patrick.net

New Renter says

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Religion has its uses.

Chicks dig fucking on the altars of burning churches.

And you know this how?

Standard rite of passage in high school and college - I've been hit by chunks of flaming cross a couple of times.

Where did you grow up?

indigenous says

How do you know?

A priori logic and the laws of nature. Feel free to browse my prior mathematical proof that no omnipotent god exists, no omniscient god exists, and no supernatural god could observe or communicate with any person or natural object.

indigenous says

How do you know which one to vote for?

On the Issues

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Religion has its uses.

Chicks dig fucking on the altars of burning churches.

Ew, the same altars where the priests spluged all over with the altar boys. Pass.

Dan8267 says

laws of nature

What if they are a manifestation of God? What if the entire universe is a manifestation of God?Dan8267 says

and no supernatural god could observe or communicate with any person or natural object.

that is an assertion or an assumption. Dan8267 says

On the Issues

How is that working for you? How close has Obama come to doing what he said he was going to regarding the issues?

HydroCabron says

I want real, hard baked, pro-wife-beating candidates I can choose from.

You want Texas Republican Clayton Williams

It's like the weather. If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/OY3mWJ1Cd0Y

Mark says

These guys might too Liberal in the deep south where I live! Hilarious though!

You can tell how deep into the South you are by counting the missing teeth in the people around you.

zzyzzx says

the stupid stuff that our liberal politicians do.

We have liberal politicians? I find that hard to believe. Care to list a few and I'll evaluate how liberal they are and why.

Dan8267 says

We have liberal politicians? I find that hard to believe. Care to list a few and I'll evaluate how liberal they are and why.

Jerry Brown

Nancy Pelosi

Barbera Boxer

indigenous says

What if they are a manifestation of God? What if the entire universe is a manifestation of God

Then god is bounded by the laws of nature including "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" as well as all of the conservation laws. To say otherwise is to discard all the laws of nature. The laws of nature do not have any exceptions or loopholes.

Again, see my prior posts if you want more details. I could write another summary of proofs against monotheist gods, but I don't have time and there is little I'd add to what I've already written.

indigenous says

that is an assertion or an assumption.

As I stated, I've proven these things in prior threads. See them for the details. The statement is an inescapable conclusion.

indigenous says

How is that working for you? How close has Obama come to doing what he said he was going to regarding the issues?

Pretty damn well. When Obama ran in the Democratic primary, I looked up his voting record. He wasn't a senator when the vile USA Patriot Act was passed, but he was a senator when it was extended even after we knew it lead to torture. Obama voted in favor of that act, which is why I never supported him. I regret nothing.

I also never supported Hilary Clinton because she voted for that despicable, Unamerican act while she was a senator.

So, On the Issues has been damn useful and reliable.

Dan8267 says

Then god is bounded by the laws of nature including "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" as well as all of the conservation laws.

Not true, is Stalin bound by the rules he created for the Russian people?

Dan8267 says

So, On the Issues has been damn useful and reliable.

Who were you for?

Dan8267 says

As I stated, I've proven these things in prior threads. See them for the details. The statement is an inescapable conclusion.

TLTR/L

indigenous says

Not

If you want to debate the god fallacy, we can do so on another thread.

How Truly Liberal Are They
Facts from OnTheIssues.org

Jerry Brown
Affirmations of Liberal Philosophy
1. The right to marry is sacred for gay and straight people.
2. Major reductions in our prison population.
3. Cracked down on violent gangs.
4. Vetoed prosecutor discretion on drugs
5. Vetoed considering demographics in college admissions.
6. Let people vote to avoid cutting schools & colleges.

Violations of Liberal Philosophy
1. Follow advice from Book of Genesis
2. keep it (drug crimes) a felony
3. No government-imposed standards for public schools.
4. Consider subsidiarity: central authority only if local fails.
5. $25B for water-shortage farmland.
6. Traditional sexual morality looks reasonable due to STDs.
7. Profound truth about human nature in orthodox tradition.

My Conclusion
Jerry Brown is a centralist, not a liberal.

On the Issue's Conclusion

Nancy Pelosi
Affirmations of Liberal Philosophy
1. Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
2. Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman.
3. Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent.
4. Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance.
5. Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration.
6. Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC.
7. Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.
8. Voted YES on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals.
9. Opposes requiring schools to allow school prayer.
10. Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps.
11. Voted NO on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant.
12. Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.
13. Voted YES on establishing "network neutrality"
14. Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card.

Violations of Liberal Philosophy
1. Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures.
2. Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler.
3. Marble ceiling: Congress is very male-oriented society.
4. Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
Yes, this is not liberal because the act hypocritically violates equal protection under law.

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code), sexual orientation, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994…

Yet throughout the act, in both titles and details, the act specifically addresses "women", not "persons", thereby making male victims of violent crimes including domestic violence unequal under law. A liberal would insist that every occurrence of the word "woman" be replace by the word "person" so that the law does not discriminate on the basis of gender and violate equality under law.
5. Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.
6. Voted YES on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad.
7. Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting.

My Conclusion

Although Pelosi has many liberal policy decisions, she also has quite a few deal breakers that would prevent any sane person from considering her a liberal in any sense of the word. Some of her policies are draconian such as spying and discrimination.

On the Issue's Conclusion

I consider OTI's conclusion to be flawed because OTI's algorithm is simply adding up "liberal points" and subtracting "conservative points", which is not a valid mathematical model of politics. For example, let's say Hitler passed nine policies that were pro-Jewish and one policy, the Holocaust, which was anti-Jewish. That wouldn't make him 90% pro-Jewish. Straight out arithmetic may be simple, but it doesn't make it an appropriate model for everything.

Before some idiot than harks about how bad OTI must is, be aware that the value in OTI is the accurate recording of the facts, not the pretty picture at the bottom of the screen.

Barbara Boxer
Affirmations of Liberal Philosophy
1. Full equality only with same-sex marriage.
2. Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration.
3. Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.
4. Voted NO on limiting death penalty appeals.
5. Voted NO on restricting class-action lawsuits.
6. Voted NO on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms.
7. Voted YES on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls.
8. Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.
9. Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, and reinstate discharged gays.
10. Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror.
11. Ensure net neutrality: no corporate-tiered Internet.

Violations of Liberal Philosophy
1. Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
2. Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.
3. Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women.
4. Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business.
5. Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.
6. Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps.
7. Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
8. Require websites to police for copyrighted materials.

My Conclusion

Same as Pelosi, too many deal killers to be a liberal in any sense of the word.

On the Issue's Conclusion

Same reason as Pelosi on that as well.

So, it looks like indigenous's idea of the poster children of liberalism aren't at all liberal. What a surprise.

Dan8267 says

If you want to debate the god fallacy, we can do so on another thread.

Nope just a point of logic that if something can create something he does not have to abide by it's rules...

indigenous says

Who were you for?

Elizabeth Warren and William Black, not because of their social issues, which are largely untested, but because of their economic policies. I don't know if either would be a liberal because there's too little history of their social stances and liberalism has nothing to do with economic policy.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

If you want to debate the god fallacy, we can do so on another thread.

Nope just a point of logic that if something can create something he does not have to abide by it's rules...

Your logic is flawed. Nature, by definition, has to abide by natural laws. The interaction between any god and nature is, by definition, part of natural phenomenon and must obey all natural laws including all conservation laws and thus is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Dan8267 says

Your logic is flawed. Nature, by definition, has to abide by natural laws. The interaction between any god and nature is, by definition, part of natural phenomenon and must obey all natural laws including all conservation laws and thus is subject to scientific scrutiny.

No cause is exterior to the effect, the universe. The effect manifests the causes' intention, but it is not the cause.

An analogy might be Patrick.net, Patrick creates this "universe" and can cause it to be created anyway he sees fit, he is not necessarily part of it.

Dan8267 says

So, it looks like indigenous's idea of the poster children of liberalism aren't at all liberal. What a surprise.

You are fucked up. Your own website rates Boxer and Pelosi as very liberal.
They may say Brown is moderate but considering how signed into law collective bargaining in 1971, and the huge onerous effect that has had on Calif he could not be considered anything but liberal, if not communist.

Dan8267 says

Elizabeth Warren

She is a rable rouser and says anything to get votes but has NO principles.

Watch how she make nice with Yellen moments after she interrogates Yellen,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYtSMLgaW6U

indigenous says

No cause

I'll gladly debate this in a thread of its own when I have time.

indigenous says

Your own website rates Boxer and Pelosi as very liberal.

Like all conservatives, you are a dumb add that understands nothing about math or engineering even when it is explained to you in words a seven-year-old could follow.

I've explained quite clearly what calculations OTI is using and why that model is not particularly helpful. I've also explained that the value in OTI is in the details of a politician's history, not in the graphic at the bottom of the page.

Furthermore, you are basing a conclusion on the English label assigned to a numeric data range. That's just foolish. How you measure something determines what you measure. How you label something means nothing.

Now I could overlook your ignorance if it wasn't for the fact that I explicitly gave you the necessary understanding before you spewed your ignorance.

Dan8267 says

I consider OTI's conclusion to be flawed because OTI's algorithm is simply adding up "liberal points" and subtracting "conservative points", which is not a valid mathematical model of politics. For example, let's say Hitler passed nine policies that were pro-Jewish and one policy, the Holocaust, which was anti-Jewish. That wouldn't make him 90% pro-Jewish. Straight out arithmetic may be simple, but it doesn't make it an appropriate model for everything.

Before some idiot than harks about how bad OTI must is, be aware that the value in OTI is the accurate recording of the facts, not the pretty picture at the bottom of the screen.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

indigenous says

She is a rable rouser and says anything to get votes but has NO principles.

Translation: As a conservative, I fear Elizabeth Warren more than anything else in the world.

Dan8267 says

I've explained quite clearly what calculations OTI is using and why that model is not particularly helpful. I've also explained that the value in OTI is in the details of a politician's history, not in the graphic at the bottom of the page.

Which is why Brown is not a centrist. Dan8267 says

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

No you stupid mutt, if Pelosi utters the phrase "we have to pass it to see what is in it" on the most onerous bill passed in US history, or raises more money for the Democratic party than anyone in congress. No she is liberal as they come to think otherwise is beyond stupid.

Boxer is a mouth piece for the unions and one of the dumbest people in office. To think she is anything but a liberal is beyond stupid.

Dan8267 says

Translation: As a conservative, I fear Elizabeth Warren more than anything else in the world.

No she simply spews the buzz words, so the liberals love her, and as in the video demonstrates that she is a standard issue beltway whore.