quote:Secondly there is no such thing as an atheist conservative. That's pretty much an oxymoron.
I get the feeling you are using a very specific definition of conservative there. If you want to say that there aren't many atheists who adhere to the Religious Right's definition of conservative...well, yeah, that's mostly true. But that's a pretty small (and often very stupid) take on what conservatism can mean.
There are plenty of atheists who are fiscal conservatives. There are also many who hold positions that fall more on the conservative side in terms of social policy.
I'm neither fish nor fowl in both classification systems. Traditional western religious people wouldn't recognize me as religious and atheists definitely don't consider me an atheist, but I'd consider myself conservative in quite a few areas, while being very progressive in many others. Certainly, my "conservative" beliefs don't spring from my religious ones.
I bemoaned - I think on the other tea party thread - the fact that the most vocal, visible, and seemingly powerful sections of the "conservatives" in our country are pushing the idea that considering things in a complex way is some sort of liberal trait. I think that this ultimately hurts conservative ideals and discourse in our country. It is a mistake to consider Sarah Palin, the Tea Party folk, or the Religious Right as encapsulating the entirety of conservative thought or movements in our country.
posted
I would think Lisa, before she found her religion again would be an atheist conservative.
I don't think we have very good polling data for atheism over the last few decades, let alone centuries.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just saw an old onion news video making fun of Obama for using his teleprompter so much. They also made a joke that vp Biden writes his own notes on his arms with markers all of the time. They said it in a way that made it seem such a ridiculous thing to do that it was funny. It's less funny and more strange to me that it happened for real to Palin. idk, but if you search for the video I'm pretty sure it had bad language, so be warned.
Posts: 856 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Meh, she's from so long ago though. Is she really that influential?
Didn't say influential.
Oh, she isn't? It's just that this is one of many instances where I've heard her name being brought up in conversation recently.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't think that a responsible leader in the region could assume that this was the entire reason.
Entire reason? No. Huge overwhelming part of the reason? You bet.
quote:Our military spending exceeds the rest of the world's spending combined, and we spend almost 10 times what the second-place country, China, spends. "Only" about $150 billion of the total U.S. amount is attributable to the two active wars we're fighting, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, even if one wants to excludes those amounts, the basic picture remains the same. Nor do these amounts include the billions of dollars in military aid we give to fund the armies of other countries, such as Israel and Egypt, which alone comprise substantial portions of those countries' defense budgets.
And this gap between us and the rest of the world has widened considerably over the last 10 years. That's true because our own military spending, in absolute terms, has increased wildly during that time
quote:The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six "rogue" states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.
In indisputable sum, we are the world's empire, in a state of permanent war readiness. In American politics and policy, there is no distinction between "peacetime" and "war." We're the most militarized country in the world by far, on permanent war footing, far beyond what anyone could ever remotely argue is necessary for "defense" or a "strong defense," no matter how broad a definition one wants to adopt for those terms.
We won't fall for your innocent Canadian Chinese ploy to weaken our defenses just so your motherland can make it's move!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps. I don't necessarily think the existence of an American superpower automatically should necessitate fear, or the need for a reciprocal arms build-up. I'm not convinced that's the overwhelming concern. I'm not saying I can't imagine plausible scenarios, but are they really afraid of a US invasion? It's a ludicrous notion. If it's about the projection of power in competing spheres of influence, then that's not really something they're afraid of, it's about competition.
As an aside, I'm not a big fan of America's "defense" spending. I'm all for R&D, and being prepared, but the status quo is ridiculous. I'd be okay with cutting it by 20%, just for starters, and to proceed from there to make further cuts as they could be identified. I think it's an incredible misappropriation of resources to spend so much on defense against external factors, when arguably our biggest enemies are internal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I'm not saying I can't imagine plausible scenarios, but are they really afraid of a US invasion?
There's that saying that the military always prepares to fight the war that it wants to (alternatively, the last one). When the Chinese are still talking about the Opium War and whatnot when they executed that British smuggler (and the Sino-Japanese war comes up every year), I think it is reasonable to think that a part of it is that they want to be really really damn sure they're not invaded again. I think the Great Wall of China is a nice illustrative example of how reactive Chinese planning can get.
On the other hand, it is true that there are misunderstandings and miscommunication, which lead to arms races as well, which may be inevitable.
Ex:
quote: "US participants tried to explain the problem with making a 'no first use' promise. What would happen, they asked, if the United States attacked China's nuclear forces with conventional weapons? Would China still adhere to its 'no first use' promise?" said Lewis. "The Chinese side did not understand that the Americans were engaging in a clumsy 'thought experiment' that was purely illustrative, but instead believed that they had been subjected to a very serious threat of coercion. Such misunderstandings are inevitable and, in fact, this is why Track II discussions are essential
posted
If we were talking about North Korea I would buy that, but on *some* level you're still a democracy.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: If we were talking about North Korea I would buy that, but on *some* level you're still a democracy.
A democracy that still has very recent memories of defeating the USSR, yes, we are. The world might be all under Soviet control, if not for the US. Forgive us for being a little nervous about totally dismantling our military.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that people here are already starving and we have a whole lot of nuclear weapons - buy it.
Just generally, I am really getting more and more annoyed at your outright hostility to my country and your reveling in our difficulties. It is just lacking in any kind of class.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Just generally, I'm really getting more and more annoyed at your attempts to personalize the issue. If you have a problem with my reasoning, then we can (and are) discussing that. But if you want to sink to name-calling and exchanging personal attacks, thats not for me.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, it is a personal issue. If in every other post I was trashing your country - which I would never do - or hoping for its decline, or gloating over its misfortunes, you might take it personally, too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with that definition of a personal issue.
Consider another issue, religion. I would note that while I have presented a few reasons to slow down or halt the decline of the US, I and many others have pretty much no reasons to slow down or halt the decline of religion.
While some people on these forums are joyed by declines in the popularity of religion and wish it to be eliminated, there are also some that wish to spread religion further and make it stronger. These views are fundamentally opposed but the two groups can still discuss things without resorting to personal attacks. It obviously doesn't always happen, but it can and does some of the time. I suggest you try to do the same.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A war between China and US would be extremely detrimental to both sides. The countries' futures are deeply intertwined and I don't think you can simply explain away China's increased military spending as an attempt to alleviate fears about the US. What I think is the case is that they are simply trying to consolidate their power so that when resources get scarce in the future (which they most certainly will), they will have an edge over the rest of Asia in securing Africa, especially India and Japan. They already have a presence there and if the US should be worried about China at all, it should be about what its doing over on the African continent because we have an interest in what's going on over there too.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, I live in America and I've never felt Mucus has been "trashing" us in an unreasonable manner.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
In what sense are we still 'somewhat' of a democracy? In the sense that we elect our represenatives regularly in peaceful, orderly elections and handle any disputes nonviolently? In that sense, perhaps?
Part of the reason we spend so much money in the present is because that foundation was built on dealing with a gigantic worldwide problem that the rest of the world was either unable or unwilling to deal with themselves-the Soviet Union. And then there's Germany, of course. Historically, these sorts of huge national trends take generations to change-they don't change within one generation of the change in status that caused them.
And I don't care what the nationality of the author was, to suggest that there is no difference between peacetime and wartime in American policy is frankly stupid. If you want an example, take a long, long look back...just over a decade ago to the Clinton years.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm personally very much in favor of disengagement from many areas of the country. I don't mean ignoring them, but, do we really need troops in Germany? It made perfect sense at the end of WWII, and even throughout the Cold War, but Germany is one of the strongest military powers in Europe now, and arguably, are on "our side." Furthermore, if Russia is what they're afraid of, does anyone think that Europe can't defend itself? Besides, the Eastern European nations that probably could not defend themselves are nations that we'd never defend anyway
The Cold War is over. I don't see why we need to maintain Cold War distribution of forces in the 21st centuries, when arguably our enemies are in totally different parts of the world, and our forces are totally misplaced to deal with them.
Mucus -
Where was Kate making personal attacks on you? Or are you just preemptively warning against it? She's expressed anger, but I haven't seen any personal attacks.
Personally I don't think you're reveling or taking personal enjoyment in America's suffering, but I don't think you're at all broken up about it either.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I would vote for an atheist conservative over a christian liberal and when you vote for an agnostic moderate...you don't know what you're going to get. You'll only get what they think is best for them.
Are you inventing alignments for a new political RPG?
RPG?
I prefer to know who I am voting for. The majority of politicians do not stand for anything besides what their political advisors recommend. I prefer clumsy, honest words over a carefully crafted political speech. I trust a woman who can give a speech based on a word written on her hand more than a man who recites a teleprompter speech that someone else wrote.
Do you think Hollywood makes the best movies in the world due to their plot lines?
First off, Hollywood makes the worst movies in the world. Trust me that is an argument you cannot win with me. Secondly there is no such thing as an atheist conservative. That's pretty much an oxymoron.
I agree...Hollywood doesn't make the best movies in the world but they do make the flashiest, best looking, top selling, well marketed movies in the world.
Hollywood was the Obama side of my analogy.
I know plenty of atheist political conservatives. Conservative in the political sense is about small government. American Jews and plenty of Catholics are liberal. I don't care about the religious beliefs of a politician. I care about their political beliefs. I don't vote for a pastor.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I would vote for an atheist conservative over a christian liberal and when you vote for an agnostic moderate...you don't know what you're going to get. You'll only get what they think is best for them.
Are you inventing alignments for a new political RPG?
RPG?
I prefer to know who I am voting for. The majority of politicians do not stand for anything besides what their political advisors recommend. I prefer clumsy, honest words over a carefully crafted political speech. I trust a woman who can give a speech based on a word written on her hand more than a man who recites a teleprompter speech that someone else wrote.
Do you think Hollywood makes the best movies in the world due to their plot lines?
First off, Hollywood makes the worst movies in the world. Trust me that is an argument you cannot win with me. Secondly there is no such thing as an atheist conservative. That's pretty much an oxymoron.
I agree...Hollywood doesn't make the best movies in the world but they do make the flashiest, best looking, top selling, well marketed movies in the world.
Hollywood was the Obama side of my analogy.
I know plenty of atheist political conservatives. Conservative in the political sense is about small government. American Jews and plenty of Catholics are liberal. I don't care about the religious beliefs of a politician. I care about their political beliefs. I don't vote for a pastor.
See, you say this but then you make a post one page earlier about how religiously ambiguous Obama is and how horrifying it is that he hasn't picked a church yet. So which is it?
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama portrays himself as what is expedient at the moment. He's "agnostic" about taxes on people making less than $250k...why not be for or against the idea?
Obama was a Muslim when he lived in Indonesia, a Protestant while being supported by his white grandparents in Hawaii, an atheist at Columbia, a Black Liberation Theologist as a South Side Chicago state senator and now he gets multi-faith sermons as president. How convenient. His "lifelong" beliefs have happened to coincide with the majority in his surroundings. I do not believe he agreed with Rev Wright, I don't think he's a Muslim and I can't believe he's a Christian. His beliefs are too malleable. I can't judge his faith since he has never been able to pick one. I don't care what it is, but the man must believe in something. I prefer an honest atheist.
I tend to think he's an atheist who has used religion to fit in, depending upon where he lived. Voters have a right to know the belief of the man they are voting for. Funny how his changes every time he moves. What does he believe? Do you know? Does he know? He doesn't want to face the political ramifications of telling us what he really, truly believes in his heart. We deserve to know.
posted
I never said I did. I do think it's strange he's spent over a million dollars fighting lawsuits demanding he release his birth certificate. He could've saved himself a million and avoided the multitude of lawsuits seeking his birth certificate release. "Birther" lawsuits are still ongoing. Why should people have to bring legal action for a president to provide his birth certificate? It is strange that he would rather fight them in court. I provided mine to my employer on demand. All he needs to do is present it and the crazy birthers will go away and be proven wrong.
You provided a certified copy. By the argument presented by these aforementioned birthers, it's not the same thing as your actual birth certificate which is held on file. Obama has presented the same thing. And it's charmingly naive to think that even when the actual birth certificate was revealed to be real as well, the birthers would just 'go away.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not naive, because it's a lie and malanthrop knows it-that they would just go away, that is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's brilliant. By requiring Obama to produce something that doesn't exist -- a copy of his birth certificate that looks like what they want, instead of what the Hawaii government actually provides -- the birthers can continue to heap scorn on everything he does without having to put any thought into it.
I'd like to see this: show me the birth certificate of anyone born in Hawaii the same year. Is it different? Would you get the same thing? If it can be shown that anyone requesting a birth certificate for the same time period would get the same result, would the birthers let it go then?
[ February 13, 2010, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's not naive, because it's a lie and malanthrop knows it-that they would just go away, that is.
I can't ever bank on malanthrop actually lying when it is far more likely that he is too ignorant to understand what he is even arguing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't judge his faith since he has never been able to pick one. I don't care what it is, but the man must believe in something.
Why? Is there something wrong with people who change their opinions? Change their beliefs?
quote:He doesn't want to face the political ramifications of telling us what he really, truly believes in his heart. We deserve to know.
How will you know when he's telling you "what he really believes" if you start from the premise that he's lying?
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Meh, she's from so long ago though. Is she really that influential?
Really? "So long ago"? You know she died in the early 80s, and her major works were published in the 50s, right? If that's "so long ago" I shudder to think of how you view other philosophers.
That being said, she's been reasonably influential. There are certainly numerous famous people in various fields who consider themselves Objectivists.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Obama portrays himself as what is expedient at the moment. He's "agnostic" about taxes on people making less than $250k...why not be for or against the idea?
How about you answer the question put to you regarding taxes last week. You lied, you were caught lying, and so you just abandoned that last thread, as you always do.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: India, South Korea, and Australia do not percieve China as a regional threat.
I don't believe that's true. I'd toss Japan, Pakistan, and maybe even Russia on that list too. And if not right now, then certainly in the future. We aren't paying as much attention to it because we aren't really scared of China, but regionally, they're in the midst of a massive arms build up.
When your neighbor is growing at a massive clip economically, and starts to put billions and billions more into military spending, more than any regional neighbor, you have to ask yourself two questions, in this sequence:
1. Who are they afraid of? Well, who? Japan and Russia I guess are the dominant military powers in the region, but neither of them have anything to gain in invading China. Afterall, Japan has the technology, and Russia has the natural resources. China's main advantage right now is manpower.
2. So if they aren't afraid of anyone, why do they need a massive build up in military strength? If not for defense, then what?
I'm not saying they're planning anything. Frankly, I highly doubt it. But any rational regional leader would have to be alarmed by such a build up. China is consuming at a voracious rate with no end in sight, and all they are really missing for a self-sustaining loop is more natural resources, and technical expertise. Both are right on their doorsteps. If I'm Russia, South Korea or Japan, that's sure as heck what I'm thinking. And with nuclear India and Pakistan next door, I'm keeping an eye on them too.
If they don't perceive China as a regional threat, they're seriously neglected their own national defense.
Did I mention Japan and Russia? No, because they do have reasons, massive anti Japanese protests by the Chinese middle class scares the Japanese Diet and the Russians are traditionally afraid of Chinese migrants immigrating over and making Russians a minority in Siberia, the 8000 mile border doesn't help matters.
South Korea however isn't concerned with China, trade relations are slowly making it so that Korea is once again viewing China through the same lens it did in the 1800s, as their bigger brother who protects them and put their focus on deterring North Korea until they collapse and can reunify, a outcome that China supports because it means the withdrawl of US troops from Korea peninsula.
Australia is far more concerned with indonesia and North Korea, and it trusts China to uphold its treaty obligations in the various control regimes.
Pakistan and China are close allies who share various defense projects and China is a significant investor into Pakistani stability, that for Pakistan to view China as a threat is absurd.
Also China's military spending is still nowhere near the US's spending, they would all see the US as more of a threat.
1. An absurdly simplistic generalization of their capabilities that is very very very wrong.
quote:Also China's military spending is still nowhere near the US's spending, they would all see the US as more of a threat.
This doesn't pass muster, Blayne. I'm more afraid of a violent yet poorly trained thug living next door than I am the badass kung fu master living three blocks over, even if both of them harbored equal measures of antagonism towards me personally.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ...Where was Kate making personal attacks on you? Or are you just preemptively warning against it?
Well, by Hatrack standards, fairly mild stuff. So maybe, personal comments? Personal jabs? Anyways on page 1 she goes with "ass" and accusing me of not having compassion for others. I ignored that and it seemed to go away for a bit till this page when she accused me of "lacking in any kind of class."
I won't pretend to be particularly upset, but I would like to steer the conversation toward a more productive discussion about ideas rather than people.
quote:Personally I don't think you're reveling or taking personal enjoyment in America's suffering, but I don't think you're at all broken up about it either.
I think that's mostly fair. I also don't think it is particularly relevant for the discussion at hand though.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Maybe not, but it was a topic of discussion. I actually thought I was sort of defending you a tiny bit. But whatever.
Blayne -
If your answer to question one is "nobody" then question two makes perfect sense.
The idea that everyone should be afraid of America just because we're the biggest kid on the block is just as absurd a generalization as what you accused me of (and I agree, that IS a quick and dirty generalization, but I wasn't really planning to do an essay on it).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it's ok. I realize that and thanks a bit I was mostly saying in general (un-clearly, I guess) to all involved that I don't think it is a particularly important.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That being said, she's been reasonably influential. There are certainly numerous famous people in various fields who consider themselves Objectivists.
What's been weird to watch is her slow death in philosophical circles, which now sort of emulate the 'publish or perish' cycle of physical sciences. her ethical and metaethical principles have fatal flaws and equivocations spattered throughout, so they get picked apart more readily than naturalistic assumptions of other philosophical theories.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That being said, she's been reasonably influential. There are certainly numerous famous people in various fields who consider themselves Objectivists.
What's been weird to watch is her slow death in philosophical circles, which now sort of emulate the 'publish or perish' cycle of physical sciences. her ethical and metaethical principles have fatal flaws and equivocations spattered throughout, so they get picked apart more readily than naturalistic assumptions of other philosophical theories.
I don't really have any interest in arguing for/against Rand, especially not in this thread. But I think, currently, one's definition of "influential" would have to be specially tailored in order to exclude her. That was my only point.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* It could be relevant for any number of conversations, but I find it hard to relate it to the conversation which "was" about the potential consequences of a Palin administration.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Either way it doesn't bode well. Whether you see it just as poor form on Palin's part, writing notes on her hand like she's in the 9th grade, or as a more diabolically passive-aggressive attempt to attract ridicule in order to foster her image as a media victim, that's not the kind of stuff Presidents are supposed to be made of. If your political bag of tricks is largely based on what is necessarily and unequivocally conflict- maneuvering the opponent or the press into a position in which they can be demonized for their reactions to your actions, no matter how deliberate, or constant harping on your own victimhood, you have failed in a fundamental way. It was clear to me when Palin made such an issue out of Obama's lipstick comment, or Letterman's joke, and from her general attitude towards the press, that she had no idea how to drive anything forward, but could only react shrilly to the actions of others. That quality does not a President make.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about the fact that since she resigned as governor, she's done nothing but promote herself?
Sure, I can see quitting because your life has been invaded, your home situation (young DS baby and grandbaby plus a couple of other traumatized children) has become too much for your spouse to deal with alone.
But to quit and then turn around and go on TV all the time and promote a book? If she wanted respect, she should have stayed governor and done a decent job.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It was clear to me when Palin made such an issue out of...Letterman's joke, and from her general attitude towards the press, that she had no idea how to drive anything forward, but could only react shrilly to the actions of others. That quality does not a President make.
Absolutely. How can people be expected to keep her frickin' litter straight? When you have that many kids, you can expect people to get the ones of the same gender and approximate age confused.
I couldn't give less of a rip about her or her family, and that isn't going to change. She, and they, have already gotten way more attention than they have earned. Being white trash does not make you special.
Actually, this is America. I retract that. LOL
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "liberals" of yesteryear would be Libertarians today. Small government, individual freedom proponents. Todays "progressives" only defend individual freedom when it pertains to abortion. I'm a Libertarian. I'm not a libertarian because that party supports gay rights and is pro choice. I'm libertarian because they believe in individual freedom and limited government. I have personal beliefs that contradict the libertarian position but their position is based on letting the individual decide what is best for them within the law of the land. On one hand I am opposed to abortion and gay marriage...on the other, I believe the FEDERAL government has no place deciding on these matters, one way or the other. If a state wants abortion and gay marriage....good for that state. If you are in disagreement, move to another state. Federal law is final. The federal government is delving into areas it should not. I'm not opposed to gay marriage in Vermont,...marriage is a states issue that wasn't spelled out by the constitution. I don't have to live in Vermont. If you love freedom and choice, you should be opposed to a strong federal government, as our founders were.
Unfortunately, "progressive" states are going bankrupt and looking to the feds (ie conservative states) to bail them out.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
