Republicunts, do you believe in Dinosaurs? [Archive]

Adolf Allerbush

09-11-2008, 12:08 PM

Source? (For Palins dinosaur position..oh god that came out wrong.. position on dinosaurs...not Mat Damon's position on Palin (and here I thought it was Sarah Silverman)).

Well, she believes in creationism over evolution...so, as part of that belief system one must then think that dinosaurs fossils have been incorrectly carbon dated and in reality are only a few thousand years old.

DINOSAURS - Every natural history museum in the world today displays large dinosaur models. Their defensive teeth, spikes and claws are often shown extended. As evidence of the prior existence of these kinds of creatures we have a myriad of bones found on multiple continents, footprints buried in sedimentary layers and ... legends. All over the world people remember the dangerous dragons of old. But they slowly went extinct. Men feared and hated them. Stories of ancient encounters with dinosaurs/dragons are found in China, Thailand, including other parts of Asia, and in Roman, Russian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, North, South, and Central America, and across Africa too. Are we so much smarter and more academically inclined than all of our ancestors that we should reject all of their historical records - just to prop up temporary evolutionary theory?

Carbon-14 dating of carbon buried in the same layer with dragon bones helps to confirm that they are really only thousands of years old. The myth-ions and myth-ions of years never happened; only in the past 200 years has it become fashionable to forget our true ancient history (of thousands of years) in favor of God-hating (or: "bumbling-inherently-weak-god") evolution. Evolution requires the belief in long epochs of supposed time and chance improvements.

Dragons and sea monsters have become mostly extinct prior to our modern era. By the way, there is evidence that they grew much larger prior to the Great Flood. Just as humans lived much longer (Genesis records ages of some people to have reached over 900 years!) so a reptile ... living much longer then could have grown much larger before the Flood - which is indeed what we see in the fossil record of the pre-Flood world.

Humans and lions live on Earth at the same time today. But we live in different places. Porpoises will ram sharks that come into their waters. So naturally then they also live in different places - while living at the same time. Why couldn't humans and dinosaurs have lived at the same time? They'd probably keep mostly separate and then get buried separately if there was a catastrophe, but this could be theoretically possible, correct? There are at least two places known today with human and dinosaur tracks in the same sedimentary layer: one is in Paluxy, Texas, the other in Eastern Turkmenistan. Plus we have the legends, from all inhabited continents mind you, which should not be automatically discounted.

from: http://www.creationism.org/topbar/dinosaurs.htm

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God....

Summit

09-11-2008, 12:08 PM

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/velociraptors.jpg

Buster Highmen

09-11-2008, 12:15 PM

Well, she believes in creationism over evolution...so, as part of that belief system one must then think that dinosaurs fossils have been incorrectly carbon dated and in reality are only a few thousand years old.

from: http://www.creationism.org/topbar/dinosaurs.htm

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God....
Well c'mon now, you're Miss Construing the facts here. Evidently she believes that dinosaurs existed...within the last 6000 years.

The AD

09-11-2008, 12:17 PM

Dinosaurs still exist. (http://qwantz.com)

365wp

09-11-2008, 12:19 PM

I don't know about the Rebublicunts but speaking as a racist,bigoted xenophobe, I believe in dinosaurs.

I believe they were slaughtered by God to give me all the oil I need to drive my big fucking SUV all over the planet. That's why I firmly support drilling for oil all over this country to eliminate the need for further dealing with those Godless Muslim Heathens.

Eh, I believe in bacon. I firmly support drilling for bacon. The vast bacon preserves of the Sierra Madre will support this country for years to come.

David Witherspoon

09-11-2008, 12:21 PM

Serious question...because it appears that Palin thinks that dinosaurs never existed.
As Highmen already noted - technically, creationists do believe that dinosaurs existed. A few thousand years ago. Then God used a big planetary flood to kill them all and buried their corpses at various (suspiciously specific) depths. Probably because they wouldn't fit on the Ark. Or maybe they were just a bunch of dirty lizards that needed killin'. Like most people were at that time. Apparently.

So regardless of whether Palin is a creationist or not - she's too ashamed to admit it and too fearful to reject it - she almost certainly bleevs in dinosaurs.

Anyway, she is someone who is deceitful enough to say they think this might be an accurate representation of some period in the past:
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c320/quackmos/810-0326A1DINO.jpg
Deceitful - because I don't think she's either that dumb or that ignorant.

GoldMember

09-11-2008, 12:25 PM

Adolf Allerbush

09-11-2008, 12:45 PM

Adolf,

First, is the Republicunts comment really necessary? It doesn't show you as being very open-minded and is kind of juvenile in its own right. Even if you don't agree with other's opinions, respect for their right to opinions shows respect to them as people. We're not all going to agree on everything and there's certainly enough disagreement on issues between factions of the parties that you're unlikely to find very many people that agree with you on every point. Do you therefore disrespect the vast majority of the population if they don't think in lockstep with your views?

You're likely to get a better hearing of your views if you don't block people's minds with that kind of comment. My comment also goes to Uncle Crud and the others who are constantly name-calling on either side of any argument; it does little to advance anyone's school of thought. But I digress...

Do you have a source of Palin's not believing in dinosaurs? I tried briefly to find something on it but struck out.

edit: got the post up late (damn telephone). I see the link you've put out.

You're right, name calling is juvenile...I'd change the thread name but it appears I cannot. I went back and changed my post...apologies.

Here's the deal with the believing in dinosaurs or not...she believes in creationism, which therefore requires her to throw out science and believe that those who conduct the carbon dating are in cahoots and have decided to create a hudge conspiracy about dinosaurs to further their cause. This is questionable judgment IMO. It's a bit unnerving to think this same judgment could be used in deciding weather or not to use the US's hudge nuclear arsenal. Do you find that troubling? If not, why are you ok with this? How do you justify her position on evolution? With the US continuously falling in math and science scores internationally is it really a good idea to have somebody (potentially) in power that thinks science is a farce?

timvwcom

09-11-2008, 12:51 PM

Pfft... Everyone knows they are Jesus Horses.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/414998399_4b1b06b1b8_b.jpg

TeleHoar

09-11-2008, 12:53 PM

David Witherspoon

09-11-2008, 01:00 PM

Creationist freaks are a small percentage of the Christians.
I wish that were true. But it's not. And you need to clean house. Get to work, quit pretending you don't have a problem.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Adolf Allerbush

09-11-2008, 01:04 PM

Wow you are really really stretching, and putting words in her mouth.

Most main stream church going folk have no problem believing in Dinosaurs existing within the ages theorized.

Creationist freaks are a small percentage of the Christians.

I'd argue the opposite...IMO the people who are really really stretching are those that believe in creationism...to suggest that the majority of the scientific community are wrong is poor judgment.

I'm not talking about most mainstream church going folk and/or Christians...I'm talking about the repubs VP nominee...some one that could be one heart beat away from the presidency...and we all know McCain is in poor health with his multiple bouts with cancer and will be the oldest first term president ever beating out William Henry Harrison...who died a month into office after an epically long inauguration speech

Tele'ndaboat

09-11-2008, 01:04 PM

GoldMember

09-11-2008, 01:05 PM

You're right, name calling is juvenile...I'd change the thread name but it appears I cannot. I went back and changed my post...apologies.

Here's the deal with the believing in dinosaurs or not...she believes in creationism, which therefore requires her to throw out science and believe that those who conduct the carbon dating are in cahoots and have decided to create a hudge conspiracy about dinosaurs to further their cause. This is questionable judgment IMO. It's a bit unnerving to think this same judgment could be used in deciding weather or not to use the US's hudge nuclear arsenal. Do you find that troubling? If not, why are you ok with this? How do you justify her position on evolution? With the US continuously falling in math and science scores internationally is it really a good idea to have somebody (potentially) in power that thinks science is a farce?

As I noted above, there are different beliefs within the parties. For example, Republicans are traditionally against gays or are at least perceived that way and do little to persuade people otherwise yet the Log Cabin Republicans are a recognized faction within the party. Go figure. That's just one example.

As to your point, I'm not a strong R on social issues at all. I'm not a rightwing evangelical, I believe in science, evolution, dinosaurs that existed millions of years ago; I don't go to church and consider organized religions to be mostly a crutch for some who need others to believe as they do due to their own insecurities. I don't want them pushing their beliefs onto me and I don't push my beliefs onto others; my beliefs are mine and are private. That the R party panders to that particular voter bloc bothers me. So, regarding the concern of voting for McCain in light of Palin's alleged beliefs is an issue that I want to learn more about.

I'll be very interested in watching ABC's interview(s) and subsequent stories from AK in the next couple of days. As a sidebar, the guy who puts together all our ski videos is doing a lot of the shooting for ABC and is doing the interview. He also shot for ABC on July 4 when Obama was in Butte, MT and got a chance to meet him and speak with him. The same's true with Palin so I'm going to be very interested in what he says as well.

Buster Highmen

09-11-2008, 01:07 PM

I don't disagree, and this may be off topic, but republicunt just seems like an equal to librodouche to me. Wich has been in multiple thread titles.
zzzzziiiiiiiingggggg....

Adolf Allerbush

09-11-2008, 01:10 PM

As I noted above, there are different beliefs within the parties. For example, Republicans are traditionally against gays or are at least perceived that way and do little to persuade people otherwise yet the Log Cabin Republicans are a recognized faction within the party. Go figure. That's just one example.

As to your point, I'm not a strong R on social issues at all. I'm not a rightwing evangelical, I believe in science, evolution, dinosaurs that existed millions of years ago; I don't go to church and consider organized religions to be mostly a crutch for some who need others to believe as they do due to their own insecurities. I don't want them pushing their beliefs onto me and I don't push my beliefs onto others; my beliefs are mine and are private. That the R party panders to that particular voter bloc bothers me. So, regarding the concern of voting for McCain in light of Palin's alleged beliefs is an issue that I want to learn more about.

I'll be very interested in watching ABC's interview(s) and subsequent stories from AK in the next couple of days. As a sidebar, the guy who puts together all our ski videos is doing a lot of the shooting for ABC and is doing the interview. He also shot for ABC on July 4 when Obama was in Butte, MT and got a chance to meet him and speak with him. The same's true with Palin so I'm going to be very interested in what he says as well.

I hear you. I couldn't care less what religious beliefs people have or don't have...it matters not. You'll have to post what your bud that's shooting the interview thinks of the candidates.

GoldMember

09-11-2008, 01:13 PM

I don't disagree, and this may be off topic, but republicunt just seems lie and equal to librodouche to me. Wich has been in multiple thread titles.

I agree with you and have tried to avoid the "ground noise and static" which is why I commented on Uncle Crud's comments too. I picked out Adolf as I think he's genuine and I don't like to see him lower to the levels of some others here. As Buster noted elsewhere, all this about lipstick, pigs, librodouches, republicunts, and the rest is totally meaningless and only further builds walls between people that ultimately diminishes the important elements of the election; what are the issues and where do the candidates stand? To that end, I'm 'reaching across the aisle' to try and tone down the acrimony a bit. The divisions between camps and subsequent name-calling is seriously damaging to our country and society. Even the excuse that 'it's only the internet' doesn't fly as this (internet, not necessarily TGR) is where a vast number of people get information and form opinions. We need to stop the destructive behavior or it will destroy us eventually. Just trying to do my part.

Buster Highmen

09-11-2008, 01:17 PM

To that end, I'm 'reaching across the aisle' to try and tone down the acrimony a bit. .. Just trying to do my part.

I asked you not to touch me there >>blush<<

GoldMember

09-11-2008, 01:25 PM

I asked you not to touch me there >>blush<<

I merely referenced the Log Cabin Republicans, I didn't say I was one of them.....

TeleHoar

09-11-2008, 01:37 PM

hutash

09-11-2008, 01:56 PM

and just because Christians believe God made man doesn't mean they are all fundamentalist wack jobs. I'll say it again. Most have no problem reconciling modern scientific discoveries with their religion.

Mostly because they don't try. They just ignore the bits that trouble them, or at least should.

I fail to see how anybody who looks at the know evidence can reconcile it with the bible, other then the bible bits about being nice to each other/golder rule, which has been around a lot longer then the bible.

The point is, if someone has such bad judgment as to believe in creationism, do they have the judgment to lead country?

Buster Highmen

09-11-2008, 02:07 PM

I merely referenced the Log Cabin Republicans, I didn't say I was one of them.....
Uh-huh...sure, I... uh ..had never heard of them before..nice group?

David Witherspoon

09-11-2008, 02:10 PM

45% of Americans believe that humans were created by God pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago.
Of the people surveyed in that poll, 48%+34% = 82% believe that the Bible is the literal or inspired word of God - safe bet that they're Christians. 18% considered the Bible to be a bunch of fables or weren't sure - safe bet that they are not Young Earth Creationists or Christians. So 45%/82% = 55% - most - of Christians are, in fact, Young Earth Creationists.

A.k.a. "fundamentalist wack jobs."

Don't like that poll or those calculations? Fine by me. Go find something better. Until then, that poll holds more water than your anonymous wishful claiming.

Creationist freaks are a small percentage of the Christians.

... doesn't mean they are all fundamentalist wack jobs. ... Most have no problem ...
Good to see your position shift from your indefensible "a small percentage" to a near-tautologically useless "not all of them" and finally back to a reasonable - but still incorrect - "not most of them."

So I'll say it again:
You got some house cleanin' to do. Quit dodgin' the facts & makin' excuses for your peers.

If you let someone else do the house cleaning, they're just gonna throw the whole kit'n'kaboodle into the composter and call it good riddance.

Your choice.

Adolf Allerbush

09-11-2008, 02:18 PM

Jeez...Obama believes in Jesus too.
Or he is just going to church every Sunday to "look good"

Either way....

and just because Christians believe God made man doesn't mean they are all fundamentalist wack jobs. I'll say it again. Most have no problem reconciling modern scientific discoveries with their religion.

And I'll say it again...we're not talking about all of the Christians in the U.S. Rather we're talking about the veep candidate for the republican ticket. Why can you not understand that? Regardless I think DW's polls seem to indicate that your "most" theory is at the very least questionable.

Rubicon

09-11-2008, 02:28 PM

Here's the deal with the believing in dinosaurs or not...she believes in creationism, which therefore requires her to throw out science and believe that those who conduct the carbon dating are in cahoots and have decided to create a hudge conspiracy about dinosaurs to further their cause.

You are judging something without all the facts. Do you know what specific branch of creationist thought Palin subscribes to? There are strains of creationists who believe that the science is right but that God created the earth with age. Just like he created Adam and Eve as mature adults he created a mature earth and universe, complete with a built in history, to support the life he placed there.

I don't know what Palin believes. But just the fact that she subscribes to a creationist version of our origins does not automatically preclude rational thought and acceptance of science.

Tippster

09-11-2008, 02:36 PM

That is hysterical.. "Built in Age." Hahahahahahahahaa

PNWbrit

09-11-2008, 02:44 PM

You are judging something without all the facts.

I thought this a kind of funny way to start a post attempting to defend creationism.

just the fact that she subscribes to a creationist version of our origins does not automatically preclude rational thought and acceptance of science.

Errrrrr yes, yes it does.

Adolf Allerbush

09-11-2008, 02:50 PM

You are judging something without all the facts. Do you know what specific branch of creationist thought Palin subscribes to? There are strains of creationists who believe that the science is right but that God created the earth with age. Just like he created Adam and Eve as mature adults he created a mature earth and universe, complete with a built in history, to support the life he placed there.

I don't know what Palin believes. But just the fact that she subscribes to a creationist version of our origins does not automatically preclude rational thought and acceptance of science.

No, I don't know what specific branch of creationism she prescribes to. I'm hoping that in the interview tonight and over the next few months she'll elaborate on her views. I think that's what everyone needs from her and it can only help the republican campaign. There are a lot of quotes out there saying she's not for adding creationism to the science curriculum in schools but that if it's brought up in class that it should be discussed. What that "discussion" would be I don't know. From what I've read she would like it discussed as an alternative theory to that of the theory of evolution. Personally I'm not cool with that as creationism is not "science". So her judgment is flawed IMO and I don't really want that type of judgment in charge of anything let alone the U.S. Here's some quotes from an article that google dug up:

She’s in favor of teaching both creationism and evolution in the public schools. "Teach both," she said in a 2006 gubernatorial debate. "Don’t be afraid of information." McCain believes the issue should be decided by individual school districts.

"It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion."

from here: http://www.thelangreport.com/political-commentary/sarah-palin-creationism-god-and-country-pt2/

So, to me I read that as saying that the Creationist idea of how the world came to be is a "theory" in her opinion and one that should be duscussed along side the theory of evolution. That makes me think she can't seem to make the distinction between scientific theory and religious belief...that's troubling to me.

Rubicon

09-11-2008, 03:00 PM

I thought this a kind of funny way to start a post attempting to defend creationism.

You misunderstand, intentionally I think. I'm not defending creationism. I am pointing out that not all people who believe in creation also believe that scientist's are conspiring to fool everyone. Nothing more.

Errrrrr yes, yes it does.

Thought exercise: If an omnipotent god, in an instant, created a universe that was identical to one that had evolved over billions of years, from our perspective-right now, looking back-how would you tell the difference?

This creation scenario is constructed so that there can never be a conflict with science. It is an attempt to reconcile religious belief with science without rejecting either one. I know this creates a conflict with your desire to disparage Palin as a whack job who doesn't believe in dinosaurs but if you do that without knowing more about her beliefs, then you are engaging in wish fulfillment. You are saying what you want to be true rather than what you have reason to believe is true.

OTOH, if we find out that she doesn't believe in dinosaurs then I will be right there with you saying that she is a whack job who rejects science and rational thought. But neither you nor I know enough about her to say that yet.

Rubicon

09-11-2008, 03:07 PM

From what I've read she would like it discussed as an alternative theory to that of the theory of evolution. Personally I'm not cool with that as creationism is not "science". So her judgment is flawed IMO and I don't really want that type of judgment in charge of anything let alone the U.S. Here's some quotes from an article that google dug up:

I'm not cool with that either. The two "theories" are not on par with each other. One is science, the other superstition and one should never be offered as an alternative to the other.

Fortunately the POTUS isn't in charge of the science curriculum for the public school system. This is one of the situations where I just have to shake my head and acknowledge that there will never be a candidate who has everything I want.

PNWbrit

09-11-2008, 03:12 PM

Thought exercise:

ok

If an omnipotent god............

You'll tell me when the thinking bit begins will you? Meanwhile should I do push ups.... so we can a least keep the exercise part going?

timvwcom

09-11-2008, 03:19 PM

Fortunately the POTUS isn't in charge of the science curriculum for the public school system...

She's a trojan moose for the far right wing fundamentalist christians... (Bush with lipstick as it were)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1227/553734008_7a7b4a0311.jpg?v=0

Rubicon

09-11-2008, 03:23 PM

I'm going to take this opportunity to bail on the conversation.

That's OK. Maybe next time you can stay and play longer. Cheers.

Cliff Huckable

09-11-2008, 03:33 PM

Someone needs to link to the thread with the Palin-at-church videos. (For the record I don't see too much wrong with them, or odd, but I've spent a lot of time with evangelicals. I do think they show Palin to be very unimpressive and, imho, not at all presidential.)

I don't think religious affiliation should have any bearing on political standing. The President is running a country, not a place of worship.

Rubicon

09-11-2008, 03:37 PM

I don't think religious affiliation should have any bearing on political standing. The President is running a country, not a place of worship.

knock me over with a feather. Cliff and I agree on something.

cloudpeak

09-11-2008, 03:43 PM

I used to carpool with a nice Pentecostal lady who tried to explain things about her religion to me, including speaking in tongues and her belief that her god's giants were protecting her property. She even told me that the giants were protecting my house, too, because, even though I'm not religious, she was sure god must know that I was a good person. She assured me that she had seen the giants on my property.

Just like in the discussion on this thread, I can respect her right to believe whatever she wants. I can respect her for being a nice person and always being reliable in our carpool relationship, but I just couldn't figure out how to have a rational discussion with her. And, I'm absolutely sure that her views of how the world works should never be part of a science curriculum or part of governmental decision making.

The discussion of creationism and its derivatives leaves me in the same position. How to you discuss science with someone who believes their god made the whole thing up and can randomly change things at his whim?

Oh, and, by the way, even though she was really, really nice, I always volunteered to do the driving.

Jer

09-11-2008, 04:03 PM

Seriously tho, what anti-depressant drugs are you libzombies planning on trying in two months? Nobody really answered my question in the poll and I've gotta start investing now.

Adolf Allerbush

09-11-2008, 04:08 PM

Seriously tho, what anti-depressant drugs are you libzombies planning on trying in two months? Nobody really answered my question in the poll and I've gotta start investing now.

blow

1234

Mofro261

09-11-2008, 04:17 PM

You'll get better bang for your buck if you divest and ingest.

FWIW, my drug of choice in two months will be winter.

PNWbrit

09-11-2008, 04:28 PM

waaaaaaahaaaaa take my preposterous planetary poltgeist proposition properly.

Your indignation is funny.

As ever.

Rubicon

09-11-2008, 04:48 PM

Your indignation is funny.

As ever.

Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking, and since I have reason to believe that you are a reasonably intelligent fellow the only conclusion I can draw is that you are being intentionally dense. After this post I am done responding to you.

The statement was made that because Palin believed in creationism she necessarily also believed that scientists are part of a big conspiracy theory to fool everyone and discredit the bible. While there are those who believe this, I pointed out that some creationist's find no conflict between science and the things they accept on faith, and without knowing more about Palin's beliefs there was no way to divine where she stood on matters of science and rational thought. Then gave an example of how someone might accept both without disparaging either. I never said those were my beliefs. They aren't. I never said they had the slightest bit of credibility. In my world, they don't. I was merely pointing out that there is a wide array of beliefs among creationists and not all of them share the qualities being attributed to Palin.

Smokey McPole

09-11-2008, 05:03 PM

I have reason to believe that you are a reasonably intelligent fellow.

Why the hell would you think that?

Seriously, I have yet to see any post by PNWTwit that's above say 5th grade level.

PNWbrit

09-11-2008, 05:32 PM

Rube, calm down, keep your hair on.

If you'll recall I contradicted your assertion that:

just the fact that she subscribes to a creationist version of our origins does not automatically preclude rational thought and acceptance of science.

Despite your protestations about not sharing creationist beliefs you've continued to dignify them with a level of nuance and undeserved gravitas.

So here goes again loudly and vvvvvery slowly - However you choose to theologize them it remains simple. At it's heart it is the belief in a fantastical pixie deciding whether or not to put ears on a shark.

If you'd care to study more about the history of the creationist/evangozombie movement you'd know that dressing this shit up in a waafffer thin veneer of apparent pseudo science is the movement's standard operating procedure. It dupes people frequently into placid acceptance of it if not full on conversion

But dig deeper into the motives, supporters and backers of creationism and you'll see that at it's root lies a very narrow definition of acceptability and freedom of choice in fantastical pixies and the desire to make their pixie and his set of rules in charge whether you like it or not. Which when you think about it's not so different a scheme than the folks we've gone to war with in the middle east. Perhaps we'd notice if the Christofascists knocked over some sky scrapers or didn't look like small town mayor hockey mums?

Thanks for the misplaced concern for my comprehension.

skiergirl

09-11-2008, 05:51 PM

Heh, there's a blogger from near my home town that wrote some fake Palin quotes on his blog. He didn't eh, label them as fake to start though (I think anyway). Someone cross-posted the quotes to a MSNBC forum and off into the internet tubes they went (still without the fake label). This blogger believes Matt Damon picked up the "4,000 years" from him. Whether he did or did not, I do enjoy the FAKE quotes:

How in the hell did Sarah Palin ever pass the vetting by McCain's people? This is unreal. Below are some fake quotes of Governor Palin I made up just for fun:

On Creationism:

The simple yet elegantly awkward moose proves God's creation and not evolution is the source of all life. How could something as oddly shaped and silly looking as a moose evolve through so-called "natural selection?" Is evolution a committee? There is nothing natural about a dorky moose! Only God could have made a moose and given it huge antlers to fight off his predatory enemies. God has a well known sense of humor, I mean He made the platypus too.

On oil exploration and drilling in the ANWR:

God made dinosaurs 4,000 years ago as ultimately flawed creatures, lizards of Satan really, so when they died and became petroleum products we, made in his perfect image, could use them in our pickup trucks, snow machines and fishing boats. Now, as to the ANWR, Todd and I often enjoying caribou hunting and one year we shot up a herd big time, I mean I personally slaughtered around 40 of them with my new, at the time, custom Austrian hunting rifle. And guess what? That caribou herd is still around and even bigger than ever. Caribou herds actually need culling, be it by rifles or wolves, or Exxon-Mobil oil rigs, they do just great!

On Alaskans serving overseas in Iraq:

Well, God bless them, and I mean God and Jesus because without Jesus we'd be Muslims too or Jewish, which would be a little better because of the superior Israeli Air Force.

Disclaimer: She didn't actually say these things - I made them up. But thanks for all the visits.
Fake Quotes (http://unbearablebobness.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/08/governor-sarah-palin-quotes.html)

Smokey McPole

09-11-2008, 05:56 PM

Adolf - you really seem to be obsessed with thei Palin woman. I'll admit she's somewhat intriguing, but I don't go around starting threads about here. Get help, bro - get help.

Adolf Allerbush

09-11-2008, 06:07 PM

Adolf - you really seem to be obsessed with thei Palin woman. I'll admit she's somewhat intriguing, but I don't go around starting threads about here. Get help, bro - get help.

Dude, you're right. Check it out:

A.A. Palin posts http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5577321

VS

Jer Olbermann posts http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5577311

but if you add to those the Jer MSNBC posts http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5577311

and just for shits and giggles Jer librodouche posts (warning, could make TGR forum explode) http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5577350

Now, Jerzilla!!! gets some decent returns on Olbermann http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5577368

Jerzilla!!! talking MSNBC http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5577375

Jerzilla!!! calilng out mad librodouches http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5577386

But the true comparison is the Palin search:

Jer: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5577408

Jerzilla!!!: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5577399

So, we tie on Palin obsession (at least Jerzilla and I do)....but Jer takes the Palin obsession....

Get help bro...

Smokey McPole

09-11-2008, 06:09 PM

Dude, you're right. Check it out:

A.A. Palin posts http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5577321

VS

Jer Olbermann posts http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5577311

but if you add to those the Jer MSNBC posts http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5577311

and just for shits and giggles Jer librodouche posts (warning, could make TGR forum explode) http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5577350

Wow. Talk about unhealthy obsessions.

Anybody know how I can go about getting an E-restraining order?

TruckeeLocal

09-11-2008, 06:11 PM

Wow. Talk about unhealthy obsessions.

Anybody know how I can go about getting an E-restraining order?
There's an ignore function. Truth be told that I have both Jerzilla!!! and Jer on ignore but it's simple to open individual posts.

Adolf Allerbush

09-11-2008, 06:14 PM

Wow. Talk about unhealthy obsessions.

Anybody know how I can go about getting an E-restraining order?

butthurt much?

Smokey McPole

09-11-2008, 06:26 PM

You fascinate me in a sexual way, Jerzilla!!!.

Tell you what - you PayPal me $200 and I'll ship you a pair of my boxers from back before I started freeballing. $75 more for unwashed.

edit: Assbush - why do you keep changing your posts?

Adolf Allerbush

09-11-2008, 06:32 PM

I'd fuck me
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h186/eclipse60540/buffalo4.jpg

I changed that last post because I added a few more searches for your edification.

Smokey McPole

09-11-2008, 06:34 PM

^^^^^^^^^^

OK - that pic's pretty fucking funny!

I'll lower the price to $50 for unwashed.

David Witherspoon

09-11-2008, 09:17 PM

I don't know what Palin believes. But just the fact that she subscribes to a creationist version of our origins does not automatically preclude rational thought and acceptance of science.If she does, then yes, it does. As PNWBrit sed.

Thought exercise: If an omnipotent god, in an instant, created a universe that was identical to one that had evolved over billions of years, from our perspective-right now, looking back-how would you tell the difference?

This creation scenario is constructed so that there can never be a conflict with science. It is an attempt to reconcile religious belief with science without rejecting either one. I know this creates a conflict with your desire to dis ...
It also conflicts with every non-heretical Christian definition / description of god, since they tend not to invoke his "omnipotent deceiver" role. So, since exactly no-one worth speaking with holds this view, it is even more irrelevant than you are.

I don't think religious affiliation should have any bearing on political standing. The President is running a country, not a place of worship.
If politicians like Bush and Palin weren't so keen on turning the country into a place of worship, then their religious goals would have no bearing on political standing.

As it is, Palin should be returned to the bush, ASAP.

doughboyshredder

09-11-2008, 10:27 PM

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

It makes me physically ill that almost 90% of our nation believes in a supreme being that controls everything.

:the_finge religious freaks :the_finge

doughboyshredder

09-11-2008, 10:30 PM

Most have no problem reconciling modern scientific discoveries with their religion.

And they do this by rejecting convenient aspects of whichever suits them at the time.

doughboyshredder

09-11-2008, 10:35 PM

knock me over with a feather. Cliff and I agree on something.

That sure in the fuck aint nothing to be proud of.

Tippster

09-11-2008, 10:52 PM

Really. A Triple. Wow.

doughboyshredder

09-11-2008, 11:50 PM

Really. A Triple. Wow.

I've upped my post count, now up yours.

:D

philippeR

09-12-2008, 02:54 AM

Of the people surveyed in that poll, 48%+34% = 82% believe that the Bible is the literal or inspired word of God - safe bet that they're Christians. 18% considered the Bible to be a bunch of fables or weren't sure - safe bet that they are not Young Earth Creationists or Christians. So 45%/82% = 55% - most - of Christians are, in fact, Young Earth Creationists.

A.k.a. "fundamentalist wack jobs."

Don't like that poll or those calculations? Fine by me. Go find something better. Until then, that poll holds more water than your anonymous wishful claiming.

Good to see your position shift from your indefensible "a small percentage" to a near-tautologically useless "not all of them" and finally back to a reasonable - but still incorrect - "not most of them."

So I'll say it again:
You got some house cleanin' to do. Quit dodgin' the facts & makin' excuses for your peers.

If you let someone else do the house cleaning, they're just gonna throw the whole kit'n'kaboodle into the composter and call it good riddance.

Your choice.

Or Muslims, or Jews or (not sure) babists.

Rasputin

09-12-2008, 03:36 AM

GoldMember, you keep referring to Uncle Crud, who has not been in any name calling political threads recently, whereas Crud's Uncle (who chose the name because he lacks originality, and because he is all about being contrary) has been flaming like crazy as of late. Methinks you are attributing the name calling to the wrong guy, they aren't even close to the same.

Smokey McPole

09-12-2008, 06:10 AM

If she does, then yes, it does. As PNWBrit sed.

It also conflicts with every non-heretical Christian definition / description of god, since they tend not to invoke his "omnipotent deceiver" role. So, since exactly no-one worth speaking with holds this view, it is even more irrelevant than you are.

If politicians like Bush and Palin weren't so keen on turning the country into a place of worship, then their religious goals would have no bearing on political standing.

As it is, Palin should be returned to the bush, ASAP.

Dave - it's funny how you crow endlessly about stupid religious freaks. The political polarisation in this (and past) elections really reminds me of a freakshow Christian arguing with a freakshow Muslim. "Jesus (or McCain) is the way!" "No, asshole, Allah (or Obama) is the way!" - when in reality they're both faerie tales.

The whole GLOBAL WARMINGS!!! religious cult you love so much is pretty ironic as well.

At least many schizophrenics have some sort of awareness of their insanity. But like I've told you plenty of times before, arrogance and stupidity...

Barack H. Obama

09-12-2008, 07:41 AM

I'd like to thanks GoldMember for keeping above the fray here. I've been making my rounds on the cyberspace trying to find more common sense people like this. Kudos my friend, remember to vote, bring a friend!

Keep in mind folks that religion can be a touchy subject. Careful not to paint with too broad of a brush. Remember what happened to me when the media ran with the whole thing about my muslim youth, to my racist pastor, to my current atheism? Rough road I tell ya!

GoldMember

09-12-2008, 09:47 AM

GoldMember

09-12-2008, 10:08 AM

I'd like to thanks GoldMember for keeping above the fray here. I've been making my rounds on the cyberspace trying to find more common sense people like this. Kudos my friend, remember to vote, bring a friend!

Thanks, I try. No offense but I'm rejecting your 'friend' request as I don't make friends with aliases...aliaii? .....whatever.

Buster Highmen

09-12-2008, 10:11 AM

Thanks, I try. No offense but I'm rejecting your 'friend' request as I don't make friends with aliases...aliaii? .....whatever.
Everything is an alias. A troll however is an alias that posts purely for the reaction and ususally to either annoy or discredit a given position.

GoldMember

09-12-2008, 10:23 AM

Everything is an alias. A troll however is an alias that posts purely for the reaction and ususally to either annoy or discredit a given position.

True. Also, pluralizing 'troll' is much easier.

Buster Highmen

09-12-2008, 10:39 AM

True. Also, pluralizing 'troll' is much easier.
Good.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's turn our attention to the fact that the GDP has historically grown more under Demograbbic administrations than Respubicams.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132354

GoldMember

09-12-2008, 11:08 AM

Good.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's turn our attention to the fact that the GDP has historically grown more under Demograbbic administrations than Respubicams.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132354

I read that yesterday and it does raise some interesting questions. However, I didn't post about it and don't want to get into a protracted discussion on it today because I'd like more information. My reasons for being reluctant to engage are twofold: We all know the saying about statistics.... and .....Considering the authors political persuasion, as noted at the bottom of the article, I'd like to see a rebuttal piece, if there is one yet, from the other side and haven't taken the time to look for it (damn job, these guys actually expect me to WORK ocassionally....). I'll keep the topic bookmarked though because I think it is a keypoint for the election.

edit: By the way, your spelling is deplorable.... (insert blinkie here)

Rubicon

09-12-2008, 07:34 PM

But just the fact that she subscribes to a creationist version of our origins does not automatically preclude rational thought and acceptance of science.

If she does, then yes, it does. As PNWBrit sed.

A key point.

No single person can thoroughly examine and test all the rules and views that run our societies. (Never mind that many of those rules and views are not yet understood, period.)

So most of us will accept many things on faith. We'll basically adopt a set of myths and base our decisions and actions on them. Whether those myths be political ideologies, religions, pseudo-scientific theories or some mishmash of all these ideas, simplified, mangled and transmitted through popular culture.

So, faith in certain things is OK? But faith in other things precludes rational thought? What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that accepting certain world views on faith does not preclude rational thought? Or are you saying that any act of faith precludes rational thought?

In your older quote you seemed to be just fine with people having faith in the things they could not, or choose not, to know. Even suggesting that a certain level of faith was necessary since "No single person can thoroughly examine and test all the rules and views that run our societies.". But now you say that faith in something that is irrelevant to our modern life somehow precludes rational thought. :confused:

Rubicon

09-12-2008, 08:26 PM

Rube, calm down, keep your hair on.

It's about a decade too late for that.

If you'd care to study more about the history of the creationist/evangozombie movement you'd know that dressing this shit up in a waafffer thin veneer of apparent pseudo science is the movement's standard operating procedure. It dupes people frequently into placid acceptance of it if not full on conversion

But dig deeper into the motives, supporters and backers of creationism and you'll see that at it's root lies a very narrow definition of acceptability and freedom of choice in fantastical pixies and the desire to make their pixie and his set of rules in charge whether you like it or not. Which when you think about it's not so different a scheme than the folks we've gone to war with in the middle east. Perhaps we'd notice if the Christofascists knocked over some sky scrapers or didn't look like small town mayor hockey mums?

One of my closest childhood friends has a masters of divinity from Southwestern theological seminary and did his post grad studies at Princeton. His undergrad work was in physics, mine in engineering. I used to help him study for his tests in his epistemology and hermeneutics classes(among others) by tearing apart the beliefs we had been raised with and making him defend them. In so doing I came to realize that I didn't actually believe 99% of what I thought I believed and left the church altogether. But I do understand how someone can still have a deep faith without having conflicts with any aspect of science, as my friend does(he is currently a missionary, and raising his family, in Kampala, Uganda. We avoid talking about the evangelical side of his work, as evangelicals make my skin itch and I've let him know that. But that's a different topic).

So I'm familiar with the creationist/evangozombi movement, and what you say is true, for a large part of it, but the movement is not monolithic in it's belief. Several years ago the Southern Baptist convention actually split over issues just like this one. Half of the Convention favored a more modern interpretation of the Bible so there wasn't this constant conflict with the world we live in and the other half refused to let go of their stone-knives and bear-skin interpretation of it.

spindrift

09-12-2008, 09:05 PM

One of my closest childhood friends has a masters of divinity from Southwestern theological seminary and did his post grad studies at Princeton.

Just curious. Since you mention Princeton, which one? Princeton University or Princeton Theological Seminary? I don't mean to diminish or belittle PTS for what it is, but I've seen any number of cases where PTS alums are described as having attended "Princeton" without qualification -- and the obvious assumption is made. Incorrectly.

Rubicon

09-12-2008, 09:13 PM

Just curious. Since you mention Princeton, which one? The "real" one or Princeton Theological Seminary? I don't mean to diminish or belittle PTS for what it is, but I've seen any number of cases where PTS alums are described as having attended "Princeton" without qualification -- and the obvious assumption is made. Incorrectly.

Princeton theological. Since we are talking religion here I didn't consider that the two might be confused.

Cloudpeak got a little bent in another thread over this, you guys talk or something? :wink:

spindrift

09-12-2008, 09:36 PM

Cloudpeak got a little bent in another thread over this, you guys talk or something? :wink:

Now and again ;)

Although I did not know (or at least don't recall) that she'd commented on the topic. I see you caught the post before I tweaked it for improved diplomacy. Oh well...

David Witherspoon

09-12-2008, 11:09 PM

:confused:
Let's dispense with the word "faith" - its use in the comparison of science and religion is intended to breed confusion.
Let's use the less-loaded terms "trust" or "confidence" and circumscribe their meaning by specifying who or what it is that is being trusted, to what extent, and on what grounds.

I take it as obvious that no person can empirically test and understand, in rigorously reasoned detail, all the beliefs they hold. (Probably not even if they jettisoned the beliefs they don't need in order to function at a basic level - such as beliefs regarding geology, evolution, astronomy, genetics, most medicine, physics, cosmology ... actually, most of the natural sciences.)

So people believe many things because they trust someone else's empirical testing and reasoning. Basically, they rely on the authority of others. The earned, deserved, and narrowly question-specific authority of others.

Not just their word that "this is so" but their reasoning that "this is so because of these reasons ..." and their empirical claims that "this is so because we have peformed these experiments and measured these results" - and the key claim that "others can and have replicated these and other experiments and obtained the same or confirmatory results - but never disconfirmatory results."

That's authority that can be tested by anyone and rejected the instant it's found wanting. It's not much authority at all - the "authorities" are allowed to report their factual findings and rigorous analyses, with very little (but clearly labeled) extrapolation. Failure to adhere to those rules results in a swift and merciless stripping of "authority."

Let's also move away from the lazy dualistic mode of thinking to a more realistic, quantitative mode. People do not categorize their beliefs as "trust completely" vs. "do not trust at all." There's a whole range. Furthermore, beliefs also differ in how important they are to people, from "amusing, but that's all" to "matter of life or death." Lastly, beliefs differ in how easily they can be tested and reasoned through.

Consider the belief that your climbing rope will hold you in a fall. It's an important belief, and it's easily tested. You start out accepting it on the authority of the manufacturer and your friends who have used these ropes. Then you test your particular rope in a safe situation. Then you assign this belief a high level of trust and go climbing. (Or not, and stay home. People make mistakes.)

Consider the belief that you and chimpanzees share the same ancestors about six million years back. For nearly all purposes and all people, this is a practically irrelevant belief: for almost everything you do, it just doesn't matter what you believe about that question. Moreover, it's very difficult to reason about and difficult to test. So most people invest essentially no effort in determining whether they should assign high or low confidence to that belief: to them, it'd be a waste of time.

The appropriate - rational - pigeonhole for such a belief would be:
low importance, low effort invested in research, and therefore: low confidence.

But in our current sociopolitical situation, that belief has become more important (nevermind why, for now). So some rational people will tire of saying "idunnomaybe" and decide they need to find a better answer (true / false / wrong question) that they can place more trust in.

These people will not spend the rest of their lives to become evolutionary geneticists. They'll save themselves a century of work and go find out what those geneticists already know.
At one extreme, a person might read widely, reason deeply, examine the alternative hypotheses, and come to understand the reasoning, computation, and data very well - even if he or she never actually repeats any of the calculations or even looks at the raw data.
At the other extreme, a person might just glance at an introductory textbook, read the answer, and be satisfied with that (and implicitly, with the vast chain of authorities and critics that let that textbook answer stand).

At the end of this process, the rational person will update his belief to "high or very high confidence because of [list of evidence gathered and reasoning done.]" That person will downgrade his belief in creationism to "truly absurd" (again, based on the evidence examined and authorities consulted.)

An irrational person, on the other hand, may glance briefly at all the authorities, centuries of research, textbooks, data - and ignore it (not reject, since that would imply some effort to understand it) in favor of a preacher's completely unreasoned and unsupported word about a topic they know nothing about and regarding which they have no authority.
(I know some will disagree with my judgment of the value of the assertions of creationist religious authorities regarding evolutionary science. They are demonstrably wrong.)

Now to your question -
Although that lazy act of faith - utterly unsupported by any effort, reasoning, or evidence - supplants rational thought in this area, it does not preclude rational thought in other areas.

In particular, tactical and pragmatic reasoning aimed at short-term goals is likely to function just fine - perhaps even better than just fine, and with a brutal disregard for anything but immediate advantage.
Psychopaths are like that too. Sometimes thinking and knowing too much, seeing from too many viewpoints - it can interfere with the efficient execution of plans driven by baser instincts.

And on to the relevance of your question -
That act of faith does show an astounding lack of interest in and respect for reason, evidence, and objectivity. Such a person cannot be trusted to investigate anything objectively or thoroughly.

Such a person shouldn't be allowed any influence whatsoever over the decisions made by the Federal Executive branch. Nowhere near those launch codes.

But I don't think any of that is news to you. It's pretty plain vanilla stuff. 'Specially if you've already argued it to death with a PTSian.

So maybe you just wanted to test whether you could trust in my ability to reason or not? :D

timvwcom

09-12-2008, 11:18 PM

OOoohhhhh... David, nice colors! If I expand my browser wide enough, will it auto text flow and make a pretty holiday holly wreath?

Tippster

09-12-2008, 11:37 PM

I totally have Jewish friends.

timvwcom

09-13-2008, 01:12 AM

Let's dispense with the word "faith", let's use the less-loaded terms "trust" or "confidence".

I take it as obvious that no person can empirically test and understand, in rigorously reasoned detail, all the beliefs they hold. Probably not even if they jettisoned the beliefs they don't need in order to function at a basic level. So people believe many things because they trust someone else's empirical testing and reasoning. People do not categorize their beliefs as "trust completely" vs. "do not trust at all." There's a whole range. Beliefs also differ in how important they are to people, from "amusing, but that's all" to "matter of life or death."

That belief that can be tested by anyone and rejected the instant it's found wanting. Beliefs differ in how easily they can be tested and reasoned through;

Consider the belief that your climbing rope will hold you in a fall. It's an important belief, and it's easily tested. You start out accepting it on the authority of the manufacturer and your friends who have used these ropes. Then you test your particular rope in a safe situation. Then you assign this belief a high level of trust and go climbing.

Consider the belief that you and chimpanzees share the same ancestors about six million years back. For nearly all purposes and all people, this is a practically irrelevant belief, it just doesn't matter what you believe about that question . Moreover, it's very difficult to reason about and difficult to test. So most people invest essentially no effort in determining whether they should assign high or low confidence to that belief, to them it'd be a waste of time.

But in our current sociopolitical situation, that belief has become more important. Some people will tire of saying "idunnomaybe" and decide they need to find a better answer that they can place more trust in. These people will not spend the rest of their lives to become evolutionary geneticists.

A rational person will save themselves a century of work and go find out what those geneticists already know. Perhaps read and examine the alternative hypotheses, and come to understand the reasoning, even if he or she never actually repeats any of the calculations. Or a person might just glance at an introductory textbook, read the answer, and be satisfied with that. At the end of this process, the rational person will will downgrade his belief in creationism to "truly absurd".

An irrational person, on the other hand, may glance briefly at all the centuries of research data - and ignore it (not reject, since that would imply some effort to understand it) in favor of a preacher's completely unreasoned and unsupported word about a topic they know nothing about and regarding which they have no authority.

That act of faith does show an astounding lack of interest in and respect for reason, evidence, and objectivity. Such a person cannot be trusted to investigate anything objectively or thoroughly. Such a person shouldn't be allowed any influence whatsoever over the decisions made by the Federal Executive branch. Nowhere near those launch codes.

Ha!!! I was right about the wreath... if you resize the width of your window so the first part of second paragraph reads "...rigorously reasoned detail, all the beliefs" THEN it word wraps, on my computer and font it's TOTALLY a wreath.

Rubicon

09-13-2008, 07:54 AM

^^^^^All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

hutash

09-13-2008, 10:09 AM

I am not going to quote it to save band width, but that was a good post DW. Not that most people will bother to read it, or more importantly , try yo understand it, which fits nicely with the whole premise of the post.

I have faith, trust and confidence that Falin is an idiot, and the Tim is a color junkie.

David Witherspoon

09-13-2008, 04:17 PM

Thanks. I sometimes come across a question that sounds mostly sincere and thoughtful. So I check and see. Not because I really expect even the questioner to read or understand the response ... but you never know ... but yeah, usually the responses just ironically underline the answer. So it goes.

Rubicon. Was your response to Tim's artwork or my post?

Rubicon

09-13-2008, 06:06 PM

Rubicon. Was your response to Tim's artwork or my post?

Tim's art work. I have only had a moment or two today to check in here and haven't had the time to properly digest your post. Probably won't until tomorrow.

Rubicon

09-15-2008, 10:49 PM

So maybe you just wanted to test whether you could trust in my ability to reason or not? :D

Heh, I was more, curious, to see how you would handle the apparent conflict in what you had said previousely and what you seemed to believe now. Thanks for taking the time to clear that up.

But I do think you are making the same mistake that PNWBrit made in treating the creationist movement as one homogeneous whole. You seem to accept that "creation" can have only one, very literal, meaning. There are a large number of people who accept the myth as literal. But there are others who accept the bible on faith and view their understanding of it as the weak link that needs constant reassessment. They believe that god gave us the ability to reason and if there is a conflict between what is rational(i.e. science) and the word of god, then that conflict is a result of our imperfect understanding of the bible and more investigation is necessary.

I'm not saying that Palin takes this approach, nor am I saying that this approach is common among creationists. But the fact that there are people who take this approach precludes your statement that belief in creation and rational thought is mutually exclusive.

David Witherspoon

09-15-2008, 11:42 PM

But I do think you are making the same mistake that PNWBrit made in treating the creationist movement as one homogeneous whole. Let me clear that up too: I'm not. Shall I begin imputing mistakes to you? I'm not inexperienced at that game. :tongue:

But the fact that there are people who take this approach precludes your statement that belief in creation and rational thought is mutually exclusive.Your claim hinges on a shifting definition of "creationism." You've mentioned at least two definitions above. At one end is "theistic evolution", which boils down to: "Everything happened exactly like the scientists say it did, or like they will say it did when they get done. But it was god that did it." That's a definition without a meaning, so there's not much to pick at. It's not what most people mean by "creationism," either.

At the other end is the hodgepodge of equivalently absurd tales that, for all practical purposes, can be lumped together as Young Earth Creationism. I'd bet this is what most people think of when they mention "creationism." In any case, "Old Earth Creationism" is just as absurd where it contradicts evolutionary biology.

These slippery definitions are usually yoked to another bunch of slimy leeches: definitions of "god" which can mean anything from "nothing" (in the weakest sauce of deism) to "old ceiling tomcat with a personal grudge against you." For the unprepared, it's like trying to grab one particular leech from a squirming, muddy bucketful (because "muddying the waters" just doesn't suffice).

But a terse, clearly defined claim should be enough to nail this particular leech to the table:

A belief in young earth creationism is incompatible with rational thought regarding the origins of all living things (and especially humans), geology, and physics. (And most of the natural sciences, since they all have to be refuted in order to cling to the YEC absurdity.)

Short form: Young earth creationists are stupid* regarding scientific matters.

I take this claim to be uncontroversial. Among non-stupid people.

Additional evidence (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index.html) suggests that Palin's beliefs are those of a Young Earth Creationist.

Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, 'Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.'" (link (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index1.html))

In view of her statements in the public record regarding the teaching of creationism in science classes and the religious group she adheres to, this is no surprise at all. The likelihood that Palin believes in YEC is very high.

Thus the corollary: Sarah Palin is very probably stupid* regarding scientific matters.

* Stupid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid), defined.

Tuckerman

09-16-2008, 06:43 AM

Adolf Allerbush

09-16-2008, 08:41 AM

Not sure if you know this or not but not all Republicans are religious whackos. For example I'm a godless heathen but I'm Republican. The differences between the Democrats and Republicans are only on the fringes they are basically the same when you get closer to what the candidates run on and further away from the majority of the population.

I hear you...and that was sort of my point. Do you really want somebody from the "fringes" of the republican party a heart beat away from running the country? Personally I don't.

Tippster

09-16-2008, 10:14 AM

Not sure if you know this or not but not all Republicans are religious whackos...

Yet all Fundamentalist Christian Whackos are Republican, and they have the party by a short leash attached to a nose ring.

I have no problem with the Republican Party in essence, but a huge one in actuality.

GoldMember

09-16-2008, 11:54 AM

Yet all Fundamentalist Christian Whackos are Republican, and they have the party by a short leash attached to a nose ring.

Actually, I don't think this is necessarily true. The R's have pandered to that group as a voting bloc and see them as more apt to vote R than D, if they vote at all. The pandering is directed toward getting them to vote and, if they do, the belief is they'll vote R. The issue in the past is that many of the religious far-right-wing simply didn't go to the polls and the strategists viewed them as a group that could push the election their way. So, the FCW's aren't necessarily R's, just people who can help sway an election. The other part of that though is the morphing of the party toward the ideals of the FCW's, hence the loss of recognition of the old party.

Tippster

09-16-2008, 12:15 PM

Bullshit. They came out in droves in 2004 due to Rove's placement of Same-sex marrieage referenda on key ballots.

Adolf Allerbush

09-16-2008, 12:20 PM

Actually, I don't think this is necessarily true. The R's have pandered to that group as a voting bloc and see them as more apt to vote R than D, if they vote at all. The pandering is directed toward getting them to vote and, if they do, the belief is they'll vote R. The issue in the past is that many of the religious far-right-wing simply didn't go to the polls and the strategists viewed them as a group that could push the election their way. So, the FCW's aren't necessarily R's, just people who can help sway an election. The other part of that though is the morphing of the party toward the ideals of the FCW's, hence the loss of recognition of the old party.

So, are you saying that you think the FCW's would just as easily be swayed to vote for a Dem candidate? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you've written but to me that's what I'm gathering from your post. If so, I find that difficult to believe simply because of things like dems generally being pro-choice. How would a FCW justify voting for a pro-choice presidential ticket in your opinion? Maybe you're saying that they simply wouldn't vote at all? But then I wonder why they would not vote for a republican as perhaps viewing that ticket as being the lesser of two evils? Bottom line I don't see the FCW's jumping ship for the dem ticket anytime soon...additionally I don't see them sitting out the election after they've probably figured out they can sway elections. I think that's part of the reason why Palin was chosen for a veep candidate in addition to her looks and the fact that she has a vagina.

You seem to be a moderate republican...maybe one that agrees with some ideals of the republicans but not the FCW's necessarily. How do you justify putting some one in office that is a FCW to be one heartbeat from the presidency? What sort of person would she put forward for the Supreme Court if McCain crokes? What are the chances of a dem and moderate republican dominated legislature accepting the nominee? Would we see more ludicrous nominee’s like Miers? I think the whole possibility of a situation like that is troubling. Hopefully the system of checks and balances would work out if some one like Palin makes it to be the POTUS.

GoldMember

09-16-2008, 12:32 PM

Bullshit. They came out in droves in 2004 due to Rove's placement of Same-sex marrieage referenda on key ballots.

I said I don't necessarily believe they're R's, meaning in the classic, card-carrying sense, yellow-dog party way. Not that they don't vote R based on the issue pandering the R's have used to get them out to vote, such as same-sex marriages, abortion, etc. Many of the organized FCW churches have certainly gone R and have distorted the party's platform to a less desirable platform from years past, hence the morphing of the party toward the far right. You need to understand that this has occurred over a timeline and that the morphing continues, much to my personal chagrin. But, like what you noted in 2004, the party has chosen hot-button issues to drive the FCW's to the polls in order to get that bloc of voters to vote at all. If they don't see a candidate that meets their objectives, they simply don't vote and the party wants to see them at the polls to elect who the party puts up and the party uses bait, such as the same-sex issue, to attract them to the voting booths.

And Adolf, no, I don't believe they would go D simply because the issues from the D side don't appeal to them. I think they'd be more inclined to either not vote or vote for a 3rd party candidate that ran on a religious platform. What pisses me off about this situation is that the Republican party has pandered to their vote and, as a result, the platform has taken on the religious topics under the guise of moral issues. It's an unconstitutional mix of church and state, in my opinion. The other point is that, even under the moral guise, you can't legislate morality. We're losing personal choice under that weight and that's the intolerance that's unacceptable in my view.

What to do? Run away from the party OR get the control of the party back in the hands of reasonable people. I thought McCain was a potential lead to a cure in that regard. Now, I'm not so sure.

David Witherspoon

09-16-2008, 12:41 PM

What to do? Run away from the party OR get the control of the party back in the hands of reasonable people. I thought McCain was a potential lead to a cure in that regard. Now, I'm not so sure.
McCain's nose ring was speared through his nose so recently it still hurts to look at him.

The Republicans need a few years of near-starvation in the wilderness. Then maybe they'll regain their bearings & shed some weight. Plus, that'll give the Democrats time to build some good targets for a comeback.

I'll help you throw them under the bus.

rideit

09-16-2008, 12:44 PM

We all know Jesus was a Democrat.

To argue otherwise would be laughable.

Adolf Allerbush

09-16-2008, 01:08 PM

And Adolf, no, I don't believe they would go D simply because the issues from the D side don't appeal to them. I think they'd be more inclined to either not vote or vote for a 3rd party candidate that ran on a religious platform. What pisses me off about this situation is that the Republican party has pandered to their vote and, as a result, the platform has taken on the religious topics under the guise of moral issues. It's an unconstitutional mix of church and state, in my opinion. The other point is that, even under the moral guise, you can't legislate morality. We're losing personal choice under that weight and that's the intolerance that's unacceptable in my view.

What to do? Run away from the party OR get the control of the party back in the hands of reasonable people. I thought McCain was a potential lead to a cure in that regard. Now, I'm not so sure.

I'm not sure what you should do about that. That would suck I'm sure.

But on that note, the problem I have with the Republican Party, when we get away from the affect the FCW have had on the party, is their approach to dealing with environmental issues in general. I think our social programs could use a closer look and obviously smaller government would make sense to most people, at least I think so. Now that big ticket items that affect the environment (i.e. Global Warming/GHG's, the desire to pursue alternative energy sources, the goal to wean the country off of it's oil dependency, fed funds for more efficient rapid transit, etc. etc.) are goals of both parties and I think the environmental deal is becoming an issue that is less black and white…but the dems still get my nod on that matter. Then I don't agree with lifting the ban on off shore drilling, but do we want other countries (Canada, Mexico, etc) "drinking our milkshake" and then turning around and selling that oil to us? I don't know? Anyway, I'm rambling ...but this shit with the FCW's is exactly why I could never vote republican…this year it’s especially difficult with what the Bush admin has done over the last few years and what the republican party has done with their direction in both the executive branch and their majority in the legislative branch for much of that time...deep down though until the FCW deal is figured out I think they operate on a platform that is just impossible for me to agree with, but there are aspects of the republican party that I like very much. Long story short, it sucks that FCW’s and religion are such a strong force in politics.

Buster Highmen

09-16-2008, 01:40 PM

What pisses me off about this situation is that the Republican party has pandered to their vote and, as a result, the platform has taken on the religious topics under the guise of moral issues.

Between this fact and the neocons destruction of the old Republican financial principles, I'm far more than pissed off.

It's an unconstitutional mix of church and state, in my opinion. The other point is that, even under the moral guise, you can't legislate morality. We're losing personal choice under that weight and that's the intolerance that's unacceptable in my view.

You're sounding an awful lot like a librodouche.

What to do? Run away from the party OR get the control of the party back in the hands of reasonable people. I thought McCain was a potential lead to a cure in that regard. Now, I'm not so sure.

Forget the parties. Clinton was the best Republican the country has seen in a while.

Any reaonsble person cannot ignore the fact that McCain has melonoma, is really old and has the greatest chance of having his VP succeed him in memory.

Will the electorate consider this?

GoldMember

09-16-2008, 01:51 PM

Between this fact and the neocons destruction of the old Republican financial principles, I'm far more than pissed off.

I agree. As noted, I was hoping McCain will be the lead back to principles, not so sure now

You're sounding an awful lot like a librodouche.

Now that's just plain mean-spirited....

Forget the parties. Clinton was the best Republican the country has seen in a while.

Clinton's main strength, from my point of view was that he was fairly centered politically. I tend to favor the middle ground of either party and am totally tuned out by the edges. I said it while he was president, the best thing Clinton did was not get in the way and fuck things up. We had a good economy and he stayed out of its way.

Buster Highmen

09-16-2008, 02:15 PM

I agree. As noted, I was hoping McCain will be the lead back to principles, not so sure now

Who knows what McCain is up to, but Palin is beyond the fringe.

Now that's just plain mean-spirited....

A truth hurts.

Clinton's main strength, from my point of view was that he was fairly centered politically. I tend to favor the middle ground of either party and am totally tuned out by the edges. I said it while he was president, the best thing Clinton did was not get in the way and fuck things up. We had a good economy and he stayed out of its way.
But he's a librul, dangit.

David Witherspoon

09-16-2008, 02:23 PM

We had a good economy and he stayed out of its way.
Chit, that basically makes Clinton a libertarian free marketeer. ... not too far off, I guess. :eek:

FWIW, none of us libruls thought he was a librul.
Though I like my markets free (n.b. - very transparent, not fraudulent, not monopolized.)

PNWbrit

09-16-2008, 02:26 PM

I do think you are making the same mistake that PNWBrit.... They believe that god.

Just because you seek to glorifiy superstitious thought with various branches or factions, theologians and semantics.

It still remains a superstition. We might as well be discussing the color of unicorns or comparing astrologists.

I think that's the mistake you're making in thinking I'm mistaken..

GoldMember

09-16-2008, 02:39 PM

A truth hurts.

That depends on who says it's true...:biggrin:

Ya know, it really doesn't make a bit of difference who I vote for because you west-side libs are going to drive our electoral votes to Obama no matter how I vote. So, I'm writing you in.

Buster Highmen

09-16-2008, 02:44 PM

That depends on who says it's true...:biggrin:

Ya know, it really doesn't make a bit of difference who I vote for because you west-side libs are going to drive our electoral votes to Obama no matter how I vote. So, I'm writing you in.
That's OK because you East side cons get to use the tax money we West side libs give you.

S'all good.

Rubicon

09-16-2008, 08:05 PM

Your claim hinges on a shifting definition of "creationism." You've mentioned at least two definitions above. At one end is "theistic evolution", which boils down to: "Everything happened exactly like the scientists say it did, or like they will say it did when they get done. But it was god that did it." That's a definition without a meaning, so there's not much to pick at. It's not what most people mean by "creationism," either.

Creationism was never defined, so various definitions of creationism are irrelevant to this conversation. What most people mean, is irrelevant to this conversation. You didn't say "most people who accept a creationist explanation for our origins reject science and rational thought." If you had, I would have agreed with you. Instead, I said:

I don't know what Palin believes. But just the fact that she subscribes to a creationist version of our origins does not automatically preclude rational thought and acceptance of science.

You said:

If she does, then yes, it does.

Creationism was undefined in my post and your statement about it was absolute. Yet those who believe in theistic evolution fully embrace rational thought and the scientific method and they still fall under the umbrella of "creationism". You made a careless statement that was inaccurate and now you are trying to steer the conversation away from the original topic so you can make a point that was never being argued. So, suck it birdboy :tongue:

Short form: Young earth creationists are stupid* regarding scientific matters.

Thus the corollary: Sarah Palin is very probably stupid* regarding scientific matters.

* Stupid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid), defined.

I do not disagree, and if she does, adhere to YEC then I agree she is stupid regarding scientific matters/thought. If she does believe in YEC(and hold certain beliefs about the "end times") that would raise serious questions about her fitness for office. But it wouldn't necessarily disqualify her from holding that office, IME. I would need to hear more from her about her beliefs.

That's just me, but I know others are a little more hair-trigger, broad-brush, anti-religion than I am.

David Witherspoon

09-16-2008, 11:27 PM

Pedantic gotcha gaming. Sooo beneath you. :tongue:

On to the substance:

... if she does, adhere to YEC then I agree she is stupid regarding scientific matters/thought. If she does believe in YEC(and hold certain beliefs about the "end times") that would raise serious questions about her fitness for office. But it wouldn't necessarily disqualify her from holding that office ...
We agree to within rounding error.

So we have to argue about something else.

Resolved: That John McCain is going straight to Hell upon his death because he has not been baptized.

Even though he sez things like

"I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"
and (in response to a question about whether or not people should vote for a Muslim as President):

"I think one of the great tragedies of the 21st century is that these forces of evil have perverted what's basically an honorable religion [the Islam]. But, no, I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles.... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith. "

GoldMember

09-18-2008, 09:41 AM

Good.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's turn our attention to the fact that the GDP has historically grown more under Demograbbic administrations than Respubicams.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132354

In response to ^^ that, I give you this:

THE ECONOMY

September 18, 2008

If history is any guide, the 2008 national elections won't provide the kindling for a major stock market boom.
Since 1949 – the first year of Democrat Harry S. Truman's only elective term – the best possible political alignment in Washington for investors has been a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. During such eras (think Clinton-Gingrich), the Dow Jones industrial average has posted average annual gains of 19.5 percent according to the Stock Trader's Almanac, which tracks a wide variety of stock market trends and tendencies. That compares with an average annual gain of 8.7 percent for the entire 1949-2007 period.

In other words, Wall Street likes gridlock. "It's not because of any particular ideology or policy," said Jeffrey A. Hirsch, the almanac's chief editor. "It's because you have two competing parties pushing against each other." That can put the brakes on overly activist lawmaking, which generally suits Wall Street just fine.
The problem for investors is that the chances for such an outcome are remote this year. True, the White House is clearly up for grabs. And the Democrats' slim majority in the Senate, resting as it does on the votes of two independents who caucus with the Democrats, isn't exactly insurmountable.
But it would take a shocker for the Democrats to squander their 36-seat lead in the House. That also means that the political alignment with the second-best stock market record since '49 – a Republican president paired with GOP control of the House and Senate, which yielded a 14.1 percent average annual Dow gain – probably isn't in the cards either.
So where does that leave us? Well, since 1949 there hasn't been a scenario where a Democrat lived in the White House while control of Congress was split between the Democrats and the GOP, so there's no track record to go by there.
Of the other possible alignments, during periods in which a GOP president ruled with either a GOP-controlled or split Congress, the Dow notched average annual gains of 6.7 percent. The combo of a Democratic president and Democratic- controlled Congress fared the worst of the six possible combinations, although only slightly so, with a 6.6 percent average annual gain in the Dow. In other words, pretty much a wash.

Los Angeles Times

Buster Highmen

09-18-2008, 10:11 AM

In response to ^^ that, I give you this:

THE ECONOMY

September 18, 2008

If history is any guide, the 2008 national elections won't provide the kindling for a major stock market boom.
Since 1949 – the first year of Democrat Harry S. Truman's only elective term – the best possible political alignment in Washington for investors has been a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. During such eras (think Clinton-Gingrich), the Dow Jones industrial average has posted average annual gains of 19.5 percent according to the Stock Trader's Almanac, which tracks a wide variety of stock market trends and tendencies. That compares with an average annual gain of 8.7 percent for the entire 1949-2007 period.

In other words, Wall Street likes gridlock. "It's not because of any particular ideology or policy," said Jeffrey A. Hirsch, the almanac's chief editor. "It's because you have two competing parties pushing against each other." That can put the brakes on overly activist lawmaking, which generally suits Wall Street just fine.
The problem for investors is that the chances for such an outcome are remote this year. True, the White House is clearly up for grabs. And the Democrats' slim majority in the Senate, resting as it does on the votes of two independents who caucus with the Democrats, isn't exactly insurmountable.
But it would take a shocker for the Democrats to squander their 36-seat lead in the House. That also means that the political alignment with the second-best stock market record since '49 – a Republican president paired with GOP control of the House and Senate, which yielded a 14.1 percent average annual Dow gain – probably isn't in the cards either.
So where does that leave us? Well, since 1949 there hasn't been a scenario where a Democrat lived in the White House while control of Congress was split between the Democrats and the GOP, so there's no track record to go by there.
Of the other possible alignments, during periods in which a GOP president ruled with either a GOP-controlled or split Congress, the Dow notched average annual gains of 6.7 percent. The combo of a Democratic president and Democratic- controlled Congress fared the worst of the six possible combinations, although only slightly so, with a 6.6 percent average annual gain in the Dow. In other words, pretty much a wash.

Los Angeles Times

OK, a whole .1 difference in the Dow, but the Dow ain't the GDP.

I'll admit to resting my position regarding deregulation and trickle down economics on the Gini Index, the history of the events leading up to the great depression and the rank of the USA with regards to health, education and poverty in the world community as well as the fact that the middle class drives the economy which the very wealthy manipulate.

GoldMember

09-18-2008, 10:25 AM

Buster Highmen

09-18-2008, 10:59 AM

Oh come now, the Gini Index showed that the greatest decade of disparity growth occurred during the Clinton decade and that, while it peaked early-to-mid this decade, it was only after slowing the momentum of the nineties with an actual reduction as of 2007. You're resting your case on that? I'm certainly not convinced that it shows anything conclusive.

Look at the Gini Index in the 1920s. Plus noting that the Gini Index rose the greatest during a Republican Congress and a supposedly Democratic president doesn't really further your argument. Further, I would have hoped that the other remarks were integrated into the picture.

As for deregulation, there's blame enough to go around. Tell me why the D's killed S. 190 in committee in 2005? That was calling for more regulation and specifically called out the concerns over Freddie and Fannie and was sponsored and cosponsored by R's including McCain, who gave a pretty good statement on it.

There you go getting all high centered on anomalous party politics rather than the issue and traditional positions. Oh well.
McCain has flipflopped on the regulation topic several times recently. Then one can't overlook his debacle with Keating and the billions the S&L deregulation cost the taxpayer. Or howsabouta energy deregulation? That worked out really well too for naive investors and the taxpayer.

You know why the Dem killed the bill, so that's a rhetorical question:they wanted to be sure the poor could afford a house. It's poor reasoning (pun intended) but that doesn't allay the claim that deregulation is bad for the economy.

My point of putting this article up was to counter Alan Blinder's piece which only tied GDP growth to the sitting president without regard to Congress. With the Dow, the best performing combination of government has shown to be R pres w/ R Congress. The next has been with a D pres and R Congress. The last has been with a D pres and D Congress. What's to be drawn from all this? Don't know but, like I mentioned before, we all know the saying about statistics.

Lastly, do you support a socialist form of government? I don't know that I'm reading that into your comments but it seems the direction you prefer. That could force the opening of an entirely new forum....

If that's what you're reading, I'm probably not going to stop you.

Honestly I don't really know what you would mean by a socialist government. One that readily bails out a fraudulent and overly bloated and corrupt financial system, one that pays residents directly from industry taxes, one that subsidizes industries whose executives pocket ridiculous amounts of cash while the industry festers in technology from the 50's and 60s not to mention gross porkbarreling across the board, especially in the military?

I'm trying to appeal on some common grounds of the national deficit, on taxes for the middle class and hopefully on deregulation independent of percieved party alliance. If you're more interested in dragging it back towards that sewer, have at it. I won't be there when this shithouse blows up.

GoldMember

09-18-2008, 11:28 AM

First, sorry, my last post was rather hasty and not that well stated. Now, onto this:

Look at the Gini Index in the 1920s. Plus noting that the Gini Index rose the greatest during a Republican Congress and a supposedly Democratic president doesn't really further your argument. Further, I would have hoped that the other remarks were integrated into the picture.

The earliest I could find for the index was about 1947 where it was at approximately 38. It has held a fairly level rate of growth since the late sixties, not unlike some other countries such as the UK and China, both of whose growth in disparity started about ten years later but have been increasing at a faster rate than ours. I understand your point, and I share the concern, that a further disparity between rich and poor can lead to social calamity but I don't know the answer to what the breaking point might nor necessarily what to do about it. The usual clamoring is generally to redistribution of wealth but what's the answer as to how to effectively do it?

There you go getting all high centered on anomalous party politics rather than the issue and traditional positions. Oh well.
McCain has flipflopped on the regulation topic several times recently. Then one can't overlook his debacle with Keating and the billions the S&L deregulation cost the taxpayer. Or howsabouta energy deregulation? That worked out really well too for naive investors and the taxpayer.

You know why the Dem killed the bill, so that's a rhetorical question:they wanted to be sure the poor could afford a house. It's poor reasoning (pun intended) but that doesn't allay the claim that deregulation is bad for the economy.

My point on this wasn't that McCain looks all high and mighty, it's that had S. 190 made through committee and into law, our current debacle may have been avoided or at least minimized to some degree over where it is today. My reason goes further to point out that, in contrast to the kneejerk fingerpointing that blames all things Republican for this mess (not by you but others), there's plenty of blame related to politics designed to get elected versus legislation designed to provide the best results. Both sides are guilty of playing for votes rather than doing the jobs we expect of them.

If that's what you're reading, I'm probably not going to stop you.

Honestly I don't really know what you would mean by a socialist government. One that readily bails out a fraudulent and overly bloated and corrupt financial system, one that pays residents directly from industry taxes, one that subsidizes industries whose executives pocket ridiculous amounts of cash while the industry festers in technology from the 50's and 60s not to mention gross porkbarreling across the board, especially in the military?

I'm trying to appeal on some common grounds of the national deficit, on taxes for the middle class and hopefully on deregulation independent of percieved party alliance. If you're more interested in dragging it back towards that sewer, have at it. I won't be there when this shithouse blows up.

This is where I answered too hastily. I don't think you're advocating a socialist form of government in the classic sense. This goes back to the commentary on the Gini Index. Right now we're surpassed by Brazil and Mexico and, more recently, China; not necessarily good company. Those with lower numbers whose index has reduced over the past several years include mostly European countries notably France, Italy, Bulgaria, and others. Reducing the disparity puts us into some reasonable company. My counter to the Obama solution (tax the wealthiest more, the middle-to-lower even less) was that this has been the path over the past 25 years or so. How has that helped as it relates to the disparity? Not much. So, what's an alternative to dealing with the issue.

Finally, I'm not close-minded on this, just skeptical of the tax plan. If I offended your senses on the socialist comment, I apologize. It didn't come out right.

Buster Highmen

09-18-2008, 02:10 PM

First, sorry, my last post was rather hasty and not that well stated. Now, onto this:

The earliest I could find for the index was about 1947 where it was at approximately 38. It has held a fairly level rate of growth since the late sixties, not unlike some other countries such as the UK and China, both of whose growth in disparity started about ten years later but have been increasing at a faster rate than ours. I understand your point, and I share the concern, that a further disparity between rich and poor can lead to social calamity but I don't know the answer to what the breaking point might nor necessarily what to do about it. The usual clamoring is generally to redistribution of wealth but what's the answer as to how to effectively do it?

(The following article appeared in Left Business Observer #112, December 2005.)

http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/GiniLong2004.jpg
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/IncByClass2004.jpg

My point is this: since 1980, there has been increased belief in and legislation supporting trickle down economics and deregulation.

Now statistics can conveniently obscure or ignore causal correlation, granted. But if trickle down economics has been working, then what do the above graphs tell us? Similarly what do healthcare costs, infant mortality and scientific acheivement say when compared in the world arena?

By virtue of your framing of the problem via "usual clamoring" I assume you don't think it's a problem. If we don't have an accord there, it's pointless to continue feigning something constructive.

My point on this wasn't that McCain looks all high and mighty, it's that had S. 190 made through committee and into law, our current debacle may have been avoided or at least minimized to some degree over where it is today. My reason goes further to point out that, in contrast to the kneejerk fingerpointing that blames all things Republican for this mess (not by you but others), there's plenty of blame related to politics designed to get elected versus legislation designed to provide the best results. Both sides are guilty of playing for votes rather than doing the jobs we expect of them.

True, but that obscures the issue. The question is whether governemnt should play a role in regulating these clowns. McCain has been all over the map, the Republican platform generally decries that activity and who the fuck knows what Obama's up to.

This is where I answered too hastily. I don't think you're advocating a socialist form of government in the classic sense. This goes back to the commentary on the Gini Index. Right now we're surpassed by Brazil and Mexico and, more recently, China; not necessarily good company. Those with lower numbers whose index has reduced over the past several years include mostly European countries notably France, Italy, Bulgaria, and others. Reducing the disparity puts us into some reasonable company. My counter to the Obama solution (tax the wealthiest more, the middle-to-lower even less) was that this has been the path over the past 25 years or so. How has that helped as it relates to the disparity? Not much. So, what's an alternative to dealing with the issue.

(from
On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986, one of the most far-reaching reforms of the United States tax system since the adoption of the income tax. The top tax rate on individual income was lowered from 50% to 28%, the lowest it had been since 1916. Tax preferences were eliminated to make up most of the revenue. In an attempt to remain revenue neutral, the act called for a $120 billion increase in business taxation and a corresponding decrease in individual taxation over a five-year period.

President George W. Bush signed a series of tax cuts into law. The largest was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It was estimated to save taxpayers $1.3 trillion over ten years, making it the third largest tax cut since World War II. The Bush tax cut created a new lowest rate, 10% for the first several thousand dollars earned. It also established a slow schedule of incremental tax cuts that would eventually double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, adjust brackets so that middle-income couples owed the same tax as comparable singles, cut the top four tax rates (28% to 25%; 31% to 28%; 36% to 33%; and 39.6% to 35%).

The point is that there have been significant tax cuts for the wealthy both in basic income tax as well as capitol gains since 1980. This has been instituted by both parties. I'm not sure that's in line with what you've been saying which is I think based on total dollars arther than %.

Finally, I'm not close-minded on this, just skeptical of the tax plan. If I offended your senses on the socialist comment, I apologize. It didn't come out right.

I'm skeptical of getting out of bed. Most days I know it's just futile. But then again, futility is no excuse for not trying.

David Witherspoon

09-18-2008, 02:28 PM

^^ Yeah, that's what I was gonna say.

GoldMember

09-18-2008, 03:32 PM

My point is this: since 1980, there has been increased belief in and legislation supporting trickle down economics and deregulation.

Now statistics can conveniently obscure or ignore causal correlation, granted. But if trickle down economics has been working, then what do the above graphs tell us? Similarly what do healthcare costs, infant mortality and scientific acheivement say when compared in the world arena?

By virtue of your framing of the problem via "usual clamoring" I assume you don't think it's a problem. If we don't have an accord there, it's pointless to continue feigning something constructive.

By "usual clamoring", my point is that the redistribution of wealth may largely assume a fixed dollar or wealth total thereby creating a Robin Hood scenario of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Do I think it's a problem? Yes, I think I made that statement in the post. My desired outcome is a rising tide lifting all boats: an expanding economy where all can share dividends, regardless of socio-economic status. Given, trickle-down may not be working but the cause isn't so easily identified. With the growth of developing economies around the world, something or someone is going to give and I'm afraid it's us and any form of tax change may not affect that.

We're likely going to lose position to other nations as the global economy seeks equilibrium. Since we started at or near the top of the global heap, as the global economy balances, we're in one of the most precarious seats. Does taxing the rich more while cutting taxes to those who don't pay that much to start with solve this? I don't necessarily believe it does. By the way, I'm not defending the elite rich like the clowns who've blown us up like the financial mess we're in right now. There are many who should be going to prison for what's happening in the sub-prime fallout.

Again, like I noted in an earlier post, I don't care if the highest levels of taxation stay where they are and the bottom 50% of taxpayers are given full immunity to income taxes as they are only paying 3% of the sum-total anyway. Where the Robin Hood scenario comes in is in the raising of the two top-tiers of taxation while further reducing, to the point of giving cash, to the bottom tiers. I don't see how that resolves the problem in the long term. The key is to expand the economy so all can benefit.

True, but that obscures the issue. The question is whether governemnt should play a role in regulating these clowns. McCain has been all over the map, the Republican platform generally decries that activity and who the fuck knows what Obama's up to.

I favor regulating them. The traditional drumbeat of deregulation by the Republican party is proven wrong.

On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986, one of the most far-reaching reforms of the United States tax system since the adoption of the income tax. The top tax rate on individual income was lowered from 50% to 28%, the lowest it had been since 1916. Tax preferences were eliminated to make up most of the revenue. In an attempt to remain revenue neutral, the act called for a $120 billion increase in business taxation and a corresponding decrease in individual taxation over a five-year period.

President George W. Bush signed a series of tax cuts into law. The largest was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It was estimated to save taxpayers $1.3 trillion over ten years, making it the third largest tax cut since World War II. The Bush tax cut created a new lowest rate, 10% for the first several thousand dollars earned. It also established a slow schedule of incremental tax cuts that would eventually double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, adjust brackets so that middle-income couples owed the same tax as comparable singles, cut the top four tax rates (28% to 25%; 31% to 28%; 36% to 33%; and 39.6% to 35%).

The point is that there have been significant tax cuts for the wealthy both in basic income tax as well as capitol gains since 1980. This has been instituted by both parties. I'm not sure that's in line with what you've been saying which is I think based on total dollars rather than %.

What I was looking at corresponds with your timeline here. I believe the taxation I referred to was total dollars over the past 25 years or so as reported by the IRS, which also captures Capital Gains in those numbers. First, as you noted, the top tax rate was cut to 28% but had crept back up to 39.6%, along with some adds and dips to Capital Gains over the years. But, as I recall it, we came out of a fairly bad economy in the seventies that improved markedly in the eighties and nineties following Reagan's changes. Are those events correlated? Not necessarily as I believe economic growth/shrink runs in cycles pretty much regardless of who's in office in addition to believing the impacts of administrative policy have a lag time that may not demonstrate just exactly how any specific policy impacted the economy.

Bottom-line: I want a setting that allows the best opportunity for economic expansion and better competitiveness in the global market. Smarter people than me make a living on determining the best chances for that so my opinion on the matter is really nothing more than that and doesn't have the strength to change anything. However, our history has been to not fetter our "Yankee Ingenuity" and let people to do what they do and be rewarded for their success. I guess I wish it was just so simple.

I'm skeptical of getting out of bed. Most days I know it's just futile. But then again, futility is no excuse for not trying.

Getting out of bed is a much easier decision. At this point in life, if I didn't, I'd pee in it....

Buster Highmen

09-18-2008, 04:02 PM

By "usual clamoring", my point is that the redistribution of wealth may largely assume a fixed dollar or wealth total thereby creating a Robin Hood scenario of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Do I think it's a problem? Yes, I think I made that statement in the post. My desired outcome is a rising tide lifting all boats: an expanding economy where all can share dividends, regardless of socio-economic status. Given, trickle-down may not be working but the cause isn't so easily identified. With the growth of developing economies around the world, something or someone is going to give and I'm afraid it's us and any form of tax change may not affect that.

OK, so trickle down isn't working. At least we agree on that, right? I don't think we agree on the tax issue.

We're likely going to lose position to other nations as the global economy seeks equilibrium. Since we started at or near the top of the global heap, as the global economy balances, we're in one of the most precarious seats. Does taxing the rich more while cutting taxes to those who don't pay that much to start with solve this? I don't necessarily believe it does. By the way, I'm not defending the elite rich like the clowns who've blown us up like the financial mess we're in right now. There are many who should be going to prison for what's happening in the sub-prime fallout.

OK, but now the deficit.
Personally, I really want to see the deficit payed down. And it's reasonable to ask those who have profited the most in recent history to pay more of that load. It affects them the least. It's clear from expenditures that the lower 90% of the income earners drive the economy. Under McCain's tax plan they will pay more taxes than under Obamas. So it stands to reason that the middle class will be in a better position to spend money under Obama's plan.

But maybe the deficit doesn't matter to you.

Again, like I noted in an earlier post, I don't care if the highest levels of taxation stay where they are and the bottom 50% of taxpayers are given full immunity to income taxes as they are only paying 3% of the sum-total anyway. Where the Robin Hood scenario comes in is in the raising of the two top-tiers of taxation while further reducing, to the point of giving cash, to the bottom tiers. I don't see how that resolves the problem in the long term. The key is to expand the economy so all can benefit.

The Robin Hood analogy is a bit old especially given the above income graph for the top 10%. We have clearly profited the most from the current economic environment. I fail to see why asking us to pay more when it affects us and the economy less is unfair or economically unsound.

I favor regulating them. The traditional drumbeat of deregulation by the Republican party is proven wrong.

OK, so that's two things we on which we concur.

What I was looking at corresponds with your timeline here. I believe the taxation I referred to was total dollars over the past 25 years or so as reported by the IRS, which also captures Capital Gains in those numbers. First, as you noted, the top tax rate was cut to 28% but had crept back up to 39.6%, along with some adds and dips to Capital Gains over the years. But, as I recall it, we came out of a fairly bad economy in the seventies that improved markedly in the eighties and nineties following Reagan's changes. Are those events correlated? Not necessarily as I believe economic growth/shrink runs in cycles pretty much regardless of who's in office in addition to believing the impacts of administrative policy have a lag time that may not demonstrate just exactly how any specific policy impacted the economy.

Bottom-line: I want a setting that allows the best opportunity for economic expansion and better competitiveness in the global market. Smarter people than me make a living on determining the best chances for that so my opinion on the matter is really nothing more than that and doesn't have the strength to change anything. However, our history has been to not fetter our "Yankee Ingenuity" and let people to do what they do and be rewarded for their success. I guess I wish it was just so simple.

I'm not buying the smarter people than you argument. That just leaves you to get fucked over.

Something about the "not fetter" clashes with our agreement on deregulation.

Getting out of bed is a much easier decision. At this point in life, if I didn't, I'd pee in it....
Trickle down doesn't work there either.

In sum, McCain's platform and history point to supporting trickle down economics and deregulation (despite the 1 Fuckme Mae SR 509 grandstand). And the Republican platform in general supports them and doesn't seem to give a shit about the deficit.

I don't know if Obama will do much in these regards either. It depends on how much he allows himself to be seduced by the machine that McCain is already heavily hooked into. But at least Obama makes the right noises about the deficit and regulation.

GoldMember

09-18-2008, 04:37 PM

OK, so trickle down isn't working. At least we agree on that, right? I don't think we agree on the tax issue.

On taxes, and I think I've been pretty clear on this, I favor a compromise between McCain and Obama. Freeze the top two tiers and lower the rest; hell, eliminate taxes on the bottom 50%. I just hate the idea of raising one group while lowering the others.

OK, but now the deficit.
Personally, I really want to see the deficit payed down. And it's reasonable to ask those who have profited the most in recent history to pay more of that load. It affects them the least. It's clear from expenditures that the lower 90% of the income earners drive the economy. Under McCain's tax plan they will pay more taxes than under Obamas. So it stands to reason that the middle class will be in a better position to spend money under Obama's plan.

I don't disagree on paying down the deficit but, as seen in the nineties, it doesn't necessarily require raising taxes to do it. Once again, an expanding economy coupled with fiscally conservative financial management by the government can be the engine from which the paydown can occur. The problem, as I see it, is that one party or the other; or the Administration has some pet policy they want to enact and, through a series of sloppy horse-trading and negotiation, they come to an agreement that puts the cost of the trading onto us and the national debt. Somebody has to have the balls to call it out for what it is and put a stop to it, meaning it has to become a priority of government offset only by defense emergencies.

The Robin Hood analogy is a bit old especially given the above income graph for the top 10%. We have clearly profited the most from the current economic environment. I fail to see why asking us to pay more when it affects us and the economy less is unfair or economically unsound.

"We"? "Us"? ......So, what you're saying is that you will pay more under Obama's plan? If true, then I salute you for two things; first your success and second for your altruism. Again, in my view, the Obama plan smacks clearly of a Robin Hood view, otherwise why not follow my tax example and give an opportunity for even further expansion by allowing more money into the system? With expansion, the percentage reductions should flow back in total dollars collected. I stand on my compromise position.

I'm not buying the smarter people than you argument. That just leaves you to get fucked over.

It wouldn't be the first time....

Something about the "not fetter" clashes with our agreement on deregulation.

It's a balance. Unregulated clearly has problems due to human nature and the worst kind of greed. Overregulation can likewise have a smothering effect in furthering our society. How much is too little and how much is too much? I don't know but obviously, we're not on balance right now. Again, moderation needs to be employed in order to not shut off the spigot that drove the U.S. to be the economic and technical leader it's enjoyed over the past century plus.

Trickle down doesn't work there either.

Another point of agreement.

In sum, McCain's platform and history point to supporting trickle down economics and deregulation (despite the 1 Fuckme Mae SR 509 grandstand). And the Republican platform in general supports them and doesn't seem to give a shit about the deficit.

Where McCain stands on deregulation, as you noted, is unclear but I suspect he's moving to the middle on this as the financial disaster unfolds and demonstrated in 2005. I think we need to get greater clarification through the debates to really know where he's at right now. As for the party, historically (at least I felt) they were the more fiscally conservative group. Right now, between the various mixes of D pres. and R Congress, R pres. and R Congress, and R pres and D Congress, I can't figure out who's more responsible. Judging by what's happened over the past several years, I don't know if any of them are responsible.

I don't know if Obama will do much in these regards either. It depends on how much he allows himself to be seduced by the machine that McCain is already heavily hooked into. But at least Obama makes the right noises about the deficit and regulation.

It seems everyone goes to Washington on the same premise: 'I'm going to reform D.C. and take your country back for you!' Yet, once there, they seem to get sucked into the machine within the beltway and things just continue along their merry course to oblivion. <sigh> I wish I knew the answers.

timvwcom

09-18-2008, 09:02 PM

Part One...

Well... lots to chew on in this thread. Lets see how I do discussing some points therein; I actually had some of Busters quotes in here to begin with, but my comments basically said "that's right", so I removed them. My good friend GoldMember however, seems to have taken the brunt of my keyboard poking... Sorry!

My counter to the Obama solution (tax the wealthiest more, the middle-to-lower even less) was that this has been the path over the past 25 years or so. How has that helped as it relates to the disparity? Not much. So, what's an alternative to dealing with the issue.

First, I'm not sure if for this portion you meant 1) That the wealthiest have paid more than the poor over the last 25 years, or 2) That the wealthiest have paid more in the last 25 years than the wealthiest paid paid previously? If you meant #1, my response is "DUH!"... if you meant #2, my response is a bit longer;

To give some perspective on taxes for the richest Americans... The "past 25 years or so" have NOT seen the wealthiest taxed more; In fact, as this chart showing the top tax rate for nearly the last 100 years... the top tax rates are very low based on history. The top bracket was as high as 94%, and was around 80% or higher from the mid 1930's straight thru to the early 1960's. Then at around 70% until after 1981. These high rates were for a much higher income bracket however, at some points you had to make more than $1 million a year, etc. to pay this rate.

http://blog.prospect.org/blog/ezraklein/assets/ezraklein.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/top_marginals.jpg

By "usual clamoring", my point is that the redistribution of wealth may largely assume a fixed dollar or wealth total thereby creating a Robin Hood scenario of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Do I think it's a problem? Yes, I think I made that statement in the post. My desired outcome is a rising tide lifting all boats: an expanding economy where all can share dividends, regardless of socio-economic status. Given, trickle-down may not be working but the cause isn't so easily identified...

I broke this paragraph to group thoughts better; This statement SEEMS to be saying that any changes from the status quo could lead to a problem? Do you not have any sense of what the Bush tax cuts have done over the last 8 years? While using your terminology here, could I wonder if Bush is the "Shryff off Notyngham? Could some perhaps argue THE PROBLEM is the Bush tax cuts themselves... you don't seem to even leave that option open for discussion.

...With the growth of developing economies around the world, something or someone is going to give and I'm afraid it's us and any form of tax change may not affect that.

We're likely going to lose position to other nations as the global economy seeks equilibrium. Since we started at or near the top of the global heap, as the global economy balances, we're in one of the most precarious seats. Does taxing the rich more while cutting taxes to those who don't pay that much to start with solve this? I don't necessarily believe it does. By the way, I'm not defending the elite rich like the clowns who've blown us up like the financial mess we're in right now. There are many who should be going to prison for what's happening in the sub-prime fallout.

I am assuming you're not arguing about simply the balance of some "prestige"... but instead mean the US compared to other countries financially??? Assuming that, remember that by perhaps it's simplest measurement; since Bush took office the value of the dollar relative to the Euro HAS FALLEN 41 PERCENT (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aH0_cYGS8Avc&refer=home)!!! You can try and use any other measurement unit or method you want, but they won't make things look much better or worse compared to this huge blow to your stated "balance". There are other currencies, and they have adjusted differently of course... but for even one like China where the exchange rate is artificially pegged, we have other HUDGE problems.

I will go on to mention though... that I don't think the dollars drop is completely accidental, nor do I think it will actually be a bad thing for our economy long term, quite the opposite. Anyone who is in manufacturing, that doesn't have to obtain their raw materials from outside our market, will absolutely LOVE what this does to our exports. And I'll point out, that perhaps some of these beneficiaries aren't completely surprised at this fall. ;)

Again, like I noted in an earlier post, I don't care if the highest levels of taxation stay where they are and the bottom 50% of taxpayers are given full immunity to income taxes as they are only paying 3% of the sum-total anyway. Where the Robin Hood scenario comes in is in the raising of the two top-tiers of taxation while further reducing, to the point of giving cash, to the bottom tiers. I don't see how that resolves the problem in the long term. The key is to expand the economy so all can benefit..

See my response above. :rolleyes2 Maybe Robyn Hod is simply taking back what the Shryff took away from the people in the first place?

But, as I recall it, we came out of a fairly bad economy in the seventies that improved markedly in the eighties and nineties following Reagan's changes. Are those events correlated? Not necessarily as I believe economic growth/shrink runs in cycles pretty much regardless of who's in office in addition to believing the impacts of administrative policy have a lag time that may not demonstrate just exactly how any specific policy impacted the economy.

Just for fun, and passing over your acknowledgment in the last part here, let's see if we can see the marked improvement in the 80's and 90's, or how else the economy has changed over time. I suppose we should use the GDP numbers for this???

Here is a measurement using quarters as the time unit;
http://home.comcast.net/~markthoma/Graphics/RGDPvar1.1.24.06.gif

What my non-expert eye sees, assuming the measurement system has remained identical over time (???)... is that following the early 80's slump, we have had fewer negative growth quarters, though the good quarters exhibit only about half the growth from the period prior to the early 80's. Although I haven't run a line of regression analysis on it, it appears it would be quite flat across the periods on both sides of the early 80's?

Also quite obvious is that the numbers for the term of Bush's presidency are unremarkable. Certainly no reason to believe that anything instituted during his term is more successful to that from times before, and should therefore be retained for fear of something worsening.

Bottom-line: I want a setting that allows the best opportunity for economic expansion and better competitiveness in the global market. Smarter people than me make a living on determining the best chances for that so my opinion on the matter is really nothing more than that and doesn't have the strength to change anything. However, our history has been to not fetter our "Yankee Ingenuity" and let people to do what they do and be rewarded for their success. I guess I wish it was just so simple.

As my tax chart up near the top plainly points out... the belief that our "history" has been to "not fetter" and reward (assume you mean lower taxes for both of these terms) those with "Yankee Ingenuity" (assuming you mean successful entrepreneurs here) is simply a mistaken idea. Any idea that lower taxes on the wealthy creates large benefits in GDP growth are similarly not accurate as shown by comparing those tax changes above, with the GDP chart here.

Continued in Part Two...

timvwcom

09-18-2008, 09:03 PM

Part Two...

On taxes, and I think I've been pretty clear on this, I favor a compromise between McCain and Obama. Freeze the top two tiers and lower the rest; hell, eliminate taxes on the bottom 50%. I just hate the idea of raising one group while lowering the others.

But you were completely fine with Bush give HUDGE tax breaks to the already wealthy, while giving only a couple dozen dollars to regular schlubs a few years ago? Have you actually seen how much money you need to make to really end up paying more under Obama??? Here's the facts;

http://www.timvw.com/whooohooo/truth_tax_find.jpg

As you can see... If you make less than $603,000 the Obama plan isn't really going to affect you much. IF you were one of those fortunate enough to make MORE than $2.9 million in a year, you would pay a lot more a year. Of course these calculations were calculated including those making $5M, $10M and $100M, so almost impossible to run a percentage number. In any case, they are still WAY below any historic levels and we had a fantastic economy back under Clinton with basically these same rates.

Also, keep in mind... that people this wealthy, rarely pay taxes the same way you and I do. There are many ways the actual tax percentage they end up paying is less than you and I pay. Ask Warren Buffet about this subject;

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece)

June 28, 2007

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

I don't disagree on paying down the deficit but, as seen in the nineties, it doesn't necessarily require raising taxes to do it. Once again, an expanding economy coupled with fiscally conservative financial management by the government can be the engine from which the paydown can occur.

You say you don't like deficits, or the national debt??? I'll take your word at that... But are you completely ignoring, or maybe just not aware, that we WERE paying higher taxes then in the 1990's. The Bush tax cuts mean we are paying LESS now, correct?

Remember, these deficits and the national debt are carried by paying interest, which means more taxes we all pay that don't get us anything. All that debt will have to be paid off with tax dollars too... Do you have any idea what Bush's "tax cut and spend" policies (and those of Reagan and Bush I as well) have done to future taxes for you, your children/neices/nephews and all the grandrelatives? You all will be paying for Bush's incompetence and the Republican greed on this issue for a very very long time.

http://mikelove.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/deficit.gif

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart-August2006.gif

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif

And one that show how truly bad Reagan and then Bush I were -vs- the historic, check this one which is corrected for the change in the value of a dollar.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/inflation.gif

And let's talk a minute about this whole concept again... Any argument that you can always just lower taxes to stimulate the economy thereby raising more money and lowering the deficit is nothing but a bunch of bullshit. I don't doubt that there are times and cases where this does work... but to argue that you can ALWAYS lower rates MORE, and revenue will go up is absurd on it's face. Using that argument you can reduce the tax rate to zero and still raise the most in tax revenue. :nonono2: And anyone who want's to post a laffer curve, go ahead... because I'd point out that it's more likely we are on the OTHER side of the curve and your little graphs shows we need to raise taxes.

This has been an argument from Reagan thru Bush I and now Bush II... a total of 5 presidential terms. Look at those graphs above and see where it's gotten us! If the Republican "God" of Reagan couldn't make it work, and the idiot chimp king with the presidency, and both houses of congress can't do it... it doesn't work! Look at the proof in the graphs above... give. it. up.

It's a balance. Unregulated clearly has problems due to human nature and the worst kind of greed. Overregulation can likewise have a smothering effect in furthering our society. How much is too little and how much is too much? I don't know but obviously, we're not on balance right now. Again, moderation needs to be employed in order to not shut off the spigot that drove the U.S. to be the economic and technical leader it's enjoyed over the past century plus.

Just curious GoldMember... I think we can both agree that the current Financial melt down qualifies as the problem from too little regulation. But can you find me ONE example of your claim about over-regulation? I'm not arguing it's not possible, but just don't think I can think of a single case in OUR economy of that ever occurring??? Remind me. Show me where over-regulation lead to problems. Thanks.

Where McCain stands on deregulation, as you noted, is unclear but I suspect he's moving to the middle on this as the financial disaster unfolds and demonstrated in 2005. I think we need to get greater clarification through the debates to really know where he's at right now. As for the party, historically (at least I felt) they were the more fiscally conservative group. Right now, between the various mixes of D pres. and R Congress, R pres. and R Congress, and R pres and D Congress, I can't figure out who's more responsible. Judging by what's happened over the past several years, I don't know if any of them are responsible.

R U serious??? You would just ignore 25 to 35 years of history and experience of both McCain and Gramm being for big deregulation... if they simply SAID they now felt different about it... WHILE they are in a race for election to the Presidency. Either you are way too trusting, or just not serious about this one.

Lastly, give up trying to figr' out the D's and R's and the Prez's and Congress's... you're smarter than that. The issues here are plain and face you every day in the media. You can find what you need on TV/Cable or online to tell you which candidate is closer to your views. You don't need to over generalize based on who controlled what in the past to move forward.

The End.

Rubicon

09-18-2008, 09:27 PM

http://mikelove.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/deficit.gif

Tim, I love me some graphs. But unless this info is adjusted for inflation and expressed as a percentage of GDP, it's not useful for much of anything.

Just say'n.

timvwcom

09-18-2008, 09:27 PM

Here are a couple more interesting graphs, I'll skip commenting since I've done too much of that in the prior 2 posts!

http://www.die.net/musings/national_debt/gdp_per_capita.png

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP-L.gif

http://www.intelligentguess.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/usa-historical-debt-as-a-of-gdp-from-1929-w2.jpg

Edit: this could be worth discussing;
http://acheson.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/consumerspending.gif

http://www.timvw.com/whooohooo/stupidchart2.jpg

timvwcom

09-18-2008, 09:42 PM

Tim, I love me some graphs. But unless this info is adjusted for inflation and expressed as a percentage of GDP, it's not useful for much of anything.

Just say'n.

Ha, some of those last ones got close before I even knew you asked... But they were based on DEBT as percent of GDP, here are 2 on the DEFICIT as percent of GDP. They are thru 2004... and I didn't see one that was more current based on actual numbers.

http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage.png

Closer in;
http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage-50-years.png

Edit: OK, fixed one up to show same data by President and party. Happy Rubi? :)
http://www.timvw.com/whooohooo/tims_deficit_gdp.png

As a reminder;
1953-1960 Eisenhower
1961-1962 Kennedy
1963-1968 Johnson
1969-1974 Nixon
1975-1976 Ford
1977-1980 Carter
1981-1988 Reagan
1989-1992 Bush I
1993-2000 Clinton
2001-2008 Bush II

Rubicon

09-18-2008, 10:59 PM

Edit: OK, fixed one up to show same data by President and party. Happy Rubi? :)

Yes, thank you. But it seems unwieldy to express a surplus as a negative percentage. You sure you didn't just whip those charts up yourself after killing off a bottle(or two) of wine? :biggrin: :wink:

timvwcom

09-19-2008, 12:31 AM

Yes, thank you. But it seems unwieldy to express a surplus as a negative percentage. You sure you didn't just whip those charts up yourself after killing off a bottle(or two) of wine? :biggrin: :wink:

No, when I finish off a bunch of wine I usually do something silly like a photochop or animated gif, or hiding something in a post and disguise it so no one is likely to catch it. Then I laugh and laugh for days when I think of it again. (laughing still now) :D

Buster Highmen

09-19-2008, 07:10 AM

GoldMember

09-19-2008, 09:49 AM

Evidently my ingenue was missed regarding the question of whether the wealthy were paying more or whether their tax rates had gone up. My bad.

The intent was to point out that: yes, they were paying more and no, their rates had gone down. Do the math on their profits. Hopefully there's no 7's in the calculation, it's early again.

Not sure who this is directed to....

Tim, wow.....long and charty comments. First, I'm out as soon as I'm done with this post and will be gone for a couple weeks so you kids have fun and play nice.

Second, since you noted that essentially you were agreeing with Buster and it appears you've mostly added information that you feel supports that position, there's really no purpose in me rehashing what I've already posted so I won't take up any more space on it at this time..

Third, after listening to what's going on in the financial world, including the continuation of the taxpayer bailout of the mortgage crises that will ultimately cost us over $1 trillion, enough is enough. I'm not likely to vote for Obama but I'm not voting for McCain either (not that either vote would matter as WA state will go for Obama anyway so my vote matters not).

Have a good couple weeks.

Buster Highmen

09-19-2008, 10:00 AM

Not sure who this is directed to....

It's not really directed at anyone in particular.

Tim, wow.....long and charty comments. First, I'm out as soon as I'm done with this post and will be gone for a couple weeks so you kids have fun and play nice.

Kids? Uh huh.

Second, since you noted that essentially you were agreeing with Buster and it appears you've mostly added information that you feel supports that position, there's really no purpose in me rehashing what I've already posted so I won't take up any more space on it at this time.

I think the point is that reducing taxes on the wealthy does nothing to improve the economy. I thought that was the point of most of our contention.

Third, after listening to what's going on in the financial world, including the continuation of the taxpayer bailout of the mortgage crises that will ultimately cost us over $1 trillion, enough is enough. I'm not likely to vote for Obama but I'm not voting for McCain either (not that either vote would matter as WA state will go for Obama anyway so my vote matters not).

Have a good couple weeks.
Part of the objective is to provide data for the argument that a lot of people are reading. Maybe no body will actually have the balls to change their mind, but at least it's fuel for thought for those capable.

GoldMember

09-19-2008, 10:13 AM

It's not really directed at anyone in particular. - Good enough

Kids? Uh huh. - I use that term regularly with my friends too who are all about my age, which I believe you and I are about the same age. Nothing derogatory intended.

I think the point is that reducing taxes on the wealthy does nothing to improve the economy. I thought that was the point of most of our contention. - I compromised at holding the rate on the wealthy and reducing for middle to lower rates and removing FIT altogether for lower. Right now, I'm more in favor of raising it on the wealthy (my own kneejerk reaction to the credit bailout debacle).

Part of the objective is to provide data for the argument that a lot of people are reading. Maybe no body will actually have the balls to change their mind, but at least it's fuel for thought for those capable. - I understand the data purpose. At this point, I don't need the data to move away from McCain. I'm pissed off with what this bailout is costing us, not to mention that my personal net worth has dropped over 10% in the last 18 months. Enough is enough, it's time for change. I don't know that Obama's the change we need but change has to occur.

Anyway, I'm out. I've got a lot to do to prepare for next week and it ain't getting done while I'm screwing around here.

Later.

Buster Highmen

09-19-2008, 10:17 AM

Eeeeek. Tim's color approach has infected GM!!!!

Have a good trrrrrip.

David Witherspoon

09-19-2008, 10:38 AM

Evidently my ingenue was missed ...
You have an ingenue? :) Post pics!

Oh yeh, colors.

Obama Nate

09-20-2008, 03:35 AM

Buster, what's your fascination with using the gini index to support your asinine arguments? The gini index has limited applicability in supporting the argument you are making.

Now statistics can conveniently obscure or ignore causal correlation, granted. But if trickle down economics has been working, then what do the above graphs tell us? Similarly what do healthcare costs, infant mortality and scientific acheivement say when compared in the world arena?

The graphs you posted seem to directly contradict your argument. At best, they don't support your argument. Please explain what I am missing. :confused: As to your other questions, understanding they were posed to GM, please tell me as I am sensing rhetoric (again, I fail to see how those rhetorical questions support your argument that "trickle down" economics and deregulation are the woes of the world).

As you most aptly pointed out, Reagan's act (that is, the Tax Reform Act passed by Congress and signed into law by Reagan) "called for a $120 billion increase in business taxation." I have a sense that you don't grasp the concept of what is commonly referred to as "trickle down" economics.

The point is that there have been significant tax cuts for the wealthy both in basic income tax as well as capitol gains since 1980. This has been instituted by both parties. I'm not sure that's in line with what you've been saying which is I think based on total dollars arther than %.

Uhh, what's your point, again??

Obama Nate

09-20-2008, 03:56 AM

Personally, I really want to see the deficit payed down. And it's reasonable to ask those who have profited the most in recent history to pay more of that load.

Why? They're already paying almost all of it.

It affects them the least.

Well, depends on what you mean. How is someone paying 1MM plus in taxes affected less than the single mom making 30k and getting an EIC check from Uncle Sam?

It's clear from expenditures that the lower 90% of the income earners drive the economy.

And the top 10% pay for governmental services provided to the lower 90% and maintain a supply of goods and services necessary for the lower 90% to make those expenditures you're talking about.

I fail to see why asking us to pay more when it affects us and the economy less is unfair or economically unsound.

Objectively speaking, it is less fair if your are shouldering more than your share of the burden; i.e., paying a higher rate on your earned income. Again, I don't understand how you are affected less if you stand to lose half your earnings compared to someone who stands to lose their food stamps that we gave them, and as far as I know, don't deserve them.

Obama Nate

09-20-2008, 04:15 AM

See my response above. :rolleyes2 Maybe Robyn Hod is simply taking back what the Shryff took away from the people in the first place?

Are you trying to be ironic, or are you just confused? Because certainly you aren't suggesting that the Shryff shouldn't have taken from the people in the first place.

Any idea that lower taxes on the wealthy creates large benefits in GDP growth are similarly not accurate as shown by comparing those tax changes above, with the GDP chart here.

:biggrin::rolleyes2 Tim, you're one of the few flaming librodouches on this board I kinda like, so I mean no disrespect. But that was just fucking hilarious. Economics is not your strong suit.

Buster Highmen

09-20-2008, 07:23 AM

Buster, what's your fascination with using the gini index to support your asinine arguments? The gini index has limited applicability in supporting the argument you are making.

No it doesn't. It supports precisely my point: trickle down doesn't work. And your inability to address the topic without a personal attack speaks volumes. I know. You're smarter than me.

The graphs you posted seem to directly contradict your argument. At best, they don't support your argument. Please explain what I am missing. :confused: As to your other questions, understanding they were posed to GM, please tell me as I am sensing rhetoric (again, I fail to see how those rhetorical questions support your argument that "trickle down" economics and deregulation are the woes of the world).

I can't really help you here. Try rereading the discussion.

As you most aptly pointed out, Reagan's act (that is, the Tax Reform Act passed by Congress and signed into law by Reagan) "called for a $120 billion increase in business taxation." I have a sense that you don't grasp the concept of what is commonly referred to as "trickle down" economics.

I do understand the concept. The point is that Reagans tax reform lowered the taxes for the upper incomes. See the data.

Uhh, what's your point, again??
Again, the point is there. You can keep making the subtle ad hominems, but the argument is there for anyone to read. You may prefer Tim's style of presentation.

Buster Highmen

09-20-2008, 07:36 AM

Why? They're already paying almost all of it.

Why not? They benefit from the system. Make them pay for it.

Well, depends on what you mean. How is someone paying 1MM plus in taxes affected less than the single mom making 30k and getting an EIC check from Uncle Sam?

This is obvious. Even my most hardcore conservative friends can see that.

And the top 10% pay for governmental services provided to the lower 90% and maintain a supply of goods and services necessary for the lower 90% to make those expenditures you're talking about.

That's inaccurate.

Objectively speaking, it is less fair if your are shouldering more than your share of the burden; i.e., paying a higher rate on your earned income. Again, I don't understand how you are affected less if you stand to lose half your earnings compared to someone who stands to lose their food stamps that we gave them, and as far as I know, don't deserve them.

No, it's not less fair. It's what I do. BTW, long ago, I had to get food stamps when I was in college working 3 jobs. Now I know in your eyes I didn't deserve them. But I was hungry and I needed them and I'm really glad they were there. Now that I've made a bit of money, I don't have a problem with it, even if some significant percentage of the recepients are scumbags.

If it isn't obvious that I can continue to enjoy life, do lots of stuff, eat well, ski and see my kids be happy. If someone loses half their food stamps, it's a much greater hardship. It's obvious.

Have a nice day, array.

doughboyshredder

09-20-2008, 09:06 AM

I could have afforded college, if I knew I could have got food stamps. Damn.

That's fucking lame for an able bodied young man to use food stamps. Fucking lame. Lame. Lame.

timvwcom

09-20-2008, 10:33 AM

Any idea that lower taxes on the wealthy creates large benefits in GDP growth are similarly not accurate as shown by comparing those tax changes above, with the GDP chart here.:biggrin::rolleyes2 Tim, you're one of the few flaming librodouches on this board I kinda like, so I mean no disrespect. But that was just fucking hilarious. Economics is not your strong suit.

Well... assuming you're not just a shit stirring trollias, which may be taking a leap, please put your brain where your mouth is and show some proof of what ever point you were trying to make. I'd imagine you can find a graph or some information some where to show a large long term rise in some economic data point clearly resulting from a drop in a tax rate. And somehow illustrate that this large long term rise in some data point hasn't previously existed in other cycles in our economy, or said another way, that there might be some cause and effect vs being just a random following occurance.

http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg

Obama Nate

09-20-2008, 03:21 PM

Well... assuming you're not just a shit stirring trollias, which may be taking a leap, please put your brain where your mouth is and show some proof of what ever point you were trying to make. I'd imagine you can find a graph or some information some where to show a large long term rise in some economic data point clearly resulting from a drop in a tax rate. And somehow illustrate that this large long term rise in some data point hasn't previously existed in other cycles in our economy, or said another way, that there might be some cause and effect vs being just a random following occurance.

My point was not that you are wrong or right in your conclusion. It was that your conclusion, to the extent it were correct, would not be proven solely by the two graphs you posted. The basic concept of the Laffer curve is widely accepted. But problems arise in any attempt to make useful application because of the many economic variables which may (probably do) cause many peaks and valleys between the two extremes. This is illustrated by the neo-Laffer curve.

The two graphs you posted merely show the top marginal income tax rate and gdp over time. Not only does this ignore other taxes related to supply-side theory, such as corporate and capital gains taxation, it also ignores the theory itself (I am making somewhat of an assumption that we are talking about the theories of Mundel implemented by the Reagan administration). GDP is the measure of consumption + investment + government spending + net exports. The supply-side theory illustrated by the Laffer curve, sold to Reagan by Mundel, et al, theorizes that decreasing marginal tax rates will result in an increase of taxation revenue over time; depending on the location of the tax rate on the curve.

Again, I'm not trying to defend trickle-down economics (not that I would or wouldn't). And I don't mean to be dismissive. I'm just not convinced by your argument; on economics, that is. There is a clear correlation between the global warmings and number of pirates.

Obama Nate

09-20-2008, 03:35 PM

No, it's not less fair. It's what I do. BTW, long ago, I had to get food stamps when I was in college working 3 jobs. Now I know in your eyes I didn't deserve them. But I was hungry and I needed them and I'm really glad they were there. Now that I've made a bit of money, I don't have a problem with it, even if some significant percentage of the recepients are scumbags.

If it isn't obvious that I can continue to enjoy life, do lots of stuff, eat well, ski and see my kids be happy. If someone loses half their food stamps, it's a much greater hardship. It's obvious.

Sorry for the ad hominem. I guess that style just seems de rigueur around here. My bad.

And I certainly didn't say you didn't deserve food stamps. In your case, from an economic standpoint, it appears that providing this benefit was wise. Moreover, in any case it might be the morally correct policy. But it isn't necessarily fair, depending on any given concept of fairness. Nor is it necessarily, across the board, for the long-term betterment of the economy.

cloudpeak

09-20-2008, 03:46 PM

Again, I don't understand how you are affected less if you stand to lose half your earnings compared to someone who stands to lose their food stamps that we gave them, and as far as I know, don't deserve them.

You're worried about the drain on the treasury from food stamps?

Funny, I'm more concerned with the drain on the treasury from the financial markets bailout and the War in Iraq.

timvwcom

09-20-2008, 04:27 PM

My point was not that you are wrong or right in your conclusion. It was that your conclusion, to the extent it were correct, would not be proven solely by the two graphs you posted. The basic concept of the Laffer curve is widely accepted. But problems arise in any attempt to make useful application because of the many economic variables which may (probably do) cause many peaks and valleys between the two extremes. This is illustrated by the neo-Laffer curve.

The two graphs you posted merely show the top marginal income tax rate and gdp over time. Not only does this ignore other taxes related to supply-side theory, such as corporate and capital gains taxation, it also ignores the theory itself (I am making somewhat of an assumption that we are talking about the theories of Mundel implemented by the Reagan administration). GDP is the measure of consumption + investment + government spending + net exports. The supply-side theory illustrated by the Laffer curve, sold to Reagan by Mundel, et al, theorizes that decreasing marginal tax rates will result in an increase of taxation revenue over time; depending on the location of the tax rate on the curve.

Again, I'm not trying to defend trickle-down economics (not that I would or wouldn't). And I don't mean to be dismissive. I'm just not convinced by your argument; on economics, that is.

Hmmm... thanks for the reply, I think? Here is quick feedback;

Appreciate the clarification that you simply aren't convinced either way by my comment regards comparing those 2 graphs... I can understand that. Are you somehow asking me to try and make even longer :eek: posts to flesh out every comment to thesis levels? (Not claiming I could do this even if I tried.) You did note that the claim was narrowed to only comment on taxes for the "wealthy"? I made reference to the laffer curve in those posts, and why I believe it can not be used to prove we can always lower taxes to raise revenue. I think you agree by your mention of "...depending on the location..." here??? I would argue that the Neo-Laffer curve (even the more serious of the 2 common versions) is really just a parody, wouldn't you agree? To comment on Mundel et al I'd need to know something specific in the first place. I can read up if you'd want to discuss it further? And lastly, you might be in the wrong place if you expect to be able to read posts here that convince you on "argument." :D

There is a clear correlation between the global warmings and number of pirates.

Arrr... Matey! (just a day late)

Obama Nate

09-20-2008, 07:16 PM

You're worried about the drain on the treasury from food stamps?

No, I'm not. And I don't think I said I was.

Obama Nate

09-20-2008, 07:27 PM

I would argue that the Neo-Laffer curve (even the more serious of the 2 common versions) is really just a parody, wouldn't you agree?

Yeah, I realize the "neo-laffer" curve is satirical. But the point made is a good one.

To comment on Mundel et al I'd need to know something specific in the first place. I can read up if you'd want to discuss it further?

No need. I was merely trying to suggest the effects of supply-side economics, as promoted by those economists, will not necessarily be reflected in GDP. I understood, perhaps misunderstood, your post to suggest a necessary correlation.

timvwcom

09-28-2008, 02:00 PM

Serious question...because it appears that Palin thinks that dinosaurs never existed. And as Matt Damon said (for the record I'm not saying he's a great source of political information but he makes a good point and one that should be discussed) do you really want someone who doesn't believe in dinosaurs to have their finger on the trigger of USA's nuclear arsenal? I agree with Damon, the thought is absolutely absurd. How could anyone possibly think that is a good idea? Republicans I call on you to change my mind!

Moving WAY BACK to OP regards Palin's belief on dinosaurs (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story?track=rss)...

ANCHORAGE -- Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.

After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.

Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.

...