A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Quote of the Day 05.01.10
"At some point you've made enough money." Obama
"At some point you've grabbed enough power." Powerline blog
I'm thinking more like seizing auto companies for your union buddies, voting yourselves a trillion or so in cash for handouts to your banking and Wall Street buddies, focusing on annhilating the insurance companies while ignoring the economy in general, the borders, the defense against new nuclear idiotocracies, etc.
The act of declaring war agianst an unoffending nation, out-sourcing military jobs to private, unaccountable companies, creating the TARP bailout program, ignoring the rising costs of living as theiy were artificially jacked up by runaway finance, the eradication of habeus corpus, these then were the actions of a non-authoritarian government? Because if they were not, I do not see anything about them on your blog. By and large, most liberals had a large problem with the Wall Street bailouts, which got worse after the revelation that the money given to those vampires was diverted to bonuses they earned by tanking the economy. So far as it goes for the "elimination" of insurance companies, there was no single-payer, or even public option that was ever seriously considered by the current administration, despite the lies told on the campaign trail. Legislators have already discussed the issue of illegal immigration, and have decided that it will be the next issue that they tackle. The concept that it is simply being ignored has no supporting evidence. As far as it goes for defense from nuclear nations, Robert Gates, General Kevin Chilton, and other people whose jobs are directly impacted by the administrations decisions on nuclear policy have already shown how deterents for such possible attacks have increased rather than stagnated. So what exactly are you talking about Stan?
Richard said, ”The act of declaring war agianst an unoffending nation, out-sourcing military jobs to private, unaccountable companies, creating the TARP bailout program, ignoring the rising costs of living as theiy were artificially jacked up by runaway finance, the eradication of habeus corpus, these then were the actions of a non-authoritarian government? Because if they were not, I do not see anything about them on your blog.”
You appear to be allowing an apparent deep hatred of G.W.Bush to excuse the overwhelming excesses of Obama. I do not defend the Bush administration; it appears that Cheney set up the imperial power that Obama now abuses freely. This blog, however, is about Atheism, not politics, and although I go through spells of connecting the two, especially the Consequentialism of Alinskyism and Cloward-Piven as exemplified in the ethics-free zone of DC, I generally prefer to remain oriented to Atheism, its causes and cures.
”By and large, most liberals had a large problem with the Wall Street bailouts, which got worse after the revelation that the money given to those vampires was diverted to bonuses they earned by tanking the economy”.
Liberals were confused by Obama. Obama is not a Liberal, he is an Alinsky Positive Rights advocate, having taught Alinsky Consequentialism in Chicago, and having asserted for Positive Rights earlier. If Liberals are for Positive Rights, they keep that to themselves. The USA was specifically constructed around Negative Rights as stated in the 10th Amendment. Perhaps that is one reason that Liberals claim that the Constitution is a “living document”, i.e. one that can die, a surreptitious assertion of Positive Rights and totalitarianism.
”So far as it goes for the "elimination" of insurance companies, there was no single-payer, or even public option that was ever seriously considered by the current administration, despite the lies told on the campaign trail.”
Obama has been widely quoted as declaring that the healthcare sector would be taken over in “small steps”. Do you deny that? If so, on what basis?
Illegal immigration: Do you deny that amnesty is being discussed? That the “new citizens” thus created will vote largely Democrat? That new waves of “potential new citizens” will swarm into the USA – illegally? If so denied, on what basis?
”As far as it goes for defense from nuclear nations, Robert Gates, General Kevin Chilton, and other people whose jobs are directly impacted by the administrations decisions on nuclear policy have already shown how deterents for such possible attacks have increased rather than stagnated. So what exactly are you talking about Stan?”
Sources for this claim, please. It is difficult to imagine that destroying nuclear capacity would increase the hazard over not destroying it. If you destroy my gun, how can I shoot you? (Surely you recognize that argument).
Yes, I imagine that amnesty IS being discussed, it is harldy possible to deport what may be around 30 million people currently in the U.S. Moreover, I am willing to bet that a large majority of those people have children that were born in the U.S., and thus would be hard to seperate from their "citizen" children. As there are so many children who have already been born in the States to these illegals, it wouldn't surprise me if these children when they matured tipped the voting sclaes towards a Democratic majority. I have heard Republicans openly hoping that as these minority populations mature, they will grow more prosperous and wealthy and will hopefully send most of their votes to the Republicans.
There will NEVER be a takeover of the private insurance industry. Most of these companies own our politicians, both on the left and the right. They wrote the bill with Max Baucus behind closed doors and in public pretended to hate the idea that they were being directly fed tax-payer funds. That is a takeover, but its the other way around.
So far as it goes for the nuclear issue, you can find the pertinent quotes over at www.nukesofhazardblog.com. It shows how officials in and outside of the administration support Obama's attempt to deter nuclear attacks. As far as it goes for destroying your gun, when you are surrounded by other people all with weapons of their own, you are then less inclined to fire your weapon upon anyone else. The notion that Iran thinks that it acts in some sort of causal vacuum, where its actions would have no other effect other than the eradication of their hated enemy Israel, is by and large a projection of the Right. Europe and America would DEVOUR Iran from the bottom up if they attempted any sort of offense against Israel, and their own hold over their nation would be destabilized by the revolutionary elements in their country. The notion that men who have everything, careers, families, wealth and power, would throw it all away just to destroy a single Israeli city or two smacks of the ridiculous.
So far as it goes, I know that you are not a true political commentator, but rather comment on the fallacies of atheists and the inanities of naturalism. That's normally whi I come here, and I hope that never changes, even though I may disagree with your occasional forays into politics.
You said, ”As there are so many children who have already been born in the States to these illegals, it wouldn't surprise me if these children when they matured tipped the voting sclaes towards a Democratic majority.”
This is certainly a valid concern. And if amnesty is granted, then the nation will be permanently Democratic almost immediately.
”There will NEVER be a takeover of the private insurance industry. Most of these companies own our politicians, both on the left and the right. They wrote the bill with Max Baucus behind closed doors and in public pretended to hate the idea that they were being directly fed tax-payer funds. That is a takeover, but its the other way around.”
While this has a ring of truth, it also has earmarks of a conspiracy theory. Do you have hard evidence that supports this?
”As far as it goes for destroying your gun, when you are surrounded by other people all with weapons of their own, you are then less inclined to fire your weapon upon anyone else.”
Unless you are suicidal or a hopeful martyr. We have not yet experienced the suicidal, martyred society, or the martyred nation; so far there are only suicidal individuals looking to inherit immortality.
”Europe and America would DEVOUR Iran from the bottom up if they attempted any sort of offense against Israel, and their own hold over their nation would be destabilized by the revolutionary elements in their country. The notion that men who have everything, careers, families, wealth and power, would throw it all away just to destroy a single Israeli city or two smacks of the ridiculous.”
Much of what seems ridiculous to westerners makes perfect sense to the Muslim mind. I am reading the book by Robert R. Reilly, The Closing of the Muslim Mind”, which details the history of the Islamic struggle between reason and revelation, why revelation won over reason in the 9th century to the Ash’arite theology, and how the Muslim mind has been “dehelenized” – purged of western rationality. I recommend this as a secondary source of understanding Islam, the primary source being to read the Qur’an.
Also, I doubt seriously that the western powers in Europe have enough moral force left in them to actually perform a retroactive retribution against Iran. And the anti-Semitism in the current USA government and elitist Left would probably produce little more than empty bluster about “fierce moral transgressions”. I could be wrong, but there is little apparent sympathy for Israel in today's ruling elites. Israel is called an "Apartheid nation" (it is not) yet there is no concern about the hundreds (thousands?) of rockets shot into Israel from Gaza.
Thanks for your comments. It is difficult not to entertain the Consequentialism in the US government and politicos of all stripes, and the hazards of that (Atheist) program. I personally think that the worst type of Atheist is the one that proclaims religious affiliation with his mouth, and yet in reality pursues Alinsky Consequentialism and anti-morality. This is what we seem to be saddled with.
As always, it is important to remember that if there is no truth, then there are no lies, either.
7 comments:
Grabbed is a euphemism for democratically elected, I take it?
I'm thinking more like seizing auto companies for your union buddies, voting yourselves a trillion or so in cash for handouts to your banking and Wall Street buddies, focusing on annhilating the insurance companies while ignoring the economy in general, the borders, the defense against new nuclear idiotocracies, etc.
I quite certain that neither of these quotes is based on any historical evidence.
The act of declaring war agianst an unoffending nation, out-sourcing military jobs to private, unaccountable companies, creating the TARP bailout program, ignoring the rising costs of living as theiy were artificially jacked up by runaway finance, the eradication of habeus corpus, these then were the actions of a non-authoritarian government? Because if they were not, I do not see anything about them on your blog. By and large, most liberals had a large problem with the Wall Street bailouts, which got worse after the revelation that the money given to those vampires was diverted to bonuses they earned by tanking the economy. So far as it goes for the "elimination" of insurance companies, there was no single-payer, or even public option that was ever seriously considered by the current administration, despite the lies told on the campaign trail. Legislators have already discussed the issue of illegal immigration, and have decided that it will be the next issue that they tackle. The concept that it is simply being ignored has no supporting evidence. As far as it goes for defense from nuclear nations, Robert Gates, General Kevin Chilton, and other people whose jobs are directly impacted by the administrations decisions on nuclear policy have already shown how deterents for such possible attacks have increased rather than stagnated. So what exactly are you talking about Stan?
Richard,
Welcome, and thanks for your comments.
Richard said,
”The act of declaring war agianst an unoffending nation, out-sourcing military jobs to private, unaccountable companies, creating the TARP bailout program, ignoring the rising costs of living as theiy were artificially jacked up by runaway finance, the eradication of habeus corpus, these then were the actions of a non-authoritarian government? Because if they were not, I do not see anything about them on your blog.”
You appear to be allowing an apparent deep hatred of G.W.Bush to excuse the overwhelming excesses of Obama. I do not defend the Bush administration; it appears that Cheney set up the imperial power that Obama now abuses freely. This blog, however, is about Atheism, not politics, and although I go through spells of connecting the two, especially the Consequentialism of Alinskyism and Cloward-Piven as exemplified in the ethics-free zone of DC, I generally prefer to remain oriented to Atheism, its causes and cures.
”By and large, most liberals had a large problem with the Wall Street bailouts, which got worse after the revelation that the money given to those vampires was diverted to bonuses they earned by tanking the economy”.
Liberals were confused by Obama. Obama is not a Liberal, he is an Alinsky Positive Rights advocate, having taught Alinsky Consequentialism in Chicago, and having asserted for Positive Rights earlier. If Liberals are for Positive Rights, they keep that to themselves. The USA was specifically constructed around Negative Rights as stated in the 10th Amendment. Perhaps that is one reason that Liberals claim that the Constitution is a “living document”, i.e. one that can die, a surreptitious assertion of Positive Rights and totalitarianism.
”So far as it goes for the "elimination" of insurance companies, there was no single-payer, or even public option that was ever seriously considered by the current administration, despite the lies told on the campaign trail.”
Obama has been widely quoted as declaring that the healthcare sector would be taken over in “small steps”. Do you deny that? If so, on what basis?
Illegal immigration: Do you deny that amnesty is being discussed? That the “new citizens” thus created will vote largely Democrat? That new waves of “potential new citizens” will swarm into the USA – illegally? If so denied, on what basis?
”As far as it goes for defense from nuclear nations, Robert Gates, General Kevin Chilton, and other people whose jobs are directly impacted by the administrations decisions on nuclear policy have already shown how deterents for such possible attacks have increased rather than stagnated. So what exactly are you talking about Stan?”
Sources for this claim, please. It is difficult to imagine that destroying nuclear capacity would increase the hazard over not destroying it. If you destroy my gun, how can I shoot you? (Surely you recognize that argument).
Yes, I imagine that amnesty IS being discussed, it is harldy possible to deport what may be around 30 million people currently in the U.S. Moreover, I am willing to bet that a large majority of those people have children that were born in the U.S., and thus would be hard to seperate from their "citizen" children. As there are so many children who have already been born in the States to these illegals, it wouldn't surprise me if these children when they matured tipped the voting sclaes towards a Democratic majority. I have heard Republicans openly hoping that as these minority populations mature, they will grow more prosperous and wealthy and will hopefully send most of their votes to the Republicans.
There will NEVER be a takeover of the private insurance industry. Most of these companies own our politicians, both on the left and the right. They wrote the bill with Max Baucus behind closed doors and in public pretended to hate the idea that they were being directly fed tax-payer funds. That is a takeover, but its the other way around.
So far as it goes for the nuclear issue, you can find the pertinent quotes over at www.nukesofhazardblog.com. It shows how officials in and outside of the administration support Obama's attempt to deter nuclear attacks. As far as it goes for destroying your gun, when you are surrounded by other people all with weapons of their own, you are then less inclined to fire your weapon upon anyone else. The notion that Iran thinks that it acts in some sort of causal vacuum, where its actions would have no other effect other than the eradication of their hated enemy Israel, is by and large a projection of the Right. Europe and America would DEVOUR Iran from the bottom up if they attempted any sort of offense against Israel, and their own hold over their nation would be destabilized by the revolutionary elements in their country. The notion that men who have everything, careers, families, wealth and power, would throw it all away just to destroy a single Israeli city or two smacks of the ridiculous.
So far as it goes, I know that you are not a true political commentator, but rather comment on the fallacies of atheists and the inanities of naturalism. That's normally whi I come here, and I hope that never changes, even though I may disagree with your occasional forays into politics.
Richard, hello again…
You said,
”As there are so many children who have already been born in the States to these illegals, it wouldn't surprise me if these children when they matured tipped the voting sclaes towards a Democratic majority.”
This is certainly a valid concern. And if amnesty is granted, then the nation will be permanently Democratic almost immediately.
”There will NEVER be a takeover of the private insurance industry. Most of these companies own our politicians, both on the left and the right. They wrote the bill with Max Baucus behind closed doors and in public pretended to hate the idea that they were being directly fed tax-payer funds. That is a takeover, but its the other way around.”
While this has a ring of truth, it also has earmarks of a conspiracy theory. Do you have hard evidence that supports this?
”As far as it goes for destroying your gun, when you are surrounded by other people all with weapons of their own, you are then less inclined to fire your weapon upon anyone else.”
Unless you are suicidal or a hopeful martyr. We have not yet experienced the suicidal, martyred society, or the martyred nation; so far there are only suicidal individuals looking to inherit immortality.
”Europe and America would DEVOUR Iran from the bottom up if they attempted any sort of offense against Israel, and their own hold over their nation would be destabilized by the revolutionary elements in their country. The notion that men who have everything, careers, families, wealth and power, would throw it all away just to destroy a single Israeli city or two smacks of the ridiculous.”
Much of what seems ridiculous to westerners makes perfect sense to the Muslim mind. I am reading the book by Robert R. Reilly, The Closing of the Muslim Mind”, which details the history of the Islamic struggle between reason and revelation, why revelation won over reason in the 9th century to the Ash’arite theology, and how the Muslim mind has been “dehelenized” – purged of western rationality. I recommend this as a secondary source of understanding Islam, the primary source being to read the Qur’an.
Also, I doubt seriously that the western powers in Europe have enough moral force left in them to actually perform a retroactive retribution against Iran. And the anti-Semitism in the current USA government and elitist Left would probably produce little more than empty bluster about “fierce moral transgressions”. I could be wrong, but there is little apparent sympathy for Israel in today's ruling elites. Israel is called an "Apartheid nation" (it is not) yet there is no concern about the hundreds (thousands?) of rockets shot into Israel from Gaza.
Thanks for your comments. It is difficult not to entertain the Consequentialism in the US government and politicos of all stripes, and the hazards of that (Atheist) program. I personally think that the worst type of Atheist is the one that proclaims religious affiliation with his mouth, and yet in reality pursues Alinsky Consequentialism and anti-morality. This is what we seem to be saddled with.
As always, it is important to remember that if there is no truth, then there are no lies, either.
Post a Comment