FREE TAPATALK APP

RandFan · 22nd May 2012, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

You consistently get that guilt by association fallacy wrong , and it's tiresome.

What gets tiresome is the petty insults. I get things wrong. I'm one who will admit when I'm wrong. Could we have a cordial conversation? If I've offended you in the past by being snarky I apologize. I could be wrong. I don't think I am though. Let's discuss it without accusations, fair?

Quote:

Guilt by association takes a (relatively) trivial commonality between two things and then draws the false inference that the two things are therefore alike in other ways as well.

How is being a congregant in a church more than trivial? Does being a member of Wright's church prove that Obama shares any or all of Wrights ideological beliefs?

And how is being a casual associate based on circumstance not trivial?

Quote:

It is not a fallacy to point out that Obama associates with distasteful people like Wright and Ayers.

I'm sorry, no, it depends on the basis for the association.

I don't find Wright particularly distasteful.
The relationship between Wright and Obama is religion and not shared political views.
An association doesn't constitute agreement on ideology. I have associates with many people I do not share beliefs with. My mother is Mormon. That doesn't make me a Mormon. I worked for a company owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I became close friends and associates of many members. That didn't make me a Seventh Day Adventist.
Ayers and Obama were casual associates based on circumstance only.

Quote:

If you met someone who told you he was good buddies with David Duke, would that tend to make you wonder about his character?

Ayers and Obama are NOT good buddies.
Lots of "good" buddies have been cops and criminals. Liddy and Timothy Leary.

AvalonXQ · 22nd May 2012, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

How is being a congregant in a church more than trivial?

It is if you're doing it right -- if your church affiliation isn't simply a matter of political convenience.

If being in your pew at a popular black church on Sunday morning is basically the same to you as being in your box at the opera on Friday night -- an opportunity to see and be seen by the right people as engaging in the right activities -- then what the sermon says (or how good the singers are) is absolutely trivial.

I think that if more people believed this is the sort of "Christian" that Obama was and is, they wouldn't vote for him.

RandFan · 22nd May 2012, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

It is if you're doing it right -- if your church affiliation isn't simply a matter of political convenience.

If being in your pew at a popular black church on Sunday morning is basically the same to you as being in your box at the opera on Friday night -- an opportunity to see and be seen by the right people as engaging in the right activities -- then what the sermon says (or how good the singers are) is absolutely trivial.

I think that if more people believed this is the sort of "Christian" that Obama was and is, they wouldn't vote for him.

I completely agree. Americans have a bizarre blind spot when it comes to religion. We haven't always had it. Robert G. Ingersoll was a hugely popular political leader and atheist. He was also a Republican.

Originally Posted by -Robert Green Ingersoll

We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.

-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Gods" (1872)

Have politician say that today and not catch holy hell.

AvalonXQ · 22nd May 2012, 02:57 PM

Y'know, back in '08, I said I'd never vote for a Mormon as President. Eventually somebody talked me out of that.

I wonder if the same will eventually happen with atheists.

RandFan · 22nd May 2012, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Y'know, back in '08, I said I'd never vote for a Mormon as President. Eventually somebody talked me out of that.

I wonder if the same will eventually happen with atheists.

Yeah, I think so. BTW: I was dead set against a Mormon president. But I liked Huntsman and I was on the fence for awhile. I found him very reasonable even though I did not like his politics. And, FWIW: I could vote for Romney. I don't think he is the severe conservative he claims. God help Obama if enough independents are willing to give Romney a pass on the primary. That's not to say I think he will govern as liberal as he did as Governor but I really don't think he would be as conservative as Santorum or Gingrich.

We will see.

At this point I don't see me moving away from Obama though.

Brainster · 22nd May 2012, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

What gets tiresome is the petty insults.

What petty insults? I see no insults petty or grand in my reply to you whatsoever. Do feel free to point them out.

tyr_13 · 22nd May 2012, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

It is if you're doing it right -- if your church affiliation isn't simply a matter of political convenience.

If being in your pew at a popular black church on Sunday morning is basically the same to you as being in your box at the opera on Friday night -- an opportunity to see and be seen by the right people as engaging in the right activities -- then what the sermon says (or how good the singers are) is absolutely trivial.

I think that if more people believed this is the sort of "Christian" that Obama was and is, they wouldn't vote for him.

I think calling it 'political convenience' is a bit of an overstatement, but that's essentially why many people go to the church they do. Religious beliefs are becoming more and more personal for a lot Christians in the US, thus finding a church with a pastor/reverend/preacher that closely matches their view is difficult and less important than finding a church that their friends and family go to. Call it 'social convenience'.

For many in the US, the days of just agreeing with your church are long gone. I get your point that it's not how church is intended to work, but that is how it's used. My father's part of the family is Catholic and very active in the church, Eucharistic minister and all, yet they routinely disagree with the church and sermons. I doubt that Romney believes everything the LDS church advocates and even spends money on. It wouldn't surprise me if Obama didn't believe in Wright's nuttery, but is a devote Christian who shares belief with many of the other people in the same church. They might go out of tradition, family obligation, theater for the public, social reasons, or the churches other programs.

RandFan · 22nd May 2012, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

What petty insults? I see no insults petty or grand in my reply to you whatsoever. Do feel free to point them out.

Rude and insolent behavior is an insult. Telling me that I frequently get something wrong and that it's tiring to you, that is insulting. But I confess I live in a glass house. I'm just trying to get the people I interact with to be a bit more civil and I'm sincerely trying to be civil.

Quote:

in·sult

to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt

Brainster · 22nd May 2012, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

How is being a congregant in a church more than trivial? Does being a member of Wright's church prove that Obama shares any or all of Wrights ideological beliefs?

Not trying to be insulting here, but you are wrong. Let's start with the guilt by association thing again. It is not a guilt by association fallacy to point out that Obama freely associated himself with Wright. Indeed, the Wikipedia page you pointed to has another GBA fallacy that illustrates this:

Quote:

Simon, Karl, Jared, and Brett are all friends of Josh, and they are all petty criminals. Jill is a friend of Josh; therefore, Jill is a petty criminal.

A comparable GBA fallacy with regard to Wright would be to point out that one of his parishioners did some bad thing, and therefore Obama was guilty of the same bad thing. But in the example above, I would certainly have "trust issues" with regard to Josh himself; why would he choose to be friends with so many petty criminals?

A pastor at your church is not supposed to be some trivial association. The pastor is supposed to be your spiritual guide, someone you look towards for counseling and assistance. Back in the 1960s, my parents disagreed strongly with our local pastor and so we went to another church for several years, and eventually they formed a group of like-minded families and actually hired a priest to come in and perform home masses.

RandFan · 22nd May 2012, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Not trying to be insulting here, but you are wrong.

Cool. Not that I agree but I don't find that at all insulting.

Quote:

Let's start with the guilt by association thing again. It is not a guilt by association fallacy to point out that Obama freely associated himself with Wright. Indeed, the Wikipedia page you pointed to has another GBA fallacy that illustrates this:

Quote:

Simon, Karl, Jared, and Brett are all friends of Josh, and they are all petty criminals. Jill is a friend of Josh; therefore, Jill is a petty criminal.

First off, let me say clearly that I understand your argument. I did read this example. I do understand the point being made by wiki and other sites. I don't want to get into a pissing contest so lets see if we can find some common ground.

Would you agree that just because my family is Mormon isn't proof that I'm Mormon?
Would you agree that just because my family are republicans doesn't prove that I am Republican?

These are not casual relationships, right? So, let's not call it a "guilt by association fallacy".

Mary is P
John is Mary's friend.
Therefore John is P.

Fallacious, right?

Quote:

A pastor at your church is not supposed to be some trivial association. The pastor is supposed to be your spiritual guide, someone you look towards for counseling and assistance. Back in the 1960s, my parents disagreed strongly with our local pastor and so we went to another church for several years, and eventually they formed a group of like-minded families and actually hired a priest to come in and perform home masses.

"Supposed"? Okay, so let's grant that the association isn't trivial.

Wright is a racist.
Every congregant of Wrights church must therefore be a racist.

You don't see a problem with that line of reasoning?

Mormonism was de facto racist.
Romney was a Mormon during the time that Mormonism was racist.
Therefore Romney was a racist.

RandFan · 22nd May 2012, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Santa Rosa Junior College

source

Short Definition: person is bad because of bad associates

Example: John must be a snob. He's on the debating team, which is full of snobs.

1. Guilt by association involves making negative judgments about a person or their arguments based SOLELY on their relationship with others. This fallacy is a variation on the ad hominem fallacy.

2. The problem is that many people don't look for any other evidence and thus they leap to the wrong conclusion.

3. Even though it is rational under certain circumstances to judge people by their associates, only rarely will such judgments have a high degree of probability attached to them.

I have argued that absent additional evidence, the association alone is proof of nothing.

Travis · 22nd May 2012, 07:54 PM

I got it!

I can do whatever I want and so long as I sit one day a week listening to somebody preach the opposite all my actions are void and null!

That is so awesome. I can snort blow off hookers all week but I'm pious and boring if I sit and listen to someone talk about the horrors of hedonism on Sunday. Obama was on to something. When he discovered his actions were meaningless and only what the words his old Reverend said were important he unlocked the key to allow all of us to be free of the consequence of our own actions.

Thank you far right wing lunatics for allowing this to be so.

Brainster · 22nd May 2012, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I have argued that absent additional evidence, the association alone is proof of nothing.

So Santa Rosa Junior College gets it wrong and Wikipedia has it right.

I don't want to spend a whole lot more time on this issue. As I have said before, Obama is not going to be reelected or rejected for a second term based on anything other than the last four years. Reverend Wright is a dead issue.

RandFan · 22nd May 2012, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

So Santa Rosa Junior College gets it wrong and Wikipedia has it right.

Argument by assertion. You never acknowledged that even if we grant that it's not fallacy by association it's STILL a fallacy.

John is P.
Joan is a friend of John.
Joan is P.

Fallacious, right?

I don't want to spend a lot of time on this either. I was willing to grant you your premises for arguments sake. It would have been nice if you would have acknowledge mine. Please see my sig file.

Travis · 23rd May 2012, 12:06 AM

My older brother went to Santa Rosa Jr College.

Always seemed a real nice place when I visited.

That is all. Sorry for the derail.

TruthersLie · 23rd May 2012, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Now we have the choice between a former Illinois senator who's shown no left-leaning inclinations over the last four years, and a former governor who is STILL a member of a church that institutionalized racism until just a couple decades ago, one which he could have left at any time (if he objected).

Other than the whole nationalized health care, quadrupling the national debt and about a dozen other "liberal" "left" ideas... he hasn't shown any left leaning inclinations...

Personally, I dislike both of them.

I really wish there was a party that was pro social advocacy and pro fiscal responsibility...

Unfortunately, we get the social advocacy on the left which embraces the far left, tax the rich social welfare on one side. And on the other side we get pro fiscal responsibility* but we get the entire religious right with them.

*until Clinton/Bush, the republicans had the high ground on fiscal responsibility

TruthersLie · 23rd May 2012, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by gnome

TruthersLie, care to have a go at my question? Right now I'm looking for anyone who has a problem with Obama and Wright's association to address it. So far nobody has.

gnome.

I thought I had answered your question. Was there any specific, direct "OMG" moment? Not really.

There was a lot of radicalized talk from Wright in many of his sermons. That radicalized speech COULD have influenced a certain young senator who listened to it for 20 years. That POSSIBLE influence COULD affect the way that young senator/now president makes policy decisions, views the world and/or enacts/enforces the laws.

Questions about past associations often bring up the issues of CHARACTER. And if the person is in the highest office in the land, making decisions that affect 300 Million Americans, then those CHARACTER questions are valid.

TruthersLie · 23rd May 2012, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Of course it's a problem anyway YOU look at it. I suggest throwing off your ideological cloak. Judge the man by his actions. Don't cherry pick whatever suits your bias and draw CT like conclusions.

It's unbecoming.

Ah... but there in lies the rub.

At the time in 2008... we have a young black senator who came from nowhere politically. What major piece of legislation did he write? Can you name any off of the top of your head? Which pieces of legislation did he become the face of?

I can't name any w/out wikipedia/google. How about you?

So how can we "judge the man by his actions" when politically he didn't have ANY worthwhile political actions to judge?

So if we can't judge his actions, then what can we judge him by? One of the oldest methods of judging people (note that I personally disagree) is by who their known associates are. When you look at his known associates.... they don't all have sterling reputations or are absolutely aboveboard.

That brings up questions about his actions. Where these friendships/associations completely calculated, were they genuine, were they a bit of both? That brings up his actions.

I'm not saying I agree with this line of reasoning, but I am trying to explain it. I have numerous problems with the current POTUS, but the entire wright issue is a non issue

TruthersLie · 23rd May 2012, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

How is being a congregant in a church more than trivial? Does being a member of Wright's church prove that Obama shares any or all of Wrights ideological beliefs?

American politics and religion go together hand in hand. The historical evidence of churches pushing political affiliation is so common as to be a non starter.

Quote:

And how is being a casual associate based on circumstance not trivial?

You see, visit with and spend a day a week with someone for several hours, every week for 20 years. Are you really going to try to pass off the "trivial" relationship? Really?

Quote:

[list][*]I don't find Wright particularly distasteful.

Me neither. I think his opinion is wrong and his rhetoric is hurtful to discourse, but I don't find it that distasteful. Apparently neither did Obama for 20 years.

Quote:

[*]The relationship between Wright and Obama is religion and not shared political views.

Other than the fact that the majority of people vote following their religion and the advice and advocacy of their religious leaders.
Nothing to see here folks .... move along.

Quote:

[*]An association doesn't constitute agreement on ideology. I have associates with many people I do not share beliefs with. My mother is Mormon. That doesn't make me a Mormon. I worked for a company owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I became close friends and associates of many members. That didn't make me a Seventh Day Adventist.

Ah... but was your mother a mormon and made you attend mormon temple for twenty years? You have made a choice. Obama made the same choice.. and he sat there for 20 years. Now I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack, but if you sit there for 20 years, you have made a choice that you like what you hear. If you didn't like it, you'd leave.

Quote:

[*]Ayers and Obama were casual associates based on circumstance only.

I'll agree with this one... it is like many of the 9/11 CTs who point to the link between Bush and Bin laden family. I could be wrong, there could be a much stronger relationship there, but I think that one is only slightly connected to Obama.

crimresearch · 23rd May 2012, 08:43 AM

And still no answer to the OP question.... just the denier-type spin that if a black speaker uses strong rhetoric against racism, then he must be a racist.

TruthersLie · 23rd May 2012, 08:50 AM

Wowsers... project much?

Can you tell me where I said any of what you just claimed? Feel free.

RandFan · 23rd May 2012, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by TruthersLie

American politics and religion go together hand in hand. The historical evidence of churches pushing political affiliation is so common as to be a non starter.

Let's grant you the premise. Is being a congregant necessarily nontrivial? And if church is theological are ideological view points by necessity nontrivial?

Quote:

You see, visit with and spend a day a week with someone for several hours, every week for 20 years. Are you really going to try to pass off the "trivial" relationship? Really?

Again, let's accept that, so then it logically follows that all congregants share the very same beliefs? More importantly, that congregants are less likely to share identical ideological beliefs than theological ones. Nearly all evangelical Christians believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, they aren't all Republicans.

Quote:

Ah... but was your mother a mormon and made you attend mormon temple for twenty years?

Yes (it was church. I only attended the temple on certain occasions). She made me attend until I didn't need her to make me. Which was probably in my teens.

Quote:

You have made a choice. Obama made the same choice.. and he sat there for 20 years. Now I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack, but if you sit there for 20 years, you have made a choice that you like what you hear. If you didn't like it, you'd leave.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I was a Mormon for more than 30 years and there was much I didn't like and much I disagreed with. See, here is the point. Belief and attendance to a church isn't about complete agreement. It might surprise some people to find out that congregants are diverse with different view points. Most Mormons are Republican but not all. Harry Reid is Mormon and he is the Democrat Senate Majority leader.

gnome · 23rd May 2012, 09:37 AM

Someont brought up Tonkin... while it may be inaccurate to say that the government invented the incident to justify war, is it really terribly different to use bad information with no regard to its accuracy for the same purpose? As far as I can tell, that's what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin "second incident"

crimresearch · 23rd May 2012, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by TruthersLie

Wowsers... project much?

Can you tell me where I said any of what you just claimed? Feel free.

After you point out where I said my post had anything to do with you, instead of the several posts here that *did* label Wright's speech as 'racist'.

And then after that you can point out where I said that Wright was a racist, as you just claimed I projected.

I won't be holding my breath.

xjx388 · 23rd May 2012, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I was a Mormon for more than 30 years and there was much I didn't like and much I disagreed with. See, here is the point. Belief and attendance to a church isn't about complete agreement. It might surprise some people to find out that congregants are diverse with different view points. Most Mormons are Republican but not all. Harry Reid is Mormon and he is the Democrat Senate Majority leader.

I was a Catholic for 30 years. I totally disagreed with a lot of things too. But if my Priest had begun preaching outright fabrications about the US Govt based on racial propaganda, I don't think I would have stuck around as long as I did.

RandFan · 23rd May 2012, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by xjx388

I was a Catholic for 30 years. I totally disagreed with a lot of things too. But if my Priest had begun preaching outright fabrications about the US Govt based on racial propaganda, I don't think I would have stuck around as long as I did.

Yes. Walking on water, turning water into wine, talking snakes, talking donkeys, witches, *genocide, drowning children, tribalism. I see your point. You obviously had the common sense, critical thinking and skepticism necassary to see past racism and outright fabrications.

BTW: The Book of Mormon is an outright fabrication. Not letting blacks hold the priesthood is racism. I guess that doesn't speak well of Romney (or me for that matter but at least I eventually left, as did Obama. Romney?).

*Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"

Silly Green Monkey · 23rd May 2012, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by TruthersLie

Other than the whole nationalized health care, quadrupling the national debt and about a dozen other "liberal" "left" ideas... he hasn't shown any left leaning inclinations...

*until Clinton/Bush, the republicans had the high ground on fiscal responsibility

Wait, you mean the Republican health care system that Obama copied? The one Romney installed in Massachusetts a while back? That "liberal" "left" idea? I had no idea the Republicans were so liberal. Same goes for increasing the national debt, the only president in the last thirty years to NOT increase the national debt was Clinton. What's this high ground again?

AvalonXQ · 23rd May 2012, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Wait, you mean the Republican health care system that Obama copied?

Even if you're right that ObamaCare copied all 70 pages of RomneyCare, do you mind telling us where the other 2,330 pages of ObamaCare came from?

Silly Green Monkey · 23rd May 2012, 06:54 PM

I don't mean RomneyCare, I mean the health care proposed in the 90s in response to HilaryCare.

crimresearch · 23rd May 2012, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

I don't mean RomneyCare, I mean the health care proposed in the 90s in response to HilaryCare.

Ahhhh.. TennCare. You might want to quit while you are ahead.

Ausmerican · 23rd May 2012, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Y'know, back in '08, I said I'd never vote for a Mormon as President. Eventually somebody talked me out of that.

I wonder if the same will eventually happen with atheists.

So does this mean that, at this time, you will not vote for atheists?

AvalonXQ · 23rd May 2012, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ausmerican

So does this mean that, at this time, you will not vote for atheists?

Correct.

Ausmerican · 23rd May 2012, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Correct.

So, when it comes to politics, you have a religious litmus test that is in opposition to the constitution? At least you are honest in your bigotry I suppose.

RandFan · 23rd May 2012, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by Ausmerican

So does this mean that, at this time, you will not vote for atheists?

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Correct.

Understandable. They are misogynistic, have a tradition of racism and are based on fraud.

Oh wait, that's Mormonism. Atheist don't believe in god which is bad because... wait, what?

AvalonXQ · 23rd May 2012, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Ausmerican

So, when it comes to politics, you have a religious litmus test that is in opposition to the constitution?

The Constitution doesn't have anything to say about an individual voter restricting her votes according to religious preference.

There are a lot of things that can matter to a voter but would be wrong if codified into law as requirements of office.

Ausmerican · 23rd May 2012, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The Constitution doesn't have anything to say about an individual voter restricting her votes according to religious preference.

There are a lot of things that can matter to a voter but would be wrong if codified into law as requirements of office.

Well, like I said, at least you are an honest bigot.
Seems incredible to me that if you are given the choice between possibly the greatest President ever and a complete reprobate, you would choose either the reprobate or to not vote rather than vote for the great choice if he doesn't share your particular superstition.

AvalonXQ · 23rd May 2012, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by Ausmerican

Well, like I said, at least you are an honest bigot.

Bigot, bigot, bigot.

Ausmerican · 23rd May 2012, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Bigot, bigot, bigot.

Is there a word that means the same thing that you prefer?
The particular religion you follow has the instruction "Judge not lest ye be judged." and yet you seem to have judged an entire class of people unfit to hold elected office in your country. Ask among the atheists here and you will find no such prohibition against voting for the religious. The fanatical yes, but not the religious.

Still, your bible tells you not to judge, the constitution advises against religious tests for political office and yet you prefer to take a path that makes you less inclusive than those you are prejudiced against.

It's like Ghandi said; “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Must be hard to live up to ideals that the founding fathers and Jesus cant, I sympathize.

RandFan · 23rd May 2012, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Bigot, bigot, bigot.

Is there a reason why a Mormon would be preferential to an atheist?

Tricky · 23rd May 2012, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Bigot, bigot, bigot.

Well, yeah. Voting against a candidate strictly for their religious beliefs without any consideration of their positions on issues is a textbook example of bigotry. I think you're a nice guy, Avalon, but even nice guys can be bigots. I grew up in Alabama and most of my family are racists. That doesn't mean they're not nice in many other ways.

22nd May 2012, 01:30 PM	#81
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,955	Originally Posted by Brainster You consistently get that guilt by association fallacy wrong , and it's tiresome. What gets tiresome is the petty insults. I get things wrong. I'm one who will admit when I'm wrong. Could we have a cordial conversation? If I've offended you in the past by being snarky I apologize. I could be wrong. I don't think I am though. Let's discuss it without accusations, fair? Quote: Guilt by association takes a (relatively) trivial commonality between two things and then draws the false inference that the two things are therefore alike in other ways as well. How is being a congregant in a church more than trivial? Does being a member of Wright's church prove that Obama shares any or all of Wrights ideological beliefs? And how is being a casual associate based on circumstance not trivial? Quote: It is not a fallacy to point out that Obama associates with distasteful people like Wright and Ayers. I'm sorry, no, it depends on the basis for the association. I don't find Wright particularly distasteful. The relationship between Wright and Obama is religion and not shared political views. An association doesn't constitute agreement on ideology. I have associates with many people I do not share beliefs with. My mother is Mormon. That doesn't make me a Mormon. I worked for a company owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I became close friends and associates of many members. That didn't make me a Seventh Day Adventist. Ayers and Obama were casual associates based on circumstance only. Quote: If you met someone who told you he was good buddies with David Duke, would that tend to make you wonder about his character? Ayers and Obama are NOT good buddies. Lots of "good" buddies have been cops and criminals. Liddy and Timothy Leary.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

22nd May 2012, 01:43 PM	#82
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by RandFan How is being a congregant in a church more than trivial? It is if you're doing it right -- if your church affiliation isn't simply a matter of political convenience. If being in your pew at a popular black church on Sunday morning is basically the same to you as being in your box at the opera on Friday night -- an opportunity to see and be seen by the right people as engaging in the right activities -- then what the sermon says (or how good the singers are) is absolutely trivial. I think that if more people believed this is the sort of "Christian" that Obama was and is, they wouldn't vote for him.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

22nd May 2012, 02:43 PM	#83
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,955	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ It is if you're doing it right -- if your church affiliation isn't simply a matter of political convenience. If being in your pew at a popular black church on Sunday morning is basically the same to you as being in your box at the opera on Friday night -- an opportunity to see and be seen by the right people as engaging in the right activities -- then what the sermon says (or how good the singers are) is absolutely trivial. I think that if more people believed this is the sort of "Christian" that Obama was and is, they wouldn't vote for him. I completely agree. Americans have a bizarre blind spot when it comes to religion. We haven't always had it. Robert G. Ingersoll was a hugely popular political leader and atheist. He was also a Republican. Originally Posted by -Robert Green Ingersoll We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years. -- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Gods" (1872) Have politician say that today and not catch holy hell.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

22nd May 2012, 02:57 PM	#84
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Y'know, back in '08, I said I'd never vote for a Mormon as President. Eventually somebody talked me out of that. I wonder if the same will eventually happen with atheists.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

22nd May 2012, 03:01 PM	#85
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,955	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Y'know, back in '08, I said I'd never vote for a Mormon as President. Eventually somebody talked me out of that. I wonder if the same will eventually happen with atheists. Yeah, I think so. BTW: I was dead set against a Mormon president. But I liked Huntsman and I was on the fence for awhile. I found him very reasonable even though I did not like his politics. And, FWIW: I could vote for Romney. I don't think he is the severe conservative he claims. God help Obama if enough independents are willing to give Romney a pass on the primary. That's not to say I think he will govern as liberal as he did as Governor but I really don't think he would be as conservative as Santorum or Gingrich. We will see. At this point I don't see me moving away from Obama though.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

22nd May 2012, 04:21 PM	#86
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,541	Originally Posted by RandFan What gets tiresome is the petty insults. What petty insults? I see no insults petty or grand in my reply to you whatsoever. Do feel free to point them out.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

22nd May 2012, 04:31 PM	#87
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,779	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ It is if you're doing it right -- if your church affiliation isn't simply a matter of political convenience. If being in your pew at a popular black church on Sunday morning is basically the same to you as being in your box at the opera on Friday night -- an opportunity to see and be seen by the right people as engaging in the right activities -- then what the sermon says (or how good the singers are) is absolutely trivial. I think that if more people believed this is the sort of "Christian" that Obama was and is, they wouldn't vote for him. I think calling it 'political convenience' is a bit of an overstatement, but that's essentially why many people go to the church they do. Religious beliefs are becoming more and more personal for a lot Christians in the US, thus finding a church with a pastor/reverend/preacher that closely matches their view is difficult and less important than finding a church that their friends and family go to. Call it 'social convenience'. For many in the US, the days of just agreeing with your church are long gone. I get your point that it's not how church is intended to work, but that is how it's used. My father's part of the family is Catholic and very active in the church, Eucharistic minister and all, yet they routinely disagree with the church and sermons. I doubt that Romney believes everything the LDS church advocates and even spends money on. It wouldn't surprise me if Obama didn't believe in Wright's nuttery, but is a devote Christian who shares belief with many of the other people in the same church. They might go out of tradition, family obligation, theater for the public, social reasons, or the churches other programs.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

22nd May 2012, 04:33 PM	#88
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,955	Originally Posted by Brainster What petty insults? I see no insults petty or grand in my reply to you whatsoever. Do feel free to point them out. Rude and insolent behavior is an insult. Telling me that I frequently get something wrong and that it's tiring to you, that is insulting. But I confess I live in a glass house. I'm just trying to get the people I interact with to be a bit more civil and I'm sincerely trying to be civil. Quote: in·sult to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

22nd May 2012, 06:38 PM	#89
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,541	Originally Posted by RandFan How is being a congregant in a church more than trivial? Does being a member of Wright's church prove that Obama shares any or all of Wrights ideological beliefs? Not trying to be insulting here, but you are wrong. Let's start with the guilt by association thing again. It is not a guilt by association fallacy to point out that Obama freely associated himself with Wright. Indeed, the Wikipedia page you pointed to has another GBA fallacy that illustrates this: Quote: Simon, Karl, Jared, and Brett are all friends of Josh, and they are all petty criminals. Jill is a friend of Josh; therefore, Jill is a petty criminal. A comparable GBA fallacy with regard to Wright would be to point out that one of his parishioners did some bad thing, and therefore Obama was guilty of the same bad thing. But in the example above, I would certainly have "trust issues" with regard to Josh himself; why would he choose to be friends with so many petty criminals? A pastor at your church is not supposed to be some trivial association. The pastor is supposed to be your spiritual guide, someone you look towards for counseling and assistance. Back in the 1960s, my parents disagreed strongly with our local pastor and so we went to another church for several years, and eventually they formed a group of like-minded families and actually hired a priest to come in and perform home masses.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

22nd May 2012, 07:05 PM	#90
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,955	Originally Posted by Brainster Not trying to be insulting here, but you are wrong. Cool. Not that I agree but I don't find that at all insulting. Quote: Let's start with the guilt by association thing again. It is not a guilt by association fallacy to point out that Obama freely associated himself with Wright. Indeed, the Wikipedia page you pointed to has another GBA fallacy that illustrates this: Quote: Simon, Karl, Jared, and Brett are all friends of Josh, and they are all petty criminals. Jill is a friend of Josh; therefore, Jill is a petty criminal. First off, let me say clearly that I understand your argument. I did read this example. I do understand the point being made by wiki and other sites. I don't want to get into a pissing contest so lets see if we can find some common ground. Would you agree that just because my family is Mormon isn't proof that I'm Mormon? Would you agree that just because my family are republicans doesn't prove that I am Republican? These are not casual relationships, right? So, let's not call it a "guilt by association fallacy". Mary is P John is Mary's friend. Therefore John is P. Fallacious, right? Quote: A pastor at your church is not supposed to be some trivial association. The pastor is supposed to be your spiritual guide, someone you look towards for counseling and assistance. Back in the 1960s, my parents disagreed strongly with our local pastor and so we went to another church for several years, and eventually they formed a group of like-minded families and actually hired a priest to come in and perform home masses. "Supposed"? Okay, so let's grant that the association isn't trivial. Wright is a racist. Every congregant of Wrights church must therefore be a racist. You don't see a problem with that line of reasoning? Mormonism was de facto racist. Romney was a Mormon during the time that Mormonism was racist. Therefore Romney was a racist.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 22nd May 2012 at 07:08 PM.

22nd May 2012, 07:15 PM	#91
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,955	That said: Originally Posted by Santa Rosa Junior College source Short Definition: person is bad because of bad associates Example: John must be a snob. He's on the debating team, which is full of snobs. 1. Guilt by association involves making negative judgments about a person or their arguments based SOLELY on their relationship with others. This fallacy is a variation on the ad hominem fallacy. 2. The problem is that many people don't look for any other evidence and thus they leap to the wrong conclusion. 3. Even though it is rational under certain circumstances to judge people by their associates, only rarely will such judgments have a high degree of probability attached to them. I have argued that absent additional evidence, the association alone is proof of nothing.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

22nd May 2012, 07:54 PM	#92
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 18,101	I got it! I can do whatever I want and so long as I sit one day a week listening to somebody preach the opposite all my actions are void and null! That is so awesome. I can snort blow off hookers all week but I'm pious and boring if I sit and listen to someone talk about the horrors of hedonism on Sunday. Obama was on to something. When he discovered his actions were meaningless and only what the words his old Reverend said were important he unlocked the key to allow all of us to be free of the consequence of our own actions. Thank you far right wing lunatics for allowing this to be so.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

22nd May 2012, 10:16 PM	#93
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,541	Originally Posted by RandFan I have argued that absent additional evidence, the association alone is proof of nothing. So Santa Rosa Junior College gets it wrong and Wikipedia has it right. I don't want to spend a whole lot more time on this issue. As I have said before, Obama is not going to be reelected or rejected for a second term based on anything other than the last four years. Reverend Wright is a dead issue.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

22nd May 2012, 10:39 PM	#94
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,955	Originally Posted by Brainster So Santa Rosa Junior College gets it wrong and Wikipedia has it right. Argument by assertion. You never acknowledged that even if we grant that it's not fallacy by association it's STILL a fallacy. John is P. Joan is a friend of John. Joan is P. Fallacious, right? I don't want to spend a lot of time on this either. I was willing to grant you your premises for arguments sake. It would have been nice if you would have acknowledge mine. Please see my sig file.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 22nd May 2012 at 10:40 PM.

23rd May 2012, 12:06 AM	#95
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 18,101	My older brother went to Santa Rosa Jr College. Always seemed a real nice place when I visited. That is all. Sorry for the derail.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

23rd May 2012, 05:47 AM	#96
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey Now we have the choice between a former Illinois senator who's shown no left-leaning inclinations over the last four years, and a former governor who is STILL a member of a church that institutionalized racism until just a couple decades ago, one which he could have left at any time (if he objected). Other than the whole nationalized health care, quadrupling the national debt and about a dozen other "liberal" "left" ideas... he hasn't shown any left leaning inclinations... Personally, I dislike both of them. I really wish there was a party that was pro social advocacy and pro fiscal responsibility... Unfortunately, we get the social advocacy on the left which embraces the far left, tax the rich social welfare on one side. And on the other side we get pro fiscal responsibility* but we get the entire religious right with them. *until Clinton/Bush, the republicans had the high ground on fiscal responsibility
	__________________ "There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)

23rd May 2012, 05:52 AM	#97
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by gnome TruthersLie, care to have a go at my question? Right now I'm looking for anyone who has a problem with Obama and Wright's association to address it. So far nobody has. gnome. I thought I had answered your question. Was there any specific, direct "OMG" moment? Not really. There was a lot of radicalized talk from Wright in many of his sermons. That radicalized speech COULD have influenced a certain young senator who listened to it for 20 years. That POSSIBLE influence COULD affect the way that young senator/now president makes policy decisions, views the world and/or enacts/enforces the laws. Questions about past associations often bring up the issues of CHARACTER. And if the person is in the highest office in the land, making decisions that affect 300 Million Americans, then those CHARACTER questions are valid.
	__________________ "There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)

23rd May 2012, 05:59 AM	#98
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by DavidJames Of course it's a problem anyway YOU look at it. I suggest throwing off your ideological cloak. Judge the man by his actions. Don't cherry pick whatever suits your bias and draw CT like conclusions. It's unbecoming. Ah... but there in lies the rub. At the time in 2008... we have a young black senator who came from nowhere politically. What major piece of legislation did he write? Can you name any off of the top of your head? Which pieces of legislation did he become the face of? I can't name any w/out wikipedia/google. How about you? So how can we "judge the man by his actions" when politically he didn't have ANY worthwhile political actions to judge? So if we can't judge his actions, then what can we judge him by? One of the oldest methods of judging people (note that I personally disagree) is by who their known associates are. When you look at his known associates.... they don't all have sterling reputations or are absolutely aboveboard. That brings up questions about his actions. Where these friendships/associations completely calculated, were they genuine, were they a bit of both? That brings up his actions. I'm not saying I agree with this line of reasoning, but I am trying to explain it. I have numerous problems with the current POTUS, but the entire wright issue is a non issue
	__________________ "There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)

23rd May 2012, 06:09 AM	#99
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by RandFan How is being a congregant in a church more than trivial? Does being a member of Wright's church prove that Obama shares any or all of Wrights ideological beliefs? American politics and religion go together hand in hand. The historical evidence of churches pushing political affiliation is so common as to be a non starter. Quote: And how is being a casual associate based on circumstance not trivial? You see, visit with and spend a day a week with someone for several hours, every week for 20 years. Are you really going to try to pass off the "trivial" relationship? Really? Quote: [list][]I don't find Wright particularly distasteful. Me neither. I think his opinion is wrong and his rhetoric is hurtful to discourse, but I don't find it that distasteful. Apparently neither did Obama for 20 years. Quote: []The relationship between Wright and Obama is religion and not shared political views. Other than the fact that the majority of people vote following their religion and the advice and advocacy of their religious leaders. Nothing to see here folks .... move along. Quote: []An association doesn't constitute agreement on ideology. I have associates with many people I do not share beliefs with. My mother is Mormon. That doesn't make me a Mormon. I worked for a company owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I became close friends and associates of many members. That didn't make me a Seventh Day Adventist. Ah... but was your mother a mormon and made you attend mormon temple for twenty years? You have made a choice. Obama made the same choice.. and he sat there for 20 years. Now I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack, but if you sit there for 20 years, you have made a choice that you like what you hear. If you didn't like it, you'd leave. Quote: []Ayers and Obama were casual associates based on circumstance only. I'll agree with this one... it is like many of the 9/11 CTs who point to the link between Bush and Bin laden family. I could be wrong, there could be a much stronger relationship there, but I think that one is only slightly connected to Obama.
	__________________ "There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)

23rd May 2012, 08:43 AM	#100
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	And still no answer to the OP question.... just the denier-type spin that if a black speaker uses strong rhetoric against racism, then he must be a racist.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

23rd May 2012, 08:50 AM	#101
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	Wowsers... project much? Can you tell me where I said any of what you just claimed? Feel free.
	__________________ "There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)

23rd May 2012, 09:21 AM	#102
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,955	Originally Posted by TruthersLie American politics and religion go together hand in hand. The historical evidence of churches pushing political affiliation is so common as to be a non starter. Let's grant you the premise. Is being a congregant necessarily nontrivial? And if church is theological are ideological view points by necessity nontrivial? Quote: You see, visit with and spend a day a week with someone for several hours, every week for 20 years. Are you really going to try to pass off the "trivial" relationship? Really? Again, let's accept that, so then it logically follows that all congregants share the very same beliefs? More importantly, that congregants are less likely to share identical ideological beliefs than theological ones. Nearly all evangelical Christians believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, they aren't all Republicans. Quote: Ah... but was your mother a mormon and made you attend mormon temple for twenty years? Yes (it was church. I only attended the temple on certain occasions). She made me attend until I didn't need her to make me. Which was probably in my teens. Quote: You have made a choice. Obama made the same choice.. and he sat there for 20 years. Now I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack, but if you sit there for 20 years, you have made a choice that you like what you hear. If you didn't like it, you'd leave. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I was a Mormon for more than 30 years and there was much I didn't like and much I disagreed with. See, here is the point. Belief and attendance to a church isn't about complete agreement. It might surprise some people to find out that congregants are diverse with different view points. Most Mormons are Republican but not all. Harry Reid is Mormon and he is the Democrat Senate Majority leader.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 23rd May 2012 at 10:26 AM.

23rd May 2012, 09:37 AM	#103
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,879	Someont brought up Tonkin... while it may be inaccurate to say that the government invented the incident to justify war, is it really terribly different to use bad information with no regard to its accuracy for the same purpose? As far as I can tell, that's what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin "second incident"
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,879	__________________

23rd May 2012, 09:45 AM	#104
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by TruthersLie Wowsers... project much? Can you tell me where I said any of what you just claimed? Feel free. After you point out where I said my post had anything to do with you, instead of the several posts here that did label Wright's speech as 'racist'. And then after that you can point out where I said that Wright was a racist, as you just claimed I projected. I won't be holding my breath.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

23rd May 2012, 12:16 PM	#105
xjx388 Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,711	Originally Posted by RandFan I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I was a Mormon for more than 30 years and there was much I didn't like and much I disagreed with. See, here is the point. Belief and attendance to a church isn't about complete agreement. It might surprise some people to find out that congregants are diverse with different view points. Most Mormons are Republican but not all. Harry Reid is Mormon and he is the Democrat Senate Majority leader. I was a Catholic for 30 years. I totally disagreed with a lot of things too. But if my Priest had begun preaching outright fabrications about the US Govt based on racial propaganda, I don't think I would have stuck around as long as I did.
xjx388 Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,711	__________________ Hello.

23rd May 2012, 12:22 PM	#106
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,955	Originally Posted by xjx388 I was a Catholic for 30 years. I totally disagreed with a lot of things too. But if my Priest had begun preaching outright fabrications about the US Govt based on racial propaganda, I don't think I would have stuck around as long as I did. Yes. Walking on water, turning water into wine, talking snakes, talking donkeys, witches, genocide, drowning children, tribalism. I see your point. You obviously had the common sense, critical thinking and skepticism necassary to see past racism and outright fabrications. BTW: The Book of Mormon is an outright fabrication. Not letting blacks hold the priesthood is racism. I guess that doesn't speak well of Romney (or me for that matter but at least I eventually left, as did Obama. Romney?). Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 23rd May 2012 at 12:23 PM.

23rd May 2012, 06:23 PM	#107
Silly Green Monkey Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,093	Originally Posted by TruthersLie Other than the whole nationalized health care, quadrupling the national debt and about a dozen other "liberal" "left" ideas... he hasn't shown any left leaning inclinations... *until Clinton/Bush, the republicans had the high ground on fiscal responsibility Wait, you mean the Republican health care system that Obama copied? The one Romney installed in Massachusetts a while back? That "liberal" "left" idea? I had no idea the Republicans were so liberal. Same goes for increasing the national debt, the only president in the last thirty years to NOT increase the national debt was Clinton. What's this high ground again?

23rd May 2012, 06:51 PM	#108
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey Wait, you mean the Republican health care system that Obama copied? Even if you're right that ObamaCare copied all 70 pages of RomneyCare, do you mind telling us where the other 2,330 pages of ObamaCare came from?
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

23rd May 2012, 06:54 PM	#109
Silly Green Monkey Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,093	I don't mean RomneyCare, I mean the health care proposed in the 90s in response to HilaryCare.

23rd May 2012, 07:47 PM	#110
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey I don't mean RomneyCare, I mean the health care proposed in the 90s in response to HilaryCare. Ahhhh.. TennCare. You might want to quit while you are ahead.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

23rd May 2012, 08:11 PM	#111
Ausmerican Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,416	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Y'know, back in '08, I said I'd never vote for a Mormon as President. Eventually somebody talked me out of that. I wonder if the same will eventually happen with atheists. So does this mean that, at this time, you will not vote for atheists?
Ausmerican Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,416	__________________ Everyone must believe in something. I believe I'll go canoeing. Henry David Thoreau

23rd May 2012, 08:26 PM	#112
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Ausmerican So does this mean that, at this time, you will not vote for atheists? Correct.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

23rd May 2012, 08:28 PM	#113
Ausmerican Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,416	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Correct. So, when it comes to politics, you have a religious litmus test that is in opposition to the constitution? At least you are honest in your bigotry I suppose.
Ausmerican Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,416	__________________ Everyone must believe in something. I believe I'll go canoeing. Henry David Thoreau

23rd May 2012, 08:30 PM	#114
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,955	Originally Posted by Ausmerican So does this mean that, at this time, you will not vote for atheists? Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Correct. Understandable. They are misogynistic, have a tradition of racism and are based on fraud. Oh wait, that's Mormonism. Atheist don't believe in god which is bad because... wait, what?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

23rd May 2012, 08:33 PM	#115
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Ausmerican So, when it comes to politics, you have a religious litmus test that is in opposition to the constitution? The Constitution doesn't have anything to say about an individual voter restricting her votes according to religious preference. There are a lot of things that can matter to a voter but would be wrong if codified into law as requirements of office.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853