BL2-
I understand what you're saying about Lincoln. I'm wondering if it's crossed your mind that perhaps terrorist attacks are not equivalent to the government being overthrown. And really, I won't venture as far as to say they are or aren't, but have you thought about that? I will say that you're correct -- Bush will be judged by historians in the future. It is possible that history will forgive him; it's also possible, and personally I think more likely, that history won't rate him alongside Lincoln.

Just some perspective -- you're right that we don't know, but you don't know either.

Speaking of 1984......

Careful what you wish for...

In all seriousness, I can't fathom the fact that people don't understand that South Park is making fun of people who make fun of "gingers." It's not ACTUALLY making fun of "gingers." I've seen this same thing happen with Jew; because Cartman rips on Jewish people, people think that it's cool to rip on Jewish people. It's satire! You're supposed to think Cartman is a douche, not identify with him!

That being said, South Park is a freakin' awesome show, particularly if you understand it.

If not, it'd be like reading "A Modest Proposal" and then eating a baby.

Nice find, Sarcasmo. Thanks.

'"History's" greatest? Many involve the U.S. and many involve scenarios in the 20th century. Guess history doesn't exist too much outside that?'

This is an interesting observation, in all seriousness. Surely there must have been conspiracy theories through all history, but the only ones I can think of are the standards that are still big today -- Masons, Illuminati, Jesus & Mary Magdalene, the Easter Bunny.

I suppose by their very nature most conspiracy theories fade with time because either they don't matter anymore or they turn out to be conspiracy fact. Does anybody know of any conspiracy theories from history that haven't been proven or disproven that aren't listed here?

In terms of "in America," I'd agree with that. Although the tsunami conspiracy was a new one to me. Yikes!

Regardless of what you think of man-made climate change, I'm pretty sure that the general idea behind global warming leading to global cooling is sound and has been documented as having had happened in the past (I think this same basic mechanism caused one of the ice ages or perhaps the mini-ice age of either the 1600s or the 1800s?).

And before I begin, no, I don't have any sources, but again, I think this is sound regardless of whether you believe in man-made change or not.

Okay, so initially warming leads to melting polar ice caps, glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, and elsewhere. This influx of cold water shuts down the global conveyor belt of hot and cold water (of which the Gulf Stream is only a part). Since parts of the northern hemisphere, particularly northern Europe, are warm primarily because of the Gulf Stream, this leads to cooling in those areas. If you look at a map, for example, England is much farther north than, say, Wisconsin, where I live, yet temperatures in winter seldom drop below freezing in England in this day and age. Wisconsin, on the other hand, can get pretty f-ing cold.

Here's where things get a little murkier. From my understanding (again, I'm not a scientist) there are some who think that the global warming at this point would be intense enough that not much of this would really make a difference. Others think the following:

As the temperatures drop in the northern hemisphere and around Europe, glaciation rebounds and we continue with colder, not warmer, temps in the northern latitudes.

Some may even take this a step further. As glaciation increases, more sunlight is reflected off the massive amounts of snow and ice, and less is absorbed into the atmosphere. Ultimately, this drops temperatures worldwide.

Again, putting the "man-made" part of climate change aside, I think the rest of that scenario is pretty sound science.

Some of that I got from a geology class in college, some from another science class in college, and some from the book "A Brief History of Nearly Everything," by Bill Bryson.

I suppose from this point of view a person could argue that global warming is actually a good thing if it staves off another full-blown ice age.

Oh, and The Day After Tomorrow was a movie, and yes, it was a bad one (so I heard). I doubt you'll find any man-made global warming proponents who would classify it as factually (hypothetically) accurate.

(sorry this is so long...I don't normally write this much...)

"Unlike a lot of these peabrains on here that just throw personal insult attacks"

The ever-popular self-retorting retort.

I don't do it, but I think there's something to be said for signing your name. When I send emails at work, I always sign my name, even though the recipient will know who the email came from just from the "From" line at the top of the email.

And Jeff, your post #19 is ridiculous. Are you arguing with yourself? I didn't see anybody call you racist on here.

"I really have not heard that from the left or the press concerning Bush. They hated Bush so much that they wanted us to lose in Iraq. . . . He had the whole world behind him after 9/11 and pissed it away with the war in Iraq amoung other things."

The self-retorting retort.

small "christian" towns.

#1 | Posted by hillbillydeluxe at 2008-11-15 08:45 AM | Reply | Flag: KNEEJERK

Gee, that didn't take long.

Cricket, I think you summed up the flaw of this idea pretty well.

Overall I think this thread is another good example of people using data to reinforce their pre-conceptions about entire groups of people.

Some atheists come on here and scoff at this idea because they already think Christians are pretty darn mean, quite possibly without sufficient, quality evidence (I'm not talking statistics or headlines, here; I'm talking substantial, high-quality anecdotal evidence).

Some Christians (or other religious folk) come on here and this reinforces their belief that Christians are inherently nice, something they already thought anyway. Oh, and they also see some atheists acting smug and think that ALL atheists must be that way.

But I don't think most atheists are Richard Dawkins wannabes.

And I don't think most Christians are the Spanish Inquisition in disguise.

Although...nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

"Christians are generally evil greedy bastards"

And you know this because you've gone out of your way to meet as many Christians and get to know them personally as you can, right?

~~~

"I'm a washed-up, wannabe-intellectual atheist, and it's my mission in life to make sure a bunch of anonymous posters on an obscure leftwing blog know it."

- Zatoichi

#28 | Posted by ChickenInOven at 2008-11-11 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag

Chicken-
I can appreciate sarcasm. You can see that in my response to Tron. But generally, if you want to defend the NICENESS of Christianity, doing it by posting a scathingly sarcastic response to Zat is probably NOT the best option.

"I can hardly wait to blame old flop ears for everything hurricanes , inflation, taxes, hemorrhoids, like dems did Bush, yes Bush sucked, but you have set the stage, damn first day after elections stock market goes down more than after any election.. stupid Obama stupid Obama you piece of shit for causing this!!!!"

Nothing like a logical, restrained response to losing the election.

"They protect land that his holy to two of the major religions on this earth"

Don't you mean three?

With the exception of Johnson's rant, I'll withdraw my sarcastic opening comment. Most of you have proven me wrong. Thank you.

Cue people telling us how bad this is and proves Obama is a terrorist in 3...2...1...

I don't really like Dan Brown's writing style, but I thought there was a fair amount of theoretical physics in 'Angels and Demons.' Definately not on par with Crichton (I also read Jurassic Park in middle school, along with Sphere, Congo, The Andromeda Strain, and Eaters of the Dead...eventually The Lost World, too), and I have no idea if it's junk science or not, but I think there was some solid stuff. At the very least, I learned about CERN for the first time.

Bartimus-
Masters in Education. Just starting a 2 year program set up to allow students to continue teaching full time while taking classes. I'm in my fifth year of teaching.

I'm going to agree with Grendel on this. Although I disagree with the priest's blog, I don't think it violates a separation of church and state. As far as I can tell, there's no connection between the blog and any offical Roman Catholic entity (dioscese or whatever...not even sure if I spelled that right, and being Lutheran, I'm not sure to whom the priest would report anyway). This is entirely different from a priest getting up in a pulpit and saying, "Vote for John McCain" or "Don't vote for Barack Obama."

OohRah-
Things have been incredibly busy, thanks for asking. I'm currently avoiding writing a paper for my grad program.

I watched the Farrakhan clip. It's a little disturbing, I'll admit. There is a possibility that Farrakhan meant that the Messiah (whoever that is particularly to Nation of Islam believers...not sure if Christ figures into it for them or what...I know that Jesus is considered a prophet to Islam at large, but I think N.o.I. is different somehow??) was speaking to young people to get them involved in their future, essentially making Obama a tool of the Messiah, not the Messiah himself. I'm not saying this is what Farrakhan meant, but it is a possibility -- he didn't outright say "Obama is the Messiah."

As far as "savior" goes, I think it's possible, as I think you were alluding, to use the word in a non-religious way, and I'd agree that some people see him as a method of deliverance from the mess of the last 8 years. I'd also argue that John McCain would also like to be seen that way, evidenced by the fact that he also uses the word "change" and does as much as he can to seperate himself from Bush.

I do think some of the photos have been overblown, but you'll see that with any major political candidate, especially for president. How often are they pictured against a blue sky or other natural backdrop, looking off in the distance, etc. It's manipulative, canned imagery, and it does bother me, but I don't see it as being unique to Obama.

I don't know what term Powell used. I was in the middle of a 70+ hour week at school and barely had the time to eat full meals, let alone keep up on much other than basic headlines.

Johnson-
If you give Obama the benefit of the doubt, his stance is in-line with his comment. If he feels only God can know for sure at what point human life begins (as implied by his pay-grade statement), and if he feels that God's judgment is unclear to us, then he'd be unable to pass legislation dictating when life begins.

I think this is where pro-choice and pro-life voters cross paths. I don't think it's unheard of for a pro-choice voter to believe that life begins at conception or thereabouts. The dilemma is that for many people, that belief is based on religion, and they believe strongly enough in the separation of church and state that they feel they can't use that religious belief to legislate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of abortion. That's why you get people saying things like "I'm pro-choice, but I'd never have an abortion myself."

Johnson-
Did you as vehemently oppose the "cult of personality" that surrounded Bush post 9/11 and got us entangled in Iraq, eroded civil liberties, etc.? I'm not trying to deflect, just seeing if it's Obama you have a problem with or, as you claim, a "cult of the personality." My guess is it's the former.

I glanced through the list, and while some items on the list undoubtedly represent legitimate concerns, it's hard to give any of the list much merit when you come across the obviously biased entries, like the one about Michigan.

Other entries that I think are obviously biased:

-Obama's followers often compare him to Jesus Christ. (I hear Obama's opponents say this often, but I've never once seen or heard an Obama supporter seriously say this. Now I know somebody will probably be able to find it, but I don't think one or two examples merit the word "often")

-Without a teleprompter, Obama is often hesitant or confused (I think the debates put this one to rest. Besides, I'd rather have somebody hesitate to find the right wording than blunder into something ridiculous).

-The Michelle Obama "proud of my country" thing came up. This has been addressed ad nauseum, and I don't think it was that big of a deal in the first place, and certainly not a reason to vote against the man. Are we voting for a president or a first lady?

-Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam support Obama for president (I'm sure the KKK supports McCain, and my reaction is the same...who really cares?)

-Obama didn't bother to visit wounded troops on his visit to Germany, instead he went to the gym (if I remember correctly, he was asked not to come so as to avoid politicizing the wounded troops. Perhaps I remember wrong...)

-Obama supports strong civil unions for homosexuals. In practice, this is not much different than supporting same-sex marriage (Qualitative statement).

-When asked when a baby is entitled to human -rights. Obama responded that the question was above his pay grade (my understanding of this statement has always been that Obama thinks the only one who can make this judgment is God).

There was at least one reason that was supported by a link to World Net Daily, as well, which, as I understand it, is a rather conservative-leaning website. I'm willing to bet much of the other support has a certain bias to it.

Again, I'm sure there are legitimate reasons on that list, but given the number of biased and poorly supported reasons, I'd be much more skeptical of the rest of the list.

Nappy-
You're right, it should be "hanged."

I teach this when I teach The Crucible. You've got to say, "John Proctor was hanged." If you say, "John Proctor was hung," you're saying something else entirely.

My students always laughed really hard at that.

Never quite understood why...

I like how if you play around with redistributing the states, the first time you click on a state it turns red. You have to click on it again to make it blue.