The Good Post Gallery

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Remembering that it's apparently not okay for people who abstain from smoking pot to make a point of their personal or moral objections, but is okay for people who do smoke pot to make fun of everyone who doesn't.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This rather belongs in the Utterly Sickening Posts Sh*tmine, but for the lack of such thread I got to post it there.

The first two were positive events.

Click for context.

While nothing will cause lefties to spaz out more than suggesting Allende/the Spanish Republicans/Sandinistas were worse than their opposition (why only things happening in Spanish-speaking countries cause spaz-out reactions I don't know), the fact remains that the Latin left, especially of the Commie variety, especially of the pro-Soviet Commie variety at the height of the Cold War, were and are not very nice people.  If you don't believe that, I'll invite you to move to Cuba.  Since they'll put you up in the relative luxury accomodations reserved for Useful Idiots, you should subsequently renounce your European citizenships and get yourself arrested for a real representative taste.  I'm sure you'll love it.  They have nice weather and excellent cigars!

Edit:  Addendum:  Latin politics is not good guys and bad guys, it's generally bad guys and worse guys.  Pinochet was very bad but far better than what would have happened otherwise.  Perhaps saying the coup was a "positive event" was a bit too breezy, more like a non-negative event.

This only demonstrates your utterly ignorance about Latin-American politics. And that you're nothing but an imbecile. Who else was a commie, Goulart? Well, If those 'commies' had won, there would be the rising of a rural middle-class, which would avoid heavy rural flight at the 70's (probably the most important influence on southern-american underdevelopment on the following decades) and foment national industry, making an inner force for autonomous development. That was the whole matter. There, here or in Argentina, the Andes, anywhere in the region. Lula's success is only and entirely based on a new version of this reading. We would all have achieved 4 decades earlier what Brazil is achieving now, alone.
Let me tell you something, that being an imbecile you surely have no clue. These countries were not a Caribbean island run by US controlled mobsters. Even if TEH KOMMIUNIEESTZ had reached power and installed a soviet regime (something that only someone completely ignorant about what was the Latin-american 60's and 70's left or even the hardcore left would imagine. And don't come with Cuba, Castro wasn't even a commie before the USA positioned itself against him neither Cuba was a mess before the eastern block debacle - It was actually the Latin-american country with the best achievements, around that time) China would be the comparison. The soviets were less interested in such a development than the USA.

The struggle wasn't between 'commies' and 'non-commies'. It was between autonomists who assumed this position based on emancipation leanings (the main 'commie' speech was that we were never really independent / free) and an ancient elite whose power was based on being the foremen of great powers interests. It wasn't about central planning. It was about anti-imperialism.
We're talking here about people whose economical interest (poor people interested physicians, inner market oriented farmers, urban middle class professionals) was the existence of autochtonous populations with consumer's power. There are few things more imbecilic than the double-standard a-historical a-geographical bullsh**t you'd written.
Sure, if you believe that the sake of international capital based economy (which is conceptually linked to imperialist control, always - and I don't really care about what you think about the term 'imperialism', It is a historically based and valid geopolitical concept) is above anything else, than I must agree that a good guys/bad guys debate is pointless here. But to anyone who believes on humanism, people's empowerment and emancipation, democratic control of your own future and other political concepts which are important to non-imbecils, than, pal, It was a good guys / bad guys opposition. And those 'commies' were the good guys. They were the ones making the defence of freedom around.

The most amusing thing here is the undying tentative of putting the blame on those who were taken from democratically chosen positions. Even after debate over debate (on academical conditions, surely - I really don't care about what hacks have to say) demonstrates It's pure feces. This only sickens me. "Allende would make a self-coup! Goulart would make a self-coup!". F**k!!! How people are imbeciloid enough to not laugh on this!
What if Allende nationalized the whole freaking economy?? He was elected to do It, imbecile. Presidentialism is not parliamentarism. Any impeachment based on opposition to these policies are just grotesquely antidemocratic. Once democratic institutions are preserved and people can overturn what was done (which is something, alas, that our neoliberal fake-democracies are unable to provide, vide Greece), I'm sorry to inform, this is democracy. The rule from the people, by the people and to the people.

The second most amusing thing (and It always tells a lot to me) is that every time I read/listen to this specific bullsh**t - Chilean 73's coup - the round's coup defender is always a self proclaimed 'libertarian'. This only demonstrates how fake are the great share of these 'freedomers'. It's clearly not about freedom, It's about economics. That same brand of imbeciles defends another islander dictatorship as the quintessential model for society's organization.

Anyway, don't bother answering this. Any imbecile defender of Pinochet's coup is automatically on my ignore list. And, to the other guys, sorry about the rant. I just cannot stay calm on the whole matter of the XXth century's second half Latin-american dictatorship cycle. Personal matter.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm just going to throw this thought out here for those of you who are all like "but....BUT!  HE WAS A VALUABLE POSTER AND YOU MEANIES CHASED HIM AWAY!":

I'm not sure if you guys are aware of this, but this is a political discussion forum.  Expecting nothing but sunshine and happiness 24/7 and for people to be civil with each other is ridiculous.  Yes, this forum has a tendency to be a circle jerk of Yes Men at times but that doesn't give one the excuse to act like a little child (which is what baaaaaaaaaawlexus did recently).  I've seen his posts and frankly I don't give the hype here.  Big deal, he posts some polls.  So does like everybody and their grandmother who dwells in the Election Boards (though admittedly, a lot of those people scare me).
I mean seriously, you don't want to be called out on something join the Barney and Friends Forum, don't join the Atlas Forum.  The entire point of this board is for there to be debate (and admittedly, not to be in the semi-circle jerk establishment state it is in now).  So yes, Defendors, you do have a point about establishment scaring people off, but that doesn't change the fact that baaaaawlexus should've had his spine with him when he got on yesterday afternoon or whenever he decided to "wwwwwwwwwaaaaaaah!" quit.
We lost a valuable poster?  I would never consider a loser with millimeter thin skin to be a valuable poster.  Even if they built the Great Wall of China using text.

Now excuse me while I don't delete all of my comments and quit as people respond to this saying "what the hell man?"

Beat me to it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Ron Paul's support of civilian massacres is disgusting.

That's an extremely small sided view, realizing that America shouldn't involve itself in every humanitarian/strategic conflict or civil war doesn't mean you advocate civilian massacres. If anything it just signals that you understand countries and their people should be able to handle their own affairs without some outside power implementing a "Non oppressive" pro American government.

Your post just reeks of "America needs to be the police of the world" because other countries can't be left to handle their own affairs.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Paul continues to be an asinine ideologue.

The idea letting Assad's regime stand would be better for Syrians is ridiculous and embarrassing to anyone who suggests it.

The idea is that it's better for America if Americans do not die overseas.

The idea is that it's better for America, and the world, to not have innocent people be slaughtered by a dictator. Your phrase is idiotic. It's like suggesting that had we known about the Holocaust we shouldn't have intervened because "Americans might die". Don't tell me that was different. Is there some number of people killed at which point some switch turns on and an intervention becomes acceptable? Nonsense. We have a moral obligation as a nation with the means to help those in Syria to help them. Every nation with the means to do so does. It's simple human decency.

You can save your "moral obligation" for when we're running surpluses, like during the 90's and everyone was screaming that Clinton should have helped Rwanda. The simple fact of the matter is, we can't afford to continue investing in military operations that don't actually enhance our national security. 

How would we finance action in Syria? Would we continue to to build on our trillion dollar budget deficits, and print more money to sustain those deficits? It doesn't matter whether it's Syria, Somalia or Pakistan , you can only use budgetary tricks for so long, to maintain foreign investments but eventually you can do it no more.  Johnson tried to use the same budgetary tricks to finance the War on poverty and the Vietnam war at the same time, he ran huge deficits and printed billions of dollars , because to maintain a war and not massively raise taxes you have to run deficits; once you raise taxes opposition for a war increases, every time. What did he do? He started the rapid printing of money, that would continue well into the 70's. The Hungarians tried the same budgetary tricks to finance world war 2 and the resulting hyperinflation caused the collapse of their currency all together.

There's always gonna be another if we intervene in Syria, I know because there was always another after Uganda, Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, Germany ext , there will always be another call for the Us to intervene. Unfortunately until we have a budget that's decreases our long term debt and our budget deficits any more intervention will just inch us closer to a complete financial collapse.

Why did France signal a complete withdraw from the middle east? Because they can't afford it.
Why can't America ever understand that you have to be fiscally responsible before you involve yourself in the affairs of of other countries.

You're not "disgusting", for realizing something that's obvious by just looking at the current state of the US economy.

Actually if it means people will wake up and realize that our current interventionist foreign policy isn't sustainable fiscally then I'd gladly be labeled "Disgusting" right besides the Ron Paul's/Gary Johnson and the rest of the anti interventionist in this country.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The quality of its political leaders is not something you can separate from the appreciation of a country.

Perhaps. I like to believe if more of my fellow countrymen were better informed, or just cared enough to pay a little more attention, they'd be eager to vote for people who'd fix things.

As someone who studied in the US... and was, honestly, horrified by how myopic so many Americans were, I think a broader perspective is definitely needed.

A friend of mine who's a teacher in IL, is really disturbed by how they teach the American Revolution as purely, democracy vs tyranny... rather than be honest, that it was actually incredibly complex and doesn't go into the background as to why Britain did what it did etc etc...

America is a great country, full of really good people, the story about American social mobility is increasingly a myth, America is as strata-fied as any European or Western Country for that matter. I think what might irritate people abroad is the idea that the US is the pinnacle of democracy... last time I checked... most western countries have free and fair elections... freedom of the press etc etc...

Just because you're flawed, as all countries are in their own ways, doesn't mean you aren't great... you're just not the best at everything... some countries do do things better than you... but you do other things better than them... it's not a contest.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I understand alot of parents wish to protect their children by saying 'they are too young to know' when it comes to a variety of issues, but alot of transgender people and other LGBT individuals if asked as an adult will tell you that they knew who they were from a young age whether it's 5 or 14. A child will have great difficulty expressing who they are (and who they are not) but when it is expressed it has to be listened to. Now of course some children just play dress and roleplay and it all means nothing in the end so there has to be a degree of sensitivity. Just because it's a complex issue shouldn't mean it is simply ignored until the child is entering puberty (which psychologically can be a difficult time) or an adult. This girl will be much happier as a result.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I saw the debate last night - Romney was well-prepared, Obama clearly didn't want to be there - can't blame him, mind, it was his anniversary - and it's pretty clear that Romney "won".

More to the point, the media's been itching to move on from the stale "Romney's finished!" narrative and on to a much more exciting "it's a close race now!" one - even if Romney hadn't turned in a better performance, just holding his own on stage with the President would give him a decent bump and some favourable news cycles.

The debate was "do or die" for Romney, and he saved his campaign, but let's not act as if this is some amazing game changer. If Romney had lost the debate, he'd be finished, as is he's still in the race. That's undeniably good news for Romney, but I don't think it changes the fundamental picture of the election.

Republicans and Democrats, relax. Republicans - Romney had a polished performance, but didn't have any "Reaganesque" quips, and, Democrats -  Obama had a flat performance, but didn't make any gaffes and didn't lose any voters.

I'm rambling a bit, but I can't really handle the chaos around here today.

2012 board after the debate:

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Ah, defending the liberty of the businesses exploiting their employees and the liberty of oppressing minorities and poor people.

I suppose this isn't the place to argue this, but you need to put more faith in the markets, my friend.

Right, so the top 10% of Americans can control 100% of the wealth as opposed to the 80% they control now.

Government and political structure has a lot more to do with the wealthy having so much money than the markets do. Absent bailouts, insider deals, subsidies, etc the people would have a lot more power. Adam Smith knew what he was talking about. Are you sure you're a libertarian?

I'm 100% sure I'm not a Libertarian and I'm wearing the avatar for ornamental purposes.

What you fail to realize is that long before Government was the "big, evil, awful" thing that Libertarians view it as, markets were making people richer than would ever be necessary. Tell me, how would the free market resolve wealth inequality? The answer is, it doesn't.

Libertarians like to believe that the free market is the answer to all of America's (and the world's) problems, when in fact it caused most of those problems in the first place. It was the free market that created wealth inequality, and encouraged/encourages it in modern society. The first "rich" people--the ones that made more money than others when America was first becoming an industrial nation--did not hold that much more wealth than say the "poorer" Americans. What happened was, the industrialization expanded and corporations were born.

Corporations exist to ensure that a sort of oligarchical system be upheld throughout the monetary system. Meaning, the CEOs of the biggest companies are ensured a lot more money than the lower classes (about 350-400 times as much money, to be exact) for doing quantities less work. They deliver a cheap, but "okay enough" product onto the market, and consumerism ensures that it is eaten up without questioning exactly what it is or how it was made.

The problem is that such a small amount of people control such a disturbingly large portion of the wealth in this country (and world) and will only end up controlling more. Is Government doing anything to stop it? Not really, and certainly not as much as we should be doing. But that's because corporations have the power of Government. We need leaders that will not be afraid to stand up to corporations and strip them of their power. The voice needs to be returned to the average citizen, and the wealth with it.

I'm not talking about full-fledged socialism, I'm talking about equality. Where the poor aren't as poor and the rich aren't as rich. No one in this world could possibly need a billion dollars for their own use. They just invest it so they can make more money that they won't spend.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Mikado, I don't think rationalism seeks to crush or negate the importance of human emotions. I think the need for rational thought is perfectly compatible with acknowledging that the human mind is much more complex than what science can describe of it. And I consider myself a hardcore rationalist.

That's just it, though.  The very desire to know or understand the Universe is a fool's errand, especially if you reject the metaphysical and the philosophical to myopically focus on the physical Universe around you.  It's not just the human mind, talking about stars as hydrogen slowly fusing into helium producing a nuclear fusion reaction that generates massive amount of energy may be true for one value of truth, but sealing that as the only definition and ridiculing others for solar worship or the view that the sun is Helios pulled by a chariot is narrowminded in the extreme.    The Rationalist viewpoint tries to freeze out all approaches to truth that don't revolve around the Scientific method as not legitimate avenues to truth: in the same vein as Christianity, it is the ultimate in small-mindedness to say that one approach is right and the others are empirically wrong and prima facie absurdities. 

I have no problem with science itself, I have no qualm with it as one approach to knowledge, my problem is the outright rejection of the irrational and, in fact, turning irrationality into a derogatory term.  Many of the most valuable parts of human experience and the universe in general are inherently irrational, chaotic, unorderly, and downright messy.  Rationalism deprecates old wisdom and proclaims the value of new "knowledge," and attempts to see further and further into the tiniest particles, the most distant corners of the Universe, the creases of the human brain, and the most deep depths of the Earth's core, but loses the knowledge of the human spirit, the soul, in the process, and ridicules what it can't understand, abuses the "irrational."

Irrationality is freedom.  Freedom from the formalized structure of the scientific method, freedom from the hypocrisy of scientists who proclaim that they are working to better mankind while they perfect weapons with which to better kill vast swathes of mankind, freedom from the arrogant idea that the old gods of yore, whether they be named Zeus or Thor or Jesus, will be replaced by a new pantheon of Newton, Tesla, and Einstein. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

None of my posts are good.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said.

It's how I feel right now. (See 'Opinion of Memphis' thread; I spend my Friday evenings presiding over discussions of philosophy; I should remember these things, especially if I'm going to use them as insults.)

Messing up one philosophical reference does not stain your entire posting history...

Absolutely.  Don't sell yourself short, Nathan.  I envy your advanced understanding of these things.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I deeply disagree with Calvinism in many ways and, although I respect those who are strident in their faith, many manifestations of Calvinism lead us to a very flawed mindset where it doesn't matter what you do at all. On the occasion I do meet Calvinists up here north of the Mason-Dixon line, they sometimes take on a belief that since they said some prayer once, they're forever saved no matter what they do with their lives. To me that rings of a telemarketer weight loss type of scam: lose weight now with this little trick (!) and neglect the suffering that one must go through otherwise. Christ's life had suffering in it and ours likely will too if we are truly following him. Many of the issues I have with American style conservatism have roots in Calvinist thought. One idea that permeates though our discourse, especially on the right that is completely off in my opinion is the idea that the US is predestined for a sort of greatness, chosen by God to lead the world for the rest of time. Likewise, the idea that God rewards his people on earth with wealth and worldly success (ie. the prosperity gospel) also has Calvinist roots to it as well. In addition, Calvin was one of the main forces in the Reformation that argued a more complete jettison of the value of tradition than Luther did. None of these necessarily have to apply to Calvinism in theory, but in practice are the result of it in the US at least.

The other very significant problem I have with Calvinism, which many have mentioned already, is the lack of free will. It sets up God as a rather cruel figure, making people predestined for hell without the opportunity to choose to do otherwise. I was taught from a very young age that God loves us so much that He gives us the choice to follow him or not. This choice is deeply intertwined with the belief in the existence of the human soul; it is a piece of the mechanism by which God gives meaning to our lives. Without free will, we don't actually matter. We're just tools. Our lives don't matter. There's no point in having this conversation at all, since we couldn't change our minds if we wanted to anyway.

One of my personal struggles in life is against a despairing nihilism that says all humanity is hopelessly lost beyond any means I can see of turning it all around. But what breaks that idea is the intrinsic value of humanity, intertwined with the belief that God has created each and every one of us as fundamentally good beings, though in a fallen state. That difference shows the value of humanity and makes it much easier to love others no matter what state they're in. That's the model Christ showed us and the one we ought to emulate.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The question itself is stupid of course.

I see them as equal.

To BRTD:
Those who oppose gay marriage(as I have always done and will never evolve or reconstruct on this) are not evil haters or bigots. I oppose it because it flies in the face of God's picture of how He wants to relate with humanity. It also flies in the face of medical wisdom and science. It also behooves me to also add that these are the same reasons that "gay couples" should never be able to adopt. As Benji Nolot, a modern day abolitionist, said recently on his twitter

Liberty without morality is anarchy

Is that what the proponents of ssm want? That is what they (supporters of ssm) adovcate for all intents and purposes. I know not many share my view on marriage on this site and think my view is extreme yet I have this view not because of religious belief (though that does influence it). Its because the best situation for a child to be raised is a home with a mom and a dad together and married to each other. Any situation less than that has shown significant negative consequences.

What ‘medical wisdom and science’? Since when did either of these things have anything to do with a marriage contract? However if you want to go down that route then let’s do it. We are humans but we are also animals. I know you like to think we are special and made in the likeness of god which undoubtedly means that god has too many teeth (which before the advent of basic ‘slam a door remove a tooth’ dentistry killed off most of our ancestors by the early 20’s), a redundant tailbone, an appendix that can kill us and sinuses that drain the wrong way. Like animals we have sex. Not all animals of course; sex by procreation; the male slamming or rubbing his bits against the female is actually the minority; we are natures ‘sexual deviants’ if it were. Anyhoo, in just about every observed animal that reproduces through procreation, some of these animals have sex with animals of the same sex. And you know it’s like that in animals separated by millions, even hundreds of millions of years of evolution. And you know what? It keeps happening! You could shoot every animal and every person who does it in the head until there were none left and a generation later it would start out all over again. So it’s pretty much here to stay. And like most things that are here to stay, like walking, eating and sh-tting there’s obviously a reason for it. So that’s your gods plan.

Now we humans constructed a thing called ‘marriage.’ It happened long before the Sumerian war god Jehovah was even on the scene. We did it because we formed societies; we learned how to farm, learned how to own and parcel land and needed a way to ensure it passed down. Humans like all animals who procreate form bonds with the person we f-ck. Some are fleeting, some are long term. It’s kind of taken us a while to get to the fact that gay people do it to. They have sex. They form relationships. And both of these are incredibly fulfilling. Male animals often thrust into the anuses of other male animals because they bang the prostate which is absolutely delightful. Best thing to do to a man if you ask me and thankfully the straights are realising that too. Now of course if your god has created man in his own likeness having such easy access to the male ‘g-spot’ inside the anus that can be stimulated by penile thrusting is far more beneficial than having upside down sinuses that require me to stick my head into a bowl with salts when I have a headcold. But, to be scatological for a second, you are no doubt arguing that the anus is for sh-tting. Which of course it is, just as much as the penis is for peeing and the lips are for talking. When it comes to sex, every part of the body is a sexual organ and if you were at all comfortable with sex you would realise that. But I digress. In short, there are gays and always will be gays. And it’s very much biological. So it seems stupid to deny something we’ve created like marriage, that is based solely on the on biological impulse to ‘mate’ to gays?

But won’t somebody think of the children? You know, nine in ten of all sexual assaults on children happen in the family home by a family member. Probably a few blocks away from you there is probably a wholesome married father is f-cking his young daughter. It’s horrific but it’s true. You cannot judge a persons ability to be a good parent for their child or someone else’s based on the fact that they are married. There isn’t the evidence to support that. Stability is important, but stability can be found in a married home where there is love, a same sex home where there is love or with a single mother who takes her child out of the hell they’ve been living in and gives them stability. You don’t magically receive a ‘good parenting’ certificate when you marry. It doesn’t mean you’re going to be any good and it doesn’t mean it’s going to be a good environment for children. The amount of people I know who grew up in a married home where their parents despised each other or hurled things across the room and it f-ucked them up for life is horrifying. Divorce when it came was a blessing for everyone. I take it therefore, JCL, that if you meet someone who’s just wonderful, absolutely wonderful who was raised by two mums or two dads that you’re not going to argue that they are worse off than the daughter plowed weekly by her father or raised in a married family where plates were thrown at walls.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Oh great, the voter fraud arguments.


You are more likely to be struck by lightening than find one chance instance of voter fraud. And voting multiple times? LOL. Barfbag you really are a partisan hack! Voter fraud carries a penalty of $10,000 fine and 5 years in jail, for what? One vote.


Most voter fraud comes at registration, not the ballot box. Voter suppression, caging, falsely adding to felon lists, lying about one's residential status, etc.

US elections are actually very honest, despite the few isolated cases of voter fraud. The only election where reputable claims of voter fraud were made was in 2000, but literally anything could be blamed when it was decided by 537 votes.

Most accusations of voter fraud are based on isolated discrepancies that are blown completely out of proportion by partisan hacks like the 2 above. Voters make mistakes. Election workers make mistakes. Voting in the wrong precinct, overvoting, undervoting, confusion about eligibility, etc. I was a poll watcher for the Munster Republican Party and we were constantly calling election officials about whether we could issue an absentee ballot that would later be scrutinized in election courts. And Munster is a mostly-White, affluent community where there would be no need to commit fraud in an already-Republican state.

Out of the 600 million votes cast since 2000, only 633 were proven cases of voter fraud, 10 of which were in-person. 1 in 60 million is virtually non-existant. (http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud)

Allegations of voter fraud are just a way for politicians to go their bases and say, "Look! We're protecting you from those evil election-stealing illegals and dead people!".

I am far more concerned about wrongly denying eligible people THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE more than a few isolated and random cases of voter fraud.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What a fun thread this is.

I think, perhaps, there is more pressure on women (particularly young women) to be a certain way, in terms of social skills, etiquette, interpersonal relationships, etc., and there is risk of exclusion from social groups (by both men and women) if a woman reveals herself to be a "nerd" or "geek" in terms of personality and interests (Men face that risk too, don't get me wrong, but I seriously doubt it's nearly as much of a stigma for men as it is for women). It's the same reason why engineering, sciences, mathematics, etc. are such sausage-fests. Of course, the sexism and misogyny and general trolling among groups of like-minded men don't help matters....

I also think, perhaps more of the women who are politically active are more interested in real-world, relevant political and social issues than they are in, say, reading about whether Robert Taft should have run for President in an alternate history timeline in 1952, or reading a manifesto of Cogendism or Communitarianism or whatever, or indeed, looking at the nuances of past and present election maps.

Most of this is just me speculating/thinking out loud, and should not be taken as assertions of fact.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Interesting, but trying to judge Genesis 1-11 by its scientific merit largely misses the point.  ..

Still, your criticism of Genesis 1-11 is not wholly without merit.  In a real sense the Bible begins with the tale of Abram and what precedes it has the appearance of something added on later to establish a cosmology as was found in neighboring religious traditions even tho it was not originally of major importance to the Hebrew religions.

My critique had nothing really to do with science; I was very specific on that. I was stating that if there was 'The God', then as Christian claims of Jesus' divinity are strongly linked to Yahweh once you start walking through the Old Testament you start running into issues which should make you question whether the book could have been inspired by The God at all.

Your premise seems based on the admittedly common assumption that the message of Christ (as opposed to that of the structured church that arose from that message) was an exclusionist one.  I come at Christianity from a Universalist perspective.  I see Jesus' message as having been that the one true path to salvation was based on his teachings, not that he was the only one who could teach them.  Indeed, he quite explicitly rejects the idea that there is some checklist of things that once done without any consideration of why they should be done, you are assured of salvation and need not do more.

I see the Divine as providing guidance to mankind, not absolute rules that would eliminate free will.  It's quite clear that for whatever reason, God values free will and rarely intervenes to directly impose it.  I see the Hebrew testament as inspired by God, yet shaped by men who would impose their own will upon others as that of God. Yet as Jesus himself taught, do not judge prophets solely by the wonders they do but also the purposes for which they do them.

Much of the problem of the Abrahamic religions, as with other religions, has been people asserting that their own will is that of God.  Yet if one looks, one can find the divine message shining through the gaps in the wickerwork that those who seek to impose their own sense of order upon the Divine have woven around it. I choose to work with the wickerwork known as The Bible because it is the one I am most familiar with.  I'll admit, I want more order in religion than I find, and I do worry about what wicker I might be weaving in my search for it.  Yet I am only human and I can but do my best.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The United States has an enormous target on its back, and the Paul family's strategy of appeasing terrorists and pulling out of every place in the world is not going to do anything to help.

Why do the vast majority of terrorists commit the actions they do?

As long as the United States is a superpower, it will be the target of extremism. Is it the end of the world to give the government the resources it needs to protect innocent people? I don't think so. Sure, it makes me uneasy, but I trust that the United States takes seriously its mandate to defend the homeland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The issue is that it's not 'the United States' operating here. It's specific people who are sitting in NSA centers reading through these databases. These people can abuse the system and it is entirely likely that they will. What happens when they do?

The West is waging a War on Terror whether Obama wants to call it that or not. The consequences of pulling out of that war, especially at home, are real and pronounced. I won't take the chance. For that, I could never, ever support someone as dangerous as Rand Paul. Bush made a lot of mistakes, but one thing he did do is strengthen America's defenses. God willing, the United States will not vote to destroy those defenses... or it will be to the country's own detriment. 

What a load of bullsh*t. Bush? Strengthening America's defenses? All he's done is aid terrorism. Terrorism is triggered by military occupations - by increasing military occupations we're increasing terrorism. The War in Iraq increased the threat of terrorism (Nat'l Intelligence Estimate). Every month there's more terrorists trying to kill Americans in Islamic countries - because we're sowing resentments that are the breeding ground for future terrorism. Bush has been a great President, if you measure greatness by al-Qaeda recruitment efforts.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Who hates Hillary supporters more, Hillary supporters or Hillary opponents? Hillary supporters. Why? 'Cause we hate ourselves too. Everything Hillary opponents hate about Hillary supporters, Hillary supporters REALLY hate about ourselves. Hell, there's a civil war going on in Hillary's camp right now. It's between Hillary's supporters ("those of us who would answer "Hillary Clinton" when polled among the current 2016 choices") and Hillary's Supporters^TM. And the Hillary Supporters^TM have got to go!

I frickin' hate Hillary Supporters^TM. They're Hillary's worst enemy.

Hillary's supporters like Hillary, but we respect her enough to realize she hasn't declared for anything yet. She understandably probably wants some time to rest up and think things over. She's barely said anything on domestic politics in years, and it's possible her views on some things have changed. And the election is three friggin' years away. We eagerly await her next book, but realize that overexposure is not a good thing for her right now.

Hillary Supporters^TM don't seem to realize this. They don't think Hillary can make her own decision and feel that she needs to see that we are all "Ready for Hillary". Some of them are well intention-ed, and may even have worked very closely with the SoS. But they feel the need to start campaigning right away.

Hillary supporters appreciate that Hillary is a hard worker who never takes anything for granted and doesn't feel entitled to anything that she hasn't earned (unlike some). We realize arguments like "she's a Queen", "she deserves it", and "she's a woman" are sh**t argument that actually hurt her, and are very un-Hillary. Hillary Supporters^TM, on the other hand, make exactly those arguments, or promote articles that do, even those written by Republican operatives. A Hillary supporter who is attracted to Hillary precisely because she's the overqualified type hates the Hillary Supporter^TM who thinks the party should anoint her now simply because of who she is.

Hillary supporters think Hillary has a great, smart and sharp mind and are looking forward to hearing her message in a campaign if she runs. Hillary Supporter^TM don't care about what she has to say, they support her just because she's HILLARY. A Hillary Supporter^TM will say something like, "She's going to be the nominee." sh**t, sister, you don't know who's going to be the nominee in three years and neither do I.

So in conclusion, my message to all Hillary Supporters^TM is Shut the F___ Up.
-Hillary supporter

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Wow.  That actually makes a lot of sense.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Apparently Nathan objects to the term 'invisible sky wizard'. Generic it may be, but accurate nonetheless.

Any scholar of religion with two brain cells to rub together would at the very least have concerns about using it to describe Christianity, unless Christianity is being understood solely on the level of its symbolism (without reference to what those things are supposed to be symbols of), in which case one is essentially sneering at people for having different taste in art than oneself and is as such an even more insufferably smug piece of work. I actually doubt that this is the case, however. I think that most of the people who say this sort of thing think that it is actually a fair characterization of what Christians (or Muslims, or Jews, or whoever else) believe, and that isn't really worth going to the trouble of holding in contempt.

Actually, any scholar of religion with two brain cells to rub together would object, either out of genuine sympathetic and humane feeling or simply for fear of gaining a richly earned bad name and being known as a terrible excuse for a scholar of religion ever after, to reducing people's beliefs to demeaning cliches regardless of accuracy, but why allow those kinds of considerations to interrupt our thinking when we obviously know what's best?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hell no.

We are a dying, stumbling empire.  Our army is demoralized and badly in need of rest.  Our foreign relationships are frayed.  We have abdicated all legitimate claims to being the morality cops to the rest of the world.  We have bridges that are collapsing, cities that are vulnerable to superstorms which will occur more frequently as a result of our tendency to live large, and we're seriously considering spending billions of dollars to help stabilize the region that supplies our addiction?!  It's too much for any sane person to bear.  Bush Lite is becoming as bad as Bush.  And so are the rest of them. 

We have huge problems in this country that need solving.  Dr. Bashar al Assad is a problem for the Syrians.  He only becomes a problem for me because Mr. Obama says he's a problem for me.  What brainwashing.  To hell with it.  We should vote Obama and every one of those bums in congress out the next chance we get.  I cannot believe people are actually considering this.  Viet Nam.  Iraq.  Afghanistan.  We just don't ever learn, do we.  We're a stubborn, militaristic people, and if we insist on continuing these futile and costly exercises in imperialism, then we deserve the economic ruin that will surely accompany them.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Why do you hate it TJ? I gave my reason.

I hate Black Friday because it is a pathetic display of the insanity of American Atlasian consumerism at its very worst. The day seems to exist for the very purpose of being a caricature for our ADD world where we change all our pricing for one day (right after we hypocritically profess to God and our families our deep gratitude and contentness for all we have) so people can get trampled to death in a stampede at Walmart to get some random object at 30% off. I mean, for heaven sakes, folks, can we at least remember what we all said the day before? Oh wait, now it's like 5 hours ago since Friday starts on Thursday or something like that. And apparently no one would do Christmas shopping unless we're lead by the TV set like Pavlov's dogs foaming at the mouth, or so it seems by the fact that companies continue to hold Black Friday sales (if it didn't work, no one would do it). Not to mention this is all done for a holiday which the season for hasn't even started yet.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Anyway, calling our position "hawkish" is stupid. The so-called "peace" position basically boils down to allowing (and implicitly encouraging!) Assad to continue to indiscriminately massacre Syrian civilians, while confirming to all other dictators in the world that the use of chemical weapons is no longer taboo. How is that any more anti-war than our position?

Deaths will if anything spike if we get involved, and given that all of the fighting is in urban areas against a far more competent military force than Qaddafi's, anything more than a limited strike on chemical weapons assets (which obviously won't stop the killing or harm the regime's warmaking capacity in any way--95%+ of deaths have been from conventional weaponry, which is somehow okay) will result in massive collateral damage that won't do much to improve Syrian civilians' opinion of us.

A foreign imperial power trying to bring peace with bombs will only cause more suffering than there already is in Syria, but of course the military contractors whose tentacles extend into our government media won't let that view see the light of day. Why do you think MSNBC, a network of Obama hacks, is so gung-ho about bombing Syria? Why, they're owned by GE, which also owns the presidency. Like all wars, the owning class sends the working class to battle.

Getting back to Syria, a large chunk of the opposition is Sunni Islamists and that chunk is growing daily, leading me to suspect that if Assad is somehow ousted, he would be replaced with either bloody chaos or an Islamist regime. If the latter happens, expect it to be whitewashed like how Kosovo's president is a horrifically corrupt mob boss who butchered Serbs for their organs or how Libya is on the brink of collapse into tribal warfare while Islamists are cracking down on women's rights and making Rick Santorum look like Dan Savage in their homophobic rhetoric.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Good post because it sums up Obamacare and cuts through the BS:

1. It is mandated that every American purchase health insurance or pay a fee.

2. To assist in this, the state and/or federal government sets up health care exchanges with Bronze/Silver/Gold/Platinum plans offered by the government.  The plans are not run by the government, but contracted to private insurers in each state depending on who bidded the lowest price to be the official bronze, silver, gold, or platinum plan in each state. 

3. If you can still not afford the lowest price of these four plans, the government will also be providing tax subsidies depending on your distance from the poverty line--above 100%, 200%, 300%, or 400% to assist you in this payment.

4. Note the subsidies are only for above the poverty line.  If you are below it, you receive an even greater subsidy: the ability to now join Medicaid through a state run Medicaid expansion, paid fully by the federal government.  That's right--free health insurance for the poor at not cost to the state government.  Unfortunately, many states run by anti-Obamacare governors and legislatures have decided against expanding Medicaid, leaving millions of below poverty line Americans with no insurance and no subsidy.  Meaning, the poorest Texans, Alabamans, North Dakotans, etc. will be forced to pay fees for no insurance because the state government refuses to accept free money to give them insurance. On the bright side, the emergency room costs, costs to employers of low income earners, and loss of income by Medicaid institutions is economic damnation for these states and competition between states will eventually require them to file suit.

That, my friends, is Obamacare in four points.  Note how the longest, most convoluted point of the four is the only one where anti-Obamacare influences have tried to meddle in.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The Republicans obviously.

The wonderful thing about a shutdown is that it reminds people, particularly sections of the ignorant poor (whose ignorance is often fanned by the GOP) of how important the federal government actually is to their daily lives.

Over the past decade the GOP has decamped from the ‘small government’ ethos that once argued for a balanced approach to federal government, state government, funding and growth to a position that seems to be nothing more than out and out hatred for government simply functioning. That attitude also seems to pervade positions taken by the court as well. People say that the GOP has a dislike for minority interests however recently it’s apparent that they are a minority in hatred of the majority. Public support and electoral vindication of ‘Obamacare’ has swamped them, same goes for women’s bodies, gay rights, immigration, education. The GOP takes the minority position on nearly every salient public issue of the day. It no longer rests on the political spectrum at all and is now a conspiracy driven machine. The truth is it’s the internet that did it. The GOP’s grassroots are conspiracy theorists; they are birthers, they are the poor who think Mexicans want to swamp the country, they are the people who think the Muslim Brotherhood have infiltrated the government, the people who think that women can shut down a pregnancy, that climate change isn’t happening, that science is dangerous, that atheists hate America, that teaching children the age of the earth is unconstitutional and that gays are the worst group of people in America. They are the people who boo gay servicemen. They are the Christian right and the Paultards and every ideology of that nature that exists on a diet of conspiracy or if that’s not their thing, create a version of ‘reality’ that meets their needs.

It was etched on their faces on election night; the entire Romney campaign just didn’t know never mind didn’t accept what was actually happening out there. These people have Palin, and Cruz and Beck and Fox and WND and Unskewed Polls and a whole wealth of internet resources to back them up. Reality is nothing more than an inconvenience. The problem for any moderates in the GOP is that these people are now conditioned to think that way. If it means driving the GOP off an electoral cliff they will do it.