• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Donnell wins Delaware

Boo Radley said:
Yeah, it matters a bit. First, it is stupid, and that speaks to competence. Second, I have to ask is she's stupid or just pandering. Neither appeals to me much. So, I have more trouble with it than the sex silliness.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
Personally, I feel basic understanding and acceptance of science is a pre-requisite to anyone in a position as important as United States Senator. I don't know this for a fact, but given her strong faith there's a strong liklihood she doesn't accept the science behind evolution. If she can't accept basic biological facts, I have to wonder what else she might be grossly misinformed on. Say, for instance, basic economics.

edit:


Oh dear.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry, but I really don't give two craps about what a politician's religious beliefs are, so long as they don't try to use their power to push those beliefs. Funnily enough though, that's the exact same thing I keep hearing liberals say in regards to whether they'd vote for an atheist or Muslim... guess religion only doesn't matter if it's not a religion they hate.


Is this really so surprising? A good three-quarters of the population is Christian. Lots of them are "creationists" (whatever that even means - aren't ALL Christians technically "creationists"?), and lots of them are very smart. And the two groups are not mutually exclusive, whatever your view on that is.

Really though, O'Donnell's excerpted quote is as nuanced as it gets, moreso than I would have expected. All I really see is her saying yeah well maybe it's true I guess. Nothing particularly controversial there.
 
Deuce said:
She's just won the primary, and polls before actual candidates are nailed down are pretty useless, so it's too early for me to proclaim she'll never win. Therefore, I must for now consider the possibility that she has a chance of winning. Now it's not so funny. Faith is not a bad thing for a politician. Blind faith is.
Click to expand...

Erm, what? She even talked about looking at the "evidence" in the excerpt you provided. Which, frankly, I find much more ridiculous than admitting creationism is based on faith alone, not science, since they're in two completely different realms... but if it's non-blind faith you're fine with, you shouldn't see anything wrong with this woman, who at least makes an effort to justify her faith with evidence.
Also, "blind" is subjective.
 
Dav said:
Yeah, sorry, but I really don't give two craps about what a politician's religious beliefs are, so long as they don't try to use their power to push those beliefs. Funnily enough though, that's the exact same thing I keep hearing liberals say in regards to whether they'd vote for an atheist or Muslim... guess religion only doesn't matter if it's not a religion they hate.


Is this really so surprising? A good three-quarters of the population is Christian. Lots of them are "creationists" (whatever that even means - aren't ALL Christians technically "creationists"?), and lots of them are very smart. And the two groups are not mutually exclusive, whatever your view on that is.

Really though, O'Donnell's excerpted quote is as nuanced as it gets, moreso than I would have expected. All I really see is her saying yeah well maybe it's true I guess. Nothing particularly controversial there.
Click to expand...

It's not the general beliefs. She's free to be a Christian. Many Christains understand science. And no, her stanment shows shows she doesn't understand scientific theory and what it means. That she has little standard for evaluating evidence. and that she reaches conclusions illogically. That's the problem.

And no, she looks at evdeicnce that has little to no scieintific standing. Kind of like saying move.org is the authority of all matters concerning the republican party. Again, this speaks to her judgment.
 
Dav said:
Yeah, sorry, but I really don't give two craps about what a politician's religious beliefs are, so long as they don't try to use their power to push those beliefs. Funnily enough though, that's the exact same thing I keep hearing liberals say in regards to whether they'd vote for an atheist or Muslim... guess religion only doesn't matter if it's not a religion they hate.
Click to expand...

Religion in general does not matter. I think that people can rule very well in spite of religious beliefs if they are given to the intellectual honesty and work necessary to do the job well enough. However, there are extremes within any religion, and the extremists are not so fit for office. To be a young earth creationist takes a certain break with reality and measured fact, and that to me is not a quality to be held by an elected official. The extremists rule by their religion, but government is made by man and subject to the rules of man; not god. You cannot trust extremists to not delve at least somewhat into theocracy. Yet another negative quality for an elected official. In the end, religion normally doesn't play much of a role. But if you're a crazy Evangelion like this girl seems to be, it's best to look elsewhere for representation.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not the general beliefs. She's free to be a Christian. Many Christains understand science. And no, her stanment shows shows she doesn't understand scientific theory and what it means. That she has little standard for evaluating evidence. and that she reaches conclusions illogically. That's the problem.

And no, she looks at evdeicnce that has little to no scieintific standing. Kind of like saying move.org is the authority of all matters concerning the republican party. Again, this speaks to her judgment.
Click to expand...

It doesn't show jack sh*t. This is one issue we're talking about here, and it's one of the most bias-prone issues in any way relating to science. That she's chosen to stick with her religious faith does not show that she doesn't understand science. The only problem I have - and it's really a minor, inimportant problem - is that she tried to justify her religious views with science, which I find as annoying as atheists who think God can be scientifically disproven. But I'd vote for someone who held the latter view if that was my only problem with them.


Ikari said:
Religion in general does not matter. I think that people can rule very well in spite of religious beliefs if they are given to the intellectual honesty and work necessary to do the job well enough. However, there are extremes within any religion, and the extremists are not so fit for office. To be a young earth creationist takes a certain break with reality and measured fact, and that to me is not a quality to be held by an elected official. The extremists rule by their religion, but government is made by man and subject to the rules of man; not god. You cannot trust extremists to not delve at least somewhat into theocracy. Yet another negative quality for an elected official. In the end, religion normally doesn't play much of a role. But if you're a crazy Evangelion like this girl seems to be, it's best to look elsewhere for representation.
Click to expand...

She's clearly not a religious extremist though. "As much, if not more evidence" for creationism (did she ever say young-earth creationism?) is a pretty moderate statement, especially compared to the general population, which is important since extremism is relative. A true extremist, though, would reject any notion that there was any evidence against creationism.


Course, I'd vote for someone even if they were an "extremist" young-earth creationist, just as I'd vote for an "extreme" atheist. I've known exceptionally intelligent, knowledgeable people of both religious persuasions.
 
Dav said:
It doesn't show jack sh*t. This is one issue we're talking about here, and it's one of the most bias-prone issues in any way relating to science. That she's chosen to stick with her religious faith does not show that she doesn't understand science. The only problem I have - and it's really a minor, inimportant problem - is that she tried to justify her religious views with science, which I find as annoying as atheists who think God can be scientifically disproven. But I'd vote for someone who held the latter view if that was my only problem with them.
Click to expand...

Her comments show it. When she talks abuot what a theory is, she shows a complete misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. It is not the unsupported guess she portrays. It is much closer to accepted fact. And when she sites such an obviously bised and inaccurate source, that too shows her poor judgement.
 
you have to know what a theory is and isn't

this isn't

it's much closer to accepted fact

LOL!
 
Dav said:
Yeah, sorry, but I really don't give two craps about what a politician's religious beliefs are, so long as they don't try to use their power to push those beliefs. Funnily enough though, that's the exact same thing I keep hearing liberals say in regards to whether they'd vote for an atheist or Muslim... guess religion only doesn't matter if it's not a religion they hate.
Click to expand...

Probably every person I've ever voted for has been Christian, so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea. Obama is a Christian. Hell, he's our Messiah, remember? :D
You may also have noticed I focused on science. You can't be a young-earth creationist and accept the basic scientific reality of evolution.


Is this really so surprising? A good three-quarters of the population is Christian. Lots of them are "creationists" (whatever that even means - aren't ALL Christians technically "creationists"?), and lots of them are very smart. And the two groups are not mutually exclusive, whatever your view on that is.
Click to expand...

No, the two groups aren't mutually exclusive. But I'm not talking about Christians in general, I'm talking about this one.

Really though, O'Donnell's excerpted quote is as nuanced as it gets, moreso than I would have expected. All I really see is her saying yeah well maybe it's true I guess. Nothing particularly controversial there.
Click to expand...

She said there's as much scientific evidence for evolution as there is "evidence" for creationism. That statement alone proves no understanding of the basic concept of evidence, let alone understanding of any real scientific topic.

Dav said:
Erm, what? She even talked about looking at the "evidence" in the excerpt you provided. Which, frankly, I find much more ridiculous than admitting creationism is based on faith alone, not science, since they're in two completely different realms... but if it's non-blind faith you're fine with, you shouldn't see anything wrong with this woman, who at least makes an effort to justify her faith with evidence.
Also, "blind" is subjective.
Click to expand...

Creationism is based on faith alone. The "blind" part comes in when people accept what their bible tells them as literally true and assume anything that contradicts the bible to automatically be wrong because of it. The earth was not created in six days. Period. End of story.

Dav said:
It doesn't show jack sh*t. This is one issue we're talking about here, and it's one of the most bias-prone issues in any way relating to science. That she's chosen to stick with her religious faith does not show that she doesn't understand science. The only problem I have - and it's really a minor, inimportant problem - is that she tried to justify her religious views with science, which I find as annoying as atheists who think God can be scientifically disproven. But I'd vote for someone who held the latter view if that was my only problem with them.
Click to expand...

She tried to put creationism on equal footing with evolution when she talked about "evidence."

Nobody sane has ever claimed the existence of God can be scientifically disproven. Or proven for that matter.

She's clearly not a religious extremist though. "As much, if not more evidence" for creationism (did she ever say young-earth creationism?) is a pretty moderate statement, especially compared to the general population, which is important since extremism is relative. A true extremist, though, would reject any notion that there was any evidence against creationism.


Course, I'd vote for someone even if they were an "extremist" young-earth creationist, just as I'd vote for an "extreme" atheist. I've known exceptionally intelligent, knowledgeable people of both religious persuasions.
Click to expand...

That's not a moderate statement. That's a statement trying to equate religious philosophy with scientific fact. It's an ignorant statement.

The bible is not evidence. It's a religious text. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, but there are people who cannot reconcile the two.
 
Last edited:
fiscalini-purple-moon.jpg
 
The Prof said:
71% of new yorkers DON'T WANT the mosque

they're the folks with whom the rauf says his intent is to improve relations

it's very simple

ron paul is a nut

neocon (LOL!) is hardly the face of the NEW GOP

afghanistan is OBAMA's WAR which he ESCALATED

you're talking over your head, again

please proceed...
Click to expand...

LOL

The reason a lot of you guys started engaging me was over that comment I made about Evangelics... which obviously offended YOU. I have done nothing but promote less government.. with real solutions, and you guys say "you talk to much" and "mutterings."

I think it's fair to assume that you guys honestly don't care much about less government, you care more about having a vehicle to shove your moral social agenda down people's throats. That is more important than less government to you.

Why don't admit what you really believe? That government is based on morals... not that we need less government to enjoy freedom.

And you think Paul is a nut very well.. He has real power that you fail to see. He also promotes actually less government, than just talking about it. He wasn't too nutty for McCain to beg him to come to the RNC after KICKING HIM OUT, just so he could get Paul's supporters to vote for him.

The longer you guys head towards a stricter party platform, the more true anti government idealist will head towards Paul and others with real Libertarians ideas in the party.

If McCain had the votes of Paul supporters, he may have won the election. I refused to vote for McCain after he got Palin on the ticket. If you can't see the neocon values of that women, then you are blind and you need to look up what "neocon" actually means.
 
if evolution is established science, prove it

replicate the spark

what's missing?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Dude.

Many Americans didn't like Bush, but did what had to be done to protect the republic from the pinko commie bastards.
Click to expand...

Necon and commie bastards really aren't different.

I keep saying.... his neocon policies were popular. He didn't get his way without his own party supporting him and getting dems on board too. If people really saw him for what he was, and what he was doing.. they wouldn't have complained about the rising defeicit then, and they wouldn't have passed his policies so quickly through congress and senate

People using those polls to argue it's popular so it can't be neocon... are missing the point.
 
The Prof said:
if evolution is established science, prove it

replicate the spark

what's missing?
Click to expand...

you're talking of abiogenesis, not evolution. What's missing is information and experiment. There is not much yet known about abiogenesis; though evolution has plenty of evidence.
 
Dav said:
She's clearly not a religious extremist though. "As much, if not more evidence" for creationism (did she ever say young-earth creationism?) is a pretty moderate statement, especially compared to the general population, which is important since extremism is relative. A true extremist, though, would reject any notion that there was any evidence against creationism.
Click to expand...

There was something in the thread earlier where they quoted her as saying things like the universe was created in 6 24 hour days and the likes. The literal interpretation of things like that in the Bible tends to go with the young earth creationists. I think that dismissing science and measured data shows some negative attributes for someone seeking public office.

Dav said:
Course, I'd vote for someone even if they were an "extremist" young-earth creationist, just as I'd vote for an "extreme" atheist. I've known exceptionally intelligent, knowledgeable people of both religious persuasions.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I wouldn't probably vote for an extreme atheist. Those people tend to be anti-theists and are as dangerous as extreme religious folk. I couldn't be sure they wouldn't try to use the force of government to enforce their anti-theist beliefs.
 
The Prof said:
ok, but it means the rauf's reachout isn't well received

how do you improve relations with folks by pissing em off?

again...
Click to expand...

The mosque debate doesn't mean he is pissing off people or failing to reach out properly... it could mean that the people on the other side don't want to meet him half way..

It could even be equal tension on both sides allowing the other to take the first step.. we really don't know. The fact is, a bunch of morons from all over the country have decided to stick their nose in this issue.

If you think the polls of NYC residents is so damn important, then why do you care enough to argue one way or the other?
 
The Prof said:
whatever it is, the people with whom the rauf says he wants to improve relations don't want it

IMPROVE RELATIONS, mr rauf

it's your move
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean it's rauf's fault. He simply wants to improve relations.. like that is such a horrible thing.

Look if rauf wants to improve relations, than what is holding him back? The other percent who are afraid to improve relations.. lol

You can't ask one guy to solve the problem alone.. tolerance has to come from both sides

Logic.. use it sometime
 
Ikari said:
To be honest, I wouldn't probably vote for an extreme atheist. Those people tend to be anti-theists and are as dangerous as extreme religious folk. I couldn't be sure they wouldn't try to use the force of government to enforce their anti-theist beliefs.
Click to expand...

Nah, atheists don't care enough....what you're worried about are the followers of Human Secularism, which is a religion in that it's an organized philososphy of wishful thinking that if government only tries harder, miracles can happen.

Real atheists are perfectly willing to allow others to brainwash their own children, to do any of the silly singing and dancing and feasting and fasting and wasting money on cult leaders they want to, so long as there's no attempt to force that nonsense or the bills for it down the atheist's throat.

Though we do draw the line at the myth of faith healing. If a child has a treatable disease, the parents are obligated by law to get that child recognized medical treatment. And if they refuse to do this, and the child dies or suffers permanent harm, those parents should be placed in jail for child endangerment or murder.
 
SheWolf said:
It doesn't mean it's rauf's fault. He simply wants to improve relations.. like that is such a horrible thing.

Look if rauf wants to improve relations, than what is holding him back? The other percent who are afraid to improve relations.. lol

You can't ask one guy to solve the problem alone.. tolerance has to come from both sides

Logic.. use it sometime
Click to expand...

New Yorkers aren't opposed to that terrorist desire to improve relations.

New Yorkers aren't stupid enough to not see that rubbing their face in a pile of **** right next Ground Zero is goin to do nothing to improve relations.

If the terrorist wants to "improve relations", the first thing he needs to do to show his sensitivity to the natives is to move his abomination from their consecrated ground.

That's easy. There's a land fill somewhere that could be used to decorate his mosque, I'm sure. Maybe one next to a pig farm?
 
SheWolf said:
The reason a lot of you guys started engaging me was over that comment I made about Evangelics...
Click to expand...

huh?

which obviously offended YOU
Click to expand...

who? me?

what? what offended me?

I have done nothing but promote less government...
Click to expand...

nothing?

you don't hang together

and you guys say "you talk to much" and "mutterings."
Click to expand...

what guys?

i'm the one who said you talk too much

cuz you talk too much

I think it's fair to assume
Click to expand...

LOL!

see?

that you guys
Click to expand...

who, again?

who are you talking to this time?

honestly don't care much about less government, you care more about having a vehicle to shove your moral social agenda down people's throats. That is more important than less government to you.
Click to expand...

oh, those guys

and they think what, again?

how do they/we think?

Why don't admit what you really believe?
Click to expand...

i'd rather link, it's more substantial

That government is based on morals...
Click to expand...

well...

not that we need less government to enjoy freedom.
Click to expand...

huh?

you don't hang together

The longer you guys [?] head towards a stricter party platform
Click to expand...

tea party upstarts all across the country are rousting party establishment

you don't hang together

If you can't see the neocon values of [palin], then you are blind and you need to look up what "neocon" actually means.
Click to expand...

tell it to the ESCALATERS in afghanistan

Daily Kos: Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters Revealed

Angry White Man | The New Republic

wow!
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
New Yorkers aren't opposed to that terrorist desire to improve relations.

New Yorkers aren't stupid enough to not see that rubbing their face in a pile of **** right next Ground Zero is goin to do nothing to improve relations.

If the terrorist wants to "improve relations", the first thing he needs to do to show his sensitivity to the natives is to move his abomination from their consecrated ground.

That's easy. There's a land fill somewhere that could be used to decorate his mosque, I'm sure. Maybe one next to a pig farm?
Click to expand...

Move it from his property to where... Is somebody else offering up their own property to allow him to build a mosque/community center?

Have you ever been to ground zero? I was there a few months ago.. and I don't really see a problem with building a center that will allow the public to go in and learn about Islam and learn about how innocent Muslim men and women died on that day also.

Are you forgetting that Muslims are born in NYC everyday and are American citizens?

And why are you calling him a "terrorist" that isn't a racially insensitive word or anything.....

And you're complaining about how he hasn't done a good job of reaching out... wtf. You can't even refrain from calling him a terrorist when speaking about him
 
SheWolf said:
The mosque debate doesn't mean he is pissing off people
Click to expand...

LOL!

too much talk, too little listen

it could mean that the people on the other side don't want to meet him half way..
Click to expand...

they're not required to, they're not the ones who say they're trying to improve relations

by pissing people off

The fact is, a bunch of morons from all over the country have decided to stick their nose in this issue.
Click to expand...

but there's only one president

If you think the polls of NYC residents is so damn important, then why do you care enough to argue one way or the other?
Click to expand...

i couldn't care less, i'm not interesting in relating to the rauf

but he is, he desperately wants to reach those damn important people, or so he says

ron paul's not the only nut
 
The Prof said:
would you mind repeating that?
Click to expand...

There's a lot in this world that we do not yet know. There's nothing wrong with that; we aren't born with innate knowledge of everything. Humanity progresses and we learn and we adapt. The same is true for abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution has plenty of real measurable quantities which support its existence. There's no measurement of creation as the main force behind it, a god, is an immeasurable system. As we continue to grow as a species and learn, we will figure out more and more mysteries. Just because we don't know now doesn't mean that it had to be magic.

The Prof said:
and creation makes sense
Click to expand...

Creation makes sense to some. But it's not a scientific theory nor does it have scientific measurable quantities or evidence. It's a personal preference. If someone wants to believe in creationism, more power to them. No skin off my teeth. But it's not on the same level as evolution as evolution has actual measurement behind it. And both evolution and creationism can co-exist; so I don't even get what problem creationists have with evolution. Unless they are young earth creationists. Though that has been well disproved already through measurement.
 
The Prof said:
huh?



who? me?

what? what offended me?



nothing?

you don't hang together



what guys?

i'm the one who said you talk too much

cuz you talk too much



LOL!

see?



who, again?

who are you talking to this time?



oh, those guys

and they think what, again?

how do they/we think?



i'd rather link, it's more substantial



well...



huh?

you don't hang together



tea party upstarts all across the country are rousting party establishment

you don't hang together



tell it to the ESCALATERS in afghanistan

Daily Kos: Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters Revealed

Angry White Man | The New Republic

wow!
Click to expand...

You just proved yourself to be a moron.. conversation done

I never said Paul was a perfect candidate either.. If you think anybody is a perfect candidate, then you don't think individually.
 
some gems from ron paul's newsletters (links above)

The Pink House? What an outrage that, for the first time in our nation's history, the organized forces of perversion were feted in the White House.... I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came 'out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally.
Click to expand...

[Martin Luther King, Jr.] was also a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration. King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys. The Rev. Ralph David Abernathy revealed before his death that King had made a pass at him many years before. And we are supposed to honor this "Christian minister" and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on a par with George Washington?
Click to expand...

St. Martin was a world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours ("non-violence" didn't apply in all spheres, I guess). He was a flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate. He replaced forced segregation in a few states with forced integration in all states. And he was a dedicated socialist. What a guy. He probably deserves two holidays....
Click to expand...

there's quite a bit more, read the links

"it burns me to have a national holiday for that pro communist philanderer martin luther king, what an infamy that ronald reagan approved it, we can thank him for our annual hate whitey day"

"only 5% of blacks have sensible political positions, if you've ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet footed they can be"

car jacking is "the hip hop thing to do among urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos"

nuts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom