389 Gus  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:29:16am

re: #386 Gus 802

Guy - singular.

390 engineer cat  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:30:14am

re: #379 RogueOne

We propped up state governments that had put themselves in untenable positions by overspending and relying on tax models that had failed. The only way for the states to fix their problems was by cutting

what would you like to do without, your children getting an education, a working sewer system, or an effective police force?

it is much more important for society to function than for the state budget to be balanced every year. in good years they might even run a surplus

you might as well say that paying the rent and having dinner every night is an "unsustainable model"

391 garhighway  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:32:23am

re: #379 RogueOne

I was against the bloated bill in '09. I understand and accept that government spending is a necessity and keynes had a good theory, but it wasn't implemented in any way that would have been a success. We propped up state governments that had put themselves in untenable positions by overspending and relying on tax models that had failed. The only way for the states to fix their problems was by cutting. All that the stimulus package managed to do, in regards to state budgets, was to delay the inevitable.

Was there some other spending you would have done in its place?

392 Gus  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:32:53am

Richard Scott McLeod summary:

1. Loaded .22-caliber semiautomatic handgun
2. Ballistic vest
3. 60 rounds of ammunition
4. First-aid kit
5. Anti-government propagand
6. Bumper stickers making reference to Adolf Hitler
7. Gun powder
8. Bomb making instructions
9. Picture of President Obama

Damn, must have been some coincidence he was found with all of that.

/

393 garhighway  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:36:35am

re: #390 engineer dog

We propped up state governments that had put themselves in untenable positions by overspending and relying on tax models that had failed. The only way for the states to fix their problems was by cutting

what would you like to do without, your children getting an education, a working sewer system, or an effective police force?

it is much more important for society to function than for the state budget to be balanced every year. in good years they might even run a surplus

you might as well say that paying the rent and having dinner every night is an "unsustainable model"

There is certainly a reasonable discussion to be had that state and local governments are inefficient and require reform.

But: do we want them to dump a bunch of people onto the unemployment rolls as we are heading into the deepest recession in 70 years? There is such a thing as bad timing.

The better question is whether the dollars spent to prop up those governments was an efficient use of stimulus money, on a jobs per dollar basis, compared with other potential spending.

394 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:36:43am

re: #392 Gus 802

He had a .22? What kind of pussy carries a .22?

395 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:36:45am

re: #392 Gus 802

Richard Scott McLeod summary:

Damn, must have been some coincidence he was found with all of that.

/

Depending on the circumstances, each item by itself could be legal. Only the gun, vest and powder are loosely regulated.

396 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:37:07am

re: #394 darthstar

He had a .22? What kind of pussy carries a .22?

Paulie Walnuts.

397 Gus  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:37:32am

re: #395 Decatur Deb

Depending on the circumstances, each item by itself could be legal. Only the gun, vest and powder are loosely regulated.

Yeah. He probably doesn't pose a threat to society.

/

398 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:38:13am

re: #397 Gus 802

Yeah. He probably doesn't pose a threat to society.

/

Context is everything.

399 lawhawk  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:39:23am

re: #390 engineer dog

I can work with the NY example, since that's the state I'm most familiar with.

NYS proposed a budget in FY08-09, and proceeded to run a massive deficit. In it's proposed FY09-10 budget, it called for still more spending (more than 5% higher spending), increased taxes and fees and ran up another deficit. For FY10-11, the budget increased yet again by about $1 billion, and did so with another $1 billion in taxes and fees. Had the state kept the line on spending (that would be additional spending), no additional taxes and fees would have been necessary for FY10-11.

This isn't merely increasing revenues through an improved economic situation, but rather imposing new and more fees on an already stressed tax base.

The state utilized the fed transfer payments under ARRA of 2009 to fund a significant part of the increased state spending in FY09-10. It didn't undertake any meaningful structural reform on spending - where even a 1% cut on spending could result in a $1+ billion savings across all state programs.

The state could have adopted a condensed work week, which has been adopted in some other states to avoid layoffs, and savings, but didn't.

NY could have sought to eliminate and/or consolidate any number of public authorities, which add to the state's debt load, but it didn't.

400 darthstar  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:39:45am

re: #395 Decatur Deb

Depending on the circumstances, each item by itself could be legal. Only the gun, vest and powder are loosely regulated.

Individually, they're legal, but when you add bomb-making instructions to the list, the law begins to get a little more specific on who is and isn't allowed to participate in that activity.

401 lawhawk  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:39:47am

Political cartoons of the day.

402 Decatur Deb  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:40:39am

re: #400 darthstar

Individually, they're legal, but when you add bomb-making instructions to the list, the law begins to get a little more specific on who is and isn't allowed to participate in that activity.

Haymarket Re-enactor.

403 engineer cat  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 9:57:34am

re: #399 lawhawk

kept the line on spending

this is a completely abstract idea and totally unrealistic. i'm sure every government and business enterprise in the known universe could be run more efficiently, but every dollar spent represents not only somebody's job or contract, but also a useful service such as the items i mentioned above.

if you were running short of cash one month, would you skimp on your children's meals or borrow some money?

404 lawhawk  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 10:23:44am

re: #403 engineer dog

No, it's not exactly abstract. The state does regular budget projections and expects the state will take in X in revenues. The media was full of dire reports on the state's (and national) economy, and they still went with rosy forecast scenarios. That directly affects the budget situation, and instead of having X on hand, they've got X-10, which put them in a hole. Had they produced a more realistic budget assumption, the state would not have shortchanged itself by billions.

Put another way, had the state simply put the same budget in FY09-10 as it had in FY08-09, the state would not have increased its deficit by several billion dollars as it did. Instead, it increased spending by 5%, while revenues didn't match, blowing up the deficit by an even greater amount.

I don't budget for money I don't expect to take in. I know that if times are tight, I'm not going to make as much money and I put some amount away for a rainy day fund. Well, in NY, they raided that rainy day fund, hit up taxpayers, and still spent more than anyone could have reasonably expected to take in in tax revenues.

405 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 11:15:36am

Hi cenotaphium, Obdicut and freetoken.
 
Cenotaphium: my intention is neither passive aggression nor the desire to dodge a great conversation.  Simply I needed to take a break to tend to other tasks.  I appreciate the continued discussion.  You 3 have brought up good points, reading your posts, I sense you 3 feel I have intentions that more align to intellectual tom foolery.  I can say that I am not purposely engaging in verbal chicanery.  I can only offer my conduct and as proof (past and present) as proof of that. I will try to re double my efforts to address your points with no implied of malice or misdirection.
 
I am glad the 3 of you have agreed that your common view “morality” *is* a construct of humanity.  That I agree wholeheartedly with.  We can no more agree on this point exactly.  If I have misinterpreted your posts on this view – please correct me.
 
My argument is that this “morality” we speak of is by our common basis a direct mirror of the macro societies’ view on right and wrong.  I know Obdicut believes that a reality that ultimately ends with infinite non-existence for individuals has meaning for said individual.  On this point, I can only say I can agree to disagree.  It certainly would define the term “Pointless” to me.  That being said, a reality with no external possibilities other then inevitable non-existence would (with said perception) I would argue meets the classic definition of meaninglessness … and hence said macro societal view on “morality” would be irrelevant.
 
Does that make sense?  If not, please say so – I would be happy to expound more clearly if so.
 
This bring us of course to the notion of ‘absolute’ morality – something that of course cannot be proven – and religion itself does not provide (since as it aptly stated by cenotaphium by some Christians and what we can see with extremist Muslims) views can bend to the view of the individual/society.  I agree wholeheartedly, but all must concede whether you believe in a supernatural notion or not – that the construct of “absolute” morality can only exist within the framework of an external possibility of  an “absolute” morality.
 
Obdicut also makes two assertions, that 1) Primates are not sentient (I’m sure ants are, Primates – you can have people argue on both sides) 2) That Japan is largely religious.  I would say superstitious would be a more close approximation, but I appreciate cenotaphium’s intellectually honestly in acknowledging what is common knowledge (see Wikipedia on Religion in Japan) they are largely secular.
 
Thanks For Reading!  I look forward to your rebuttals. 
 
Cheers
 

406 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 11:34:48am

re: #405 changomo

I am glad the 3 of you have agreed that your common view “morality” *is* a construct of humanity.

And so is yours.

That being said, a reality with no external possibilities other then inevitable non-existence would (with said perception) I would argue meets the classic definition of meaninglessness … and hence said macro societal view on “morality” would be irrelevant.

Then make that fucking argument, instead of just asserting the same shit over and over.

2) That Japan is largely religious. I would say superstitious would be a more close approximation,

Because you're a religious bigot, apparently, who doesn't think non-theistic religions are more than 'superstition'.

407 changomo  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 4:50:35pm

Obdicut, I so not understand the cause for your incivility, I have been making that same argument throughout this thread. As for being a bigot, according to Johnstone (1993:323) 84% claim no personal religion and 64% do not believe in God Demerath (2001;138). Ironically I point to Japan as a highly funtional secular society- I make no judgements in their character, so I am sincerely confused on why you call me a bigot?

408 cenotaphium  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 5:56:17pm
Does that make sense?

In the sense that it is your opinion, sure. It just seems odd to claim life is pointless unless there is an unprovable first cause directing the show. It's like playing through and enjoying a game under the assumption that it was created by a certain developer, finding out you were wrong in your assumption and throwing out what you enjoyed regardless. Only in your case, you'll never find out.

This bring us of course to the notion of ‘absolute’ morality – something that of course cannot be proven


but all must concede whether you believe in a supernatural notion or not – that the construct of “absolute” morality can only exist within the framework of an external possibility of  an “absolute” morality.

Again, this is just philosophical navel gazing. It's like you were taking solipsism seriously and saying "you can't prove to me I'm not the entirety of existence, therefore an absolute morality can have only one cause - me". You're constructing an unprovable view of reality in which the only right answer is one you like.

I can say that I am not purposely engaging in verbal chicanery.

This made me laugh. Not that I don't believe you, it's just hilariously phrased. Reminded me of this:

Youtube Video
409 ClaudeMonet  Mon, Oct 11, 2010 10:15:08pm

re: #90 lawhawk


Of course, that too ignores the fact that the NBER found that the recession ended before the ARRA of 2009 even kicked in.

So, the recession was already over. Tell that to all the unemployed people who can't find jobs in anything near their fields.

Perhaps you mean that the recession for economists had ended and that the employment of economists was now back to normal.

410 changomo  Tue, Oct 12, 2010 7:46:25pm

re: #408 cenotaphium

Cenotaphium, thanks for your thoughtful response. John Cleese is one of my favorites! These boards are definitely a forum for opinion, and as you suggested - I am simply offering mine, and you, yours. I do believe that if all life ends in infinite oblivion, by definition, said life is pointless.

Like Obdicut, you may feel that the temporal life has meaning, but only in the temporal existence, since after your death - you'll have no conscience to reflect on that meaning.

Depending on which view of the universe you follow, ultimately it itself is meaningless if it eventually implodes. If you follow infinite expansion, then meaning of an individual's life could only have lasting meaning to transient experiences of future humans/beings. Again, assuming your life's accomplishments with be significant in the year 3 googol. Even then, only a handful of historical figures have much significance today (say King Tut doesn't really have practical significance to me today)

So I think it is accurate to say, one's life has the slight possibility to have ultimate significance to a future human that has achieved immortality.

I don't feel that I'm using solipsism at all. Remember, I am not saying a supernatural force exists. Even if I did, I could not prove it. My point has always been to show that in order for a proposition to be true, another proposition must also be true.

Hopefully the following analogy finds shelter:

Humans are the only intelligent being in the Universe, unless there exists intelligent alien life elsewhere. (similar to my in your words "cryptic" parting sentence earlier)

I am not saying alien life exists, I am merely presenting a logical supposition.

Look forward to your comments.

Cheers

411 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 3:59:56am

re: #407 changomo

Obdicut, I so not understand the cause for your incivility, I have been making that same argument throughout this thread. As for being a bigot, according to Johnstone (1993:323) 84% claim no personal religion and 64% do not believe in God Demerath (2001;138). Ironically I point to Japan as a highly funtional secular society- I make no judgements in their character, so I am sincerely confused on why you call me a bigot?

How do you not get it?

One can have a religion without having a god. One can have spirituality without having a religion. By the criteria of your argument-- believing that there is more to this life than mere secular existence-- the Japanese are not 'atheist'. If you mean only that they don't believe in a monotheistic god, that's certainly true. But your attempt to view their spirituality through purely Western standards is, indeed, making you engage in bigotry.

You also have not ever made an actual argument for your main premise-- that life is pointless if it doesn't last forever somehow. You just reassert this over and over, as if we're supposed to take it as proved. It's not. One could just as easily say that infinite existence would remove meaning from life.

You don't deserve civility because you refuse to actually engage with any ideas presented to you; you're still repeating the same assertion that you entered the argument with, without taking any counterargument into account in the least. That is uncivil of you.

412 cenotaphium  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:58:58am

re: #410 changomo

These boards are definitely a forum for opinion, and as you suggested - I am simply offering mine, and you, yours.

That's certainly a dishonest summation and appeal to equivalency. I provided some reasoning to back up my counterarguments to your original assertion, which throughout this conversation has been completely unsupported.
I don't know if you have an actual problem with understanding what has been said, or if you're just constantly trying to revise what people say to fit your rhetoric.

Like Obdicut, you may feel that the temporal life has meaning, but only in the temporal existence, since after your death - you'll have no conscience to reflect on that meaning.

Not at all. I believe life started 15 minutes ago and everything up until this point is just false memories. Nevertheless I shall act upon that information until the next reset. It never ends. There are turtles all the way down.

Humans are the only intelligent being in the Universe, unless there exists intelligent alien life elsewhere.

My uncle wears a hat, maybe. There are three pennies to a dollar, unless there isn't. God most certainly exists, providing he isn't fictitious.

Insightful or vapid?

Again, there's nothing logical about this. It's just an assertion, and one that's unsupported AND completely ambiguous to boot. It's worse than a koan.

You seem to be very upset at the idea of an undirected universe and frankly scared at the thought of life just ending. That's fine. But being scared and wanting things to be different doesn't change what actually is.
As for the significance of a life, a grain of sand is in itself meaningless on a beach - but without each individual grain, there would be no beach.

413 changomo  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 6:21:37pm

re: #411 Obdicut

Obdicut, I feel it's quite a stretch to be a considered a bigot for saying Japan is largely secular (which I will again address below.) I also know you believe I don't deserve civility because you say I refuse to engage with any ideas presented, I am sorry you feel this way. I can only say that I am not trying to be uncivil and I am trying to reply to your challenges directly and respectfully. If you still believe I am a bigot and uncivil - I can say that is not my intent.

Now on to your points.

I agree wholeheartedly with two of your assertions:

1) You are 100% correct one can have a religion without having a god. In fact I said earlier I feel atheists' views are in itself a defacto religion.

2) You are again 100% that one can have spirituality without having a religion.

However, I never once said that the Japanese were not spiritual - I said they were secular, I also said I felt they were more superstitious then religious. (you can verify the thread yourself) There are many sources to this, in fact, even my other debater here (cenotaphium) concedes to this point. I have not seen a debate on my assertion among Japanese sociologists.

Just in case, yet another study.

"Between 64% and 65% of Japanese are atheists, agnostics, or do not believe in God."

Source: Cambridge Companion to Atheism
[Link: books.google.com...]

As to if most Japanese believe in an afterlife, I did not make any assertions on this subject, for I have not see any recent studies with statistics.

Finally, your view on whether this life has meaning. Again, you may find it surprising that I agree with you on your point that people find meaning in a temporary existence. You and cenotaphium are living proof of this. I have only stated why, and how I do not find any meaning in a existence that ultimately ends in infinite non-existence. Thank goodness we live in a country/culture where one is not forced to believe in any sort of ideology (i.e. Taliban). I am not trying to convert you to any religion, nor am I saying you yourself cannot have meaning in a temporary existence, I am simply explaining why I do not.

I hope you find this post respectful, direct, and illuminating to your direct queries/assertions, if still want to classify me a bigot and uncivil, I do not think I do much more to change your view.

Cheers

414 changomo  Wed, Oct 13, 2010 8:45:25pm

cenotaphium,

While I do not think you find me uncivil or a bigot, I do sense from your last post you feel I am being disingenuous with my posts. Again, I can assure you my only intent is to explain my views. I feel you are still in the mindset that I am trying to prove the existence of a supernatural force or that life can only have meaning if their is an exterior reality. I want to say in the spirit of intellectual honesty that I am doing neither since I acknowledge a temporal life can have meaning for an individual with no external reality. (see my response to obdicut) I was simply explaining why I do not find meaning in a temporal existence. I came to this conclusion not out of fear nor an attempt to comfort any sort of psychological longing. It was after many years of studying world religions, philosophy and everyday life.

I do believe you and obdicut find a plethora of meaning and satisfaction with a temporary existence. It would be ludicrous to say life has no meaning for secular individuals. Even though one's life ultimately ends in a state of perpetual infinite oblivion, I do acknowledge many people still can ascribe meaning to that existence. In your analogy about the sand and beach, while the main premise is true - the beach would ultimately be meaningless since it itself would eventually be consumed when the sun goes supernova. I am in no way trying to say you and obdicut shouldn't find meaning in a temporal life. I've simply tried to explain why I find that sort of reality meaningless. We of course will no doubt disagree, but at least I hope you can understand why one would not find meaning in said existence.

Now onto "morality" - my assertion all along was that morality is an abstract construct with no absolute arbiter. I think it's been shown we actually all agree on this point. I think the confusion still lies in what is perceived by you and obdicut as my attempt to try to "prove" an external absolute morality. Let me say it once and for all so all are satiated that this is a fool's errand. One cannot prove God exists any more then he does not. In many ways, Agnostics is truly the only logical absolute on this matter. My point all along is that in order for mass torture/murder of innocent children to be considered "wrong" or "right" in a world that has no external reality other then this, a framework of "wrong" or "right" is an irrelevant concept. We've all conceded that wrong/right is a construct of our societal view on what is deemed acceptable/non acceptable at a given point and time.
There is no such thing as "wrong" or "right" since it's completely relative to human beings and rest of the universe. Hence, murder is wrong because most humans say it is. Unfortunately, most Germans during WW2 also said the Nazis were good, and Most North Koreans feel Kim Jong Il is a God.

Let me use your Uncle's Hat analogy. It must be realized that wearing a hat is far different context then "absolute" morals.

Remember, since morality is a relative term that has no absolutes - whether your uncle is "Truly" wearing a hat or not only depends if he "feels/believes/thinks" he is at that time/place, not if he is actually wearing one. So, in a sense it should be reworded

My Uncle says he's wearing a hat, but he really isn't.

The only way one cay say definitely if something is "right/wrong" if is if there was framework beyond what humans at the time/place deem moral/immoral. Which brings us to crux I believe of your disagreement. Since an external moral arbiter is impossible to prove, then an external moral belief is as relative as humanistic beliefs. Absolutely correct.

415 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 14, 2010 4:10:00pm

re: #413 changomo

It really doesn't matter if it's your intent to be a bigot.

By the way that you've defined spirituality-- believing that there is more to this universe than physical reality-- Japanese are, in general, not secular.

Saying that they're more superstitious than religious really, really, really is a terribly bigoted point of view, favoring a Western idea of 'religion' over a Japanese one.

You apparently are so bigoted you can't actually even see that this is a bigoted position.

The only way one cay say definitely if something is "right/wrong" if is if there was framework beyond what humans at the time/place deem moral/immoral.


Again: You need to prove that. Not assert it. You haven't. You've just asserted it over and over, with no proof to it.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Good Liars at Miami Trump Rally [VIDEO] Jason and Davram talk with Trump supporters about art, Mike Lindell, who is really president and more! SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!LOS ANGELES, CA squadup.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.comSpotify: open.spotify.comJoin this channel to ...
teleskiguy
2 weeks ago
Views: 673 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0