Which candidate to vote for?

[shyboy]

First we create the problem, then we solve it, eh?

Unfortunately, the choice of a president is not merely an example-setting teaching exercise, but has real-world ramifications. The evidence so far suggests that Obama is an ill-educated, ill-prepared, ill-experienced disaster-in-waiting. For example, we know from the feckless approach of Bill Clinton which culminated in the disaster of 9/11, what the tragic consequences of a weak, foolhardy foreign policy would be, and the evidence suggests that Obama would pursue precisely that course once again. I suppose the thousands who died in the 9/11 attacks also serve as an example of what doesn't work. Apparently, we didn't learn our lesson, did we?

Well if I were to play devils advocate I would say that I heard Obama say,

“no president should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary, not only to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked, but also to protect our vital interests”

Edited June 17, 2008 by shyboy

[shyboy]

Even assuming, arguendo, that this is true, it says absolutely nothing about causality as opposed to mere coincidence; it offers no facts pertaining to the nature of Republican presidents and recessions that would even remotely suggest a causal connection. In other words, your professor's assertion is worthless. I suppose the mediocre education you'll receive will also serve as an example of what doesn't work.

That is true but people can say that about Reagan's policies as well. People just say Reaganomics worked with no explanation at all. I've searched and I see it on this board as well and that goes off without a hitch.

In fact, in my studies, one project I took on was to research what the final effects of Reaganomics were, and after reading tons of articles, looking at economic indices...there is a total hung jury. Some can say it worked because the economy recovered after it was implemented, others can make a case that the economy recovered despite it. Too many interdependent factors, some influenced by the policy, some not, and so there's a lot of guesswork and no clear way to separate all causes and effects for a clear case.

So yeah, concluding that only Republicans lead to recessions just because that is what has happened so far is a bad argument.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

Christianity is waning. This "surge" that you and others claim to see is it's last attempt to regain footing as it becomes obsolete. Eight years of Bush and six years of a Republican Congress and all you guys can do is spout paranoia about "faith based initiatives" as if there are going to be roving bands of rednecks lynching gays and forcing women to have children at gunpoint.

Actually, I didn't make any such predictions. The threat is theocracy, not isolated violence by individuals. In fact, this goes for Islam as well, the most dire threat being the non-violent spread of fundamentalist ideology, as opposed to terrorism.

Is teaching creationism in schools dangerous? I don't think so. Stupid, yes. Against the constitution, yes. Ridiculous, yes. But give me a break. This is 12 years of church, bible school, and Sunday school talking. And I rejected "God" the very day I stopped living with my Catholic mother and she ceased to have control over me. So much for all that "indoctrination".

First of all, I submit that you, as an Objectivist (I assume), are hardly representative of a typical American youth brought up under that situation. If even a sizeable minority of the American youth were as rational as the average Objectivist, I claim that we would have nothing to fear as a nation for the next century at least.

I actually have first-hand experience with the dangerous results of religious indoctrination: one of my friends (from India) was taught in high school that the holocaust is a myth. He honestly believed this until I told him otherwise. He is a highly intelligent person (a physics student), yet refuses to apply reason to his religious beliefs. A Catholic student in my high school had been told absurd lies by her parents concerning human sexuality. Though also of more-than-average intelligence, she honestly believed these fantasies.

The real religion that threatens everyone is Islam. And the Democrats have made it fairly obvious that it wants to ally with the Muslims in the name of multiculturalism. With Democrats in power, it gives the Muslims free reign to infiltrate our society from within. They practice Taqiyya, feign innocence and perpetual victim-hood and use our own free speech laws against us.

I very much agree that Islam is a threat. As I indicated above, I also believe that cultural infiltration is the primary threat from this direction. However, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can prevent such infiltration; all they can do is protect us militarily. Since general deportation of Muslims would be immoral, I do not see what the government can do about such trends. A cultural threat can only be answered by changing the culture, which is not the purpose of voting. As far as military threats go, I believe that both Democrats and Republicans are equally feeble. Not even the Democrats will ignore military threats. Considering the utter debacle the Bush administration has suffered in Iraq, it is even possible that a Democrat would be marginally better in this respect.

Communism is dead? Are you kidding? What do you think environmentalism has become? It's the new socialist dogma adopted by those that feel guilty about their very existence (which is pretty much what defines a religion). Mother Earth is God, sins include capitalism and industry, Al Gore is the messiah, and catastrophic climate changes are the fires of hell.

Communism and environmentalism are two different ideologies with specific definitions. Traditionally, communism does not even take the environment into account at all. I agree that most radical environmentalists are socialists. However, some of them are also religious. Example: Mike Huckabee regards protecting the environment as a moral issue. In any event, socialism as such is no longer very dangerous. Instead, the danger comes from religious fundamentalists and environmentalists who happen to support socialist economics. When I said that communism is dead, I meant that that specific ideology, taken as an end in itself, is dead. That is why we don't hear many Democrats urging the workers of the world to unite, or calling for the creation of a peasant utopia.

When the government has my money, it decides what's best for me. It can then restrict my speech, force me to give up my guns, and tell me what to do. The more money I have, the more power I have. It's really that simple.

I'm not sure what you mean by power in this context. Is it your position that a man like Bill Gates will be safe from coercion, so long as the government decides not to seize his fortune? Money is a tool of reason, not of force. It would become as meaningless under a theocracy as if it had been confiscated by a communist regime.

Christianity doesn't concern me. Read the numbers of religious statistics. They are a dying breed.

I would like to see some of those statistics, since I need to do more research on this matter myself. Could you repeat some of them, or post a link to where they can be found? Thanks.

[sanjavalen]

When the government has my money, it decides what's best for me. It can then restrict my speech, force me to give up my guns, and tell me what to do. The more money I have, the more power I have. It's really that simple.

No, its not "that simple." The government can let you keep most of your money and still regulate you down to your last action. You won't KEEP your money for long, but they don't have to seize it outright through taxation to take away your freedom.

[ers]

First of all, I submit that you, as an Objectivist (I assume), are hardly representative of a typical American youth brought up under that situation. If even a sizeable minority of the American youth were as rational as the average Objectivist, I claim that we would have nothing to fear as a nation for the next century at least.

Actually, having never read a book by Ayn Rand, I don't fancy myself an Objectivist. Though I will agree in this respect. Most Americans (and people in general) are vapid cattle.

Since general deportation of Muslims would be immoral, I do not see what the government can do about such trends.

And this is the great problem that faces Western civilization. Yes, what can we do? At what point do we admit that Islam itself is a cult of death and threatens the very existence and freedoms of our society? After it is too late? Do we let the ideas of multiculturalism perpetuated by liberals and socialists protect the growing Muslim threat as they slowly destroy us?

Considering the utter debacle the Bush administration has suffered in Iraq, it is even possible that a Democrat would be marginally better in this respect.

I have mixed feelings about Iraq. For one, you can't bring "democracy" to Muslims. I've read mixed accounts about the "weapons of mass destruction" but from what I know there is strong evidence that any such weapons were transfered to Syria prior to our invasion. Second, we don't fight "total war" anymore. If we did, the war would have been over in less than two months, cost us next to nothing, and saved thousands of American lives. ANY president that fights a war now must do so handcuffed while holding a teddy bear. Would a democrat be any better? I doubt it. Obama in particular has called for unconditional negotiations with Ajad (a guy who denies the holocaust). That kind of crap is remeniscant of the events that led up to Hitler invading Poland.

The Islam threat is very real and very dangerous. We have a barbaric ideology coupled with modern weaponry. Once nukes are in the hands of Muslim extremists, they WILL use them.

A Catholic student in my high school had been told absurd lies by her parents concerning human sexuality.

So, you pick your kool-aid. On one side you have nonsense about God. On the other side you have indoctrination and utter nonsense about global warming, climate change, and environmentalism. You think about it carefully, which one is more damaging? The socialist environmentalist movement indoctrinates our children using pseudo science and emotional pandering from a very young age. Now they are reaping the benefits of generations of young adults ready to tear down our economy and cripple our society forever in the name of "carbon footprints" while China grows stronger and doesn't give a shit about the environment. We're also fed liberal nonsense that Islam is a peaceful religion and all Muslims are victims and misunderstood. Yeah, that's not damaging at all.

I'm not sure what you mean by power in this context. Is it your position that a man like Bill Gates will be safe from coercion, so long as the government decides not to seize his fortune? Money is a tool of reason, not of force. It would become as meaningless under a theocracy as if it had been confiscated by a communist regime.

No, its not "that simple." The government can let you keep most of your money and still regulate you down to your last action. You won't KEEP your money for long, but they don't have to seize it outright through taxation to take away your freedom.

I mean exactly what I say here. Take a look at what is happening to Mark Steyn in Canada, for instance, and let's set up a hypothetical scenario.

1) Let's say I'm poor.

2) I write an article in a local newspaper blasting Islam/Christianity/Polar Bears/Al Fore/Lumberjacks/Pancake Lovers/etc. They are stated as opinion but no violence is incited toward the group.

3) The group in question decides to sue or prosecute me because they feel it insults them. Given the climate on similar situations like these, it's not exactly far-fetched.

4) I immediately retract my article and issue an apology; otherwise I face destitute and jail because I can't defend myself.

Now let's say I have 2.7 million dollars in the bank.

All of the sudden I can hire a slew of lawyers to bring attention to my case and defend me. I can take it all the way to the state and federal supreme courts if I want, to prove a point. Perhaps I will enlighten some people on the way.

If I'm poor it's a one page story in the paper "Douchebag insults the sentiments of group X and apologizes." People forget and become numb. They accept the fact that you now can't insult group X. Free speech dies a little more.

There are other examples as well. If I have more money, I can pour more of it into groups that I personally support that will help my causes. The more taxes I pay, the less discretionary money I have. The discretionary money of George Soros funds moveon.org.

My ability to earn and keep my income is the single most important liberty that I have. With money, I can accomplish anything else to defend myself. When the government has my money, I lose control of my entire life. Just thinking about how much I pay right now in federal taxes alone makes my blood fucking boil.

I would like to see some of those statistics, since I need to do more research on this matter myself. Could you repeat some of them, or post a link to where they can be found? Thanks.

I'll have to dig up more sources as I don't have too many available right now. You might remember a couple of months ago Islam surpassed Catholicism as the number one single religion. Of course, Christianity in all of its flavors still outranks Islam as the number one religion, but numbers are declining.

Here is one study from 1990 to 2001:

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_br...ey_findings.htm

"the proportion of the population that can be classified as Christian has declined from eighty-six in 1990 to seventy-seven percent in 2001"

[Tenzing_Shaw]

And this is the great problem that faces Western civilization. Yes, what can we do? At what point do we admit that Islam itself is a cult of death and threatens the very existence and freedoms of our society? After it is too late? Do we let the ideas of multiculturalism perpetuated by liberals and socialists protect the growing Muslim threat as they slowly destroy us?

I think the only viable option is to attempt to change the culture by spreading rational ideas and expressing dissent. Another possibility would be to actively assist the religious right in coming to power in the United States, on the premise that they, at least, will not tolerate the eventual Islamization of American culture. This might even succeed, but it assumes that a Christian theocracy is preferable to a Muslim theocracy, and I see no evidence for that. Perhaps the best that can be hoped for is to encourage anti-religious sentiment among leftists, which might counter-act their newfound multiculturalism. Moderate leftists can sometimes be made to see reason on such issues, while conservative Christians will simply follow theology in any situation. In any case, the most important thing is to promote reason whenever possible.

I have mixed feelings about Iraq. For one, you can't bring "democracy" to Muslims. I've read mixed accounts about the "weapons of mass destruction" but from what I know there is strong evidence that any such weapons were transfered to Syria prior to our invasion. Second, we don't fight "total war" anymore. If we did, the war would have been over in less than two months, cost us next to nothing, and saved thousands of American lives. ANY president that fights a war now must do so handcuffed while holding a teddy bear. Would a democrat be any better? I doubt it. Obama in particular has called for unconditional negotiations with Ajad (a guy who denies the holocaust). That kind of crap is remeniscant of the events that led up to Hitler invading Poland.

Furthermore, democracy is not even desirable in a society which is neither free nor subject to the rule of law (these things are what makes democracy viable in the west). I agree with your evaluation of the Iraq War. I would say that no action against Iraq would have been preferable to what happened, and I doubt a Democrat would have launched the invasion. Of course, the damage has been done, and a Democrat in power will not change that. My point was simply that the merits of Democrats vs. Republicans with regard to national defense are debatable.

The Islam threat is very real and very dangerous. We have a barbaric ideology coupled with modern weaponry. Once nukes are in the hands of Muslim extremists, they WILL use them.

Actually, a nuclear strike by Islamists against the United States would be a strategic blunder, as the whole world would instantly turn against them, and the United States would have nearly free rein to retaliate. I believe that Islamists know this, and that this is one reason why there have been no major terrorists attacks against the United States since 9/11. If the goal of Islamism is to eventually gain power in the west, what would a nuclear strike accomplish? Taqiyya is a far more potent weapon.

I mean exactly what I say here. Take a look at what is happening to Mark Steyn in Canada, for instance, and let's set up a hypothetical scenario.

It is true that money can be used to win court cases or fight public-opinion battles. All of these measures presume a relatively free society, however. You might keep your money in a theocracy, but the government would sensor your speech, and any lawyers you hired would be meaningless in a trial in which the verdict has been decided beforehand by the state. Under a socialist regime, your money would simply be confiscated. Under a theocracy, the attitude might be "let him keep his wealth for the time being, since we can seize it whenever we want". I do not see one of these options as being significantly preferable to the other. If I understand you, the case you are trying to make is that during the interim period before a right-wing dictatorship, you will be able to use your money to influence events, while during the interim period before a left-wing dictatorship, your money will already have been confiscated. While you may indeed be richer in the former case, I claim that religious conservatives are not influenced by court rulings or the media in the same way that leftists would be. A leftist might not file a second irresponsible lawsuit when he realizes that he can't get away with it. A religious fundamentalist will keep trying long after everyone stops listening. This is a consequence of the difference between pragmatism and idealism which I discussed in an earlier post.

I will take a look at the link you posted, and will do some research on my own. My main argument consists in defending the position that if the religious right is gaining power then we must not vote Republican. I had assumed that the premise was true, mainly due to personal experience. If you can give me convincing evidence that it isn't, I would certainly be open to it.

[ers]

I think the only viable option is to attempt to change the culture by spreading rational ideas and expressing dissent.

And I think this is less viable once the socialists grab hold of the country. There will be no room for debate and reason anymore. They are just as bad, if not horrendously worse than Christians when it comes to limiting free speech. You want to question Islam? You're a bigot. Question global warming? You're a flat-earther. Question social security? You're a proponent of Social Darwinism and have no heart. Question universal health care? You're out of touch with the woes of the poor and once again have no heart. Obama to the rescue. Once these ideas are planted by leaders in Washington, it will be very hard to undo them. As we've established, people are really nothing more than cattle that listen to the person with the shiniest teeth and the loudest voice. What the actual message is doesn't matter.

This might even succeed, but it assumes that a Christian theocracy is preferable to a Muslim theocracy, and I see no evidence for that.

See, this is what I don't understand. How can people still believe this? This is of course what the liberals want everyone to think, that Christianity and Islam are really no different. And lollipops grow from oak trees.

Let's take a brief look at probably the most radical Christian group operating in America, the Westboro Baptist Church. They're the ones that do things generally in poor taste; they hold up signs saying "God hates Fags" and picket military funerals chanting "God hates America". As far as I know (I suppose I could be wrong) they have never acted violently, murdered anyone, bombed anything, or even threatened anyone physically. Sure, their message is disgusting and hateful, but they organize peacefully and limit their activities to protest.

What's the most radical Muslim group? I don't really know, they're all so terrible. But pretty much all of them practice suicide bombing, murder, subjugation of women, hatred of kafir, female genital mutilation, hatred of Israel, promotion of Dhimmitude, etc, etc.

You tell me which one is more dangerous. Take a look at Iran. They stone women to death for being raped. This is comparable to Christianity how?

The Bible (especially the New Testament) is a guide on morality. The Koran is more of a political doctrine which promotes the eventual goal of a single, worldwide Caliphate, enslaving the non-Muslims. Having read both I can safely assess that the Koran is 100x worse than the bible in terms of violence and draconian like rules.

Christianity is like an old, neutered German Shepherd. It's still got teeth, and it can still bite you when it's cornered, and possibly even kill you if scared enough. Islam is like an ugly, rabid, starving, genetically-enhanced pack of wolves dripping with blood, aching to ravage, rape and murder anything that stands in its way. The two are simply not comparable.

I will argue that this country is more secular now than it ever has been. Just reading the news daily should be evident of that. Take a look at the latest gay marriage ruling. This is a huge step in the right direction, and it could not have happened 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago. You see artwork that demoralizes Christians (piss Virgin Mary) praised in academic circles and the New York Times. Meanwhile, a guy throws a Koran in the toilet at a University and is fined and punished for "harassment."

Christian response to piss Virgin Mary? Letters to the editor, boycotts.

Muslim response to danish cartoons? Murder, riots, burning embassies.

Many Christians donated money to Indonesia (primarily Muslim) after the 2004 Tsunami.

Muslims in Pakistan danced in the streets and laughed after 9/11.

Christianity underwent it's reformation centuries ago. Islam has yet to do so, and the consequences of letting it run it's natural course will be disastrous.

Actually, a nuclear strike by Islamists against the United States would be a strategic blunder, as the whole world would instantly turn against them, and the United States would have nearly free rein to retaliate.

I don't think the U.S. would be the first choice of a target by Muslims. It would most likely be Tel Aviv. Iran could give the nuke to Hezbollah or Hamas and then wash it's hands of the whole situation, sit back, and even feign sorrow. Right now, it is true they are biding their time, waiting for the West to further castrate itself. They know our response to disasters is very weak thanks to Katrina. A nuke set off in one of our major cities would rip this country apart. And how could we possibly respond? Especially if it wasn't a nation that nuked us, but a small group? And if we had an Obama president, you can be sure that a response to that situation would be a failure.

I doubt the whole world would instantly turn against Muslims in the event of a nuke, especially since the myth of Islamic peacefulness is taught to our children. The only mistake the Islamists could possibly make would be to attack China. They are the only ones left that would have the balls to turn the middle east into a parking lot.

Some food for thought:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-56...itain-2035.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343336,00.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021432.php

And here are some more recent statistics:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

"U.S. Center for World Mission estimated in 1997 that the percentage of humans who regard themselves as Christians rose from 33.7% in 1970 to 33.9% in 1996. 2 Its total number of adherents is growing at about 2.3% annually. This is approximately equal to the growth rate of the world's population. Islam is growing faster: about 2.9% and is thus increasing its market share."

Edited June 18, 2008 by ers

[gags]

At a rally here in Detroit, Obama's campaign minions refused to let a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf sit behind the candidate. Obviously they didn't want pics of Obama with a Muslim woman behind him floating around the internet. I love it when the practitioners of political correctness have their hypocrisy revealed for everyone to see.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25246146/