Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:57 pmAmerica had enough scandal, corruption, and chaos. That's why America took a chance on Trump.

America took a chance on Trump after 8 years of one of the least chaotic, least corrupt, most scandal free administrations in our country's history. Fox News was reduced to freaking out over Obama offering a respectful bow in Asia, wearing a tan suit, and saluting a Marine while holding coffee.

I suppose you could be referring to the 8 fake Benghazi hearings, the fake IRS scandal, and the fake Uranium One scandal, but I don't count those because none of them were real. If they were the reason that Trump got elected then Republicans are hopeless morons.

Phil -

Again, until the report comes out we really don't know what it says. All I can go by on obstruction is what I've seen - two years of Trump publicly, blatantly obstructing the investigation, denying Russian interference in the face of overwhelming evidence, and generally acting guilty as sin. That's not media spin, it's Trump's own words and actions.

Phil, way back in 2016 the one thing that the Trump campaign wanted changed from the GOP platform prior to the convention was the watering down of our commitment to support Ukraine. Why would the Trump campaign care about that but nothing else? Well, it turns out that Trump had ongoing business with the Russians at that time. He was softening our stance toward Russia while negotiating to build a hotel in Russia. He was denying that the Russians interfered in our election while using the information that they provided. He publicly called on Russia to hack the DNC and look for Clinton's missing emails, and that's exactly what Russia did that very day.

Beyond that, Barr is arguing that because they found no collusion there can't have been obstruction. That's some shaky reasoning, since the entire point of the obstruction would have been to prevent Mueller from getting evidence of collusion. If there was collusion it likely went through Manafort, Cohen, and Roger Stone. Trump has dangled pardons for Manafort, Cohen, and Roger Stone. Hmmm. Could it not be that Manafort is withholding information from the FBI and waiting for a pardon, either as Trump's last act in office or his first act in his second term? Is it not possible that noted liar, scammer, and conman Roger Stone has the same expectation?

Or how about the fact that Paul Manafort gave Konstantin Kilimnik 75 pages of detailed polling data - including data collected by the Trump campaign - at the start of the general election? What am I supposed to make of that? That would have been handy to have if you were interested in, say, conducting a targeted misinformation campaign. That sure looks like collusion.

So yeah, so far nobody is vindicated, nobody is absolved of a thing, and as far as I know the President is as crooked as he ever was.

If that leaves any of you feeling impatient, just remember that all of you still regard Hillary Clinton as incredibly corrupt, despite the fact that the GOP has been investigating her nearly nonstop for 30 years and hasn't come up with a single criminal charge. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Literally nothing. Granted, their character assassination campaign paid off, but then I'm not sure I'd want to be associated with people who would dedicate 30 years to assassinating someone's character simply for being liberal and competent.

BTW, you should really stop putting Ocasio-Cortez and Omar in the same sentence. AOC is outspoken and liberal and she gives back as good as she gets, but she's not running around offending everybody everywhere she goes. Rumor has it that Omar is going to get primaried because she just can't seem to shut up. Ocasio-Cortez is a different story. Try listening to her actual words, rather than to the conservative media spin and character assassination. Cortez sometimes misspeaks and she's pretty green, but so what? She's a freshman Congresswoman, for Pete's sake. She's only 28. She's smart, she's charismatic, and she's earned everything she has. Hear her out - she might well be the future.

Look, Ed, I know you've got the hots for AOC, but notice I also grouped her with Trump to make the point that all three are using the same loudmouth tactics.

If AOC is the future of America, then there is no future for America.

Farting cows and no planes indeed! Back to the railway for you lot!

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:20 am Look, Ed, I know you've got the hots for AOC, but notice I also grouped her with Trump to make the point that all three are using the same loudmouth tactics.

Except that she's not. Yes, she defends herself and her positions, but she's not a rabid attack dog hell bent on dominating everyone around her. She doesn't tend to pick fights, and when she does she punches up, not down. AOC and Trump have some things in common - both are media savvy, both generate headlines, and both speak their minds, but that doesn't make them anything close to the same. Trump is a childish, insecure bully who had his wealth and career handed to him. AOC is still just a kid but she's at least as mature as Trump, she seems perfectly secure, and what she has she's earned. They are not the same.

Stu wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:12 am If AOC is the future of America, then there is no future for America.

Farting cows and no planes indeed! Back to the railway for you lot!

If you take legitimate problems, use scornful, dismissive terms to describe them, and then belittle anyone who takes them seriously then yeah, I guess she's ridiculous. And deliberately misquoting her is a great cherry to top your [nonsense] sundae. Kudos on your dishonest, partisan hackery. You must be proud.

On the other hand if we say, for example, that livestock farming produces about 18 percent of all environmentally damaging, greenhouse gases and about a quarter of that comes from bovine emissions, then suddenly it's a bit harder for an honest person to dismiss. An honest, thoughtful person would be attempting to make an evidence-based refutation of that scientifically verified statement. A political hack would zero in on "cow farts" and try to shut down the conversation by mocking the entire idea.

Regarding airplanes, what she actually said was that it would be good policy to expand our rail infrastructure to the point that cheap, efficient high speed rail travel was competitive with air travel. She didn't say get rid of planes, she said decrease the need for air travel by introducing alternatives. I'm honestly confused about why expanding our rail infrastructure in order to lessen the need for air travel would be a bad thing. Why are trains bad, Stu? High speed rail is huge in the entire rest of the developed world, and I've literally never heard anybody complain about having access to inexpensive, efficient transportation. Not once, ever. Personally, I hate [love] airplanes. I only use them because there's no real alternative in the US. Are you a big plane fan or something? Why are you so scornful?

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:53 am

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:20 am Look, Ed, I know you've got the hots for AOC, but notice I also grouped her with Trump to make the point that all three are using the same loudmouth tactics.

Except that she's not. Yes, she defends herself and her positions, but she's not a rabid attack dog hell bent on dominating everyone around her. She doesn't tend to pick fights, and when she does she punches up, not down. AOC and Trump have some things in common - both are media savvy, both generate headlines, and both speak their minds, but that doesn't make them anything close to the same. Trump is a childish, insecure bully who had his wealth and career handed to him. AOC is still just a kid but she's at least as mature as Trump, she seems perfectly secure, and what she has she's earned. They are not the same.

Stu wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:12 am If AOC is the future of America, then there is no future for America.

Farting cows and no planes indeed! Back to the railway for you lot!

If you take legitimate problems, use scornful, dismissive terms to describe them, and then belittle anyone who takes them seriously then yeah, I guess she's ridiculous. And deliberately misquoting her is a great cherry to top your [nonsense] sundae. Kudos on your dishonest, partisan hackery. You must be proud.

On the other hand if we say, for example, that livestock farming produces about 18 percent of all environmentally damaging, greenhouse gases and about a quarter of that comes from bovine emissions, then suddenly it's a bit harder for an honest person to dismiss. An honest, thoughtful person would be attempting to make an evidence-based refutation of that scientifically verified statement. A political hack would zero in on "cow farts" and try to shut down the conversation by mocking the entire idea.

Regarding airplanes, what she actually said was that it would be good policy to expand our rail infrastructure to the point that cheap, efficient high speed rail travel was competitive with air travel. She didn't say get rid of planes, she said decrease the need for air travel by introducing alternatives. I'm honestly confused about why expanding our rail infrastructure in order to lessen the need for air travel would be a bad thing. Why are trains bad, Stu? High speed rail is huge in the entire rest of the developed world, and I've literally never heard anybody complain about having access to inexpensive, efficient transportation. Not once, ever. Personally, I hate [love] airplanes. I only use them because there's no real alternative in the US. Are you a big plane fan or something? Why are you so scornful?

No, Ed, it literally is down to cow farts. She wants to do away with them - is that your proposal to?

What she says was:
"...build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary."

That just shows how little common sense she has. That is an idea that has no basis in reality whatsoever. If you can't see this then your country is doomed if people like you are to vote.

Of course we make fun of AOC, she is a socialist nut job, who says her loyalty is to the illegal immigrant! Not to the legal immigrant or the American people, no, the illegal immigrant. And people support this lady. Pathetic.

But I'm sure you will put the Democrat spin on it like you always do.

Ed: AOC is still just a kid but she's at least as mature as Trump

Hey, no fair - now you're really scaring me!

Stu wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:47 amNo, Ed, it literally is down to cow farts. She wants to do away with them - is that your proposal to?

Really? That's seriously your take away? AOC is a moron, so she wants cows to stop farting. No other reasons, no underlying goals, no peer reviewed scientific studies to support her position, just a complete idiot who wants something stupid for no reason? Seriously? That's really what you think?

Please be honest. If that's your honest understanding of the issue then there's no point even attempting to have a serious discussion and we're done.

Stu wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:47 amWhat she says was:
"...build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary."

That just shows how little common sense she has. That is an idea that has no basis in reality whatsoever. If you can't see this then your country is doomed if people like you are to vote.

When I read that what I see is AOC aiming high. High speed trains are better than planes. They're cleaner, cheaper, and safer. Obviously trains will never completely replace planes, but more trains and fewer planes would still be an improvement. I assume that you don't know this, since you really don't know very much about my country where I live and you don't, but our rail system used to be a lot better. It's been allowed to atrophy. That's too bad, because rail is a cheap, reliable, efficient method of moving people and goods. More trains would be great. High speed trains that competed with planes and made rail travel a realistic option for consumers would be even better. The minimum possible number of planes, and trucks for that matter, is a good goal to shoot for.

And again, I'm really not understanding why you care. Why do you feel the need to spew toxic misinformation about American liberals? What does any of this have to do with you?

Stu wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:47 amOf course we make fun of AOC, she is a socialist nut job, who says her loyalty is to the illegal immigrant! Not to the legal immigrant or the American people, no, the illegal immigrant. And people support this lady. Pathetic.

Socialist nutjob, huh? Serious again, I assume? So there's no point in providing you with an actual definition of socialism and showing you that your claim is objectively false, right?

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:57 pmSocialist nutjob, huh? Serious again, I assume? So there's no point in providing you with an actual definition of socialism and showing you that your claim is objectively false, right?

Come on man, really seriously, how many ways can you spin AOC's brand of socialism without reference to its countless historical failures? I'm sure you will try but I'm equally sure you will also fail.

Ok, two things -

1) AOC's proposals are just that - proposals. In a healthy democracy she would present her ideas, various other leaders would present theirs, and a compromise would be hammered out because, believe it or not, she has a constituency and many Americans really like a lot of what she's saying.

In our democracy she makes a proposal, Republicals scream "Socialism!" the conversation is over, the Americans who liked AOC's ideas are free to pound sand, and conservatives suck down liberal tears while the whole world burns.

That's not a tenable way of doing things. We're all in this together, and you guys need to stop treating it like a [love] football rivalry.

2) She's not a socialist. That's not spin, it's fact. You. Are. Wrong.

socialism (noun)

so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Socialism, as you hopefully just read, is a system in which there is no private property, the government owns the means of production, and the economy is centrally planned. There is literally nobody in mainstream American politics who advocates anything similar to that. Not Bernie. Not AOC. Certainly not Pelosi, Biden, Clinton, or anyone else in the corporate wing. Nobody. Period.

When you say that AOC is a socialist you are either mistaken or lying. That's a fact. No spin is required.

AOC is a Democratic Socialist.

There's almost no practical difference, between socialism and democratic socialism.

Actually, she's a social democrat and it's completely different.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:51 am Actually, she's a social democrat and it's completely different.

She's a democratic socialist.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.busine ... ans-2019-3

Bernie uses that term, too. I'm not sure why they call themselves democratic socialists, but their policies aren't socialist at all. AOC and Bernie fall squarely into the social democrat camp. They favor a free market economy with robust social safety nets, investment in public infrastructure, and government solutions for problems that private industry can't reasonably address (like health care, public transportation, and education). If you don't believe in socialist policies then you're not a socialist.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:31 am Ok, two things -

1) AOC's proposals are just that - proposals. In a healthy democracy she would present her ideas, various other leaders would present theirs, and a compromise would be hammered out because, believe it or not, she has a constituency and many Americans really like a lot of what she's saying.

In our democracy she makes a proposal, Republicals scream "Socialism!" the conversation is over, the Americans who liked AOC's ideas are free to pound sand, and conservatives suck down liberal tears while the whole world burns.

That's not a tenable way of doing things. We're all in this together, and you guys need to stop treating it like a [love] football rivalry.

2) She's not a socialist. That's not spin, it's fact. You. Are. Wrong.

socialism (noun)

so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Socialism, as you hopefully just read, is a system in which there is no private property, the government owns the means of production, and the economy is centrally planned. There is literally nobody in mainstream American politics who advocates anything similar to that. Not Bernie. Not AOC. Certainly not Pelosi, Biden, Clinton, or anyone else in the corporate wing. Nobody. Period.

When you say that AOC is a socialist you are either mistaken or lying. That's a fact. No spin is required.

Then my apologies, you're not spinning, you're simply delusional if you think for one second what AOC and spend-'em Bernie are peddling is not socialism to its truest extent, only arrived at just ever so gingerly. Just look at what's going on in my own backyard man, from Cuomo to De Blasio to AOC and the like. ever more government control. It is to the point that illegal immigrants have more rights and receive more benefits than homeless veterans, by far. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I will grant you the courtesy that each of us are looking at this (and most other issues, obviously) through our respective prisms (mine being capitalist conservative, yours I will let you define). Through that lens, I see clear signs of the type of socialism that has failed miserably, the latest victim of which is Venezuela, which was a direct result of the attempt at implementing so-called 'pure' socialism. It's a utopic pipe dream.

Byblos wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:06 amThen my apologies, you're not spinning, you're simply delusional if you think for one second what AOC and spend-'em Bernie are peddling is not socialism to its truest extent, only arrived at just ever so gingerly.

Please explain to me how "Spend-'em" Bernie's tax and spend plan is worse than the GOP cut taxes, borrow heavily, and spend just as much plan.

After that, please explain why single payer health care and subsidised college education with rigorous entrance exams are going to turn the US into a totalitarian socialist state.

Finally, please explain how Canada, Western Europe, and much of Asia manage to have single payer health care and subsidised college education with rigorous entrance exams, but haven't descended into totalitarian socialism.

Byblos wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:06 amJust look at what's going on in my own backyard man, from Cuomo to De Blasio to AOC and the like. ever more government control. It is to the point that illegal immigrants have more rights and receive more benefits than homeless veterans, by far. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I have no idea what's going on in your backyard, but the things you're claiming seem unlikely to me. Got any evidence to support your claim?

Byblos wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:06 amI will grant you the courtesy that each of us are looking at this (and most other issues, obviously) through our respective prisms (mine being capitalist conservative, yours I will let you define).

Much obliged.

I'd loosely describe myself as progressive, pragmatic, and humanist. I favor policies that benefit the masses rather than the rich, I regard the freedom to get sick without losing everything you've worked for your entire life as being just as important as the freedom to bear arms and far more important than the freedom of the ultra rich to decide whether or not they feel like paying taxes, and I think that policy that doesn't work is bad policy, even if it happens to align with ones' religious beliefs.

Byblos wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:06 amThrough that lens, I see clear signs of the type of socialism that has failed miserably, the latest victim of which is Venezuela, which was a direct result of the attempt at implementing so-called 'pure' socialism. It's a utopic pipe dream.

Social democracy is working just fine in Canada, Western Europe, and much of Asia. Venezuela was not a social democracy, it was an attempt at socialism. It failed because they based their entire economy on oil production, they ran the state oil company very poorly, and they held support by bribing the people. The United States has a whole lot more in common with Canada and Western Europe than with Venezuela, no? So why are you so quick to compare us to Venezuela and so slow to compare us to Britain or Canada?