1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Does God exist?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by scylla, May 13, 2009.

  1. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #1061
    Notice how the words were in quotes?

    For your reference.
    Its not an unambiguous statement, though it is completely false and laughable at face value. I can see why you are running from it/denying it.
     
    Obamanation, Aug 28, 2014 IP
  2. mikron

    mikron Greenhorn

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    23
    #1062
    I wish polls were accurate. After being in marketing for a few years I've learned to go with what people do(specifically what they do with their wallet) and not what they say.
     
    mikron, Aug 28, 2014 IP
  3. mikron

    mikron Greenhorn

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    23
    #1063
    Hey if you don't mind me asking. What is the difference between a liberal and progressive?
     
    mikron, Aug 28, 2014 IP
  4. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #1064
    From wikipedia:
    Immanuel Kant identified progress as being a movement away from barbarism towards civilization. Eighteenth century philosopher and political scientist Marquis de Condorcet predicted that political progress would involve the disappearance of slavery, the rise of literacy, the lessening of inequalities between the sexes, reforms of harsh prisons and the decline of poverty.[3] "Modernity" or "modernization" was a key form of the idea of progress as promoted by classical liberals in the 19th and 20th centuries, who called for the rapid modernization of the economy and society to remove the traditional hindrances to free markets and free movements of people.[4] German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was influential in promoting the Idea of Progress in European philosophy by emphasizing a linear-progressive conception of history and rejecting a cyclical conception of history. Karl Marx applied the Hegelian conception of linear-progressive history, the modernization of the economy through industrialization, and criticisms of the social class structure of industrial capitalist societies, to develop the ideology of communism. As industrialization grew, concerns over its effects grew beyond Marxist and other radical critiques and became mainstream.
    The short answer to your question, in America at least, is there is no difference. The word Liberal was coopted by the progressive left, dragged through the mud, and abandoned in favor of the word "Progressive". Prior to that point, the word "liberal" was accurately applied to our founding fathers, and the philosophy which made its way into our governing documents. It focused on individual liberties, freedom from tyrannical governments, and reflected the philosophies of people like Hume and Locke. Disambiguation is achieved in the US by referring to such people as "Classic Liberals".

    Outside of America, the word "Liberal" still holds its original definition, which is why the Liberal party in Australia, and the former Liberal party of the UK are more associated with views supposedly shared by the Republicans in the United States.

    When you look at the value system of most "Progressives", it is centered around "leaning forward" or using the government as a tool to make everyone's life better. By definition, it involves increasing the size and power of government to enable these great gifts it will bestow on the governed. As mentioned in the wiki, these ideas have their foundation in collectivism, often trampling individual rights in the name of "Progress" for the collective, making the ideology by definition, illiberal. The irony of the fact the Democratic party still bears the "Liberal" moniker is a bit of a sick joke.

    In Europe, they are a bit more honest and go by the name "Social Democrat", which unambiguously aims to bring about Socialism by Democratic means. Here in the US, we call them Progressives, or simply Democrats.
     
    Obamanation, Aug 28, 2014 IP
  5. mikron

    mikron Greenhorn

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    23
    #1065
    I was under the assumption that the founding fathers were libertarians. So at what point did we go from classical liberal to progressive? Would FDR be the last classical liberal? As you can tell I am not political at all. I've never voted.
     
    mikron, Aug 28, 2014 IP
  6. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #1066
    FDR is to classic liberalism as holy water is to vampires. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, founded the short lived progressive party. "We" never really went progressive. Progressives make up under 30% of the population. Most self identifying conservatives and independents associate far more strongly with classic liberalism than progressivism, no matter how much the moonbats in the media wish it were otherwise.

    Here is a bit of irony. Of those who traditionally vote Republican in this country, the ones who sympathize the most with Progressive values are the evangelical religious right. Everyone pitching in to help the needy is right out of the bible. The split in ideology comes from whether you want the government to stop people from having anal sex, or whether you want the government to stop people from having sugary sodas and believing in the myth of Jesus. In many ways, progressives have their own little religion with their own little fanciful beliefs, and the hatred (as demonstrated on this thread) for those who believe otherwise.
     
    Obamanation, Aug 28, 2014 IP
  7. mikron

    mikron Greenhorn

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    23
    #1067
    So if I understand you correctly. A classic liberal is about freedom and the government job is to protect those freedoms. And a progressive is about equality. And the government job should be to intrude to create equality among its citizens.

    If I that is the case I can't think of the last president who was a classic liberal.

    And you are saying both Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin?
     
    mikron, Aug 28, 2014 IP
  8. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #1068
    Based on what, their actions in office?I think the office is far larger than any man, and the attached bureaucracy bigger than the office. I can't think of any person I know that fits rigid ideological definitions, only people with leanings and strong beliefs in one place or another. The very structure of our government is setup to encourage compromise.

    I think those are your words, not mine. They both feed from the same trough, if that is what you are getting at. I seriously doubt the bosses from either party are seriously interested in reform.
     
    Obamanation, Aug 28, 2014 IP
  9. mikron

    mikron Greenhorn

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    23
    #1069
    Yes that is what I was trying to say. Like a fork in the road, would be a better analogy. They both started from the same place.

    This is exactly why I never had any interest in politics. And why I don't watch the news.

    Thanks for your explanation. Sorry I took you off your discussion with the other people. I'll bow out of this one. Take care!
     
    mikron, Aug 28, 2014 IP
  10. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #1070
    Sounds like a formula for happiness. My wife stopped watching the news in 2013, and she is far happier and more productive for it.
     
    Obamanation, Aug 28, 2014 IP
  11. Equatorial

    Equatorial Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    40
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #1071
    An off-quoted fact that unfortunately, is just not true.

    ps: If you're planning to cite the study made by The Chronicle of Philanthropy to substantiate you case, you should first look at the footnotes and their subsequent clarifications of the methodology used.
     
    Equatorial, May 3, 2015 IP
  12. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #1072
    Thankfully, we don't need a study to prove this fact. Both Progressives and the religious right happily advertise their agendas. Its not exactly secret. Perhaps the two biggest are

    * Creation of legislation to compel compliance with their personal beliefs, be they beliefs on gay marriage, abortion, or birth control
    * Strong belief that it is the obligation of those who are better off to take care of the poorest among us

    Perhaps the largest differentiation between the two is the amount of overt, targeted, blind and ignorant hate put out by the Progressives. I have yet to see anything like it put out by the religious right. Mind you, I'm sure they exist, it just isn't socially acceptable like it is on the left. Check out this bit of poetic justice:
     
    Obamanation, May 12, 2015 IP
  13. Equatorial

    Equatorial Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    40
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #1073
    Without any metrics to fall on back mate, it all comes down to personal opinion again, doesn't it?
    And the line I bolded, well, that's the same charged leveled at conservatives and the conservative entertainment complex.
     
    Equatorial, May 13, 2015 IP
  14. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #1074
    So you your claim here is that the left doesn't try and force it's views of morality on everyone else, and anything short of a study leaves that claim unfounded?

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2014/04/05/backlash-against-brendan-eich-crossed-a-line/
    http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/04/lesbian-who-called-for-memories-pizza-to-be-burned-down-fired/
    http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/28/duck-dynasty-reversal-shows-glaad-has-an-expiration-date/

    You would have to bury your head in the sand not to be aware of the plethora of examples available. I especially love the Chic-Fil-A hater in the video I linked above. Did you watch it? Priceless!

    Sure, people can level whatever charges they like. The fact is, when the Westboro Baptist Church comes out to spread a little hate for Homosexuals, most conservatives find the behavior obscene. When GLAAD comes out and successfully gets someone like Brandon Eich fired for a small donation years ago to a California proposition that supports traditional marriage (A proposition that passed by the way), it is mainstream.

    The reason the douche bag, a high earning CFO, felt comfortable video taping himself spewing hate at some poor teenage girl working at a fast food restaurant is because in the circles he hangs in, that is perfectly acceptable behavior. It is only when a videotape airing his views goes public, that everyone takes a step back, for a moment, to realize they have gone full retard.

    Its far from a rare occurance:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w52r5mbD5Io
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JypZ6kag2oU
     
    Obamanation, May 16, 2015 IP
  15. Equatorial

    Equatorial Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    40
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #1075
    You said, conservatives are more charitable than liberals.
    I said, that single flawed partisan survey that are often quoted to back that statement is a poor indicator.
    You then said you don't need any study to show this fact.
    And I responded, in the absence of any metrics, it is just an opinion.
    Which part of this is unclear?

    You argue liberals are practicing a politics of hate against the conservatives.
    I said, liberals are using the same argument against conservatives.
    You then post more videos and links to buttress your argument, oblivious to the fact that any liberal can also post the same number of links and videos to strengthen their argument.

    For every accusation conservatives like you make against liberals, they can make the same argument. Every time you cry that you are the good guy, the other side is doing the same. So it basically boils down to opinions.
     
    Equatorial, May 17, 2015 IP
  16. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #1076
    I read this and found myself scratching my head. Why are you talking about charitable giving in response to this post?
    I found myself scratching my head at your response.

    Confused. The claim I made you actually quoted and denied (without evidence). Did you notice it has nothing to do with charitable giving, and everything to do with Progressive views and the views of evangelicals? Was it that you simply decided to concede the point? Fair enough. As you wish. We will leave that discussion as settled. On to your topic change.

    You want to talk about your footnote in the same post, namely:
    You then reworded my claim, in your post above, to read "You said, conservatives are more charitable than liberals". Ignoring your misattribution and misuse of the word liberal, which I drone on about here, why don't you cite the "flaws" and "partisan" basis of the study. Here is the methodology, since you didn't quote it.

    You might be the first/only person on the planet to call philanthropy.com "partisan", or IRS tax documents "flawed". Here is the leftist New York Times, chastising your fellow hypocrites (Progressives) for their stinginess, from similar findings from a 2006 study.
    "Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates."

    If you ever do get around to researching the non-partisan claims made by Philanthropy.com and Brooks(2006), in an effort to "debunk" those claims, I would love to discuss the "non-partisan" and "flawless" findings you use as evidence. Considering how many links you've used(zero) to source your claim that they dug up dirt on Romney in 2012, I probably shouldn't hold my breath. On the outside chance you do, I expect you will be forced to confront and repudiate at least at least stereotype of "conservatives" that you cherish.
     
    Obamanation, May 17, 2015 IP
  17. Equatorial

    Equatorial Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    40
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #1077
    Why are you scratching your head and acting all confused? You are coming across across as very sneaky. Did you or did you not write this?

    If you did, why are you scratching your head?
    If you didn't, did someone hacked into your account and type that sentence out?


    Hold on. So did you or did you not base your claim on this study? You wrote above "Thankfully, we don't need a study to prove this fact."
    Clear this fact up first. I want to know how did you arrive at your "fact"?
    Unlike you, I and many others have reviewed the study years ago, and there are two huge flaws in the partisan survey that makes it unreliable. I will be happy to explain those two points to you as soon as you establish where you got your facts from. I hate going in circles.

    I said the study was flawed and partisan. Don't play word games with me like a child.


    1. Have I, in our entire discussion, even once declared my political affiliation?
    2. Are you saying you consider New York Times as authoritative?
    3. When you use the term hypocrites, is that based on facts or just your biased opinion once again?
    4. Is your entire opinion shaped by singular and anecdotal links? If so, if I provide one contrarian link, will you change your mind immediately as well?

    First you said, I didn't answer the question. After I quoted my earlier answer which you pretended to not see, now you want links. Is your political awareness so shallow that you are completely unaware of the items I listed? Is your Google or browser broken that you cannot source for the links yourself?
     
    Equatorial, May 17, 2015 IP
  18. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #1078
    I'm confused because you are response reads like the answer "Bob" to the question "How many fingers am I holding up?"
    I sourced my claims. Were you unable to operate the links?

    You are likely not an American, so does it matter? Progressives are Progressives, whether they vote for Democrats or the Liberal Democrats.
    No I'm pointing out that the NYTimes doesn't quote studies that could even be marginally considered partisan, if the findings of those studies put American progressives in a bad light as this study did.

    I use the term "hypocrite" in application to anyone who does one thing while advocating for another, like advocating that we all pay for the welfare state while being stingy with your own charitable donations. Was that not clear from the Kristof quote I provided?

    My opinion is shaped by a lifetime of personal experiences and education, as well as extensive reading on the topic. Like all of my opinions, I seek out contrarian views. One can hardly make an informed opinion without them, regardless of how much the left tells you to avoid "Faux news" in favor of Comedy Central. So yes, I would love to see your link. Can I expect it in this lifetime?


    Clearly you didn't understand my response. I can reword it using smaller words if you like....
     
    Obamanation, May 17, 2015 IP
  19. Equatorial

    Equatorial Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    40
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #1079
    Why are you not responding to my comment in its entirety?

    So in other words, you lied. Thank goodness I quoted you. Otherwise you will continue your charade.

    No, you gave a link to an article about the study you previously said you did not base your 'facts' on. So did you lie about the source of your facts? If not, where is the source of your facts?

    I asked you if I had declared my political affiliation. Instead, you are trying to shift the goal post to run away from your accusation that I am a progressive. Further, to describe your statement about NYT as ludicruos is an understatement.

    So, in other words, it's your opinion based on a 'fact' that you don't need any source for.

    I would gladly give you the two flaws in the study as soon as you man up and give the source of your 'facts'. As I've told you, I don't like to run in circles. You have originally said it's not from that study.

    Yes, please. Explain to me how you pretended not to see my answer, and after I highlighted it, you demanded links for some elementary info that someone with "a lifetime of personal experiences and education" would already know.

    Now, just to keep things moving along, please answer the question I asked earlier.

     
    Equatorial, May 17, 2015 IP
  20. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #1080
    So many words to say nothing at all. Thank goodness I didnt hold my breath waiting for you to source any of your response. LOL
     
    Obamanation, May 17, 2015 IP