Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
To me, she represents a descent into theocracy.
A theocracy won't happen in America, the day it does it won't be America anymore. But I differ from many here in that I don't think having some faith is the worst thing that can possibly happen to people. What about her faith based values do you find so troublesome?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
A theocracy won't happen in America, the day it does it won't be America anymore. But I differ from many here in that I don't think having some faith is the worst thing that can possibly happen to people.
I think a pseudo-theocracy is not improbably. Already with the creationist movement there is a plausible threat. I also see religion creeping more and more into politics to the point where I believe the majority of voters are selecting candidates based on their religious views and beliefs.
BoneSoft wrote:
What about her faith based values do you find so troublesome?
Everything. I think evangelical style religion is a threat to societal progress based on history both ancient and modern. When God becomes an impetus for political decisions it is time to be afraid.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
I agree with you on everything except the small town raised bit. Before moving to Phoenix I was raised in a town with a population of less than 2,000. I don't think living in a small town in anyway damaged me nor do I see small town living as a negative thing.
Okay - mileage may vary. I've just had bad experiences in all the small towns I've lived in.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I've just had bad experiences in all the small towns I've lived in.
I lived in Peterborough, NH once upon a time. That's the town Thornton Wilder wrote about in Our Town. That's the play that was banned in the Soviet Union in 1947, for making family life "too attractive."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
For me, there isn't. To me, she represents a descent into theocracy.
For the life of me, I cannot comprehend why you view her church as a threat, but Obama's isn't...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
What makes you think I like Obama's faith?
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I've just had bad experiences in all the small towns I've lived in.
I lived in Peterborough, NH once upon a time. That's the town Thornton Wilder wrote about in Our Town. That's the play that was banned in the Soviet Union in 1947, for making family life "too attractive."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I lived in Peterborough, NH once upon a time. That's the town Thornton Wilder wrote about in Our Town. That's the play that was banned in the Soviet Union in 1947, for making family life "too attractive."
:laugh: Nice.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What do you call all the Obama zealots, including 500,000 germans?
Friends of the next POTUS?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I suppose there's no point whining about Palin now. She's been selected as VP, so what will be will be
Remember VP is the least important job in the US government - except under very specific and unhappy circumstances. (Which meant Dick Cheney was, by himself, enough of a reason for the most devout atheist to pray for the continued health of George W.)
73Zeppelin wrote:
I don't exactly like Obama, but man I hope he wins or at least the vote is split 49-51% or something...
There were worse candidates running for the nomination - and better ones like Biden - but my concern with him is that I do not trust him. There are enough warning flags in his background to make me question his authenticity. My biggest concern is Pelosi, in the house. She is only one more step away from the oval office than the vice-president is - and she scares the shit out of me.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Something deep inside of me prefers the U.S. to be "world power" than, say, China or Russia. It is therefore comforting to me to know that the leader of the U.S. isn't a dimwit. Given the current choices, I do not feel all that secure.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
A theocracy won't happen in America, the day it does it won't be America anymore. But I differ from many here in that I don't think having some faith is the worst thing that can possibly happen to people.
I think a pseudo-theocracy is not improbably. Already with the creationist movement there is a plausible threat. I also see religion creeping more and more into politics to the point where I believe the majority of voters are selecting candidates based on their religious views and beliefs.
BoneSoft wrote:
What about her faith based values do you find so troublesome?
Everything. I think evangelical style religion is a threat to societal progress based on history both ancient and modern. When God becomes an impetus for political decisions it is time to be afraid.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I believe the majority of voters are selecting candidates based on their religious views and beliefs.
People like shortcuts to avoid thinking. People think somebody who shares their religion will share many of their values and would be good representation for them. Same is true for those who always vote party lines. Personally I see religion as just a source of values. And I see nothing wrong with that. But maybe it's dangerous for that very reason, that I don't see it as dangerous. I'm with you in that I don't want religion to take control of the government, but I just don't see that happening here. I can't picture how a theocracy could come about without a dictatorship, but then again I don't know if history has already shown a way for that to happen. However, I don't want an anti-religious government either. And many that dislike religion seem to go overboard in their suggestions to 'remedy' the perceived problem of religion, with as much or more veal than those of faith.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
I confess that I am surprised at the strength of your distaste for Palin.
I detest everything Palin represents - ultra-conservative religious values, obedience to God, small town raised, "hockey mom", Ms. Congeniality, apparent dishonesty, a view of the world a the playground for the human race, etc... Her personality, worldview and physical appearance grate upon my nerves like you wouldn't believe. I would probably be indifferent between a Republican or Democrat victory for the presidency if it were not for her. I believe this woman has the capacity to regress the U.S. further into a state of pseudo-theocracy by giving a voice to the evangelical crowd. That is why I dislike her so - she is the personification of a value system I cannot tolerate. But I am not a member of the American electorate, so there you have it. I agree that the attacks on her from the liberal media are over the top. In fact, I am getting a little sick of reading the daily critiques myself. They would have been better off to ignore her and not make a fuss over her nomination.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
I detest everything Palin represents - ultra-conservative religious values, obedience to God, small town raised, "hockey mom", Ms. Congeniality, apparent dishonesty, a view of the world a the playground for the human race, etc...
I would agree they should ignore her & get back to promoting themselves. McCain's lipstick thing is totally dumb, btw
-
I live just north of Georgia in the heart of Dixiecrat country. Almost everything you say is equally true of South Carolina - though Barr won't get very many votes (he's a phoney libertarian anyway). Around here almost all local elections are decided in the Democratic primary, but even though everyone has a drawl, they are bright enough to split the ticket and have gone Republican since '68 when it comes to the top of the national ticket. Georgia could be different, of course, but I'd bet against it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Georgia could be different, of course, but I'd bet against it.
All it takes is a 2-3% swing away from McCain in any direction. And Barr is a local favorite. I think Ron Paul drew well here too.
Oakman wrote:
he's a phoney libertarian anyway
Yeah, but i'd rather a phoney Libertarian than the other two alternatives., and the Constitution Party is just too Paleolithic...Where's old big-ears when we need him.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I've just had bad experiences in all the small towns I've lived in.
I lived in Peterborough, NH once upon a time. That's the town Thornton Wilder wrote about in Our Town. That's the play that was banned in the Soviet Union in 1947, for making family life "too attractive."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
That's the town Thornton Wilder wrote about in Our Town. That's the play that was banned in the Soviet Union in 1947, for making family life "too attractive."
I wonder if that decision was made by the same apparatchik who approved the movie The Grapes of Wrath expecting it to propagandize how unfair western capitalism was to the proles. The actual message that they took was: "even the very poor in the west are better off than we are". :doh: :laugh:
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
What makes you think I like Obama's faith?
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
Sorry, I must have missed all the rage at American theocracies and all you posted in regard to Obama.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What do you call all the Obama zealots, including 500,000 germans?
Your worst nightmare.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
So, no fear of theocracy there?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
A theocracy won't happen in America, the day it does it won't be America anymore. But I differ from many here in that I don't think having some faith is the worst thing that can possibly happen to people.
I think a pseudo-theocracy is not improbably. Already with the creationist movement there is a plausible threat. I also see religion creeping more and more into politics to the point where I believe the majority of voters are selecting candidates based on their religious views and beliefs.
BoneSoft wrote:
What about her faith based values do you find so troublesome?
Everything. I think evangelical style religion is a threat to societal progress based on history both ancient and modern. When God becomes an impetus for political decisions it is time to be afraid.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I believe the majority of voters are selecting candidates based on their religious views and beliefs.
We've always done that. Yet, no theocracy! Amazing!
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I believe the majority of voters are selecting candidates based on their religious views and beliefs.
We've always done that. Yet, no theocracy! Amazing!
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We've always done that
Which, of course, explains JFK's resounding defeat in 1960. It's always struck me odd that he actually thought that a Catholic could be elected President.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Georgia could be different, of course, but I'd bet against it.
All it takes is a 2-3% swing away from McCain in any direction. And Barr is a local favorite. I think Ron Paul drew well here too.
Oakman wrote:
he's a phoney libertarian anyway
Yeah, but i'd rather a phoney Libertarian than the other two alternatives., and the Constitution Party is just too Paleolithic...Where's old big-ears when we need him.
-
Something deep inside of me prefers the U.S. to be "world power" than, say, China or Russia. It is therefore comforting to me to know that the leader of the U.S. isn't a dimwit. Given the current choices, I do not feel all that secure.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Something deep inside of me prefers the U.S. to be "world power" than, say, China or Russia.
Unfortunately I do not think that anyone could have prevented Russia's resurgence - though a saner trade policy might have at least slowed China's meteoric growth. I truly think it's time for the USA to worry about the New World, and let the Old World figure things out for itself.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I am sure there is a Heinlein style joke in there somewhere.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
I am sure there is a Heinlein style joke in there somewhere.
Well there's this but it's not a joke, per se: "Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." ~ RAH
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Sorry, I must have missed all the rage at American theocracies and all you posted in regard to Obama.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sorry, I must have missed all the rage at American theocracies and all you posted in regard to Obama.
He is not required to express himself about Obama when discussing Palin. He is especially not required to make sure that you understand his views on all peripherally related matters when responding to a particular post.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sorry, I must have missed all the rage at American theocracies and all you posted in regard to Obama.
He is not required to express himself about Obama when discussing Palin. He is especially not required to make sure that you understand his views on all peripherally related matters when responding to a particular post.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I never said he was required to. Still, it is curious that Palin seems to present far more of a concern in terms of theocracy than does a guy who's entire political career was associated with a church that defines its very politics on its radicalized religion.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
A theocracy won't happen in America, the day it does it won't be America anymore. But I differ from many here in that I don't think having some faith is the worst thing that can possibly happen to people.
I think a pseudo-theocracy is not improbably. Already with the creationist movement there is a plausible threat. I also see religion creeping more and more into politics to the point where I believe the majority of voters are selecting candidates based on their religious views and beliefs.
BoneSoft wrote:
What about her faith based values do you find so troublesome?
Everything. I think evangelical style religion is a threat to societal progress based on history both ancient and modern. When God becomes an impetus for political decisions it is time to be afraid.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Everything. I think evangelical style religion is a threat to societal progress based on history both ancient and modern. When God becomes an impetus for political decisions it is time to be afraid.
I think you are blurring two things that can be looked at separately. It is possible to believe in a God without belonging to any organized religion. Religions whether they are Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Evangelical or Zorastianism are man-made and pretty much by definition are focused on controlling behavior. After all, the more control they exert, the better their chief priests are paid. So, for me, it is not God or a belief in Him that is worrisome - it is the willingness to accept some other man's word for what God wants to see happen here on earth. In all fairness, I would argue that the likes of Billy Graham are a major step up from the Divine Right of Kings or the elevation of someone like Mao to god-like status.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface