Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 30 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 >  Last ›
   2901. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 20, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4212587)
Perhaps it is a hold-over from the early modern belief that the female had to have an orgasm in order to reproduce.


Not speaking for the theory that all adherents of this belief espouse, but my HS teacher's theory was that Rape was so traumatic that any fertilized egg would be rejected by the Uterus and fail to implant. Judging by Akins [phrasing this may be the "theory" he was thinking* of...


*thinking- oK Akins doe snot seem to be the type who actually "thinks" as higher order mammals do

from Conservapedia:

Rep. Todd Akin (R - MO) is a movement conservative in Missouri who is the Republican Party nominee for one of the most-watched races for the U.S. Senate in 2012. He has represented a portion of the greater St. Louis, Missouri area in the House of Representatives since 2000. Prior to that he served 12 years in the Missouri General Assembly. In late July 2011 he said, "... at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God." [1] [2]
A veteran, Congressman Akin has been a leader on military issues in the Republican Party in Congress. He is also a minister who has championed the greater use of prayer and charity. His family has homeschooled their children.


There is a BBTF meme that is just dying to be said here.
   2902. PreservedFish Posted: August 20, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4212591)
Perhaps it is a hold-over from the early modern belief that the female had to have an orgasm in order to reproduce. Though, unfortunately for women, the scientific community sort of proved that one wrong a few hundred years ago.


Would certainly have helped with the overpopulation issues we have today.
   2903. PreservedFish Posted: August 20, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4212595)
Tea Party + Conservative Christianity is really a strange brew. I kinda don't get it.
   2904. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 20, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4212600)
Yet the Republicans in Congress consistently pare down the enforcement budget.

This makes no sense unless their goal is to keep the deficit artificially high for political pursposes.


It's funny that you believe additional revenue would be used only for deficit reduction rather than spent profligately, like every other increase in government revenue since time immemorial.


So now we're back to the good old Grover Norquist bathtub scenario. Hell, why not just do away with all auditing while we're at it?

But if you wanted to make a provision that directed all new revenue from increased auditing to deficit reduction, it wouldn't particularly bother me. You could even give the miscreants nice big buttons that read "I HELPED CUT THE DEFICIT BY BEING AUDITED---WHAT ABOUT YOU?" in order to assauge their feelings of enslavement.
   2905. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 20, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4212602)
Tea Party + Conservative Christianity is really a strange brew. I kinda don't get it.


Well as Ayn Rand herself recognized, her philosophy is completely incompatible with Christianity (as found in the New Testament, but of course many past and current variations of Christianity as practiced are wholly incompatible with the Christianity espoused in the New Testament...

There see to be two flavors mixing it up in the Tea Party:

Libertarianism
Social Conservativism (evangelicals)

(Those two flavors are also present in the GOP, but are much less diluted in the Tea Party(s)

I personally think that this is one situation where you cannot [really] be one and also the other simultaneously- look at Rand Fan Paul Ryan - he's said that the only thing that bothers him about her writings was her negativity towards Christianity-
really? why don't you try reading Atlas Shrugged/Fountainhead and then the NT- her philosophy of life was almost directly contrary to Jesus of Nazareth's
   2906. GregD Posted: August 20, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4212609)
Tea Party + Conservative Christianity is really a strange brew. I kinda don't get it.
On a basic level, I think it's the challenge of a Western/Southern alliance. Tea Party in the South is just Moral Majority. Tea Party in the West is much more likely to be libertarian. There's been some interesting writing about the challenge in trying to unite these. Difficult to maintain in an organization. But not difficult to maintain in a political party, since what unites them is a certainty the Democrats should lose. Democrats include their own seemingly irreconcilable groups.
   2907. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 20, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4212611)
Tea Party + Conservative Christianity is really a strange brew. I kinda don't get it.
Tea Party == Conservative Christianity.

The actual people who identify as members of the Tea Party are overwhelming socially conservative and overwhelmingly Christian.

This is yet another example of MCoA's Law in action: There aren't actually any libertarians in the world beyond the four or five dudes you've talked to on the internet

EDIT: For evidence (that is, evidence for my first claim) - see Pew Research, "The Tea Party, Religion, and Social Issues":
A new analysis by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that Tea Party supporters tend to have conservative opinions not just about economic matters, but also about social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. In addition, they are much more likely than registered voters as a whole to say that their religion is the most important factor in determining their opinions on these social issues.2 And they draw disproportionate support from the ranks of white evangelical Protestants.
Many people who identify as Tea Party conservatives don't identify as members of "the religious right", but their views on social issues and their religious allegiances are basically indistinguishable.
   2908. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4212621)
Well as Ayn Rand herself recognized, her philosophy is completely incompatible with Christianity (as found in the New Testament, but of course many past and current variations of Christianity as practiced are wholly incompatible with the Christianity espoused in the New Testament...


Hence, the rise of the "prosperity gospel"...

   2909. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 20, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4212622)
Yeah, the biggest issue to me is that if you were very wealthy, you can dodge a lot of stuff by shifting consumption to outside the country and avoiding excise taxes (which tends to be relatively easy). So, for example, you could get paid your income in the US and spend it in the south of France (which sounds pretty great, really). This is a bad result in terms of fairness--especially since we'd have no real way of recouping revenue from tourists.

That's probably why a combo VAT + end of year proxy system works best.


Or maybe it'd just be better to treat all income alike, return the tax rates to the late Reagan era, and step up the enforcement of our existing tax laws tenfold.** Go after those Swiss bank accounts, etc. I'm not particularly interested in having the government assign values to particular types of consumption.*** Once a person has paid the full rate on all the income he's earned, I couldn't care less what sort of goods he spends his money on, be it socially useful ballgames or yachts with the owner's dog stuffed and made into the figurehead.

**including doing a major probe of those phony "charitable" front groups that drive so much of our worst political discourse

***with the exception of alcohol and tobacco products, which are in a different category
   2910. tshipman Posted: August 20, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4212627)
In addition to the other points, social conservatives have always been fiscal conservatives as well.

Democrats include their own seemingly irreconcilable groups.


Yeah, minorities and college-educated white women are not natural pairings. Neither are union households and post-doc education households.
   2911. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 20, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4212631)
In addition to the other points, social conservatives have always been fiscal conservatives as well.
If anybody is as fascinated by this right-wing alliance as I am, there's a completely brilliant book by Bethany Moreton, To Serve God and Wal-Mart: The Making of Christian Free Enterprise, which explains on practical, historical, and philosophical levels how the strong contemporary allegiance between conservative Christianity and the economic right came into being. A lot of liberals believe that this is a weak allegiance, and that's simply wrong as a factual matter.

From an essay Moreton wrote for Powell's:
"What's the matter with Kansas?," asked the Left in frustration; why do those people in the pews keep enabling a political order that eats them for lunch? Couldn't they figure out that "family values" were a skimpy fig-leaf for an economic vision that would make Darwin blush? Weren't Jerry Falwell and Milton Friedman really rather strange bedfellows, at the end of the day?

But Christian hostility to abortion and homosexuality was not a soft distraction from hard issues; it was itself part of an economic vision, one that gave reproduction its due. The rise of "family values" — of intense religious concern with physical and social reproduction — corresponded to the rise of the service economy in America, or the replacement of productive industries with reproductive ones. As Wal-Mart surpassed Exxon-Mobil and General Motors to become the largest corporation on earth and factories fled for the border, work came increasingly to look like home. The feminization of work — that is, the demand for traditionally female "people skills" like patience, communicativeness, and nurturance — threw the old heroic narrative of masculine productivity into a crisis. A new Christian emphasis on service offered both a pattern for organizing the service workplace and an ethos for valuing that work, now performed by men as well as women. The weekly Bible study groups, Christian colleges, megachurches, and Promise Keepers of the Sun Belt offered a new way to find meaning and morality in the market. The free-enterprise faithful represented by Wal-Mart drew much of their strength from faith itself. The same retail workers that progressive unions sought to organize more often turned to God for help. Many Americans who worked or shopped at Wal-Mart understood it to be a Christian company, its success a sign of God's blessing. Frequent Wal-Mart shopping has been an even better predictor of conservative voting than frequent church attendance. As the Left sought to champion low-wage America, then, it often ran up against low-wage America's embrace of Wal-Mart values: in 2007, reported Fortune magazine, the company backed off its support of a GLBT organization when criticized by its own employees and threatened with a faith-based boycott. Even the lead plaintiff in the class-action gender discrimination case Dukes v. Wal-Mart is a Baptist minister.
   2912. PreservedFish Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4212636)
Yeah, minorities and college-educated white women are not natural pairings. Neither are union households and post-doc education households.


These are demographic irregularities, not weird ideological mashups.
   2913. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4212637)
Well as Ayn Rand herself recognized, her philosophy is completely incompatible with Christianity (as found in the New Testament, but of course many past and current variations of Christianity as practiced are wholly incompatible with the Christianity espoused in the New Testament...

It's kind of amusingly ironic that in the year Little Orphan Aynie emigrated to America, this book was on the top of the bestseller lists.

In [The Man Nobody Knows], Barton** paints a picture of a strong Jesus, who worked with his hands, slept outdoors and travelled on foot. This is very different from what he saw as the "Sunday School Jesus", a physically weak, moralistic man - the "lamb of God"[5][6] Barton describes Jesus as "the world's greatest business executive", and according to one of the chapter headings, "The Founder of Modern Business",[7] who created a world conquering organization with a group of twelve men hand picked from the bottom ranks of business.[4]


**Bruce Barton, an advertising executive, later a Republican congressman whose political career was best noted for being part of FDR's famous 1940 campaign speech about "Martin, Barton and Fish".
   2914. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4212642)
In addition to the other points, social conservatives have always been fiscal conservatives as well.

That's mostly true with one major exception from not that long ago: The Dixiecrats. They originally switched parties largely due to the race issue**, but stuck around long enough to eventually find newfound religion in Norquistian bathtub economics.

**If that statement doesn't bring Nieporent out of his coma, nothing will.
   2915. Tripon Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4212646)
If you define fiscal conservatives as wanting to spend all the budget on the military, school vouchers, and abstinence sure.
   2916. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:10 PM (#4212649)
That's mostly true with one major exception from not that long ago: The Dixiecrats. They originally switched parties largely due to the race issue**, but stuck around long enough to eventually find newfound religion in Norquistian bathtub economics.


Yup -

Southern Democrats were, at least once upon a time, strongly New Dealish... some of FDR's best support for various New Deal programs came out of the south (so long as they included certain racial stipulations).

The Huey Long tradition was once a very strong thing among southern dems.
   2917. ASmitty Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4212655)
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.”

-Stephen Colbert
   2918. tshipman Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4212656)
These are demographic irregularities, not weird ideological mashups.


College educated women and minorities have widely differing ideologies. Those groups tend to diverge drastically on social issues like abortion, equal pay laws and taxation. They just tend to de-emphasize those views for the sake of common ground on economic issues.

Edit:
That's mostly true with one major exception from not that long ago: The Dixiecrats. They originally switched parties largely due to the race issue**, but stuck around long enough to eventually find newfound religion in Norquistian bathtub economics.


This is, of course, true. However, most of those voters are dead.
   2919. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:17 PM (#4212658)
A lot of liberals believe that this is a weak allegiance, and that's simply wrong as a factual matter.

That some believe that is amazing to me. I come from an southern evangelical background and TP consistent political attitudes are literally being preached from the pulpit.
   2920. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4212664)
Or maybe it'd just be better to treat all income alike, return the tax rates to the late Reagan era, and step up the enforcement of our existing tax laws tenfold.** Go after those Swiss bank accounts, etc. I'm not particularly interested in having the government assign values to particular types of consumption.***

You could've saved the asterisks and just said "I'm not particularly interested in having the government assign values to particular types of consumption, except types of consumption I don't like."
   2921. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4212690)
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.”

The five least charitable states as a percentage of income all being New England states is hardly a function of them being poor and evangelical.

I was a rather lousy student in my theology semester, so I must have missed the tale in which Jesus complained that you help the poor but making everyone else but him do it, then got in his Prius to go protest the G-8 meetings while uprating HuffPo comments on his iPhone. I think it's referenced in Philemon.
   2922. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4212692)
This is yet another example of MCoA's Law in action: There aren't actually any libertarians in the world beyond the four or five dudes you've talked to on the internet

It's a good rule of thumb. Lots of people who claim to be libertarian or libertarian-leaning aren't really. It's more than just being fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
   2923. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4212700)
#2921 was so shrill, my dog started to whine and had to leave the room.
   2924. ASmitty Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:46 PM (#4212708)
It's more than just being fiscally conservative and socially liberal.


I have a friend who calls these people "bleeding-heart libertarians." It probably defines me.
   2925. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4212709)
Or maybe it'd just be better to treat all income alike, return the tax rates to the late Reagan era, and step up the enforcement of our existing tax laws tenfold.** Go after those Swiss bank accounts, etc. I'm not particularly interested in having the government assign values to particular types of consumption.***

***with the exception of alcohol and tobacco products, which are in a different category


You could've saved the asterisks and just said "I'm not particularly interested in having the government assign values to particular types of consumption, except types of consumption I don't like."


Not really. I don't particularly like gazillions of products, but other than the two exceptions I named I wouldn't tax them in a higher category. I'm not categorically against what you'd call "social engineering" when it comes to consumer products, but when it comes to things like "luxury" taxes I quickly jump ship.

NOTE: Please put this in your memory book so I don't have to keep repeating it.
   2926. asdf1234 Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4212715)
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.”


Does this facile reasoning (if Gov doesn't do something, no one will) have a name yet?

If not, I hereby christen it the Colbert Fallacy. In doing so, I am proud to have saved liberty-minded denizens of the Internet thousands of hours and several cases of RSI each year.
   2927. formerly dp Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4212716)
This is, of course, true. However, most of those voters are dead.


One more reason why we need strict voter ID laws-- apparently there's a huge bloc of Dixiecrat zombies still casting ballots every November.
   2928. ASmitty Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4212719)
so I must have missed the tale in which Jesus complained that you help the poor but making everyone else but him do it, then got in his Prius to go protest the G-8 meetings while uprating HuffPo comments on his iPhone. I think it's referenced in Philemon.


If so, Jesus has already returned, and sold me a venti coffee this morning. Though what you're alleging doesn't invalidate the quote in any way.
   2929. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4212722)
Does this facile reasoning (if Gov doesn't do something, no one will) have a name yet?

The Democratic Golden Rule. Forcibly compel other people to do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
   2930. Steve Treder Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:55 PM (#4212726)
The Democratic Golden Rule. Forcibly compel other people to do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

At GUNPOINT!
   2931. ASmitty Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4212729)
Does this facile reasoning (if Gov doesn't do something, no one will) have a name yet?


Touche. Especially when you consider the long fundamentalist tradition of not using the government to advance their religious values.

Personally, I'm not religious, and I don't care for the notion of state-enforced morality. But the evangelic drive to use government to enforce some moral opinions on the basis that "this is a Christian nation" and then say that some other values should be left to the private sphere, is hypocritical.

If you're not going to force the love part down my throat, don't force the hate part either.
   2932. GregD Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4212730)

Southern Democrats were, at least once upon a time, strongly New Dealish... some of FDR's best support for various New Deal programs came out of the south (so long as they included certain racial stipulations).

The Huey Long tradition was once a very strong thing among southern dems.
Mostly agree. Southerners actually polled with the strongest support for Social Security and other New Deal programs in the 1930s. Off to call it a Huey Long tradition. Once exceptions were carved out to exclude black domestic and farmworkers, almost all Southern Dems supported the New Deal with a few exceptions. Huey Long criticized the New Deal pretty sharply as not radical enough, and while he established a large personal following he never established anything like a tradition in Southern politics, at least outside of Louisiana. The tradition would be more like Alabama's Bibb Graves, Hugo Black, Jim Folsom, (pre 1968) George Wallace line.
   2933. asdf1234 Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4212731)
The five least charitable states as a percentage of income all being New England states is hardly a function of them being poor and evangelical.

I was a rather lousy student in my theology semester, so I must have missed the tale in which Jesus complained that you help the poor but making everyone else but him do it, then got in his Prius to go protest the G-8 meetings while uprating HuffPo comments on his iPhone. I think it's referenced in Philemon.


A good rule of thumb is to avoid eschatologists bearing economic advice.
   2934. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 20, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4212733)
He says he misspoke, but he doesn't say that he was wrong. It's an apology for his tone alone.

I just don't understand why he won't say, "I'm sorry, that was false. I was misinformed. Now let's move on to the real issues blah blah blah." It seems like the only fix, and an obvious one.



Come on. He says he misspoke, which to me is saying he was wrong.


He said he misspoke by using the word "legitimate" instead of "forcible" in front of rape. He did nothing to take back the underlying nonsense.

link

Akin apologized Monday for what he called a serious error in using the wrong words when he stated in an earlier interview that "legitimate rape" rarely resulted in pregnancy.

"I was talking about forcible rape," Akin said on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's radio show. "It was absolutely the wrong word."
   2935. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:01 PM (#4212739)
Not really. I don't particularly like gazillions of products, but other than the two exceptions I named I wouldn't tax them in a higher category. I'm not categorically against what you'd call "social engineering" when it comes to consumer products, but when it comes to things like "luxury" taxes I quickly jump ship.

Ah, so you're in favor of treating things arbitrarily, but you just don't want to talk about them right now. Cigarettes and charitable contributions that Andy doesn't like today, but maybe tomorrow, Andy has a power outage and revives his demand for customer service representatives to have the ability to teach postdoctorate classes in their field. Or the special government real estate army to make sure every mortgage involves an additional 200 pages of disclosures and holds the mortgage company responsible for any dumb thing that a homeowner does. Or maybe a cloud looks at you the wrong way and we need to have more taxes on flights.
   2936. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4212741)

Does this facile reasoning (if Gov doesn't do something, no one will) have a name yet?

If not, I hereby christen it the Colbert Fallacy. In doing so, I am proud to have saved liberty-minded denizens of the Internet thousands of hours and several cases of RSI each year.


FWIW - Colbert is actually very active in various philanthropic causes. He's raised a ton of money - sometimes, even partnering conservative luminaries - for various veteran and rehabilitation programs. He's likewise been very active in various educational grant programs and others, as well as still teaching Sunday School (he's a practicing Catholic).

I'm not arguing that 'limousine liberals' don't exist - just that Stephen Colbert, I don't think is one of them...
   2937. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4212743)
But the evangelic drive to use government to enforce some moral opinions on the basis that "this is a Christian nation" and then say that some other values should be left to the private sphere, is hypocritical.

If you're not going to force the love part down my throat, don't force the hate part either.


Can't speak for jdb, but I'm an agnostic. I'm certainly not going under any "this is a Christian nation" nonsense.
   2938. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:05 PM (#4212746)
I'm not arguing that 'limousine liberals' don't exist - just that Stephen Colbert, I don't think is one of them...

I know about Colbert's personally very responsible, but I don't like the tone of that statement. There's the obvious implication that the others that want to raise taxes are the kind ones while those that don't are the mean ones. Which is completely ridiculous - one can only be kind with what they have. You cannot be kind with the stuff of others, you can only force your beliefs on them, and it's no different whether it's rooted from Christianity or Buddhism or any other personal ethical belief system.
   2939. ASmitty Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:06 PM (#4212750)
Can't speak for jdb, but I'm an agnostic. I'm certainly not going under any "this is a Christian nation" nonsense.


The conversation concerned the apparent inconsistencies between conservative values and Christian values. The quote was in reference to the Tea Party/Evangelical alliance.

It was not in any way directed at you or jdb.

Also, as to your agnosticism, here's another Colbert line: "Aren't agnostics just atheists without balls?" (I KID)
   2940. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:09 PM (#4212760)
I don't think there's any easy or obvious way to extrapolate a modern economic message from the Gospels.

Jesus preached the in-breaking of the kingdom of God (perhaps better, the "empire" of God, it's the same word). This kingdom, as he imagined it, seems to have involved a radically new social organization, one in which a variety of this-worldly hierarchies no longer apply, and the keeping of property is shunted aside for certain kinds of commensality. This is not a capitalist vision, but it's also not a social-democratic vision. It might have some allegiances, if you squint hard enough, to certain forms of anarchism.

The big problem is, though, the social transformation of the coming Kingdom of God was not the only important thing for Jesus, and it might have been one of the less important things - he believed that a radical reorganization of the relation of the community to God, of the self to the temple, of shared ritual practice, and so on, was a necessary part of a pious and just response to the inbreaking of the Kingdom. This part of the vision really isn't about state power in any way. It's not about individual transformation - certainly not in the modern "born again" sense - but the ideas of community and collectivity which Jesus held don't make a lot of sense as comparisons to modern notions of the state.

I do think that it's amazing that people find evidence for a radical capitalist program in the Gospels. Jesus is clearly skeptical of property, and the great ritual meal which defined the early church is all about the holding of goods in common rather than the ownership of goods and the building of wealth. This seems to me to be an obvious twisting of the Gospel message.
   2941. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:10 PM (#4212762)
Also, as to your agnosticism, here's another Colbert line: "Arent's agnostics just atheists without balls?" (I KID)

I hate talking to hardcore atheists even more than hardcore bible-beaters sometimes! There was this dude I knew in college who would always try to steer conversations towards religion so that he could triumphantly announce his atheism. Don't know how I resisted not beating the #### out of him.
   2942. ASmitty Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:12 PM (#4212767)
There was this dude I knew in college who would always try to steer conversations towards religion so that he could triumphantly announce his atheism.


I would describe myself as atheist, but I definitelty get that sentiment. A friend of mine once asked an outspoken atheist, "so is there a membership fee for atheism? Or is it like being a vegan and I just have to tell everyone I'm an atheist a few times each hour?"
   2943. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4212770)
I come from an southern evangelical background and TP consistent political attitudes are literally being preached from the pulpit.


The only "Christian" theology active in the US today that has less to do with what the New Testament stands for than Southern Evangelicalism is Mormonism*...

*Which is approximately as closely related to Christianity as Islam is.

Mormonism is as closely related to Christianity as Christianity is to Judaism
   2944. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4212772)

I know about Colbert's personally very responsible, but I don't like the tone of that statement. There's the obvious implication that the others that want to raise taxes are the kind ones while those that don't are the mean ones. Which is completely ridiculous - one can only be kind with what they have. You cannot be kind with the stuff of others, you can only force your beliefs on them, and it's no different whether it's rooted from Christianity or Buddhism or any other personal ethical belief system.


Sure, but going back to the whole 'religion' thing -- proselytizing is a part of Christianity...

I thought Colbert testimony in Congress on immigration a few years back was really good, despite the fact that both Dems and Republicans pretty roundly trashed him for it (I think Conyers actually cut off his mic)... Now, on one hand - spending a few days with migrant workers and as a result, coming up with a week's worth of sketches hardly makes him an expert on the matter - but I'd warrant spending a few days with them was probably more than any of the congressmen (of either party) or any of the other witnesses could boast.

I like talking about people who don't have any power, and this seems like one of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come and do our work, but don't have any rights as a result. And yet we still invite them to come here and at the same time ask them to leave. And that's an interesting contradiction to me. And, you know, 'Whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers,' and these seem like the least of our brothers right now... Migrant workers suffer and have no rights


It's odd defending Colbert on such grounds because as I've stated several times, I'm pretty damn hostile to organized religion myself... but if more people sort of took the tack to it that Colbert does, which jibes with I had read and been as a youngster going to Sunday school, I don't think I'd be as hostile (maybe just 'suspicious').
   2945. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4212773)
I don't think there's any easy or obvious way to extrapolate a modern economic message from the Gospels.

I don't think so, either.

Even if Jesus's words were the One True Gospel That Everyone Should Follow, his worldview derived from and was applied to his life from a very different society.

I do think that it's amazing that people find evidence for a radical capitalist program in the Gospels. Jesus is clearly skeptical of property, and the great ritual meal which defined the early church is all about the holding of goods in common rather than the ownership of goods and the building of wealth. This seems to me to be an obvious twisting of the Gospel message.

Not that I'm deriving my beliefs from the Gospels, but I'm very skeptical of people with endless wealth myself - I just think that I don't have the right to make them disperse that wealth in ways I think are ethical and that people have to find or not find that out from their own soul-searching.
   2946. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4212775)
I hate talking to hardcore atheists even more than hardcore bible-beaters sometimes! There was this dude I knew in college who would always try to steer conversations towards religion so that he could triumphantly announce his atheism. Don't know how I resisted not beating the #### out of him.


Because he was bigger than you ;-)

I'd put them equally on par... I'm absolutely an agnostic mostly out of cowardice -- or as Studs Terkel put it, a 'hopeful agnostic'.
   2947. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:19 PM (#4212778)
Don't know how I resisted not beating the #### out of him.


Was he bigger than you?

no....

Are you able to resist beating the ### out of others?
   2948. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4212782)
Because he was bigger than you ;-)

Nah, I was still in shape back then!

I'd put them equally on par... I'm absolutely an agnostic mostly out of cowardice -- or as Studs Terkel put it, a 'hopeful agnostic'.

That's about where I am. I'm an agnostic, but I'd like to be proven wrong. If I die and shockingly end up in front of a big pearly gate and St. Peter's hanging out there with his security system and a big database on everything I've ever done, I'd like to hope he would buy "Hey, I didn't believe in God, but I wasn't a big dick about it or anything. Except for the time I ordered those communion wafers from a supply company and me and my friends ate them with soup at lunch and did mock communion rituals, but we were just kids then and I've got a lot of recordings of Bach masses and Catholics have really cool art."
   2949. ASmitty Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4212783)
I thought Colbert testimony in Congress on immigration a few years back was really good, despite the fact that both Dems and Republicans pretty roundly trashed him for it


I also liked his testimony, if only for the sentiment. According to the transcript, this is how he kicked it off:

"Good morning. My name is Stephen Colbert and I’m an American citizen. It is an honor and a privilege to be here today. Congresswoman Lofgren asked me to share my vast experience spending one day as a migrant farm worker. I am happy to use my celebrity to draw attention to this important, complicated issue, and I certainly hope that my star power can bump this hearing all the way up to C-SPAN1."

   2950. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4212784)
Are you able to resist beating the ### out of others?

This guy was *really* obnoxious.

I'm kinda curious what ### is. I've never heard of beating the ass out of someone.
   2951. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:21 PM (#4212786)
I do think that it's amazing that people find evidence for a radical capitalist program in the Gospels. Jesus is clearly skeptical of property, and the great ritual meal which defined the early church is all about the holding of goods in common rather than the ownership of goods and the building of wealth. This seems to me to be an obvious twisting of the Gospel message.

Not that I'm deriving my beliefs from the Gospels, but I'm very skeptical of people with endless wealth myself - I just think that I don't have the right to make them disperse that wealth in ways I think are ethical and that people have to find or not find that out from their own soul-searching.
I get that. I'm just saying that's not a position that is easy to square with the message of Jesus or of early Christianity. Considering property to be a nigh-inviolable right makes very little sense in the context of the program of Jesus and the program of early Christian communities. Acts 4-5 is pertinent here, along with the woes to the rich, the "eye of the needle" and others. In Acts 4-5, the two people who held their property back from the community were killed directly by God.

I'm not saying that investing the state with the power to form just social and economic organizations makes sense in this context, either. Social democracy isn't much easier to square with Jesus and the early communities than neoliberalism or libertarian capitalism.
   2952. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4212789)
I also liked his testimony, if only for the sentiment. According to the transcript, this is how he kicked it off:

"Good morning. My name is Stephen Colbert and I’m an American citizen. It is an honor and a privilege to be here today. Congresswoman Lofgren asked me to share my vast experience spending one day as a migrant farm worker. I am happy to use my celebrity to draw attention to this important, complicated issue, and I certainly hope that my star power can bump this hearing all the way up to C-SPAN1."


If anyone has doubts I'm some closet Republican, we should totally have another immigration debate. I think snapper put me on ignore after I said that I don't think that any one of us has any more inherent right to be in America than a random dude in China or Nigeria or Serbia.
   2953. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4212790)
I'm not saying that investing the state with the power to form just social and economic organizations makes sense in this context, either. Social democracy isn't much easier to square with Jesus and the early communities than neoliberalism or libertarian capitalism.

Can we all agree that Jesus wouldn't wear Crocs?
   2954. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4212792)
I'm kinda curious what ### is. I've never heard of beating the ass out of someone.


It's ###
   2955. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4212796)
Apparently, Todd Akin's quitting the race after all.
   2956. asdf1234 Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4212799)
Touche. Especially when you consider the long fundamentalist tradition of not using the government to advance their religious values.

Personally, I'm not religious, and I don't care for the notion of state -enforced morality. But the evangelic drive to use government to enforce some moral opinions ont he basis that "this is a Christian nation" and then say that some other values should be left to the private sphere, is hypocritical.

If you're not going to force the love part down my throat, don't force the hate part either.


Outside of the love/hate claims (which don't match my experience in any way), we're in agreement that morality is best left to society than legislation.

The shared interest in social liberalism between the American Left and libertarianism is one of the reasons some of the more googly-eyed libertarians cast their 2008 votes for Obama, as they hoped that at the least he would roll back the federal wars on drugs and civil liberties. That didn't turn out the way they'd hoped, but the debates that sprang up around that time were a useful reminder that there are many shared values between the left and libertarianism that could potentially lead to political alliances.
   2957. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4212801)
I'm kinda curious what ### is.


three of these: "#"
   2958. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4212802)
EDIT: This is not a post.
   2959. billyshears Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4212803)
"I made that statement in error. Let me be clear: rape is never legitimate; it's an evil act that's committed by violent predators," Akin said on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's radio show. "I used the wrong words in the wrong way. What I said was ill-conceived and it was wrong, and for that, I apologize."


It seems to me that he knows he did something wrong, but he just can't quite figure out what it was. Now he's hoping if he apologizes a lot, in a lot of different ways, people will let it go. Instead, he's just kind of making it worse. I can empathize - this is a not uncommon set of circumstances in arguments with my wife.
   2960. booond Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4212805)
The five least charitable states as a percentage of income all being New England states is hardly a function of them being poor and evangelical.


What percentage of the money given was given to their own churches? When you profit from the charity it dilutes the value of the dollars given. Utah is always number 1 for a very obvious reason.
   2961. asdf1234 Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4212806)
There was this dude I knew in college who would always try to steer conversations towards religion so that he could triumphantly announce his atheism. Don't know how I resisted not beating the #### out of him.


JDB's Law: every atheist will announce his/her atheism within a half-hour of meeting you.
   2962. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4212807)
That's about where I am. I'm an agnostic, but I'd like to be proven wrong. If I die and shockingly end up in front of a big pearly gate and St. Peter's hanging out there with his security system and a big database on everything I've ever done, I'd like to hope he would buy "Hey, I didn't believe in God, but I wasn't a big dick about it or anything. Except for the time I ordered those communion wafers from a supply company and me and my friends ate them with soup at lunch and did mock communion rituals, but we were just kids then and I've got a lot of recordings of Bach masses and Catholics have really cool art."


I really wish deism would come back into vogue, because I think that's about the perfect faith of sorts for me... of course, I guess one of the main points of deism is that it doesn't really require being 'in vogue', so perhaps it's not so perfect for me after all!
   2963. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4212809)
The shared interest in social liberalism between the American Left and libertarianism is one of the reasons some of the more googly-eyed libertarians cast their 2008 votes for Obama, as they hoped that at the least he would roll back the federal wars on drugs and civil liberties. That didn't turn out the way they'd hoped, but the debates that sprang up around that time were a useful reminder that there are many shared values between the left and libertarianism that could potentially lead to political alliances.

I'll admit that I was strongly considering voting for Obama. I didn't really expect him to roll back the federal war on drugs, but I did expect him to be a far, far better civil liberties president than he has been. I certainly didn't expect him to double-down on Bush's civil liberties programs and the administration generally out-douche even Bush at his smirkiest. I was definitely wrong.

In the end, I didn't vote for president at all - if the Republicans had Congress at the time or strong odds of taking it in 2008, I would have voted for Obama. In November, I'm casting my first ever vote for a Republican president and my second ever vote for a Republican senatorial candidate (Mandel). Before 2010, the only significant Republican I ever voted for was Bob Ehrlich.
   2964. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4212810)
Apparently, Todd Akin's quitting the race after all.


Heh... on a tactical level, I think a lot of Dems are probably kicking themselves for going ape#### so quickly. I believe all they needed was two more days for the nomination to be official. In fact, Claire McCaskill was already pounding the "no Toricelli!!!" drum earlier today.

If he does exist, she's dead meat and knows it.

EDIT: from what I see on Politico and TPM -- the GOP is trying very hard to push him out, but he's still insisting that he's staying in. Pretty sure I know how that's going to turn out!
   2965. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4212812)
Apparently, Todd Akin's quitting the race after all.


The GOP desperately wants to pick up Claire McCaskill's seat.
Several prominent GOPers have publicly called for him to step aside
his initial "apology" was almost as politically inept as the initial gaffe- and seems to indicate that he still had no idea what had offended people, or that by changing "legitimate" to forcible, merely confirmed for others that he was an #######.

Basically in his worldview if the woman doesn't fight back- it's not rape (not an uncommon view in earlier generations)
the bit about women not getting pregnant form rape, that's just an old falsehood that some people still believe.

The GOP right now does not want him, he's a major embarrassment, GOPers in less socially conservative areas do not want to be asked questions about him, they don't want to see his face paired with theirs in their opponent's ads.

Now OTOH Akins may belong to the TP caucus in Congress, but he's not really a TPer, he's more an establishment guy, he's gonna go if enough tell him to go.
   2966. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4212813)
When you profit form the charity it dilutes the value of the dollars given. Utah is always number 1 for a very obvious reason.

And when you don't give the money at all, you directly benefit 100%.
   2967. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4212814)
JDB's Law: every atheist will announce his/her atheism within a half-hour of meeting you.

Oh please. What a crock of utterly biased crap.
   2968. asdf1234 Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4212819)
Oh please. What a crock of utterly biased crap.


Some of my best friends are atheists! :)
   2969. ASmitty Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4212820)
JDB's Law: every atheist will announce his/her atheism within a half-hour of meeting you.


Unless he's trying to get elected.
   2970. hokieneer Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4212822)
I hate talking to hardcore atheists even more than hardcore bible-beaters sometimes! There was this dude I knew in college who would always try to steer conversations towards religion so that he could triumphantly announce his atheism.

I'm not a regular in these threads, but I just have to chime in to agree with this. I have a few fb friends who love to expose their atheism daily in the form of condescending posts/memes. The fb bible-thumpers are generally more annoying, but at least they are not as ####### pretentious.

JDB's Law: every atheist will announce his/her atheism within a half-hour of meeting you.

Except in the bible belt area. I live in WV and some days I would call myself a "hopeful agnostic" and other days an atheist. No one besides my wife knows that about me. Everyone is a christian, so everyone just assumes you are. No one ever asks about my religion or believes, and I have no desires to engage in any conversation about it. A lot of christians don't go to church, they aren't the good christians, so I assume everyone thinks I'm a bad/lapsed christian. Just easier that way. Besides if I did try to talk to family/friends about it, I would just end up with everyone praying for me, and I don't want to waste their time like that.
   2971. billyshears Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4212824)
Now OTOH Akins may belong to the TP caucus in Congress, but he's not really a TPer, he's more an establishment guy, he's gonna go if enough tell him to go.


Maybe. Republicans generally do admirably put party first, but this dude is 65, and this is his shot. It may already be over, but he might not know that yet. And he may be old enough that he doesn't care for the usual payoff on the lobbying/think tank circuit.
   2972. Shredder Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4212827)
Apparently, Todd Akin's quitting the race after all.
Here's one question I haven't seen addressed with regard to the Republicans, including House Republicans, who have called on him to drop out of the race. If they think his comments make him unfit to run for Senator, how can they not also conclude that his comments make him unfit to be a sitting Congressman? I mean, without admitting the obvious, which is they want him to drop out because they think he'll lose the Senate race*? I mean, I haven't seen anyone say "He should withdraw because it makes it harder for us to win", which is at least honest. They're just going to the "inexcusable statement" excuse. If his statements are inexcusable for a Senate candidate, why aren't they inexcusable for a Congressman?

*I'm not convince he'd lose anyway. This is a state whose legislature is almost comically in favor of cruelty to puppies!
   2973. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4212828)
Aww, Phyllis Diller died.
   2974. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4212830)
Unles he's trying to get elected.


I actually know a guy who's an avowed atheist, but actually not at all loud about it. While I'm sure there are others like him, I will say that he does remain the only atheist who only discussed it in context, when someone else brought it up.

Apropos to this statement about getting elected - that was actually how it came up... He's a smart guy, one of the most honest people I know, and also a very cerebral/give me data types when it comes to working through issues or problems. I was trying to convince him to run for a state legislature seat and after dancing around it, he finally told me that the fact that he was an atheist (and wouldn't lie about it, if it ever came up) meant he had pretty much put seeking elected office off limits.

   2975. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4212831)
JDB's Law: every atheist will announce his/her atheism within a half-hour of meeting you.

Except in the bible belt area.
Yeah, this seems like one of those "none of my friends voted for Nixon" things. It's only possible in a relatively small subset of social locations.
   2976. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4212836)
Here's one question I haven't seen addressed with regard to the Republicans, including House Republicans, who have called on him to drop out of the race. If they think his comments make him unfit to run for Senator, how can they not also conclude that his comments make him unfit to be a sitting Congressman? I mean, without admitting the obvious, which is they want him to drop out because they think he'll lose the Senate race*? I mean, I haven't seen anyone say "He should withdraw because it makes it harder for us to win", which is at least honest. They're just going to the "inexcusable statement" excuse. If his statements are inexcusable for a Senate candidate, why aren't they inexcusable for a Congressman?


Well, neither side is particularly immune to that - I'll admit... There was the Torricelli/Lautenberg swap-out of a few years ago.. though, of course, there was also the Ryan/Keyes swap-out which went from giving the GOP a very slim chance to hold a seat to having no chance to hold a seat.

I tend to give both parties a pass when it comes to political maneuvering hypocrisy in election run-ups... Neither side has anything approaching a monopoly on that.
   2977. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4212837)
Also, as to your agnosticism, here's another Colbert line: "Arent's agnostics just atheists without balls?" (I KID)


My views are pretty close to atheist but I don't call myself that because it implies that I care more about the issue than I really do.
   2978. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:55 PM (#4212839)
While I'm sure there are others like him, I will say that he does remain the only atheist who only discussed it in context, when someone else brought it up.

Except all the atheists who never brought it up at all.
   2979. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:55 PM (#4212841)
Basically in his worldview if the woman doesn't fight back- it's not rape (not an uncommon view in earlier generations)
the bit about women not getting pregnant form rape, that's just an old falsehood that some people still believe.


Here's what I don't get. he says he opposes abortions for rape victims because it's rare for a woman to get pregnant from rape. I don't believe he said impossible. It's rare. OK, fine, for sake of argument, let's stipulate it's rare. Thus, he concedes that it is possible. So now what, if you are the unlucky one in this lottery? "Sorry dear, you beat the odds, thus I cannot allow you to have an abortion." Imagine if other facets of life worked this way.

Insurance: "Well, it's rare for a tornado to wipe out your home, Therefore we aren't going to cover it."

Baseball: "Well, it's rare for Neifi Perez to hit a home run. Therefore, those 2 runs don't count."

Science: "Well, supernovas are rare. Therefore, they don't occur."

I mean, you have to have a better reason to oppose abortions for rape victims other than "It doesn't happen very often."

   2980. ASmitty Posted: August 20, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4212844)
I mean, you have to have a better reason to oppose abortions for rape victims other than "It doesn't happen very often."


Well, clearly you don't HAVE to.
   2981. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4212846)
Well, clearly you don't HAVE to.


Well, you do if you want to be taken seriously by more than a tiny minority of the population.
   2982. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4212847)
While I'm sure there are others like him, I will say that he does remain the only atheist who only discussed it in context, when someone else brought it up.


Except all the atheists who never brought it up at all.


Point taken.

The only solution, it seems, would be for everyone to declare their theological preferences... perhaps by wearing special insignias on their clothing indicating their specific beliefs or lack thereof in the divine. What could go wrong ;-)
   2983. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4212849)
Well, you do if you want to be taken seriously by more than a tiny minority of the population.


The Crazification Factor is around 25%.
   2984. asdf1234 Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4212850)

I'll admit that I was strongly considering voting for Obama. I didn't really expect him to roll back the federal war on drugs, but I did expect him to be a far, far better civil liberties president than he has been. I certainly didn't expect him to double-down on Bush's civil liberties programs and the administration generally out-douche even Bush at his smirkiest. I was definitely wrong.


This has been the greatest source of discontent among my cadre of libertarians. It's my view that Bush killed any future hope for the Republican Party (to the point that Paul Ryan, a big-spending, war-mongering statist if there ever was one, is now being portrayed as some kind of Old-Right/Objectivist hybrid on the front page of CNN.com), and Obama has been little more than a Bush clone who passed up a golden opportunity to roll back his predecessor's more egregious abuses. Whatever differences regarding entitlement funding the two parties may have, they've reached a tacit agreement that no one is going to bring up civil liberties or executive overreach in any serious way out of embarrassment over the shared abuses of the last two administrations. At least, I hope they're embarrassed.

Greenwald and Paul excepted, few prominent voices are calling the parties to task for their sins, and the ratchet effect holds that we look forward to a future where federal agents who write their own search warrants remain the new norm regardless of who wins the 2012 election.
   2985. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:04 PM (#4212855)
Or maybe it'd just be better to treat all income alike, return the tax rates to the late Reagan era, and step up the enforcement of our existing tax laws tenfold.** Go after those Swiss bank accounts, etc. I'm not particularly interested in having the government assign values to particular types of consumption.***

***with the exception of alcohol and tobacco products, which are in a different category


You could've saved the asterisks and just said "I'm not particularly interested in having the government assign values to particular types of consumption, except types of consumption I don't like."

Not really. I don't particularly like gazillions of products, but other than the two exceptions I named I wouldn't tax them in a higher category. I'm not categorically against what you'd call "social engineering" when it comes to consumer products, but when it comes to things like "luxury" taxes I quickly jump ship.

Ah, so you're in favor of treating things arbitrarily, but you just don't want to talk about them right now. Cigarettes and charitable contributions that Andy doesn't like today, but maybe tomorrow, Andy has a power outage and revives his demand for customer service representatives to have the ability to teach postdoctorate classes in their field. Or the special government real estate army to make sure every mortgage involves an additional 200 pages of disclosures and holds the mortgage company responsible for any dumb thing that a homeowner does. Or maybe a cloud looks at you the wrong way and we need to have more taxes on flights.


One of the surest signs that one is arguing with a troll is that the troll can't abide by anyone agreeing with him on anything, if the troll suspects that on other sujects their agreement wouldn't hold up.

Your initial trolling was about my stance on creating different levels of taxation, and now you're trying to switch over to consumer regulations that have nothing to do with taxation, which was the subject under discussion.

Repeat: Other than alcohol (which I like) and tobacco (which I don't) products, I don't believe in creating separate categories for product taxation.** Products that I like (baseball tickets; pool cues) should be taxed at the same rate as products I don't like (SUV's, guns, yachts). That doesn't mean I wouldn't regulate them in other ways (registration; testing for competence; exhaustive background checks for prospective gun owners), but I was specifically talking about taxation levels.

**Though upon thinking about it, I'd exempt food (including your precious Big Gulps, which are the nectar of morons) and medicine from all sales and use taxes. Not much correlation there between "what I like" and "what I don't like", but don't let that stop you from finding something new to argue about.
   2986. Shredder Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:04 PM (#4212858)
My views are pretty close to atheist but I don't call myself that because it implies that I care more about the issue than I really do.
Pretty much my position as well.
   2987. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4212861)
Or maybe it'd just be better to treat all income alike, return the tax rates to the late Reagan era, and step up the enforcement of our existing tax laws tenfold.** Go after those Swiss bank accounts, etc. I'm not particularly interested in having the government assign values to particular types of consumption.***

***with the exception of alcohol and tobacco products, which are in a different category


You could've saved the asterisks and just said "I'm not particularly interested in having the government assign values to particular types of consumption, except types of consumption I don't like."

Not really. I don't particularly like gazillions of products, but other than the two exceptions I named I wouldn't tax them in a higher category. I'm not categorically against what you'd call "social engineering" when it comes to consumer products, but when it comes to things like "luxury" taxes I quickly jump ship.

Ah, so you're in favor of treating things arbitrarily, but you just don't want to talk about them right now. Cigarettes and charitable contributions that Andy doesn't like today, but maybe tomorrow, Andy has a power outage and revives his demand for customer service representatives to have the ability to teach postdoctorate classes in their field. Or the special government real estate army to make sure every mortgage involves an additional 200 pages of disclosures and holds the mortgage company responsible for any dumb thing that a homeowner does. Or maybe a cloud looks at you the wrong way and we need to have more taxes on flights.


One of the surest signs that one is arguing with a troll is that the troll can't abide by anyone agreeing with him on anything, if the troll suspects that on other subjects their agreement wouldn't hold up.

Your initial trolling was about my stance on creating different levels of taxation, and now you're trying to switch over to consumer regulations that have nothing to do with taxation, which was the subject under discussion.

Repeat: Other than alcohol (which I like) and tobacco (which I don't) products, I don't believe in creating separate categories for product taxation.** Products that I like (baseball tickets; pool cues) should be taxed at the same rate as products I don't like (SUV's, guns, yachts). That doesn't mean I wouldn't regulate them in other ways (registration; testing for competence; exhaustive background checks for prospective gun owners), but I was specifically talking about taxation levels.

**Though upon thinking about it, I'd exempt food (including your precious Big Gulps, which are the nectar of morons) and medicine from all sales and use taxes. Not much correlation there between "what I like" and "what I don't like", but don't let that stop you from finding something new to argue about.
   2988. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4212863)
My views are pretty close to atheist but I don't call myself that because it implies that I care more about the issue than I really do.

Pretty much my position as well.
I prefer "self-hating atheist".
   2989. booond Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4212864)
And when you don't give the money at all, you directly benefit 100%.


Who isn't giving money at all? Was there a state which gave no money? Was there a breakdown of where the charitable donations went?

   2990. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4212866)
More 'splaining from Todd Akin (on Mike Huckabee's show)


Well, I understand from watching other people who’ve made mistakes that, you know, nobody wants to own your mistake. And I don’t think anybody should. And that’s why I’m apologizing for what I did wrong. And so, on the other hand, there are certain basic principles that we believe in, and that I’m just completely committed to, and that is the fact that people and that life are teremendously valuable. That’s what’s made America such unique country — it’s because we believe that life is something that comes from our Creator. We’re made in his image, and all across America you see Americans that have a respect for life. It’s not a political debate, it’s not words, it’s how they live their lives.

I remember September 11th, the rescue workers running into the buildings that’s about to collapse, grab somebody in a wheelchair, pick em up – they don’t check their IDs to see whether they’re important or not - they just take them to safety and run back for more. They by their lives speak as Americans of what we think about the value of human beings and how much respect we hold people with and also people who’ve been victimized, how we hurt with them and try to care for them and try to love them. And that’s the very special thing about our country. That’s what we have at risk right now. And that’s what – we have to defend that.
   2991. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4212870)

This has been the greatest source of discontent among my cadre of libertarians. It's my view that Bush killed any future hope for the Republican Party (to the point that Paul Ryan, a big-spending, war-mongering statist if there ever was one, is now being portrayed as some kind of Old-Right/Objectivist hybrid on the front page of CNN.com), and Obama has been little more than a Bush clone who passed up a golden opportunity to roll back his predecessor's more egregious abuses. Whatever differences regarding entitlement funding the two parties may have, they've reached a tacit agreement that no one is going to bring up civil liberties or executive overreach in any serious way out of embarrassment over the shared abuses of the last two administrations. At least, I hope they're embarrassed.


When has either party -- even if you go back to before the birth of the modern two parties -- ever been much a civil liberties champion when they had the power to do so? Hell - Jefferson campaigned strongly against the Alien & Sedition Act, then promptly used the Act to go after his own critics before it expired once he was elected. I suppose you could say that he at least didn't push for an extension, but the Acts were pretty well too poisoned by then anyway.

Nobody's really a clone of anyone else - it's just more a matter of executive branches never wishing to cede controls the previous administration granted.

I don't think there's a single legitimate candidate in either party who would roll them back (unless you consider Paul and say... Feingold... legitimate).

These things have to be stopped before becoming law or you might as well get used to them being law...
   2992. Shredder Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4212872)
Well, neither side is particularly immune to that - I'll admit
Yeah, I don't mean to give Democrats a pass on this. If the same situation arises, they should be asked the same question. I'd just like to see the answer any of them could come up with. All they could legitimately come back with is "Crazy and despicable is fine for the House, but not acceptable in the Senate", which would, of course, be ridiculous.
   2993. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4212873)
A Ron Paul sighting? Oh joy.
   2994. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4212874)
It seems to me that he knows he did something wrong, but he just can't quite figure out what it was. Now he's hoping if he apologizes a lot, in a lot of different ways, people will let it go. Instead, he's just kind of making it worse. I can empathize - this is a not uncommon set of circumstances in arguments with my wife.


The difference is that in arguments with your wife you may not actually be wrong, but you still have to apologize anyway- which also happens in Politics- but this is not one of those times:

1: Akins was wrong for referring to "legitimate" rape
2: Akins was wrong when he said, "oops, I meant forcible rape"
3: Akins is [factually] wrong to state that rape doesn't not result in pregnancies because a woman's body prevents that...

Akins seems to have figured out that putting the word "legitimate" in front of the word rape is bad, however he has insisted in the past on distinguishing "forcible rape" from other kinds of rape (which I suppose it's fair enough of you are trying to distinguish statutory but consensual "rape" from the non-consensual variety- but Akins comes off as really old school- its only rape if the woman is physically overpowered after physically resisting to her physical limit)

The fact that he is simply factually wrong about forcible rape preventing pregnancy- well not only has he not backed down from that, he's doubled down on it...

my question is where are his aides and staff? Is it possible that none of them really know what was wrong with what he said?
   2995. PreservedFish Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4212875)
My views are pretty close to atheist but I don't call myself that because it implies that I care more about the issue than I really do.


Oh, good gravy, that's the second Ray opinion that I agree with to the letter.
   2996. The Good Face Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4212876)
I mean, you have to have a better reason to oppose abortions for rape victims other than "It doesn't happen very often."


I thought he opposes abortions for rape victims because he believes fetuses are people and abortion is murder?
   2997. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:16 PM (#4212879)
So Akin not only is wrapping himself in the flag, but he's also hiding behind the first responders of 9-11?

What. An. #######.
   2998. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4212882)
Akins seems to have figured out that putting the word "legitimate" in front of the word rape is bad, however he has insisted in the past on distinguishing "forcible rape" from other kinds of rape (which I suppose it's fair enough of you are trying to distinguish statutory but consensual "rape" from the non-consensual variety- but Akins comes off as really old school- its only rape if the woman is physically overpowered after physically resisting to her physical limit)


It's also meant to distinguish it from "she said no but meant yes" and "she wanted it then decided to call it rape afterwards".
   2999. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4212888)
my question is where are his aides and staff? Is it possible that none of them really know what was wrong with what he said?
That's the issue: Akin said aloud the subtext.
   3000. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4212890)
Who isn't giving money at all? Was there a state which gave no money? Was there a breakdown of where the charitable donations went?

If someone gives 10 dollars and the second person gives 5 dollars, the second person's extra 5 dollars are 100% in his pocket.

Or, is the new meme "Democrats give less to charity, but they give to TOTALLY AWESOMER charities?"
Page 30 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(15 - 5:31am, Oct 23)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogMcSweeneys: NEW BASEBALL STATISTICS.
(15 - 5:26am, Oct 23)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3208 - 5:24am, Oct 23)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(350 - 5:13am, Oct 23)
Last: Quaker

NewsblogHunter Pence responds to Royals fan signs with monster Game 1 | MLB.com
(55 - 3:53am, Oct 23)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogJerome Williams re-signs with Phils
(10 - 2:11am, Oct 23)
Last: boteman

NewsblogAd Week: What Is Madeleine Albright Doing on the Wheaties Box?
(8 - 1:13am, Oct 23)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(182 - 12:31am, Oct 23)
Last: Sunday silence

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 2 OMNICHATTER
(534 - 12:25am, Oct 23)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(854 - 12:25am, Oct 23)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(30 - 12:08am, Oct 23)
Last: rlc

NewsblogStatcast: Posey out at the plate
(14 - 11:25pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(65 - 10:38pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogJay set for surgery — and for CF in 2015 : Sports
(5 - 9:58pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogMike Scioscia, Matt Williams voted top managers
(43 - 7:45pm, Oct 22)
Last: catomi01

Page rendered in 1.5154 seconds
52 querie(s) executed