posted
I find the idea of a National Sunday Law to be absolutely, hysterically funny. I mean, Seventh-Day Adventists are kooky on a number of levels, but the idea that anyone cares about this enough to legislate it is so staggeringly out of touch that it almost makes me feel bad for them, like they're puppies who don't realize that the other puppies they're seeing are just on TV.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh wow, I didn't know that was a Thing. The capitalization should have tipped me off.
Sure enough:
quote:National Sunday law is a conspiracy theory that the United States government is on the verge of enacting a national blue law declaring Sunday a day of rest and worship. According to this theory, the Pope is the Antichrist and the mark of the beast is worship on Sunday. Sinister forces (read: the Vatican) are conspiring to enact a national Sunday law in the United States. When this happens it will be the trigger that unleashes the coming fulfillment of the Bible prophecies in Daniel and Revelations.
posted
Ron, you should be relieved that President Obama is a godless, atheist Muslim. They don't do the Sunday thing.
You might have a point with the gay marriage thing though because the President has secret plans to Sharia law which totally encourages gay sex.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if the conservative movement and the conservative media and the republican party is stuck in a vacuum-sealed, door-locked, spin cycle of telling what makes them feel good, and denying the actual lived truth of the world, we are all deprived, as a nation, of the very debate between competing, feasible ideas about real problems.
Last night the republicans got shellacked, and they had NO idea it was coming. And we saw them in real time - in real, humiliating time - not believe it even as it was happening to them. And unless they want to secede, they will need to pop the fictional bubble they have been so happily living inside, if they do not want to get shellacked again.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: dkw, I did not fix a day and hour when Christ will come. I said it would be within nine years. That could be any time within the next 5-9 years, as I see it.
I know of a pastor who said he was given a dream over 20 years ago that the U.S. president who would sign the National Sunday Law which signals the beginning of the Final Conflict between Good and Evil would be a black man. The possibility of a black man ever becoming president was at that time less than remote.
First, you will see Obama get national government level approval of calling a homosexual union "marriage," in direct defiance of the definition of Marriage given by the Creator. That will lead to an outbreak of calamities even worse and more frequent that anything we have seen in recent years, as God begins a signal withdrawal of His protection. That in turn will lead to virtually everyone saying the answer is we need to get right with God as a nation--and religious tyranny will some to America, which will lead to the enactment of a National Sunday Law, which would be a direct challenge to the authority of the Creator, Who designated the seventh day Sabbath as the memorial of His Creation of earth, and as the sign of His authority. Interestingly, Marriage and the Sabbath are the two divine institutions that God gave to humanity in Eden before the entrance of sin.
adding to ron lambert prediction list
also noting that ron is now having more trouble than usual figuring out what's happening or who he's responding to
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would hesitate to call it a "shellacking", but her overall point I think is a good one. I also appreciated her delivery. Maybe I should look for more videos of her. Getting my news almost exclusively from the web (and in written form instead of videos most times) I miss out on stuff like this.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:dkw, I did not fix a day and hour when Christ will come, I said it would be within nine years
You've still not clarified whether Christ's coming will be obvious to all, or if e.g. 99.9% of the human population will be ignorant of it but it will be known to a select few. We need this clarification in order to be able to judge properly and unambiguously the accuracy of the prophecy.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know of a pastor who said he was given a dream over 20 years ago that the U.S. president who would sign the National Sunday Law which signals the beginning of the Final Conflict between Good and Evil would be a black man.
If that's all you're basing this on, then hopefully you do understand that the black man in question needn't have been Obama -- that it might be some other black president dozens or even hundreds of years in the future, right?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, even with the demographic shifts that we're seeing, I think people are discounting the extremely powerful drive for Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot. 2008 was supposed to be the death knell for the Republican party. We had just gone through 8 years of one of the worst Presidents in history who had, with the willing aid of a majority Republican Congress, done massive damage to the military, economic, and social strength of our country. The Republican candidate for President got destroyed and the Democrats took a massive majority in Congress.
The Democratic position right now is weaker than it was then and I don't think they've learned much of anything from the shellacking they got in 2010. 2014 is coming and as unthinkable it seems now that the Democrats will suffer great upsets then, remember 2008.
And man, their foot is so itchy and the only thing they have to scratch it with is this gun. Surely nothing can go wrong.
---
The Republican party, especially as the lunatic fringe has seemingly become the core of the party, makes such a good villain that I think a lot of people lose sight of the fact that the Democrats are not generally the good guys in this story. And even if they were, they are still just so darn ineffective.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
going back to my original predictions based on what the data shows (of which this election has been completely emblematic of) said death knell has already been delivered but the results are still at least more than a decade away. they're just inescapable, barring some completely unforeseen effect on the populace by something we have no real precedent for.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Democracy as we practice it in America works best when voter turnout is light, and only the people who are really informed and really care turn out to vote; when there is a large turnout, the decision made by the electorate is almost always wrong.
Yeah, look at Mississippi and Alabama. For decades they kept voter turn out light, with only the people who were really informed and really cared, and who happened to be white, were allowed to vote at all. That worked out so well for the masses of poor, poorly informed, African Americans who weren't given the burden of voting.
In that same vain....
Stalinist Communism is the best of all political parties....as long as your a communist...and as long as your Stalin.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Democracy only works when mostly 'wise' people vote and keep this country on the right path according to other old white guys some of who know some guy had a dream 20 years ago revealing that some day we would have a black president and he would let gays marry which makes god spitefully turn off his angel anti-meteor shield and the resulting disasters cause America to suddenly awaken to the glory of god, but not the CORRECT glory of god because the Vatican is satanic, and so we revert to theocratic measures try to earn back god's favor with the enforcement of a blue law which makes Sunday an official sabbath day which literally is the trigger that causes the apocalypse, which is why only wise voters is so important because they vote out the black dude who was president, because the vision clearly indicates that he would set all this in motion, and honestly when you think about it is probably a good idea to just not have black presidents because that threatens us with destruction via bible prophecies.
Meanwhile the Benghazi attack was orchestrated by the president and or was a coverup we can just know right now prior to an investigation and it's definitely worth criticizing Obama for more than we should criticize Bush for say like 9/11 or whatever and Obama deserved as much criticism for the response to Sandy as Bush deserves for the response to Katrina.
heeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyy i'm on hatrack
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Honestly, even with the demographic shifts that we're seeing, I think people are discounting the extremely powerful drive for Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot. 2008 was supposed to be the death knell for the Republican party. We had just gone through 8 years of one of the worst Presidents in history who had, with the willing aid of a majority Republican Congress, done massive damage to the military, economic, and social strength of our country. The Republican candidate for President got destroyed and the Democrats took a massive majority in Congress.
The Democratic position right now is weaker than it was then and I don't think they've learned much of anything from the shellacking they got in 2010. 2014 is coming and as unthinkable it seems now that the Democrats will suffer great upsets then, remember 2008.
And man, their foot is so itchy and the only thing they have to scratch it with is this gun. Surely nothing can go wrong.
---
The Republican party, especially as the lunatic fringe has seemingly become the core of the party, makes such a good villain that I think a lot of people lose sight of the fact that the Democrats are not generally the good guys in this story. And even if they were, they are still just so darn ineffective.
If the Republicans see this election as proof that Romney betrayed their conservative principles and they tack to the right even more, I don't see 2014 as an object lesson in Democratic ineptitude, especially if Hillary runs and gets the nomination.
If she runs, and the GOP nominates a right-wing firebreather, it'll be the biggest blowout we've seen in decades.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Even so, I can't at this time endorse a system that would so limit the vote, simply because "one vote per adult" is a very useful and very clear Schelling point: Any violation of that towards a restriction of the right to vote would have vast possibility of destabilizing/delegitimizing/corrupting the whole system.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
like how in some places once you're a felon you are barred from voting forever?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: dkw, I did not fix a day and hour when Christ will come. I said it would be within nine years. That could be any time within the next 5-9 years, as I see it.
I know of a pastor who said he was given a dream over 20 years ago that the U.S. president who would sign the National Sunday Law which signals the beginning of the Final Conflict between Good and Evil would be a black man. The possibility of a black man ever becoming president was at that time less than remote.
First, you will see Obama get national government level approval of calling a homosexual union "marriage," in direct defiance of the definition of Marriage given by the Creator. That will lead to an outbreak of calamities even worse and more frequent that anything we have seen in recent years, as God begins a signal withdrawal of His protection. That in turn will lead to virtually everyone saying the answer is we need to get right with God as a nation--and religious tyranny will some to America, which will lead to the enactment of a National Sunday Law, which would be a direct challenge to the authority of the Creator, Who designated the seventh day Sabbath as the memorial of His Creation of earth, and as the sign of His authority. Interestingly, Marriage and the Sabbath are the two divine institutions that God gave to humanity in Eden before the entrance of sin.
Yo. Hey ron.
So about coal; do you concede that American coal production cannot make America energy sufficient WITHOUT renewables?
If you don't answer this post, I'll take it as a concession.
quote:like how in some places once you're a felon you are barred from voting forever?
That itself is somewhat problematic, especially given how ludicrous some of those 'felonies' are (possession of marijuana a felony?') but at least "felon" is a binary category (you've either been convicted of a felony or you haven't).
But setting an arbitrary IQ limit on the other hand brings up issues of which limit to set, what tests to administer said IQ, etc, etc... any distinction made along those lines would be even less of a Schelling Point, and thus even more unstable/questionable/challenged on grounds of legitimacy.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If [Hillary Clinton] runs, and the GOP nominates a right-wing firebreather, it'll be the biggest blowout we've seen in decades.
Should we begin a Lyrhawn prediction list as well?
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I would hesitate to call it a "shellacking", but her overall point I think is a good one. I also appreciated her delivery. Maybe I should look for more videos of her. Getting my news almost exclusively from the web (and in written form instead of videos most times) I miss out on stuff like this.
I wouldn't call it a shellacking either. If you look at the numbers, there were 3 million people that voted in 2008 that didn't vote in 2012 on the Republican side. It is true that the Republicans did not see that coming. The Democrats KNEW they wouldn't get 2008 turnout levels, and planned accordingly. If those 3 million Republicans that didn't vote this time around had gone to the polls, the election could have quite possibly turned out different than it did.
I do agree a little though that the Republicans need to change their position on some things if they want to win in the future, but not as much as some are calling for. I don't believe the reason the majority of hispanics for example vote based on immigration policy alone. Poverty and government benefits play into this quite a bit. I shop at a Mexican supermarket regularly (Albertsons, Smiths, etc. don't have nearly the same quality baked goods or meats) and every single one had an EBT card. We do our shopping once a week, and I see it all the time.
I think part of the Republican party's problem isn't so much what they stand for, it is how they are portrayed. Do Republicans want people out of poverty? Of course they do! They want to create jobs. How are they portrayed however? As people who want to take away your benefits and only want the rich to succeed.
There are some things the Republicans need to change, but they need to take a good hard look at how they are protrayed, and do everything they can to change that.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Republican policies do not create jobs, so their portrayal is completely accurate.
Also it isn't a 'surprise' or profound to say that "Well if more people voted, we would've won!" thing is, suppose circumstances were such those 3 million republicans went out and voted, wouldn't those circumstances then mean the comparable number of democrats would also vote? You don't get to wave a magic wand and wave away the reality of the situation.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26920037@N06/2933924214/
Is this chart saying on average electrical engineers have a higher IQ than lawyers? [/QB]
The chart actually seems to rank them by the median (50 percentile) see http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx for a clearer pic -- and "electrical engineers" and "legal occupations" have the same position as a median, so the image I provided previously seems to be improper in at least two ways (changing "legal occupations" to "lawyers", and treating them as if they were differently ranked than electrical engineers, when actually their median was the same)
More such flaws may exist there (I didn't study it thoroughly), so thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
While I agree it would be a mistake to lump all Hispanic voters into immigration single-issuers, the problem goes deeper than 'how they are portrayed' and well into 'how they portray themselves'. We only need to head back to the GOP primaries when a message (that didn't need Democratic help to sound this way, btw) emerged that read 'we don't like you' to Hispanics. To trump that you would need to have a provably better message in just about everything else, and the GOP sure didn't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Republican policies do not create jobs, so their portrayal is completely accurate.
Also it isn't a 'surprise' or profound to say that "Well if more people voted, we would've won!" thing is, suppose circumstances were such those 3 million republicans went out and voted, wouldn't those circumstances then mean the comparable number of democrats would also vote? You don't get to wave a magic wand and wave away the reality of the situation.
I'm really glad you're on the other side of the political spectrum from me, Blayne.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
While I agree it would be a mistake to lump all Hispanic voters into immigration single-issuers, the problem goes deeper than 'how they are portrayed' and well into 'how they portray themselves'. We only need to head back to the GOP primaries when a message (that didn't need Democratic help to sound this way, btw) emerged that read 'we don't like you' to Hispanics. To trump that you would need to have a provably better message in just about everything else, and the GOP sure didn't.
I totally disagree with the republican immigration stance, but I have to say I disagree. I can't see what they said that would give this impression that wasn't immigration related.
If you were a Hispanic who didn't mind harsh immigration laws, what would you have seen that said "we don't like you" from the primaries?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what I mean-the primary talk about immigration is what conveyed that message, and even when Hispanics were more concerned with say the economy (which was far from uncommon), that message was still in their ears.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Republican policies do not create jobs, so their portrayal is completely accurate.
Also it isn't a 'surprise' or profound to say that "Well if more people voted, we would've won!" thing is, suppose circumstances were such those 3 million republicans went out and voted, wouldn't those circumstances then mean the comparable number of democrats would also vote? You don't get to wave a magic wand and wave away the reality of the situation.
I'm really glad you're on the other side of the political spectrum from me, Blayne.
I see your not responding with anything other than a non response?
Lets study the statement, "Republican policies do not create jobs" do you wish to dispute this? If not, don't hide behind non responses.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's what I mean-the primary talk about immigration is what conveyed that message, and even when Hispanics were more concerned with say the economy (which was far from uncommon), that message was still in their ears.
Oh okay, sorry, I misunderstood you then. My bad.
But pro-strict-immigration Hispanic voters (no idea how big of a demographic that might be) didn't get any message of "We don't like you," right?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Republican policies do not create jobs, so their portrayal is completely accurate.
Also it isn't a 'surprise' or profound to say that "Well if more people voted, we would've won!" thing is, suppose circumstances were such those 3 million republicans went out and voted, wouldn't those circumstances then mean the comparable number of democrats would also vote? You don't get to wave a magic wand and wave away the reality of the situation.
I'm really glad you're on the other side of the political spectrum from me, Blayne.
I see your not responding with anything other than a non response?
Lets study the statement, "Republican policies do not create jobs" do you wish to dispute this? If not, don't hide behind non responses.
No, I'm good. Just as a parting reminder: An assertion is not an argument.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a supposed circle jerk, this thread fails to deliver. Its mostly just postgame dissection punctuated with responses to osc and ron acting the part of right wingers totally divorced from reality and saying ugly hard to defend things as a result. Like that the msm are nazis essentially or that democracy only works with low turnout.
Osc's column was off the walls enough to end up getting talked about everywhere I hang out, whether its considered liberal or not. It really is impressive. Just not for the desired reasons.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Republican policies do not create jobs, so their portrayal is completely accurate.
Also it isn't a 'surprise' or profound to say that "Well if more people voted, we would've won!" thing is, suppose circumstances were such those 3 million republicans went out and voted, wouldn't those circumstances then mean the comparable number of democrats would also vote? You don't get to wave a magic wand and wave away the reality of the situation.
I'm really glad you're on the other side of the political spectrum from me, Blayne.
I see your not responding with anything other than a non response?
Lets study the statement, "Republican policies do not create jobs" do you wish to dispute this? If not, don't hide behind non responses.
No, I'm good. Just as a parting reminder: An assertion is not an argument.
Okay, so here's the argument then:
Republican policies aim at shrinking the middle class for the benefit of the upper. The laughable "Laffer Curve" frequently cited by Conservatives of 'low taxation equals higher economic activity' is an entirely discredited notion. Even if it were true evidence would suggest that taxes are already so low that lowering them further simply loses you more revenues for no returns.
Secondly, Republican policies aim to degrade, remove, discredit, defund, and deteriorate the social safety net in the United States. This is proven to lower aggregate demand which will harm the economy for a developed nation like the United States.
Since the United States is a consumption based economy and the 'rich' or top 20% don't particularly consume all that much, this means its the poor and middle class whose consumption drives the economy. So the less they have to spend (either through crippling debts from predatory lending from the unregulated financial markets) the less the economy does well, the less people companies hire and so the less money in people's pockets and so on.
Thirdly, since aggregate demand is what drives the economy, republican efforts to deny the social safety net through for instance, obstructionism to the Affordable Care Act or efforts to repeal it likewise harm the economy. Since with the ACA in full effect people would be less likely to go into crippling debt if they get in an accident or contract some illness and thus have more money to spend on Ipads.
Fourthly, Republicans being against equal rights for minorities, women and LGBT folks means that they through various discriminatory laws will be less likely to productively contribute to the economy.
Fifthly, Republicans wish to ruin Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. The less financially secure Americans of all age brackets are in their future means the less able they are to effectively and productively contribute to society.
Sixthly, Republicans are essentially and categorically against regulation. This means that future financial crisis are/is inevitable, harming the economy. Reinstuting Glass-Steigal would go a long way to prevent another meltdown.
Seventhly, Republicans deny global warming and seem to have this irrational hatred for trees. They refuses regulations that would reduce emissions and seem to think coal will solve all of our problems, despite this radically not being the case. Global warming will, through altered weather patterns have huge economic costs.
Eightly, Republicans are not in favor of economic investments, such as infrastructure, renewables, education and so. Education especially higher education leads to higher productivity, more innovation, increased efficiency, higher wages (and thus higher economic activity), and for the increased technological advancement.
IP: Logged |
Nah. Tired if circle jerks anyway. Just saying that if you're going to CALL this thread a circle jerk, know what one really is. Postgame commentary and shooting down ron does not count.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, my bad. I must have missed that. Dan, where do you see a self congratulatory circle jerk? That doesn't seem to me to be an accurate or responsible characterization.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Dan's complaining elsewhere that Hatrack is a cesspool of smugness -- which I find rather amusing, given that Hatrack has, compared to most of the rest of the Internet, been remarkably free of vitriol or smugness as far as I can see.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Honestly, even with the demographic shifts that we're seeing, I think people are discounting the extremely powerful drive for Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot. 2008 was supposed to be the death knell for the Republican party. We had just gone through 8 years of one of the worst Presidents in history who had, with the willing aid of a majority Republican Congress, done massive damage to the military, economic, and social strength of our country. The Republican candidate for President got destroyed and the Democrats took a massive majority in Congress.
The Democratic position right now is weaker than it was then and I don't think they've learned much of anything from the shellacking they got in 2010. 2014 is coming and as unthinkable it seems now that the Democrats will suffer great upsets then, remember 2008.
And man, their foot is so itchy and the only thing they have to scratch it with is this gun. Surely nothing can go wrong.
---
The Republican party, especially as the lunatic fringe has seemingly become the core of the party, makes such a good villain that I think a lot of people lose sight of the fact that the Democrats are not generally the good guys in this story. And even if they were, they are still just so darn ineffective.
If the Republicans see this election as proof that Romney betrayed their conservative principles and they tack to the right even more, I don't see 2014 as an object lesson in Democratic ineptitude, especially if Hillary runs and gets the nomination.
If she runs, and the GOP nominates a right-wing firebreather, it'll be the biggest blowout we've seen in decades.
Lyr, I was talking about the midterm elections in 2014, not the next presidential election. Especially with the Republican controlled states gerrymandering like crazy, if the Democrats turn in more of the same, I think we'll see the GOP making substantial gains in Congress for during the mid-terms.
Yeah, it's going to be hard for the Democrats to lose the Presidency in a national election, but that's only one branch of the government.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My bad, I didn't put two and two together there (or rather, I DID put two and two together, when I should have put one and one together).
Many economists are predicting, assuming the 'fiscal cliff' is avoided, that the economy over the next 12 months or so will enter a new phase of rapid growth. If anything close to that happens and the pace of economic growth increases, Republicans lose pretty much their only major wedge issue of the moment. It's really impossible to say what the 2014 midterms, but I could just as easily see the Dems holding the Senate and picking up seats in the House.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We haven't even really kicked up anything even remotely resembling Smugfest Circlejerk 2012™ about the fact that gay marriage really, seriously won hard and showed an evolving popular mandate for allowing gays to marry and have the same level of rights as everyone else as couples. This in spite of the fact that Ron is literally telling us that this will cause the apocalypse.
And, let's be honest, we should be "circlejerking" (read: 'enjoying some celebratory elation') about that because it is important and it is good and it is a sign of good and reasonable progress to everyone who has worked hard to see their gay friends treated justly by the law.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Many economists are predicting, assuming the 'fiscal cliff' is avoided, that the economy over the next 12 months or so will enter a new phase of rapid growth. If anything close to that happens and the pace of economic growth increases, Republicans lose pretty much their only major wedge issue of the moment. It's really impossible to say what the 2014 midterms, but I could just as easily see the Dems holding the Senate and picking up seats in the House.
I forget where, but one of the trending articles from the world of economic signals and signs noted that "whoever wins this election is going to be credited as a genius" basically because they were going to, barring any sort of overseas market contraction that catches us up in the chaos (china, I'm looking at you), sit atop a tide of rapid economic growth at the end of the recession. Romney wins? He says "Obama had four years, it obviously wasn't working, and look at how fast I turned things around." Obama wins? He says "Patience and perseverance paid off; my policies have been vindicated."
There's no confident way to predict out that far but you can argue confidence levels of suggested outcomes, and most of them indicate good things, so Obama now stands a very good chance of just sort of riding a tide.
That and it is worth noting about the gerrymandering issue: the republicans are about capped out on artificially enhanced popular representation. I don't think there's much more they can accomplish with district packing. It will be difficult — though possible! — for them to mobilize on some issue which reverses the current trend of losing out on the new voter demographics that are unavoidably eroding their base away, but under most scenarios they're just going to continue bleeding away.
And again, that's not me speaking in post-election elation, I've been saying this stuff since literally four years ago
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris, in answer to your question about Christ's coming, I would urge you not to be deceived by the Rapture foolishness that has infected so many Christians' thinking. The Bible is very clear, Jesus said: "For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matthew 24:27; NASB) The angels told the disciples of Christ at His Ascension: "And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them; and they also said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.'" (Acts 1:10, 11; NASB) The Apostle Paul said of Christ's coming: "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord." (1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17; NASB). Jesus also told John to write in Revelation: "Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him...." (Revelation 1:7a; NASB) Obviously there will be nothing secret about His Coming. It will be the final event for the whole world.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, I do not recall ever saying we had a choice between use of coal and use of renewable energy sources. One does not preclude the other. It would be impossible as a practical matter for renewable energy sources to supply our entire energy need. But we do have enough coal to supply all our energy needs, in addition to other sources. Obviously we do not want to turn off our nuclear power plants, and we do not want to tear down Hoover Dam, etc. And if people can afford to put up solar cell panels and can make a profit with windmill farms, then fine. But those could never be more than a supplement to the primary sources of power, which right now are oil, gas, and coal.
Solar cell panels would be a more practical solution for individuals--if they can afford the initial installation costs, along with the costs of energy storage devices such as batteries, and alternators, to provide power when the sun is not shining.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obviously there will be nothing secret about His Coming. It will be the final event for the whole world.
Okay and I need clarification, is this like, is your prediction that it 1. will absolutely happen within 9 years, or
2. will absolutely within 9 years of the united states in particular legalizing gay marriage on a federal level, or
3. will absolutely happen within 9 years of when the united states had legalized gay marriage which caused god to turn off the anti-meteor angel protection squad you detailed and so a bunch of disasters befall the united states which causes the united states to recognize that it was gay marriage and that god forsook the nation so they respond to it with a law making sunday a day of rest?
also why specifically does it matter only specifically that the united states legalizes gay marriage, plenty of other countries have done so already, is this part of some sort of american exceptionalism where god is like "i don't really care if those other countries let the queers marry, but if the united states lets my proper type of marriage fall by the wayside on a FEDERAL level (state level gets a pass) well then THATS IT this is going DOWN"
has god already turned off the angel anti-meteorite deflection squad over countries that have legalized gay marriage? Does it stay in effect over countries like Uganda which execute gays? Or is its continued renewal worldwide based on the performance of the united states? In which case can the rest of the world lobby the united states to refuse gay marriage because if we legalize gay marriage aren't we endangering the whole world? Is it like X-Com where if a certain amount of countries withdraw, the doom track overflows and the whole project is cancelled?
I need answers man, seventh day lambertist cosmology is confusing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My bad, I didn't put two and two together there (or rather, I DID put two and two together, when I should have put one and one together).
Many economists are predicting, assuming the 'fiscal cliff' is avoided, that the economy over the next 12 months or so will enter a new phase of rapid growth. If anything close to that happens and the pace of economic growth increases, Republicans lose pretty much their only major wedge issue of the moment. It's really impossible to say what the 2014 midterms, but I could just as easily see the Dems holding the Senate and picking up seats in the House.
I don't it came across, but I agree that the situation, as it stands, looks very favorable for the Democrats. It's just that they they seem to love firing a round or two in their feet, especially when things look really good for them.
Also, I think it's important to note that the Democrats are not, generally speaking, the good guys. They are trying to serve their interests and masters (which are often in opposition to what is good for the country as a whole).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't it came across, but I agree that the situation, as it stands, looks very favorable for the Democrats. It's just that they they seem to love firing a round or two in their feet, especially when things look really good for them.
I can't knock it. The Democratic Party has, in the past, really shown that it is adept at the art of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Thing is, though, they've really shown some 'lessons learned' about important elections. A lot of what happened in this election could be sold as an example of democrats figuring out that we live in a post-Rove election environment, so do not hesitate to use the exact same principles.
In fact, much of the campaign against romney showed distinct applications of Roveian strategy, including the really important "attack your opponent on his strengths" — his business leadership at Bain, etc. It was all a more workable or factually legitimized version of Swiftboating Romney.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
