PDA

View Full Version : Obama apologizes to Nancy Reagan


Preacher
11-08-2008, 01:21 AM
I caught it as soon as he said it. I wonder, if he likes going off the cuff a bit, just what awaits us in those slips of the tongue?

Sad, actually, because from what I saw (I was at primanti's at the time, reading it on the bottom of the screen) he actually did a pretty good job. He squarely placed himself center-left today, fell into a proper role of president-elect showing due respect to president Bush.

He came across not quite as tough as I would have wanted on foreign policy, but a heck of a lot tougher than many democrats seem to be now-a-days.

However, that backhanded shot at Nancy Reagan which, when thought through was actually a shot at Hillary Clinton (see below) will probably be referenced in the future, and not in a good way.

I guess it takes a little while to switch from campaign mode to president mode.

Obama apologizes to Nancy Reagan for 'careless' joke

President-elect Barack Obama called Nancy Reagan this afternoon to apologize for a joke about her having held "sťances" in the White House, an Obama aide said.
“President-elect Barack Obama called Nancy Reagan today to apologize for the careless and off handed remark he made during today’s press conference," said transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. "The President-elect expressed his admiration and affection for Mrs. Reagan that so many Americans share and they had a warm conversation."
Obama was asked (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1108/Obama_has_spoken_only_to_living_presidents.html?sh owall) at his press conference today if he'd spoken to all the "living" presidents.
"I have spoken to all of them who are living," he responded. "I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any sťances."
He was apparently confusing stories about Reagan's consulting with an astrologer with those about other First Ladies -- from Mary Todd Lincoln to Hillary Clinton -- who tried to make contact with figures from the past.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1108/Obama_apologizes_to_Nancy_Reagan.html

augustashark
11-08-2008, 01:34 AM
:thmbdown::shake01::shake02::paperbag::alcoholic

Vis
11-08-2008, 06:30 AM
Lost an election? Attack on inability to tell a joke. Way to keep it high minded, preach.

stillers4me
11-08-2008, 06:57 AM
Lost an election? Attack on inability to tell a joke. Way to keep it high minded, preach.

It's more than the inability to tell a joke. You don't want to start out your presidential career by being remembered as being insulting and insensitive to a former first lady and the wife of one of the most beloved presidents in recent history. Especially if you want people to respect your own first lady. Not a good first impression. He needs to be careful of these thing.......one or two more little gaffes like that and he will always be portrayed being arrogant and insensitve. Go figure......this out of the mouth that made the "guns and religion" comment.

I can't imagine why people would consider him arrogent and insensitive. :hunch:

The Patriot
11-08-2008, 07:31 AM
Here's a better one.
What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?....Lipstick! :rofl:


:coffee: Okay seriously though, time to fire up the Impeacher 3000 and set it on idle.

klick81
11-08-2008, 09:34 AM
Here's a better one.
What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?....Lipstick! :rofl:


:coffee: Okay seriously though, time to fire up the Impeacher 3000 and set it on idle.

:sofunny:

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-08-2008, 10:09 AM
Here's a better one.
What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?....Lipstick! :rofl:


:coffee: Okay seriously though, time to fire up the Impeacher 3000 and set it on idle.

Whats the difference between a Hoover and a Patriots fan....the position of the dirtbag.
:tt::tt::tt:

Originally Posted by lamberts-lost-tooth
What are you going to say, I was too rough?

tony hipchest
11-08-2008, 10:45 AM
in other news-

the white side of obama called himself a "mutt". i.e. mixbreed.

he has since apologized to his black half. :rolleyes:

Leftoverhard
11-08-2008, 10:50 AM
Wow, what a story. ZZzzzzzzzzzzz.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-08-2008, 10:51 AM
in other news-

the white side of obama called himself a "mutt". i.e. mixbreed.

he has since apologized to his black half. :rolleyes:

From the expert on being two-faced?

originally posted by tony hipchest
it was just a joke.

just get it, laugh, and we will move on.

tony hipchest
11-08-2008, 10:57 AM
*snap, crackle, POP*?

looks like its just a matter of time.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-08-2008, 11:00 AM
*snap, crackle, POP*?

looks like its just a matter of time.

Oh thats right....anyone who disagrees with Tony's "non-facts" and lack of knowledge ...is "crazy".:rofl:

Preacher
11-08-2008, 11:12 AM
Funny...

I was actually giving a non-partisan assessment... giving props to the man where they were due, and observing the two weak points of the meeting.

Yet, VIS...

I am not high-minded... for speaking my mind? I think the one that isn't high-minded is the one that insulted a 90-something year old former first lady on national television in his first post-election presser while the world was watching.

No, you skip over the fact that I said He did a pretty good job. You skip over the fact that I said he was a heck of a lot tougher (in foriegn policy ) than many of the democrats today.

You ALSO skip over the fact that I give him an out "I guess it takes a while to switch from campaign mode to president mode."

Nope... can't read or respond to any of those.

And beyond all that... If all of the "Bushisms" are fair game, then the "Obamaisms" are absolutely fair game as well.

Buckle up.

Dino 6 Rings
11-08-2008, 06:47 PM
What's great. For the next 4 years I can say whatever I want about the Current Senator from Illionis President Elect Obama, and not have to defend a single thing I say. Kind of like the last 6 years of endless attacks on Bush.

So with 1456 days til the next Election I'd like to get started.

I look forward to watching as B.O. attempts to run this country because honestly, he is under qualified and way in over his head. His first step at "Change" was to appoint a Former Clinton guy to be chief of staff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

Wow, what "Change"

Preacher
11-08-2008, 06:53 PM
Here's a better one.
What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?....Lipstick! :rofl:


:coffee: Okay seriously though, time to fire up the Impeacher 3000 and set it on idle.

You mean like the Dems did with Bush?

There was plenty of talk about impeachment for no reason, which in my opinion, was why it was seriously never put on the table.

And no, impeachment is the last answer, not the first... Like when a governor uses his position to gain sexual favors on women, violating numerous sexual harassment laws.

______________________________________________

No,

Like I said before, Obama is the president and deserves the respect due a president. I will, however, ask questions about things that pique my interest. A shot at a former first lady did pique my interest. He quickly realized what he did and apologized. Good for him. But it is worth keeping track of to see if it becomes a pattern.... if he really wants to heal washington an be bipartisan or not. Taking shots at the Reps. greatest president since TR is not how you do that.

Dino 6 Rings
11-08-2008, 07:21 PM
Wow, B.O. already found a way to vote "present" as President Elect.

Obama makes 'no commitment' on missle shield.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081108181056.uyrb8o2l&show_article=1

MACH1
11-08-2008, 07:54 PM
Wow, B.O. already found a way to vote "present" as President Elect.

Obama makes 'no commitment' on missle shield.


Somehow it doesn't surprise me.

Preacher
11-08-2008, 08:47 PM
Wow, B.O. already found a way to vote "present" as President Elect.

Obama makes 'no commitment' on missle shield.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081108181056.uyrb8o2l&show_article=1

Somehow it doesn't surprise me.

We have to be honest here.

Obama only has two choices, say he fully supports Bush's plan, and lock himself into a path which he probably does not yet know the ramifications of (he has only been privy to all the info for 2 days), or simply make no commitment.

If he were to do anything else, it undercuts President Bush, which is something he DOESN'T want done... No one does.

So I give him a complete pass on this, and expect a lot more of it until he becomes president. Once he becomes president however, he needs to start making these decisions, QUICKLY.

Borski
11-08-2008, 08:51 PM
Wow, B.O. already found a way to vote "present" as President Elect.

Obama makes 'no commitment' on missle shield.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081108181056.uyrb8o2l&show_article=1

:doh:Thats a fairly big issue for me. I hope they get the shield in place pronto.

Vis
11-09-2008, 12:08 AM
Preach, you defend being petty like a child. But mooommmmm, he did it first... Be petty, enjoy it, but call it what it is.

MACH1
11-09-2008, 01:00 AM
Preach, you defend being petty like a child. But mooommmmm, he did it first... Be petty, enjoy it, but call it what it is.

Insulting a former first lady. Yep, that was real intelligent. At least she's proud to be an American.

Dino 6 Rings
11-09-2008, 11:00 AM
Insulting a former first lady. Yep, that was real intelligent. At least she's proud to be an American.

Don't forget appointing a pure left wing Clinton guy from Chicago to help you "Change" things.

Preacher
11-09-2008, 12:41 PM
Preach, you defend being petty like a child. But mooommmmm, he did it first... Be petty, enjoy it, but call it what it is.



it isn't about being a child, it is about throwing so much against the wall that something will stick. Then you jump on what sticks and hammer it until the president becomes unpopular and you can beat that party in the next elections.

That is what the democrat party taught the republican party. That is how to get a guy elected. So the Republicans and conservatives will follow suit.

Steel Duck
11-09-2008, 12:46 PM
I don't see why there are 3 pages of this crap......:doh:

tony hipchest
11-09-2008, 01:03 PM
sour grapes.

the bitter gotta try and find something to hang their hats on.

i never realized the conservative base were such champions for astrology, and reading tea leaves. :noidea:

stillers4me
11-09-2008, 01:31 PM
sour grapes.

the bitter gotta try and find something to hang their hats on.

i never realized the conservative base were such champions for astrology, and reading tea leaves. :noidea:

No sour grpaes at all.

We're just a bunch of redneck racists clinging to our guns and religion. :hunch:

Preacher
11-09-2008, 01:34 PM
sour grapes.

the bitter gotta try and find something to hang their hats on.

i never realized the conservative base were such champions for astrology, and reading tea leaves. :noidea:


I wonder what it says about the liberal base over the last 8 years? :chuckle:

This is going to be a FUN 4 years!

tony hipchest
11-09-2008, 01:37 PM
no tailgating today preacher?

by "fun" i hope you mean without 4000 troops killed, thousands more disabled, huge deficit, recession, and the highest unemployment rate in years.

Hines0wnz
11-09-2008, 02:19 PM
This happened already? I havent even gotten my Obama gaffe blog started yet because I figured I would not have any material until late January. Mr Obama certainly is an overachiever! :hatsoff:

I have to agree with Preach and others though. Those of us who have more or less defended Bush have had to put up with the negative press, ridiculous conspiracy theories, outright insults and just plain ignorant comments about the Bush administration. Guess what, the shoe is on the other foot now so dont act like it hasnt happened before and wont happen again. The difference is that its against the administration you voted in. As Preach said "buckle up" and enjoy the next 4 years because everything is fair game now. And on January 21, 2009 we can officially start blaming everything bad that happens on Mr Obama. :drink:

tony hipchest
11-09-2008, 02:38 PM
dont worry, this whole forum will turn into an obama gaffe blog by all the disgruntled bush supporters looking to redeem him once and for all.

and perhaps obama is missing out on a chance of a lifetime. if mrs reagan can hold seances, not only could he talk to all the living presidents. he could talk to all the dead ones as well.

and if anyone knows the future by reading the stars, he may wanna cash in.

revefsreleets
11-09-2008, 02:52 PM
Hey, I, for one, thought it was funny. Nancy Reagan was a kook, holding seances and trying to turn the White House decision making based on astrological advice, etc...the thing that's offensive to me is that Obama apologized.

tony hipchest
11-09-2008, 02:56 PM
:applaudit: :cheers: :thumbsup:

revefsreleets
11-09-2008, 03:03 PM
Hey, I am the TRUE maverick of my party!

augustashark
11-09-2008, 05:17 PM
Hey, I, for one, thought it was funny. Nancy Reagan was a kook, holding seances and trying to turn the White House decision making based on astrological advice, etc...the thing that's offensive to me is that Obama apologized.

You're funny dude, in one post you tell us to home school our kids if we want to teach creationism, but you call Mrs Reagan a "kook" for doing "seances" (which for the record was HRC and not Mrs Reagan) and making decisions on astrological advice. I thought you were all for evolution and star reading.

xfl2001fan
11-09-2008, 05:40 PM
So like, wow. What a funky funky thread to come back to after 3 days at a Range Fire.

The first thing I noticed (after the OP) was that the initials are BO. Which is about how I think the next 4 years are going to smell. But that's just me.

The second is that I think Vis took what Preacher was trying to say waaaay wrong. He's wearing his Dem/Liberal Blinders while reading a post by a Rep/Conservative...and then trying to accuse the other of the same.

Again, just how I saw it.

HometownGal
11-09-2008, 05:50 PM
Personally, I don't find anything funny about insulting a former First Lady who was, and still is, respected, loved and admired by not only the GOP, but the Demos. Mr. Obama should take a good look at his wife and her big yap before he comments on any of our former First Ladies. If Michelle Obama had even a fraction of the class and dignity Mrs. Reagan has, she'd be lucky.

That being said, however, now that Mr. Obama has won the election, the world spotlight is on him and everything from a cough to a fart is going to be reported.

revefsreleets
11-09-2008, 06:50 PM
You're funny dude, in one post you tell us to home school our kids if we want to teach creationism, but you call Mrs Reagan a "kook" for doing "seances" (which for the record was HRC and not Mrs Reagan) and making decisions on astrological advice. I thought you were all for evolution and star reading.


Creationism and astrology are both equal in my book: Equally kooky.

I think you must have me mixed up with several other people. My beliefs are rational and based on the empirical and logical. Fairy tales and fantasies are good fictional reading, though.

As for Nancy Reagan, she's a sacred cow, so perhaps Obama was a bit off base. But there's no doubt that she was a product of the same Hollywood the GOP now bashes, and she brought some of that weirdness with her into the White House.

stillers4me
11-09-2008, 07:20 PM
Personally, I don't find anything funny about insulting a former First Lady who was, and still is, respected, loved and admired by not only the GOP, but the Demos. Mr. Obama should take a good look at his wife and her big yap before he comments on any of our former First Ladies. If Michelle Obama had even a fraction of the class and dignity Mrs. Reagan has, she'd be lucky.

That being said, however, now that Mr. Obama has won the election, the world spotlight is on him and everything from a cough to a fart is going to be reported.

Yep.

No matter. It was a very tacky to thing to say, no matter who it was about.

revefsreleets
11-09-2008, 07:48 PM
I'm going to have to continually disagree. What's tacky is taking Tarot Card readings and Astro Chart readings as a serious and legitimate source of information when running the most powerful nation in the World. Obama got this one right. He will, if nothing else, have a White House devoid of nutty creationists and fundamentalists and crazy spiritualists. It's about time we returned to the rational train of thought the founding fathers envisioned for this country.

SteelCityMan786
11-09-2008, 07:48 PM
Personally, I don't find anything funny about insulting a former First Lady who was, and still is, respected, loved and admired by not only the GOP, but the Demos. Mr. Obama should take a good look at his wife and her big yap before he comments on any of our former First Ladies. If Michelle Obama had even a fraction of the class and dignity Mrs. Reagan has, she'd be lucky.

That being said, however, now that Mr. Obama has won the election, the world spotlight is on him and everything from a cough to a fart is going to be reported.

Especially in the weeks leading up to when he puts his left hand on the bible and raises his right hand.

revefsreleets
11-09-2008, 07:51 PM
I'm a registered Republican and have been since 1986.

The radical religious element of my party is losing touch with reality. Obama is not satan or a muslim or a socialist. He's our new president. That's all.

That' s all.

SteelCityMan786
11-09-2008, 07:54 PM
I'm a registered Republican and have been since 1986.

The radical religious element of my party is losing touch with reality. Obama is not satan or a muslim or a socialist. He's our new president. That's all.

That' s all.

I agree with at least 2 of those terms. Socialist, I'll wait to see how it pans out.

X-Terminator
11-09-2008, 08:01 PM
sour grapes.

the bitter gotta try and find something to hang their hats on.

i never realized the conservative base were such champions for astrology, and reading tea leaves. :noidea:

How about Obama just not going there at all? Joke or not, it was in poor taste, and showed lack of tact. This is the same guy who's wife questioned why conservatives hated them so much after those Palin rallies that got so heated. Well, making off-color jokes about a conservative icon doesn't do much to calm that hatred, now does it?

SteelCityMan786
11-09-2008, 08:08 PM
How about Obama just not going there at all? Joke or not, it was in poor taste, and showed lack of tact. This is the same guy who's wife questioned why conservatives hated them so much after those Palin rallies that got so heated. Well, making off-color jokes about a conservative icon doesn't do much to calm that hatred, now does it?

:thumbsup: :iagree:

revefsreleets
11-09-2008, 08:13 PM
We're at War.
The economy is effed up.
Unemployment is rising.
Our auto industry is in deep trouble.
And there are other effed up things going on.

And Obama is getting gruff for a joke about Nancy Reagan's weird occultism? And I hate to tell you guys, if you research it, it's true. Nancy Reagan WAS a kooky occultist.

Nothing will ever get fixed at this rate.

The Patriot
11-09-2008, 09:01 PM
We're at War.
The economy is effed up.
Unemployment is rising.
Our auto industry is in deep trouble.
And there are other effed up things going on.

And Obama is getting gruff for a joke about Nancy Reagan's weird occultism? And I hate to tell you guys, if you research it, it's true. Nancy Reagan WAS a kooky occultist.

Nothing will ever get fixed at this rate.

Thank you! :drink:

Preacher
11-09-2008, 09:09 PM
I caught it as soon as he said it. I wonder, if he likes going off the cuff a bit, just what awaits us in those slips of the tongue?

Sad, actually, because from what I saw (I was at primanti's at the time, reading it on the bottom of the screen) he actually did a pretty good job. He squarely placed himself center-left today, fell into a proper role of president-elect showing due respect to president Bush.

He came across not quite as tough as I would have wanted on foreign policy, but a heck of a lot tougher than many democrats seem to be now-a-days.

However, that backhanded shot at Nancy Reagan which, when thought through was actually a shot at Hillary Clinton (see below) will probably be referenced in the future, and not in a good way.

I guess it takes a little while to switch from campaign mode to president mode.



http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1108/Obama_apologizes_to_Nancy_Reagan.html

Just quoted to re-orient discussion.

This wasn't about how horrible the man is. As I said starting this thread, for the most part, it was a pretty good press-conference. I give him props where I felt them due, and wondered how he will square wanting to reach across the isle with a joke that puts the Reagan presidency at the butt of the joke, regardless of the validity of the information, which was actually wrong.

Nancy Reagan used astrology. Hillary Clinton is the one that conjured up Eleanor Roosevelt in a "seance" that Obama was referencing (and no, she didn't actually use a seance, it WAS a joke).

Preacher
11-09-2008, 09:12 PM
Creationism and astrology are both equal in my book: Equally kooky.

.

That's interesting. I feel the same way about classic liberalism and evolution. Equally passe with bygone philosophies that didn't get challenged nearly as often as they should.

X-Terminator
11-09-2008, 10:08 PM
We're at War.
The economy is effed up.
Unemployment is rising.
Our auto industry is in deep trouble.
And there are other effed up things going on.

And Obama is getting gruff for a joke about Nancy Reagan's weird occultism? And I hate to tell you guys, if you research it, it's true. Nancy Reagan WAS a kooky occultist.

Nothing will ever get fixed at this rate.

That may be, but it still doesn't answer the question as to why Obama even went there in the first place. Even if you agree that Nancy Reagan was a kook, Obama is soon to be the POTUS. He has to be above making remarks like that - meaning it in a joking fashion doesn't change that. So many people loved Obama because he's so smart...well, I'm sorry, but that wasn't a very smart thing to say.

The Patriot
11-09-2008, 10:12 PM
That may be, but it still doesn't answer the question as to why Obama even went there in the first place. Even if you agree that Nancy Reagan was a kook, Obama is soon to be the POTUS. He has to be above making remarks like that - meaning it in a joking fashion doesn't change that. So many people loved Obama because he's so smart...well, I'm sorry, but that wasn't a very smart thing to say.

He apologized. Get over it!

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-09-2008, 10:16 PM
It's O.K., I am already preparing my next four years of "I told you so's".

"In troubled times, the fearful and naive turn to charismatic radicals"-unknown

Godfather
11-09-2008, 10:46 PM
I have two pieces of advice for Obama:

1) Avoid press conferences. You're not a good speaker--you're a good TelePrompter reader. Big difference that gets exposed when you have to go off the cuff.

2) Fire your jokewriters.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-09-2008, 11:21 PM
I have two pieces of advice for Obama:

1) Avoid press conferences. You're not a good speaker--you're a good TelePrompter reader. Big difference that gets exposed when you have to go off the cuff.

2) Fire your jokewriters.

You saw the one where his teleprompter went out too huh? LOL, "and he's got his breathalizer, i mean inhilator"...lol..you mean "inhaler"? Dumbass....

Anyway, no matter what Obama is screwed. He made too many promises that he can never keep.

-We are spending too much money in Iraq and need to be spending money here at home, but he sponsored the Global Poverty Act leeching 845 billion dollars in foreign aid to the UN over the next 13 years

-He is going to stop deficit spending, but is going to spend over 1 trillion dollars in social programs and the Global Poverty Act

He is all flash, and no substance. When you win an election by spending ungodly amounts of money on your campaign and repeating "Change", "Hope", "Yes we can", and "I'm not like Bush, he is", but never saying a damn thing about how you hope to accomplish this "change", there is something really wrong with America.

Preacher
11-10-2008, 01:08 AM
You saw the one where his teleprompter went out too huh? LOL, "and he's got his breathalizer, i mean inhilator"...lol..you mean "inhaler"? Dumbass....

Anyway, no matter what Obama is screwed. He made too many promises that he can never keep.

-We are spending too much money in Iraq and need to be spending money here at home, but he sponsored the Global Poverty Act leeching 845 billion dollars in foreign aid to the UN over the next 13 years

-He is going to stop deficit spending, but is going to spend over 1 trillion dollars in social programs and the Global Poverty Act

He is all flash, and no substance. When you win an election by spending ungodly amounts of money on your campaign and repeating "Change", "Hope", "Yes we can", and "I'm not like Bush, he is", but never saying a damn thing about how you hope to accomplish this "change", there is something really wrong with America.


We do not know that. I for one, am willing to give the time necessary to learn about this man. He is, after all, going to be my president for at least four years. While I will poke and question about things said, I think it is quite assinine to make full qualitative statements about the man until we actually know what he is going to do. Do I suspect that you're right? Maybe. Then again, maybe not. Let's give the man time to be our president before we draw some final conclusions, shall we?

The Patriot
11-10-2008, 06:33 AM
It's O.K., I am already preparing my next four years of "I told you so's".

"In troubled times, the fearful and naive turn to charismatic radicals"-unknown

We didn't elect a dictator. The legislative and judiciary branches exist for a reason. Through all the obstacles America will face in the coming years, you can be there shouting "I told you so!" but I could care less, because in the end when we succeed, you'll end up looking like the tool you are. :thumbsup:

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-10-2008, 06:48 AM
We didn't elect a dictator. The legislative and judiciary branches exist for a reason. Through all the obstacles America will face in the coming years, you can be there shouting "I told you so!" but I could care less, because in the end when we succeed, you'll end up looking like the tool you are. :thumbsup:

Typical Patriots fan :rofl: (just playing!)

But seriously, we did elect a socialist who has no experience whatsoever and has nothing at all under his belt politically except for the aforementioned act. Do I think the man is a dictator and satan, no, but I do not think he is fit to run the country. I think he was elected based on a Cult of Personality and empty promises he can't hope to keep.

The Patriot
11-10-2008, 07:28 AM
Typical Patriots fan :rofl: (just playing!)

But seriously, we did elect a socialist who has no experience whatsoever and has nothing at all under his belt politically except for the aforementioned act. Do I think the man is a dictator and satan, no, but I do not think he is fit to run the country. I think he was elected based on a Cult of Personality and empty promises he can't hope to keep.

And what makes this country great is the fact that, assuming you are right, because of the balance of power system, a bad president can only do so much damage.

I have faith in Obama but in four years if I percieve a lack of effort or efficiency to fulfill his promises, I will not be hesitant to change my vote.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-10-2008, 07:48 AM
And what makes this country great is the fact that, a bad president can only do so much damage.
.

How come no one realized this and blamed everything Bush? :noidea:

revefsreleets
11-10-2008, 08:38 AM
The left took every advantage of 20/20 hindsight to literally go back and revise history under Bush, especially as to their culpability in the Iraq War. I want to try and stay above that kind of thing and give Obama at least a chance. The country is too messed up to play politics and try and muddy things up for the guy.

Nancy Reagan was a little nutty. He apolgized...let's not waste too much time on this.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1988/1101880516_400.jpg

The Patriot
11-10-2008, 08:51 AM
How come no one realized this and blamed everything Bush? :noidea:

I have always believed that Bush is one of the more scapegoated presidents. I blame all the politicians who have been running this country over the past decade for the current economoic turmoil, Reps and Dems. However, those politicians have made an effort to distance themselves from the current administration so all the blame has fallen on Bush.

revefsreleets
11-10-2008, 08:55 AM
The governor of Ohio was the latest to play the blame game, stating that the giant sucking sound of a couple hundred thousand jobs drying up in Ohio was, yeah, that's right, you guessed it "All President Bush's fault".

What a cop out.

Leftoverhard
11-10-2008, 09:11 AM
"In troubled times, the fearful and naive turn to charismatic radicals" - unknown


I think "unknown" was talking about about Rush. Or was it Hannity? :chuckle:

tony hipchest
11-10-2008, 02:10 PM
That may be, but it still doesn't answer the question as to why Obama even went there in the first place. Even if you agree that Nancy Reagan was a kook, Obama is soon to be the POTUS. He has to be above making remarks like that - meaning it in a joking fashion doesn't change that. So many people loved Obama because he's so smart...well, I'm sorry, but that wasn't a very smart thing to say.how come nobody is outraged that he referred to himself as a "mutt"?

isnt that derrogitory and in poor taste? this is taking on a very partisan spin. its ok to say something about oneself as long as oneself is the democratic POTUS, but the same person cant say anything about a former republican first lady?

arent some of the ones outraged the same ones who themselves have said much more horrible things about former 1st lady clinton?

how come mrs reagan is strictly off limits to some of our board members but hillary is clearly fair game? wouldnt this be a partisan double standard? how come its acceptable for obama to make fun of his own mixed race but horrible he would take a shot at nancys tarot cards? if he took a shot at tom cruise, im sure everyone would share a non-partisan chuckle.

stlrtruck
11-10-2008, 02:32 PM
how come nobody is outraged that he referred to himself as a "mutt"?

isnt that derrogitory and in poor taste? this is taking on a very partisan spin. its ok to say something about oneself as long as oneself is the democratic POTUS, but the same person cant say anything about a former republican first lady?

arent some of the ones outraged the same ones who themselves have said much more horrible things about former 1st lady clinton?

how come mrs reagan is strictly off limits to some of our board members but hillary is clearly fair game? wouldnt this be a partisan double standard? how come its acceptable for obama to make fun of his own mixed race but horrible he would take a shot at nancys tarot cards? if he took a shot at tom cruise, im sure everyone would share a non-partisan chuckle.

Because Mrs. Reagan didn't have people murdered :rofl:

Personally, I think they should keep those type of non-humorous comments behnd closed doors and to themselves. It prevents such hysteria from taking place. Maybe he was misinformed in his statement or maybe one of his writers wanted him to sound a bit idiotic in his jokes. Either way, the man should have gone right past it and ignored the joke altogether.

This country has become a bunch of whiney arese individuals looking to push the blame on someone else. When will people get a backbone, and stop whining that someone made a bad joke. Was it in poor taste? Yes. Does it mean the man should be crucified over it? No. I'm Mrs. Reagan probably laughed about it while others made some mass hysteria out of it.

Preacher
11-10-2008, 03:18 PM
how come nobody is outraged that he referred to himself as a "mutt"?

isnt that derrogitory and in poor taste? this is taking on a very partisan spin. its ok to say something about oneself as long as oneself is the democratic POTUS, but the same person cant say anything about a former republican first lady?

arent some of the ones outraged the same ones who themselves have said much more horrible things about former 1st lady clinton?

how come mrs reagan is strictly off limits to some of our board members but hillary is clearly fair game? wouldnt this be a partisan double standard? how come its acceptable for obama to make fun of his own mixed race but horrible he would take a shot at nancys tarot cards? if he took a shot at tom cruise, im sure everyone would share a non-partisan chuckle.

Tony.

I could care less what you say about Reagan or his wife. But when a president elect takes a shot... right on the heals of a "let's heal the divide" press conference, it leaves a lot to be desired.

If I said something about Hillary Clinton, who cares. If president Bush something about Clinton as former first lady, it is tacky.

It comes with the position.

++ I am now waiting for a post concerning how bad Bush was, how evil the conservatives are, or something the like, instead of actually answering the question honestly-- and am still waiting for SOMEONE to actually acknowledge my WHOLE original post++.

MACH1
11-10-2008, 03:18 PM
There's a huge difference in poking fun at yourself and insulting someone else. No matter who it is.

Preacher
11-10-2008, 03:23 PM
There's a huge difference in poking fun at yourself and insulting someone else. No matter who it is.

Self deprecating humor makes one look just vulnerable enough to be seen as not arrogant. With the charisma Obama has, if he engaged in just a bit of it (which he has done on occasion) with a little better jokes, you would see his likability soar and stay there.

You have to, however, have the right kind of personality for it. Reagan had it, Bush (either one) did not. Clinton nor Gore had it, but Obama does.

tony hipchest
11-10-2008, 03:49 PM
Because Mrs. Reagan didn't have people murdered :rofl:

Personally, I think they should keep those type of non-humorous comments behnd closed doors and to themselves. It prevents such hysteria from taking place. Maybe he was misinformed in his statement or maybe one of his writers wanted him to sound a bit idiotic in his jokes. Either way, the man should have gone right past it and ignored the joke altogether.

.humor is in the eye of the beholder. i thought it was funny.

and im pretty sure that at this press conference, it was a non scripted answer to a non scripted question. atleast thats how it seemed to me.

i would hate to see political correctness gone overboard turn us into a nation of wussbags.

im almost certain if mccain (or even obama) had cracked a joke about carter or monica lewinsky plenty of people here would be yukking it up.

Hines0wnz
11-10-2008, 04:00 PM
arent some of the ones outraged the same ones who themselves have said much more horrible things about former 1st lady clinton?

how come mrs reagan is strictly off limits to some of our board members but hillary is clearly fair game? wouldnt this be a partisan double standard? how come its acceptable for obama to make fun of his own mixed race but horrible he would take a shot at nancys tarot cards? if he took a shot at tom cruise, im sure everyone would share a non-partisan chuckle.

H. Clinton would be an exception because she is in public office.

And most everyone can agree Tom Cruise is a fruitcake. :wink02:

Preacher
11-10-2008, 04:04 PM
humor is in the eye of the beholder. i thought it was funny.

and im pretty sure that at this press conference, it was a non scripted answer to a non scripted question. atleast thats how it seemed to me.

i would hate to see political correctness gone overboard turn us into a nation of wussbags.

im almost certain if mccain (or even obama) had cracked a joke about carter or monica lewinsky plenty of people here would be yukking it up.

As i said before, it was a (bad) joke, non-scripted. So I agree with you. I just find it interesting... not blowing it out of proportion, that he wasn't aware enough, in a heightened partisan atmosphere, to stay away from a partisan joke. To question whether it is a window to how he thinks... or if it was really just a ill-timed crack, is not wrong.

And no, if McCain would have said something about Hillary. . . I would also have been upset.

Once again, the president has a higher standard to uphold.

tony hipchest
11-10-2008, 04:34 PM
holy cow, he wasnt joking about her being republican, he was joking about her being into astrology and seance, and poking fun at the type of advice he mightve gotten had he called her.

im sure many dumbass reporters were ready to ask why he hadnt called to seek her advice. well im sure he didnt seek council from "bar" bush either.

just so hapens theres no fun jokes to make about GW's mom.

i like that we have a president who can shoot from the hip, keep it light hearted in a presser, and drop the f-bomb in casual conversation.

he smokes too, and is poisoning the air and giving us all cancer! :smoker:

Preacher
11-10-2008, 06:17 PM
holy cow, he wasnt joking about her being republican, he was joking about her being into astrology and seance, and poking fun at the type of advice he mightve gotten had he called her.

im sure many dumbass reporters were ready to ask why he hadnt called to seek her advice. well im sure he didnt seek council from "bar" bush either.

just so hapens theres no fun jokes to make about GW's mom.

i like that we have a president who can shoot from the hip, keep it light hearted in a presser, and drop the f-bomb in casual conversation.

he smokes too, and is poisoning the air and giving us all cancer! :smoker:

I never said he was joking about her being republican. Let's stay on topic and discuss the question asked.... for once please.

tony hipchest
11-10-2008, 06:27 PM
I never said he was joking about her being republican. Let's stay on topic and discuss the question asked.... for once please.

for once please....

represent yourself correctly then.

post 13Funny...

I was actually giving a non-partisan assessment...

post 15 if he really wants to heal washington an be bipartisan or not. Taking shots at the Reps. greatest president since TR is not how you do that.

post 23That is what the democrat party taught the republican party. That is how to get a guy elected. So the Republicans and conservatives will follow suit.

post 65++ I am now waiting for a post concerning how bad Bush was, how evil the conservatives are,

post 70in a heightened partisan atmosphere, to stay away from a partisan joke.

that he wasn't aware enough, in a heightened partisan atmosphere, to stay away from a partisan joke

it had nothing to do with republican, democrat, or politics in general. you made it as such.

who started this thread anyways and was there really a point other than being the ultra-PC police?

NJarhead
11-10-2008, 06:38 PM
I loved Ronald and Nancy Reagan. I do not love Barrack Obama; so really, who gives a sh*t that he said it, and who gives a sh*t that he apologizes for it? In one hundred years, who's gonna care? :coffee:

MasterOfPuppets
11-10-2008, 07:05 PM
I loved Ronald and Nancy Reagan. I do not love Barrack Obama; so really, who gives a sh*t that he said it, and who gives a sh*t that he apologizes for it? In one hundred years, who's gonna care? :coffee:hell....i don't care now.....:noidea:

NJarhead
11-10-2008, 07:17 PM
hell....i don't care now.....:noidea:

:laughing:

GBMelBlount
11-10-2008, 07:21 PM
hell....i don't care now.....:noidea:

:stupid: :chuckle:

Preacher
11-10-2008, 09:06 PM
for once please....

represent yourself correctly then. . .


it had nothing to do with republican, democrat, or politics in general. you made it as such.

who started this thread anyways and was there really a point other than being the ultra-PC police?

Tony, by cutting and pasting, I could make anyone say anything as well. Nice try but you forgot context. I was answering other posts in half of those. SO let us try again without you twisting what was said.

Let's start again with the first post shall we?

I caught it as soon as he said it. I wonder, if he likes going off the cuff a bit, just what awaits us in those slips of the tongue?

Sad, actually, because from what I saw (I was at primanti's at the time, reading it on the bottom of the screen) he actually did a pretty good job. He squarely placed himself center-left today, fell into a proper role of president-elect showing due respect to president Bush.

He came across not quite as tough as I would have wanted on foreign policy, but a heck of a lot tougher than many democrats seem to be now-a-days.

However, that backhanded shot at Nancy Reagan which, when thought through was actually a shot at Hillary Clinton (see below) will probably be referenced in the future, and not in a good way.

I guess it takes a little while to switch from campaign mode to president mode.

Now Tony, as you were saying in the election, I am more interested at this point in HOW things are being done.. in the process.

So let's try this one more time.. and see if you can actually engage in a discussion with me.

As a conservative looking at a liberal president elect, I was mildly surprised but what he said. He sounded a bit more hawkish on foriegn policy than I expected from a democrat. While he wasn't as hawkish as I would have wanted, I give him props. I really give him props for being VERY careful to fall under president Bush's leadership until it is his turn in late January. As a result, I see him (right now) as center-left. He also desired to reach across the aisle. But in doing so, misspoke (as a joke, and I even admit, not pre-planned) about Nancy Reagan.

Can I not ask questions about why he made a joke? It doesn't strike you as interesting that he wouldn't be careful not to offend the conservatives just a few minutes after he talked about reaching across the aisle to them?

talk about PC.

I am still waiting for you to answer a question straight up Tony.

Leftoverhard
11-10-2008, 10:03 PM
he smokes too :smoker:

I thought he quit.

What are we talking about again?

Preacher
11-10-2008, 10:05 PM
I thought he quit.

What are we talking about again?

The stress he'll go through the next 4 years.. I doubt that if he did quit, he will stay "smoke free"

That is a heck of a job.

The fact of the matter is, you have what, about a 1000 people that makes a decision which, if it is the wrong decision, is YOUR wrong decision. What a heck of a job.

tony hipchest
11-10-2008, 10:36 PM
Tony, by cutting and pasting, I could make anyone say anything as well. Nice try but you forgot context. I was answering other posts in half of those. SO let us try again without you twisting what was said.

Let's start again with the first post shall we?



Now Tony, as you were saying in the election, I am more interested at this point in HOW things are being done.. in the process.

So let's try this one more time.. and see if you can actually engage in a discussion with me.

As a conservative looking at a liberal president elect, I was mildly surprised but what he said. He sounded a bit more hawkish on foriegn policy than I expected from a democrat. While he wasn't as hawkish as I would have wanted, I give him props. I really give him props for being VERY careful to fall under president Bush's leadership until it is his turn in late January. As a result, I see him (right now) as center-left. He also desired to reach across the aisle. But in doing so, misspoke (as a joke, and I even admit, not pre-planned) about Nancy Reagan.

Can I not ask questions about why he made a joke? It doesn't strike you as interesting that he wouldn't be careful not to offend the conservatives just a few minutes after he talked about reaching across the aisle to them?

talk about PC.

I am still waiting for you to answer a question straight up Tony.
oh God. here we go again, tearing a page right out of LLT's book.

lets see how this plays out...

you repeatedly ask "a question".

i will answer. my answer will not meet the criteria for the answer one wants to hear, and one will go on denying an answer ever being given.

why did obama make a joke? much for the same reason i do. to make people laugh. laughture is good medicine.

offending "conservatives"? only the supersensitive uber PC ones.

can i not ask a question about why you guys are so hypersensitive over such a meaningless joke, especially when veiled under the guise of wanting to have an "honest non partisan" discussion of obamas politics?

lets be real. you werent "mildly suprised". i think you were looking to incite outrage.

so does the "joke" upset all the "left middle" talk/diatribe you are posting? if so, i am sorry.

bush is still the president. i dont see why you are suprised about obamas stance on that. as far as the hawkish remarks, maybe you shouldnt steroetype all democrats as tree hugging liberals.:noidea:

seriously i dont know what 'answer " it is you want. perhaps LLT can help you out there.

a joke is a joke. it doesnt set policy.

Preacher
11-10-2008, 11:24 PM
oh God. here we go again, tearing a page right out of LLT's book.

lets see how this plays out...

you repeatedly ask "a question".

i will answer. my answer will not meet the criteria for the answer one wants to hear, and one will go on denying an answer ever being given.

why did obama make a joke? much for the same reason i do. to make people laugh. laughture is good medicine.

offending "conservatives"? only the supersensitive uber PC ones.

can i not ask a question about why you guys are so hypersensitive over such a meaningless joke, especially when veiled under the guise of wanting to have an "honest non partisan" discussion of obamas politics?

lets be real. you werent "mildly suprised". i think you were looking to incite outrage.

so does the "joke" upset all the "left middle" talk/diatribe you are posting? if so, i am sorry.

bush is still the president. i dont see why you are suprised about obamas stance on that. as far as the hawkish remarks, maybe you shouldnt steroetype all democrats as tree hugging liberals.:noidea:

seriously i dont know what 'answer " it is you want. perhaps LLT can help you out there.

a joke is a joke. it doesnt set policy.

Talk about a diatribe :chuckle:

and getting a bit personal when I am trying to pin down for an answer.

Tony, what I am driving at, is refusing to let you set up strawmen within my arguments and then knock them down, acting like you have actually answered my posts.

If you don't like that, then oh well.
(BTW, Incite outrage? Nice, real nice. If I was trying to do that, I would have posted one of two or three other articles I have come across already, or posted concerning what Obama said... BEFORE he apologized.. or ignored the apology. BUT believe what you want).

stlrtruck
11-10-2008, 11:47 PM
humor is in the eye of the beholder. i thought it was funny.

and im pretty sure that at this press conference, it was a non scripted answer to a non scripted question. atleast thats how it seemed to me.

i would hate to see political correctness gone overboard turn us into a nation of wussbags.

im almost certain if mccain (or even obama) had cracked a joke about carter or monica lewinsky plenty of people here would be yukking it up.

It seems that the higher up the position in this country the less humor they are allowed. However, Obama should recognize that with the hyper-sensitivity of this country right now he needs to lay off the jokes.

To be honest about it, he tried to bring levity to a serious situation. Big Deal, we know he has a sense of humor and sometimes it's off - just like the rest of us. I'm not worried about his off the cuff comments, I'm more worried about how he's going to handle being President of the USA!!

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 12:20 AM
Talk about a diatribe :chuckle:

and getting a bit personal when I am trying to pin down for an answer.

Tony, what I am driving at, is refusing to let you set up strawmen within my arguments and then knock them down, acting like you have actually answered my posts.

If you don't like that, then oh well.
(BTW, Incite outrage? Nice, real nice. If I was trying to do that, I would have posted one of two or three other articles I have come across already, or posted concerning what Obama said... BEFORE he apologized.. or ignored the apology. BUT believe what you want).

*sigh*

as predicted....

what type of "answer" is it that you and LLT seek for?

why obama made a joke?

better question is, why did you start such a meaningless :yawn: thread?

heres the (repeated) answer-

obama made a joke because it was funny. its that simple.

you started this thread because....??? (did it have something to do with "non-partisanship"?)

:tap:

bring on your "articles"....

im really interrested in seeing how one defends seances and astrology w/o conflicting their staunch defense of other stances. :popcorn:

augustashark
11-11-2008, 12:36 AM
*sigh*

as predicted....

what type of "answer" is it that you and LLT seek for?

why obama made a joke?

better question is, why did you start such a meaningless :yawn: thread?

heres the (repeated) answer-

obama made a joke because it was funny. its that simple.

you started this thread because....??? (did it have something to do with "non-partisanship"?)

:tap:

bring on your "articles"....

im really interrested in seeing how one defends seances and astrology w/o conflicting their staunch defense of other stances. :popcorn:

Its hard to debate a clown. Seances??? have you even been reading the posts as you go on. Oh btw, you're not that funny.:thumbsup:

Preacher
11-11-2008, 01:19 AM
*sigh*

as predicted....

what type of "answer" is it that you and LLT seek for?

why obama made a joke?

better question is, why did you start such a meaningless :yawn: thread?

heres the (repeated) answer-

obama made a joke because it was funny. its that simple.

you started this thread because....??? (did it have something to do with "non-partisanship"?)

:tap:

bring on your "articles"....

im really interrested in seeing how one defends seances and astrology w/o conflicting their staunch defense of other stances. :popcorn:

Strawmen.

I never asked WHY he made the joke, I asked WHY he would make the joke WHEN it could be taken in a way to offend conservatives IN A PRESSER when AT THE SAME TIME he was TRYING TO REACH ACROSS THE AISLE.

Bad timing? Didn't think through the ramifications? You did answer before that it was just off the cuff, and I agreed. Then I tried to continue on the conversation, thinking we were getting somewhere, and you reverted back to strawmen. So if possibly, can we pick up the conversation there.

Oh yeah, but the way, you can drop the "impartial" ignorance. I never said I was impartial. I am a conservative. Period. Now, let's try the next step, back to the conversation...

You said
humor is in the eye of the beholder. i thought it was funny.

and im pretty sure that at this press conference, it was a non scripted answer to a non scripted question. atleast thats how it seemed to me.

i would hate to see political correctness gone overboard turn us into a nation of wussbags.

im almost certain if mccain (or even obama) had cracked a joke about carter or monica lewinsky plenty of people here would be yukking it up.

The first half is great. Thanks for staying on topic. The second half is attacking windmills (strawmen).

So let's focus on the first half.

I answered:

As i said before, it was a (bad) joke, non-scripted. So I agree with you. I just find it interesting... not blowing it out of proportion, that he wasn't aware enough, in a heightened partisan atmosphere, to stay away from a partisan joke. To question whether it is a window to how he thinks... or if it was really just a ill-timed crack, is not wrong.

And no, if McCain would have said something about Hillary. . . I would also have been upset.

Once again, the president has a higher standard to uphold.

So the question before us is, "why when he is in a heightened partisan atmosphere, [he wasn't awre enough ] to stay away from a partisan joke?

For me, it is one of 3 answers.

1. It is that he simply looks down on the GOP. or
2. He really thought that it would be innocuous, showing that he is a bit unaware of the intense scrutiny that every word he utters will now be put under or
3. He is not yet shifted from campaign mode to president mode.

After only 3 days, I think it is a combination of 2 and 3. 3 will fade away rather quickly. 2 is a little more important.

Tony... without getting into strawman arguments... What are your thoughts?

augustashark
11-11-2008, 01:30 AM
Strawmen.

I never asked WHY he made the joke, I asked WHY he would make the joke WHEN it could be taken in a way to offend conservatives IN A PRESSER when AT THE SAME TIME he was TRYING TO REACH ACROSS THE AISLE.

Bad timing? Didn't think through the ramifications? You did answer before that it was just off the cuff, and I agreed. Then I tried to continue on the conversation, thinking we were getting somewhere, and you reverted back to strawmen. So if possibly, can we pick up the conversation there.

Oh yeah, but the way, you can drop the "impartial" ignorance. I never said I was impartial. I am a conservative. Period. Now, let's try the next step, back to the conversation...

You said


The first half is great. Thanks for staying on topic. The second half is attacking windmills (strawmen).

So let's focus on the first half.

I answered:



So the question before us is, "why when he is in a heightened partisan atmosphere, [he wasn't awre enough ] to stay away from a partisan joke?

For me, it is one of 3 answers.

1. It is that he simply looks down on the GOP. or
2. He really thought that it would be innocuous, showing that he is a bit unaware of the intense scrutiny that every word he utters will now be put under or
3. He is not yet shifted from campaign mode to president mode.

After only 3 days, I think it is a combination of 2 and 3. 3 will fade away rather quickly. 2 is a little more important.

Tony... without getting into strawman arguments... What are your thoughts?


Why continue, you know the answer. Asking for more is just for entertainment.

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 12:09 PM
i smell stinky pink fish. oh, its just a shark floating dead in the water. chum.

So the question before us is, "why when he is in a heightened partisan atmosphere, [he wasn't awre enough ] to stay away from a partisan joke?

For me, it is one of 3 answers.

1. It is that he simply looks down on the GOP. or
2. He really thought that it would be innocuous, showing that he is a bit unaware of the intense scrutiny that every word he utters will now be put under or
3. He is not yet shifted from campaign mode to president mode.

After only 3 days, I think it is a combination of 2 and 3. 3 will fade away rather quickly. 2 is a little more important.

Tony... without getting into strawman arguments... What are your thoughts?precher just because you say it was a partisan joke doesnt mean that it was. my thoughts are that youve made entirely too big of a mountain out of this tiny molehill. you say youre not trying to make this into a partisan issue but #1 says the complete opposite.

it was just a joke and poking fun at reading tea leaves ans stars for advice and to predict the future. that is all. even hannity and rush arent giving this legs.

you want my thoughts, yet you refuse to accept them (where have i seen that before).

non issue. no different than him calling a mixed person a "MUTT".

sorry if you dont find that acceptable. a popular way of dealing with that is pretend i didnt answer and go tell everybody else i wont answer ones questions.

Preacher
11-11-2008, 03:07 PM
i smell stinky pink fish. oh, its just a shark floating dead in the water. chum.

precher just because you say it was a partisan joke doesnt mean that it was. my thoughts are that youve made entirely too big of a mountain out of this tiny molehill. you say youre not trying to make this into a partisan issue but #1 says the complete opposite.

it was just a joke and poking fun at reading tea leaves ans stars for advice and to predict the future. that is all. even hannity and rush arent giving this legs.

you want my thoughts, yet you refuse to accept them (where have i seen that before).

non issue. no different than him calling a mixed person a "MUTT".

sorry if you dont find that acceptable. a popular way of dealing with that is pretend i didnt answer and go tell everybody else i wont answer ones questions.


Tony, I accept your thoughts... as long as they aren't attacking strawmen.

See, you and I agree that it was just a joke. So now, (and I actually said this in the last post, but I guess you didn't read that) I am asking how he could be unaware of how his words will now be taken?

Jeez tony, come on.. its a little hard carrying the conversation for the both of us.

Preacher
11-11-2008, 03:08 PM
Why continue, you know the answer. Asking for more is just for entertainment.


Simple. Because you are wrong. I don't think Obama just looks down on the GOP. He disagrees with them, but doesn't look down on them. In the same way I disagree with the dems, but respect them and understand they have a view point that may be a corrective to mine.

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 04:48 PM
Tony, I accept your thoughts... as long as they aren't attacking strawmen.

See, you and I agree that it was just a joke. So now, (and I actually said this in the last post, but I guess you didn't read that) I am asking how he could be unaware of how his words will now be taken?
i read it. im just not sure which direction you NOW want to take this "conversation".

i get the feeling you wanna beat this dead horse until everybody else surmises that obama isnt ready to be president because he simply made a joke that YOU find so wrong. is that the actual non-partisan point you are trying to get at?

his "words will now be taken" as a simple joke by EVERYBODY except for those ultra conservative PC thought police who are still sour their guy lost and who are intent on grasping at straws to try and knock down the president elect. :noidea:

it is what it is. you can keep on trying to make it more than what it is, and i will continue to downplay it. we're at a stand still.

again... dead horse. this thread has got barbaro written all over it.

btw- speaking of non pc jokes, i remember nancy reagan's guest appearance on "diff'rent strokes" when she went to arnold drummonds class to give her "say no to drugs" speech.

looks like it didnt do too much good for kimberly, willis, and arnold.... :popcorn:

TroysBadDawg
11-12-2008, 01:22 AM
a White House devoid of nutty creationists and fundamentalists and crazy spiritualists. It's about time we returned to the rational train of thought the founding fathers envisioned for this country.

Wait a minute, isn't that the kind of people that the founding fathers of this country were, the fundamentalist, believing in the bible?

Did they not have it in the budget to purchase bibles and give them to the new people who came here?

Ooops I guess I am wrong. They were not crazy Spiritualists they did away with them in Salem.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-12-2008, 01:32 AM
Is Obama going to be a "nutty creationalist" when he is sworn in with his hand on, *gasp*, the BIBLE? If you aren't a Christian, that is fine. Many people have fought and died for your right to not be one, but don't insult someone for what their religious beliefs are...

augustashark
11-12-2008, 02:33 AM
Simple. Because you are wrong. I don't think Obama just looks down on the GOP. He disagrees with them, but doesn't look down on them. In the same way I disagree with the dems, but respect them and understand they have a view point that may be a corrective to mine.

Sorry sir, but you are wrong. You show me anytime (of meaning) where Obama has stood on the correct side of right vs wrong even though it went against his own party.

Also by telling me I am wrong and then start your reasoning with "I think" is down right silly. Would'nt you agree?

Preacher
11-12-2008, 02:39 AM
Sorry sir, but you are wrong. You show me anytime (of meaning) where Obama has stood on the correct side of right vs wrong even though it went against his own party.

Also by telling me I am wrong and then start your reasoning with "I think" is down right silly. Would'nt you agree?

:chuckle:

Yeah, it was probably a little strongly stated. However, I have a gut reaction when people think that Obama simply "looks down on" the GOP just because he is a democrat.

My guess, is that he understands that there are good people on both sides of the aisle, and he just disagrees with the other side.

augustashark
11-12-2008, 02:52 AM
:chuckle:

Yeah, it was probably a little strongly stated. However, I have a gut reaction when people think that Obama simply "looks down on" the GOP just because he is a democrat.

My guess, is that he understands that there are good people on both sides of the aisle, and he just disagrees with the other side.

Well I will say this, we will know our answer within say the first 12 months. I've been through the mans past and I just have'nt seen where he has done anything that would lead me to believe that he will work with republicans. If he is as reported the 2nd most liberal in the senate then I think the answer will come down on my side.

revefsreleets
11-12-2008, 07:58 AM
Wait a minute, isn't that the kind of people that the founding fathers of this country were, the fundamentalist, believing in the bible?

Did they not have it in the budget to purchase bibles and give them to the new people who came here?

Ooops I guess I am wrong. They were not crazy Spiritualists they did away with them in Salem.


Absolutely not. The founding fathers were largely freethinking deists, hardly fundamentalist believers in literal bible interpretation, and most definitely NOT Christians. They may, however, have been creationists, as that was 240 years ago and evolution had not been discovered yet.

If we go back a little farther, everyone believed in a flat Earth. They weren't right, they just didn't know any better.

Preacher
11-12-2008, 02:00 PM
Absolutely not. The founding fathers were largely freethinking deists, hardly fundamentalist believers in literal bible interpretation, and most definitely NOT Christians. They may, however, have been creationists, as that was 240 years ago and evolution had not been discovered yet.

If we go back a little farther, everyone believed in a flat Earth. They weren't right, they just didn't know any better.

The were not for the most part, deists. Both deists and theists were there and represented well on both sides. Furthermore, many of them SPECIFICALLY held to the scriptural accounts of humanity.

While Evolution was not yet a working philosophy (discovered is not an accurate term), atheism was, and was rejected by every man there.

revefsreleets
11-12-2008, 04:57 PM
We've been over this ground before. MOST were deists, but there were some Christians represented. Many were strongly opposed to Christianity, and most did NOT interpret the bible literally. The Constitution does not include anything about religion other than in exclusionary terms. Nowhere do the words: Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible or God appear. Not one time. These were brilliant men...this was not an accident or an oversight.

And I LOVE how you call it a philosophy. It's Evolution THEORY, although there is an eponymous branch of philosophy. There is also a Philosophy of Science which is quite separate from Science itself (although they were considered one and the same until roughly the same time Evolution theory came to the fore).

We see the proof of evolution all around us. Elephant tusks shrinking over the last 150 years due to poaching. Allele's Frequency. Penicillin. Cancer in Tasmanian Devils.

Preacher
11-12-2008, 05:19 PM
We've been over this ground before. MOST were deists, but there were some Christians represented. Many were strongly opposed to Christianity, and most did NOT interpret the bible literally. The Constitution does not include anything about religion other than in exclusionary terms. Nowhere do the words: Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible or God appear. Not one time. These were brilliant men...this was not an accident or an oversight.

And I LOVE how you call it a philosophy. It's Evolution THEORY, although there is an eponymous branch of philosophy. There is also a Philosophy of Science which is quite separate from Science itself (although they were considered one and the same until roughly the same time Evolution theory came to the fore).

We see the proof of evolution all around us. Elephant tusks shrinking over the last 150 years due to poaching. Allele's Frequency. Penicillin. Cancer in Tasmanian Devils.

Yes, we have been over this ground before, mainly because it is foundational to the difference between how you and I assess the world around us.

For every source you site to support your beliefs, I site a source to support mine.

I never argued that God or Jesus appear in the constitution. No reason to. There was, however, an assumption that God GAVE the rights to the people, and a govt. could only take away certain rights based upon the governed's approval. That assumption, is spelled out in the dec. of indep.

However, what is more important, is the issue of evolution.

Yes, it is a philosophy set upon observation. An 18th century pop philosophy that found its way into numerous sciences, including history/theology, economics, and the "hard" sciences. Darwin observed, and laid that pop philosophy, known as Hegel's dialectic, on top of his oberservations and produced what we now know as evolution. The real problem with evolution and science today, is that it dissallows any critique that is not predicated on the same foundation.

In the science of theology, that is called Fideism, and is rejected at the outset.

If the role of science is to assess and re-assess data, why does it reject, out of hand, any other perspective that doesn't accept its premise?

The hard sciences are the only scientia that does not open itself up for inter-disciplinary discussion. That, is a sharper condemnation than anything else. It is, in essense, one massive circular argument.

revefsreleets
11-12-2008, 05:26 PM
Which is precisely what fundamentalist Christians do, but to a much more radical degree. Anything that doesn't fit strict literal interpretation of the bible is tossed, ignored, dismissed or marginalized, no matter how irrational the "argument" needed to dismiss it may be. "Faith" trumps all...even staring in the face of contradictory empirical observed data.

Tasmanian Devil. I say they evolved quickly because they had to. I'm guessing you'll say it's Gods will.

Occam's Razor.

tony hipchest
11-12-2008, 06:42 PM
as a sad sidenote tangent, scientist say tasmanian devils could be extinct in about 10 years...

whats next? komodo dragons?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24510234-5001021,00.html

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-12-2008, 06:51 PM
That's just part of evolution isn't it? Adapt or die right?

Preacher
11-12-2008, 08:11 PM
Which is precisely what fundamentalist Christians do, but to a much more radical degree. Anything that doesn't fit strict literal interpretation of the bible is tossed, ignored, dismissed or marginalized, no matter how irrational the "argument" needed to dismiss it may be. "Faith" trumps all...even staring in the face of contradictory empirical observed data.

Tasmanian Devil. I say they evolved quickly because they had to. I'm guessing you'll say it's Gods will.

Occam's Razor.

On the level of theologians and academia, no. They actually engage and debate. There is a mass movement right now which needs to be identified, consisting of post-liberal and post-conservative theologians, and how they deal with the movement of foundationalism and post-foundationalism. The movement was introduced by the post-modern philosophies and is shaped in large part, by the introductions of quantum physics. The massive ideas presented, including the slowdown in the speed of light, which at one time was thought of as a constant (Heck, by adjusting phase velocities, scientists are adjusting the speed of light... Just like you can hit an accelerator on a car) are pushing many, including theologians, to abandon the foundationalism and positivism.

In other words, the positivism which modernist science AND theology was dependent is more and more showing to NOT be absolute. Now. I ask you, has the sciences that deal with biology received and dealt with these issues as much as theology?

No.

I find it ironic that theology is more responsive to cutting edge science than the sister "hard science" of biology. My guess, is because at the heart of evolution, sits a frustrated and disillusioned theology student, which is what Darwin was.

So let me ask you. Occams Razor. Is it more likely that a sentient being created what we see? Or that non-self locomotive, non-living atoms and particles combined in the precise way necessary, then attained life (violating biogenesis, as it depends on spontaneous generation), then that one life form was able to reproduce. The subsequent life forms, weren't destroyed by the enviroment, but instead also reproduced. Subsequent to that came thousands of mutations, each one having a 1 per million (If I remember my statistics right from college biology-- which was taken from a SECULAR biology professor) chance of not killing the life form, mutating until we have what is before us today.

To me, Occam's Razor- what is more likely... suggests a sentient being as creator, especially when the absolutes that science is using to measure (such as light waves) are now being called into question and shown as no-longer absolute. Laid on top of that is the foundation of biology founded in pop philosophy which has been discarded by sister sciences.

Biology needs to open itself up to other disciplines, just as theology has.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-12-2008, 09:29 PM
I agree with you on this one Preacher. As a biology/chemistry major and a devout Christian I am always battling with myself as far as the origin of life. Personally I think that it is much more likely that life was created by intelligent design that by chance.

Preacher
11-13-2008, 01:15 AM
I agree with you on this one Preacher. As a biology/chemistry major and a devout Christian I am always battling with myself as far as the origin of life. Personally I think that it is much more likely that life was created by intelligent design that by chance.

What are you doing with yourself now?

You know, If I had it all to do over again, and I wasn't a pastor, I think I would go into some kind of genetic field, virology, or Quantum physics.

Of course, I DESPISE math, so they all would be a bit difficult for me!

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-13-2008, 01:30 AM
I am in pre-pharmacy school right now at a local community college. I hear you on the math thing, I have to drop Trig tomorrow because I made the mistake of taking Trig, Microbiology, Stats, and Econ in the same semester and Trig is beyond saving :banging: Every day I doubt whether or not I will make it into Pharmacy school and if I do that, will I be able to get my degree. I always wish I would be happy working at LOWES for the rest of my life, but I want more for myself and my future family. That, and I am already in too deep with student loans to turn back now :doh::crying01:

revefsreleets
11-13-2008, 08:47 AM
The very fact that we are embroiled in this debate undercuts your argument. I'd say evolution has been scrutinized more than just about any other theory ever. It's constantly being questioned and scientists have to continually make their case, which can only be done by constant questioning and application of the scientific method.

But I digress. Tasmaninan Devil's breeding age. Elephant tusks shrinking. These are real world examples that cannot be challenged (which is why, I suspect, you are ignoring them).

My thought is that God created life and life evolves. The evidence for evolution is OVERWHELMING. It's silly to deny it. Fundamentalists have got to find ways to completely deny evolution because it doesn't fit with literal scripture, but literal scripture is contradictory and illogical, often absurd.

Occam's Razor again. The fundies need to gloss over and ignore major glaring contradictions and facts to make things fit. Pure scientific method doesn't need to rely on any crutches.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-13-2008, 11:07 AM
You also have to take into account Micro and Macro-evolution.

The examples you have given are Micro-evolution, as well as the finches that Darwin observed.

revefsreleets
11-13-2008, 11:17 AM
Micro and macro really the same thing. It's like saying you believe in molecules, but not in atoms or protons, electons, and neutrons.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-13-2008, 11:37 AM
http://books.google.com/books?id=PCGhbTrI9QoC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=microevolution+vs.+macroevolution&source=web&ots=9BajZsMRO0&sig=VtetdiHgpnRWmZbwOzUsYkIi0P8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA149,M1

Some good old fashioned brain floss here. Like I said earlier I am torn between my faith and my scientific thinking patterns. I haven't decided for myself what and how I believe exactly, so I am just playing devil's advocate for the sake of an intelligent discussion.

Preacher
11-13-2008, 01:38 PM
Micro and macro really the same thing. It's like saying you believe in molecules, but not in atoms or protons, electons, and neutrons.

No, they are actually very different.

Shrinking elephant tusks, etc. etc. is all apart of INNER special evolution. No Christian denies ADAPTATION.

The problem is cross-special evolution.

Matter of fact, Adaption is the best argument for certain narratives of scripture.

Noah's ark does not have the space to carry two of each animal, even if it is a regionalized flood. Adaption enables us to understand that two felines, two canines, to bovines, etc. brings a much closer account to the narrative.

Adaption also explains race.

Suit. If you are going to argue against what Christians believe, may I suggest you actually pick up some of the actual writings and research done in the areas by theologians, because right now, it seems you are fighting personal demons, and not what is being presented from theological scholarship.

I know of NO Christian that denies adaption.

However, I notice you didn't answer most of my last post. Who was the last theologian you read? What was the last commentary you read on the flood narrative or the creation narrative? Until you understand what is being said and argued from those perspectives, you are falling into the same traps you blame "fundamentalists" of doing.

BTW, "Fundamentalists" aren't the people you are fighting against. They are not the ones engaged in the social battles.

tony hipchest
11-13-2008, 01:50 PM
please, i never misrepresented any of you stances you were able to make clear in the 1st place. in this thread it is quite obvious, you were using OBAMAS joke as a strawman argument against his qualifications or awareness.

Preacher
11-13-2008, 01:52 PM
My thought is that God created life and life evolves
.

So you accept intelligent design. The question you have, is whether that design came through the "unwinding" of evolution as created by God, or God created within the classification of genius and adaption took over (with humanity the crowning achievement as spoken in Genesis 1).

Or do you believe that God would actually take the time to create life, and then let it go on its own in complete and utter chaos to die, and somehow, it made it to this point.

Again, Occam's Razor. Shave down to simplicity what may be used blown up into complexity. Cross-speciel (sp) evolution seems to violate the principle of parsimony. Which is no surprise, as true evolution violates a couple of different scientific methods and laws, which is why, to an outsider, it fails the principle of parsimony test.

revefsreleets
11-13-2008, 02:32 PM
Do you believe in the literal interpretation of Noah's Ark? That will succinctly sum this whole thing up for me if you do.

I have no idea what the fascination is with "strawman" arguments is all of a sudden, but I do understand what the principle is, and am definitely NOT engaging in that practice. This is classic "what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander".

I'm not working backwards from an indoctrinated dogma that stretches credulity to it's breaking point. Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands as a creationist and came away with Evolution, so he had an agenda and learned differently. It takes massive hairsplitting to truly try to tackle evolution, and in fact, the only way you can dissect it is piecemeal, not as a whole, and there is a very real reason for that.

tony hipchest
11-13-2008, 02:35 PM
Tony, Please show me where, ONCE in thethread, I was saying he WASNT qualified. I WAS asking about awareness. That isn't a strawman argument. That is asking questions based on the evidence presented.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

I am ASKING about IF his joke POINTS to a lack of awareness, not ASSUMING it does and arguing from there. i assume you linked me to a definition. thanks. i dont need it. :thumbsup:

perhaps i should link you to the definition of the word "OR" as in "qualifications or awareness..."

does it point to a lack of awareness? no. do you really think someone with a harvard law degree, who taught congressional law, spent several years in politics and several years more studying, planning, and preparing to become president would lack the awareness of the current dynamics of the political spectrum?

heres another strawman argument-

I give him props where I felt them due, and wondered how he will square wanting to reach across the isle with a joke that puts the Reagan presidency at the butt of the joke

obama wasnt joking about ronalds presidency.

Preacher
11-13-2008, 02:37 PM
Do you believe in the literal interpretation of Noah's Ark? That will succinctly sum this whole thing up for me if you do.

I have no idea what the fascination is with "strawman" arguments is all of a sudden, but I do understand what the principle is, and am definitely NOT engaging in that practice. This is classic "what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander".

I went back and changed what I was saying about strawmen, because it didn't fit what I was really trying to say.

When it comes to biblical interpretation, define what you mean by literal, because there is a BROAD definition on what literal means, and many misunderstandings.

When it comes to piecemeal vs. Whole, the reason is because, in order to deal with the whole, you must break it down and deal with one item at a time. As I have said before, the major break in evolution comes between adaption, or inner-speciel evolution and "evolution" or cross-speciel evolution. There are major differences between the two. Even evolution scientists have separated the two, labeling one Micro and one Macro evolution.

What I find more telling however, is the fact that if I somehow believe that there was a man named Noah that had a boat which God told him to build, and he put animals on it, this entire discussion, which ranged from biology to quantum physics, from Hegelian theory to post-foundationalism, can be all wrapped up for you.

What I am getting from that, is that you will choose to ignore any of those other questions I have asked because I will be accused of fideism, since my foundation doesn't agree with evolution, which has become your fideism.

I am not sure how that can be considered free thinking, or free from dogma. Honestly, it sounds like you are quite bound to quite a few theories, to the point where you defend them as vehemently and with some of the same arguments I hear people defending religion.

In other words, I don't buy that your a "free thinker" If you were, you would be as willing to throw evolution overboard as you would be creation, thus, not being bound by either. No, your bound (at least in THIS presentation, I can't say for you, personally), by foundationalism, postivism, and hegelian theory, and dogmatically hold to those.

Preacher
11-13-2008, 02:38 PM
i assume you linked me to a definition. thanks. i dont need it. :thumbsup:

perhaps i should link you to the definition of the word "OR" as in "qualifications or awareness..."

does it point to a lack of awareness? no. do you really think someone with a harvard law degree, who taught congressional law, spent several years in politics and several years more studying, planning, and preparing to become president would lack the awareness of the current dynamics of the political spectrum?

heres another strawman argument-



obama wasnt joking about ronalds presidency.

Tony.. Go back and look at the posts... i changed them... and moved on to a PM.. that I have yet to send to ya...

Preacher
11-13-2008, 02:41 PM
does it point to a lack of awareness? no. do you really think someone with a harvard law degree, who taught congressional law, spent several years in politics and several years more studying, planning, and preparing to become president would lack the awareness of the current dynamics of the political spectrum?



Thank you.

That is the straight type of answer I have been looking for from you in this entire thread.

I think your right in the awareness issue on general, but I wonder when he is speaking extemporaneously, what may happen. It will be interesting to watch.

revefsreleets
11-14-2008, 09:31 AM
Of course I'm a freethinker. Why? Because I broke free of my early indoctrination, the religious upbringing which told me I HAD to view the world through a religious filter, a filter which made me look at things with a preconceived notion and find ways to make what I observed fit with "facts" that I already "knew". I, in essence, was able to come up with my own theories and philosophies, incorporating bits and pieces of every other theory and philosophy I've studied. I retained what Religious notions made sense, and discarded those which were clearly contradictory and "man-made" (which, I'm afraid to say, I've determined are what most of the bible is...nice fairy tales made up and altered over time by men. Not God, just men). In the strictest sense, it literally means "fee" thinking...free of bias. Free of preconception or prejudice.

Nobody "knows" any of this stuff. But some of it makes a lot more sense than other stuff.

I guess it comes down to this. When I determined that I was going to start over, assume NOTHING, and start from scratch, it was the most enlightening thing I've ever done. I realized that my views were tainted and everything I "knew" was either wrong or very biased. I was able to start at the beginning and move forward, drawing new conclusions as I went, not start with conclusions and working backwards to justify those predetermined ends.

The whole argument against evolution is just that: You start off having to prove it's wrong because "the bible told you so", and everything is directed towards those ends. No fundamentalist Christian is going to give something a chance that they have been ingrained to believe is wrong. Essentially the deck was loaded against Evolution from the dealing of the first hand.

stlrtruck
11-14-2008, 10:21 AM
The whole argument against evolution is just that: You start off having to prove it's wrong because "the bible told you so", and everything is directed towards those ends. No fundamentalist Christian is going to give something a chance that they have been ingrained to believe is wrong. Essentially the deck was loaded against Evolution from the dealing of the first hand.

I started off with the notion of evolution being true. Not the Christian man that I am today but I am just the opposite of you. I've seen too many loopholes in the "theories" that exist to hold to them as "truth" about the world. Too many questions that can't be answered by man about the things that happen on this earth in the skies. It took a walk through life doing things my own way for 10+ years (18 years of age plus) and through a series of life changing events it became evident that the bible and the word of God has the answers, and every day God's word continues to give me more answers.

Today I've seen the hand of God involved in my own life, my families life, and friends around me with blessings that can not be understood by the human mind. God gave us free will to decide for ourselves and according to His word He won't stop us from making those choices. Only one thing can separate us from God's will - and that's ourselves!!

I'd rather live as if the God's Word (the Bible) is true and find out it's not then to live as if it's not and find out that it is!!!

revefsreleets
11-14-2008, 10:50 AM
Just to reiterate, Darwin started off as a creationist. He went to the Galapagos to prove that theory, and, well...

stlrtruck
11-14-2008, 12:23 PM
There's a book out there (which I can't recall the name of it right now but I'll get it) written by a atheist who tried to prove God didn't exist...and well

"The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel

A Seasoned Journalist Chases Down the Biggest Story in HistoryIs there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God?Retracing his own spiritual journey from atheism to faith, Lee Strobel, former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, cross-examines a dozen experts with doctorates from schools like Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis who are recognized authorities in their own fields.Strobel challenges them with questions like How reliable is the New Testament? Does evidence for Jesus exist outside the Bible? Is there any reason to believe the resurrection was an actual event?Strobel's tough, point-blank questions make this Gold Medallion-winning book read like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But it's not fiction. It's a riveting quest for the truth about history's most compelling figure.What will your verdict be in The Case for Christ?"Lee Strobel probes with bulldog-like tenacity the evidence for the truth of biblical Christianity."Bruce M. Metzger, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament, Emeritus, Princeton Theological Seminary"Lee Strobel asks the questions a tough-minded skeptic would ask. His book is so good I read it out loud to my wife evenings after dinner. Every inquirer should have it."Phillip E. Johnson, Law Professor, University of California at Berkeley

revefsreleets
11-14-2008, 12:36 PM
There's a book out there (which I can't recall the name of it right now but I'll get it) written by a atheist who tried to prove God didn't exist...and well

Which one? There were several. I read "The God Delusion" and "Everything You Know About God is Wrong". Both really interesting reads. The beauty of having an open mind and not being indoctrinated by absolutist dogma is that I can take as much away from all these books as I can the bible. It's awesome to be able to equally weigh two conflicting man-made views and find my own "third way". I'm pretty sure God has something to do with my capability to do that...

stlrtruck
11-14-2008, 12:39 PM
I can take as much away from those books as I can the bible. It's awesome to be able to equally weigh two conflicting views and find my own "third way". I'm pretty sure God has something to do with my capability to do that...

Yes, it's called Free Will to think on our own. I'll reiterate - God will never stand in our way to make our own decisions but one day we'll have to answer for those decisions.

revefsreleets
11-14-2008, 12:49 PM
Yes, it's called Free Will to think on our own. I'll reiterate - God will never stand in our way to make our own decisions but one day we'll have to answer for those decisions.

So you believe. I believe differently. I'd hate to think of an existence where God condemns people to Hell because they don't believe JUST a certain way, a way that was made up by men years and years ago, a way that's only a tiny margin different what many others believe. A small narrow-minded vengeful God that seems to be an awful lot like the small and narrow-minded vengeful men who invented him. That would be worse than Hell.

stlrtruck
11-14-2008, 12:58 PM
So you believe. I believe differently. I'd hate to think of an existence where God condemns people to Hell because they don't believe JUST a certain way, a way that was made up by men years and years ago, a way that's only a tiny margin different what many others believe. A small narrow-minded vengeful God that seems to be an awful lot like the small and narrow-minded vengeful men who invented him. That would be worse than Hell.

Yes I believe and you believe differently. But what you've described is not the God that I know. What you've described, imo, is a god that people should fear for the sake of being condemned. The God that I know is a loving God that loves us right where we are in the world and wants us to know that He has something better for us. Instead of giving us our wants, He gives us what we need. Also, the Old Testament is full of stories of God ridding the earth of people either by war or by various other means of death. He flooded the world for crying out loud.

But to the point, in my belief - Yes I do believe that millions of people will be condemned to the pits of hell. People don't want to hear it, but once they hear it and that day comes they won't be able to say, "I didn't know!"

And if you want to continue to believe that the bible was specifically written by men without the input of God, then by all means that is your free will. Your belief system still takes faith and as I've already stated - my faith is in God above all else! I've seen enough miracles to prove how fallable science is and that science stlll fails to prove certain aspects of this planet as well as life.

And this is where we agree to disagree and one day we'll get our answers. So it's either going to be - "Dang Revefsreleets was right!" or "Dang, Stlrtruck was right!"

Preacher
11-14-2008, 02:13 PM
Of course I'm a freethinker. Why? Because I broke free of my early indoctrination, the religious upbringing which told me I HAD to view the world through a religious filter, a filter which made me look at things with a preconceived notion and find ways to make what I observed fit with "facts" that I already "knew". I, in essence, was able to come up with my own theories and philosophies, incorporating bits and pieces of every other theory and philosophy I've studied. I retained what Religious notions made sense, and discarded those which were clearly contradictory and "man-made" (which, I'm afraid to say, I've determined are what most of the bible is...nice fairy tales made up and altered over time by men. Not God, just men). In the strictest sense, it literally means "fee" thinking...free of bias. Free of preconception or prejudice.

Nobody "knows" any of this stuff. But some of it makes a lot more sense than other stuff.

I guess it comes down to this. When I determined that I was going to start over, assume NOTHING, and start from scratch, it was the most enlightening thing I've ever done. I realized that my views were tainted and everything I "knew" was either wrong or very biased. I was able to start at the beginning and move forward, drawing new conclusions as I went, not start with conclusions and working backwards to justify those predetermined ends.

The whole argument against evolution is just that: You start off having to prove it's wrong because "the bible told you so", and everything is directed towards those ends. No fundamentalist Christian is going to give something a chance that they have been ingrained to believe is wrong. Essentially the deck was loaded against Evolution from the dealing of the first hand.

The problem with that whole assessment you did, is that it was loaded with bias.

1. You assumed propositionalism.
2. You assumed the western linear system of logic was the correct one. Did you look at any of the other logic systems out there before settling into the western system?
3. You upbringing influenced your rationale in the negative sense. By believing you were indoctrinated, you sought to break free, which means you were reacting against the indocrination. That is not free-thinking, that is reaction thinking. Furthermore, the grid you use to understand was set either by the acceptance or rejection of the original teaching.
4. Your acceptance lf the "scientific" answer has become a new dogma by which you now must reject all other explanations of the genesis of life and origin of our species. Did you seek Buddhism, Taoism, Hindhuism, Confusianism, Janism, Zorasterianism, Islam, Creationism, Alien theory of human origin, Pagainism, etc. for answers? Are you open to those narratives of creation? If not, then you have indoctrinated yourself in the dogma of evolution and must reject out of hand anything it brings to the table because, "the science book tells me so."

Either you are an evolutionist, or a free thinker, but you can't hold on to both as absolutes. One must submit to the other. By the arguments you have presented here, it seems you are an evolutionist, and you limit your "free-thinking" to anything that doesn't violate the doctrines of evolutionary science.

That is neither praise nor condemnation, just observation.


BTW... do you accept the testimonies of those who start of as evolutionists and end up as creationists as strongly as you do those who start as creationists and end as evolutionists? The answer to that question will answer the question of your evolutionary indoctrination.

Dino 6 Rings
11-14-2008, 03:29 PM
Is Darwinism still called the Theory of Evolution or is it officially Scientific Fact now?

And Paganism, Heck Yeah! I'm all about listening to the water and talking on the wind.

Preacher
11-14-2008, 03:43 PM
Is Darwinism still called the Theory of Evolution or is it officially Scientific Fact now?

And Paganism, Heck Yeah! I'm all about listening to the water and talking on the wind.


If you choose to truly free yourself from all indoctrination and dogma, then listening to the water and talking on the wind must be received and assessed without attaching scientific method or "modern" bias. Otherwise, you are locking yourself in to western logic and method, which isn't truly free. It chains you to propositionalism and Western thought, and biases everything within that light.

Dino 6 Rings
11-14-2008, 04:10 PM
Thanks Preach, but I find my little piece of heaven on earth are the following things.

My wifes hug when I get home from work.
My kids laughing at me when Im being stupid.
My dog licking my face.
The sound of the water lapping on the shore while I'm fishing and kind of hoping nothing bites cause I don't want to be bothered.
The Birds feeding on the seeds I leave out.
The herd of deer (6 pointer today) that eats the tiny strawberries in my back yard.
My mothers voice.
The wind in my hair (which is long and beautiful and curly and yeah, I'm a guy)
The feel of dirt or sand under my feet.
Climbing a tree
My sisters evil little grin.
The roof over my head my wife and I worked to provide for our family.
The food in our bellies
The butterfly migration I have witnessed twice now.
The sounds of the tree frogs at night
My cat climging onto my belly while I'm trying to watch the game.
the people I work with feeding me sugar to watch me go crazy.
all of the little things in life that I don't take for granted.

Not really a Peagan Preach, don't worry, I'm not lighting candles and hoping that Manoch comes and gives me 50 dead sharks as a gift.

I'm just a laid back living life kind of guy that really, honestly, admits, 100%, I don't have all the answers when it comes to the big question, but I know, if I do my best and live my life the best way I can, regardless of what I believe or who I believe in, or where I believe I'm going...it'll all work itself out in the end...

but I also know, for a fact, there aren't any athesists in a foxhole.

Preacher
11-14-2008, 04:33 PM
Thanks Preach, but I find my little piece of heaven on earth are the following things.

My wifes hug when I get home from work.
My kids laughing at me when Im being stupid.
My dog licking my face.
The sound of the water lapping on the shore while I'm fishing and kind of hoping nothing bites cause I don't want to be bothered.
The Birds feeding on the seeds I leave out.
The herd of deer (6 pointer today) that eats the tiny strawberries in my back yard.
My mothers voice.
The wind in my hair (which is long and beautiful and curly and yeah, I'm a guy)
The feel of dirt or sand under my feet.
Climbing a tree
My sisters evil little grin.
The roof over my head my wife and I worked to provide for our family.
The food in our bellies
The butterfly migration I have witnessed twice now.
The sounds of the tree frogs at night
My cat climging onto my belly while I'm trying to watch the game.
the people I work with feeding me sugar to watch me go crazy.
all of the little things in life that I don't take for granted.

Not really a Peagan Preach, don't worry, I'm not lighting candles and hoping that Manoch comes and gives me 50 dead sharks as a gift.

I'm just a laid back living life kind of guy that really, honestly, admits, 100%, I don't have all the answers when it comes to the big question, but I know, if I do my best and live my life the best way I can, regardless of what I believe or who I believe in, or where I believe I'm going...it'll all work itself out in the end...

but I also know, for a fact, there aren't any athesists in a foxhole.

I understand what your saying. My discussion was more in regards to whether a person can truly be a "free thinker" My answer is that in truth, it is impossible because we all have originating perceptions which we carry throughout life. When we try to get away from those, they still form our thoughts, just in a negative manner. Furthermore, language itself helps to form our method of thinking. Thus, "free-thinking" while sounding good, is actually, impossible.

Dino 6 Rings
11-14-2008, 04:38 PM
see, that kind of talk hurts my head.

To me, that's one of those snake eating its own tale type ideas, where you just go round and round and round.

I mean, couldn't originating perceptions be changed by life events. Or couldn't a person flip on an idea after something happens to them that changes their perspective.

Preacher
11-14-2008, 05:18 PM
see, that kind of talk hurts my head.

To me, that's one of those snake eating its own tale type ideas, where you just go round and round and round.

I mean, couldn't originating perceptions be changed by life events. Or couldn't a person flip on an idea after something happens to them that changes their perspective.

:chuckle:

Actually, mine too. However, I am being forced into it over the last two semesters in a couple seminars I am taking.

The life events themselves are interpreted by the perceptions and originating language of the person (Kantian/Wittgensteinian understanding of reality plays into this). Thus, when you have a life experience that moves, stretches or breaks those categories, by what method do you understand that new experience? The very fact that you're changing your thought process is shaped by the limitations of the original perceptions. Thus, the crisis of understanding is dictated by the original perception. Now, the choice is how to cognitively understand the new perception. You won't jump from to an entirely different logic system simply because, well it seems nice. You use the same logic system to assess the experience, and create a new category, or merge different categories.

If you choose to do away completely with categories, such as a Zen Buddhist does, is that random? Usually, it is because of a reaction, a thought that your originating perceptions and categories are inaccurate to your new perceptions. However, the fact that you seek something else is driven by a refutation of the original system. That isn't free thinking. That is still bound to the original system in a negative manner, much as how a magnet drives another magnet away when the fields are not aligned.

And that is my argument with Suit. IMO, what he is claiming as free-think, is actually being driven by his originating perceptions of faith. He and faith are two magnets aligned to push against each other. In that, he is still just as bound in dogma as if he became a priest in the catholic church. I further argue that Inherently, he recognizes this fact and holds to the dogma of evolution to counter the push/pull of Christian dogma, which means that he is doubly bound. . .

That isn't to say that Suit doesn't think... just the opposite, he is a very intelligent, analytical person. Its just that, again, IMO, he is being pushed/pulled by two poles which is affecting his process of logic.

Least that is what I am arguing. . .


You know Suit.. maybe I should have just said that to you. . . and gotten to the bottom of this rather quickly :hunch:

Leftoverhard
11-14-2008, 11:00 PM
I'm a free-thinker. Whatever that means.

revefsreleets
11-16-2008, 02:07 PM
Your acceptance lf the "scientific" answer has become a new dogma by which you now must reject all other explanations of the genesis of life and origin of our species. Did you seek Buddhism, Taoism, Hindhuism, Confusianism, Janism, Zorasterianism, Islam, Creationism, Alien theory of human origin, Pagainism, etc. for answers? Are you open to those narratives of creation?

Yes...I have incorporated what made sense to me out of ALL the religions that I have studied. But how deep and weird do you want me to get here? I'm trying to stay in the shallow waters for a reason here...

In my book the idea that the "Big brained scientist" took a germ from black people and made white people has equal validity as any other religion-based theory of creation. They are pretty much fairy tales for kids that grown ups believe because they were taught that it was okay to cling to certain myths or they will go to Hell.

The irony is that grown-ups crib from the science that they condemn when it suits their needs to justify their beliefs, but discard that same science when it doesn't work. I'm trying to transcend that kind of hypocrisy...