Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Anybody Here?

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
July 25, 2009 11:09:01 PM

If you're reading this, please leave a quick reply! Just wondered how many people actually visit the Politics forum, since there aren't any other messages here. Are there any techies even interested in politics besides me? I'm hoping to get this section active!

More about : question

July 27, 2009 4:13:37 AM

lol...i just dropped in...lol
July 27, 2009 6:33:31 PM

overshocked said:
lol...i just dropped in...lol

"overshocked"? Your post doesn't make much sense, dude! More like shell-shocked. Looking at your system specs, I'm guessing you game too much. :pfff:  I'm serious here. Is there anyone else interested in discussing politics ?
Related resources
July 27, 2009 7:18:11 PM

Not really, most gamer politics center around DRM and other usless garbage forced down our collective throats. Or just laughing at the Crapple fanboys.
July 28, 2009 9:27:35 PM

IH8U said:
Not really, most gamer politics center around DRM and other usless garbage forced down our collective throats. Or just laughing at the Crapple fanboys.

You're right, I'm afraid. The stuff you mentioned doesn't really interest me. I don't even have an MP3 player. And enough laughs have already been directed at the "Crapple fanboys" to fill hundreds of WD's latest 2TB hard drives. (I have to say that I'm not an Apple fan either. But I don't want to start that again.)
July 28, 2009 9:51:55 PM

Maybe we are looking at it in the wrong way. Maybe it's not really Politics like with government but politics like in a business sense.

For example, how do you guys feel about the politics behind the Foxconn (foxxcon?) situation. I think it's pretty f'd up and no company has the right to "interrogate" their employees, unless honestly it is in their original contract to work with said company.
July 30, 2009 6:17:32 PM

Although I think that falls on Crapple, it's their fault for going with a company that has Draconian buisness practices (Ie most Chinese companies). Hell they torture their entire populace (well same with N. Korea)I don't know, maybe the Japanese just laughed at em, and said we have phones that do that and more for 1/2 the price.
July 30, 2009 7:07:35 PM

hmmm, i learn a new aspect of toms hardware
the last one was the cars section and now politics
August 4, 2009 3:54:07 AM

I just think that politics tends to be a bit of a touching subject. And on most forums that I have been to where the conversation turns in the direction of politics (whether business in nature or GOP vs Democrat) it just seems to break down in ad hominem attacks on each other with no real discussion.
August 4, 2009 4:12:25 AM

Does Canadian Politics count?
August 4, 2009 2:49:19 PM

I'm heavily into Politics, but as was pointed out above, if you think AMD vs. Intel degenerates into name calling and juvenile behavior, it doesn't hold a candle to what happens with Dem vs Rep. I think most people (me included) have a hard time understanding how people can have such an extremely different point of view without some "ulterior" motive or just plain stupidity. So it becomes "you're evil" or "you're an idiot". Even though both parties at times take positions just because its in opposition to what the other party wants, even though it can be the exact same thing their party argued FOR just a few months ago.
Every now and then there will be a thread in which an AMD fanboy will argue against facts and data, or a dual core proponent will argue that dual cores are "better" than quads.(I admit I got sucked into one of those) But for the most part we can easily dismiss that as brand loyalty or unwillingness to change, and don't have the same passion as we do with our politics because we believe that is in the area of things that REALLY matter and affect our everyday lives.
August 4, 2009 8:51:05 PM

Bolbi said:
If you're reading this, please leave a quick reply! Just wondered how many people actually visit the Politics forum, since there aren't any other messages here. Are there any techies even interested in politics besides me? I'm hoping to get this section active!


I've looked in here a bunch since this area opened up but haven't seen anything. There are tons of techies interested in politics- just take a look at Slashdot. 95% of the people there are statist Europeans and American college students trashing "USians" and George W. Bush. Most of the other 5% are libertarians who take aim at the PATRIOT Act and The Chosen One's policies. I am certain that if you start a discussion here, people will participate.
August 4, 2009 10:15:39 PM

Bolbi said:
If you're reading this, please leave a quick reply! Just wondered how many people actually visit the Politics forum, since there aren't any other messages here. Are there any techies even interested in politics besides me? I'm hoping to get this section active!


I'm not allowed to make political comments here, especially since I'm a moderate. I draw fire from both sides, but mostly the left since they love to scream and ridicule concepts they can't logically argue against.

There are a lot more Rosey Odonells (noisy leftists) than their are Rush Limbaughs (noisy right-wingers). But beyond those generalizations, I'd anger the wrong people to argue specifics here.

If you'd like to take the argument somewhere else, send the invitation :) 
August 4, 2009 10:40:29 PM

We have a Politics board to!?!

:pfff:  :pfff:  :pfff: 

Toms Hardware

Anyways, I keep up with what is in the news.
Not really overboard about it though...
August 4, 2009 10:45:38 PM

Crashman said:
I'm not allowed to make political comments here, especially since I'm a moderate. I draw fire from both sides, but mostly the left since they love to scream and ridicule concepts they can't logically argue against.

There are a lot more Rosey Odonells (noisy leftists) than their are Rush Limbaughs (noisy right-wingers). But beyond those generalizations, I'd anger the wrong people to argue specifics here.

If you'd like to take the argument somewhere else, send the invitation :) 

---
Just want to say/tell to Crashman, that Jan 01, 1970 -is a Thursday!
But in a politic discussion -it could easyly be a Tuesday :) 
Thanks for your help Crashman
August 4, 2009 11:09:29 PM

Crashman said:
I'm not allowed to make political comments here, especially since I'm a moderate. I draw fire from both sides, but mostly the left since they love to scream and ridicule concepts they can't logically argue against.

There are a lot more Rosey Odonells (noisy leftists) than their are Rush Limbaughs (noisy right-wingers). But beyond those generalizations, I'd anger the wrong people to argue specifics here.

If you'd like to take the argument somewhere else, send the invitation :) 



Hmmm...not sure I agree with that. Crazy right wingers have pretty much all of AM radio, All of Fox news, Part of CNN, And most of the south and midwest. Where the crazy lefties have MSNBC, Part of CNN, Most of Hollywood, and the east and west coast....seems like a pretty even split to me.... and which side seems illogical depends on your own point of view as I had stated above. Its really hard when you REALLY believe in something to try to understand the other point of view. It just doesn't make sense in your head, so makes you judge the other point of view as illogical. This isn't always the case in politics, since a lot of games are played where an honest person can see their own party is being idiots and contradicting themselves at times. Just watch the Daily Show...Jon Stewart makes a living off politicians who contradict themselves...Both Dem and GOP.
Its sort of like believing in God...those who do can't wrap their heads around those who don't...and vice versa. I'm always up for a good argument based in logic, but when it comes to religion and politics those are few and far between.
August 4, 2009 11:54:57 PM

belial2k said:
Hmmm...not sure I agree with that. Crazy right wingers have pretty much all of AM radio, All of Fox news, Part of CNN, And most of the south and midwest. Where the crazy lefties have MSNBC, Part of CNN, Most of Hollywood, and the east and west coast....seems like a pretty even split to me.... and which side seems illogical depends on your own point of view as I had stated above. Its really hard when you REALLY believe in something to try to understand the other point of view. It just doesn't make sense in your head, so makes you judge the other point of view as illogical. This isn't always the case in politics, since a lot of games are played where an honest person can see their own party is being idiots and contradicting themselves at times. Just watch the Daily Show...Jon Stewart makes a living off politicians who contradict themselves...Both Dem and GOP.
Its sort of like believing in God...those who do can't wrap their heads around those who don't...and vice versa. I'm always up for a good argument based in logic, but when it comes to religion and politics those are few and far between.



LOL, Who listens to AM radio? All of Fox News? If you think "all" of Fox News is more than 90% to the right, your problem is your perspective. IE, you're viewing things from so far on the left you can't actually see the middle.

Fox & Friends, probably 60% right. Bill Orielly, probably 70% towards the right. I'm pretty sure those are their most popular programs, no? If you haven't watched the programs, you wouldn't know the difference between an Orielly and a Hannity.

So, what you're saying is that two formats that fewer than 50% of the nation uses between them, make up at least an equal voice (screaming wise) to all other TV channels, most print news, 70% or so of political internet content, FM radio, most of satelite radio, and most professorships?

OK, thanks!

Edit: I can't listen to AM radio because of all the hate, coming from the right-wing versions of Janeane Garofalo
August 5, 2009 12:59:18 AM

Speaking of showing your perspective.....wow....So I would put O'reilly as far right as I would put Oberman far left. He is a wacko who is a right wing propaganda machine who claims "no spin" WHEN ALL HE DOES IS SPIN. Oberman is left wing propaganda machine, but at least he doesn't claim to be impartial. I think you've already shown your true colors by your last two post, and they seem pretty red.
According to Rush 20 million people listen to him every day. LOL...I don't believe it, but there are probably that many idiots in this country who will go along with all of his drug addled hypocritical rants.
So you are one of those that thinks the "media" is controlled by the left. Not true at all, just right wing propaganda machine at work. The latest survey of editorial boards across the country showed a fairly even split. Yes, the left has the ny times, but the right has the wall street journal. And the Times hired Bill Crystal of all people to write editorials....I don't see WSJ doing the same thing to balance out their editorials.
Network Television is about as balanced as you can get. They just want a good story, and could care less about who it screws. I didn't see them washing the Clinton scandal under the rug. They ran with it for all it was worth. It can be argued that they cut G. W. Bush all sorts of breaks in the lead up to the War. If they really had a bias they could have nailed his administration with a little investigative reporting...but they don't really do that. That just report what they think will get the most ratings and could care less about which party is looking good. The only example I can think of is Dan Rather, who got canned the one time he actually stuck his neck out on a biased story.
The internet? Are you the only one who didn't emails full of lies about Obama? There are just as many right wing sites as there are left wing. I think you forget just how equally this country is divided politically. That is why our elections are almost always 50/50. To claim bias in the media, and there are more biased left wing nuts than there are right wing nuts shows your own bias. You just don't notice the right wing nuts as much because you tend to agree with them more...
if you think fox and friends and O'reilly are only partially toward the right show me the 30 - 40% of the time they agree with the Democrat line or disagree with the Republican talking points of the day.
August 5, 2009 2:26:19 AM

belial2k said:
Hmmm...not sure I agree with that. Crazy right wingers have pretty much all of AM radio, All of Fox news, Part of CNN, And most of the south and midwest. Where the crazy lefties have MSNBC, Part of CNN, Most of Hollywood, and the east and west coast....seems like a pretty even split to me.... and which side seems illogical depends on your own point of view as I had stated above. Its really hard when you REALLY believe in something to try to understand the other point of view. It just doesn't make sense in your head, so makes you judge the other point of view as illogical. This isn't always the case in politics, since a lot of games are played where an honest person can see their own party is being idiots and contradicting themselves at times. Just watch the Daily Show...Jon Stewart makes a living off politicians who contradict themselves...Both Dem and GOP.
Its sort of like believing in God...those who do can't wrap their heads around those who don't...and vice versa. I'm always up for a good argument based in logic, but when it comes to religion and politics those are few and far between.


Not quite. Crazies do have a bit of AM radio as much of AM radio is low-power evangelical religious radio stations, some of which are decidedly kooky. There are a few talk radio programs on some of the big AM radio stations like KMOX in St. Louis and WSB in Atlanta, but a lot of talk radio is on lower to medium-power FM stations today rather than staticky old AM. Fox does tend to lean conservative, but there are only a handful of guys that are real right-wingers. Sean Hannity is one and Mike Huckabee is another. CNN doesn't have anybody that's even close to being a conservative any more after Glenn Beck left for Fox, and Beck is not so much a right winger as he is just a complete goofball. MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and almost all of Hollywood are quite liberal. The real division between right and left is urban vs. not urban rather than geographically, although the South and most of the Rocky Mountain states tend to be more conservative as a whole and the Northeast, Great Lakes region, and the West Coast are decidedly liberal. The Midwest is very much split between urban and not urban as far as to beliefs as most Midwestern states are "swing" states that are only a few percent in favor of either party in most of the recent elections.

belial2k said:
Speaking of showing your perspective.....wow....So I would put O'reilly as far right as I would put Oberman far left. He is a wacko who is a right wing propaganda machine who claims "no spin" WHEN ALL HE DOES IS SPIN. Oberman is left wing propaganda machine, but at least he doesn't claim to be impartial.


There are a few major differences between Olberman and O'Reilly. Olberman was an anchor while O'Reilly is a host of an commentary program. You would expect Olberman to not obviously portray biases since he is an anchor, while O'Reilly can say whatever he wants as it is specifically billed as commentary and not as news. Olberman in my opinion is farther left than O'Reilly is to the right as Olberman was absolutely gushing about Obama (the whole tingling feeling going up his leg) while O'Reilly is a bit more reserved in his praise of people.

Quote:
I think you've already shown your true colors by your last two post, and they seem pretty red. According to Rush 20 million people listen to him every day. LOL...I don't believe it, but there are probably that many idiots in this country who will go along with all of his drug addled hypocritical rants.


I think your true colors are showing through in that post ;) 

Quote:
So you are one of those that thinks the "media" is controlled by the left. Not true at all, just right wing propaganda machine at work. The latest survey of editorial boards across the country showed a fairly even split. Yes, the left has the ny times, but the right has the wall street journal. And the Times hired Bill Crystal of all people to write editorials....I don't see WSJ doing the same thing to balance out their editorials.
Network Television is about as balanced as you can get. They just want a good story, and could care less about who it screws. I didn't see them washing the Clinton scandal under the rug. They ran with it for all it was worth. It can be argued that they cut G. W. Bush all sorts of breaks in the lead up to the War. If they really had a bias they could have nailed his administration with a little investigative reporting...but they don't really do that. That just report what they think will get the most ratings and could care less about which party is looking good. The only example I can think of is Dan Rather, who got canned the one time he actually stuck his neck out on a biased story.


There are university studies that confirm that as a whole, the media is more biased to the left than to the right. Nobody really controls the media as you have at least some outlets of differing opinions in just about every medium, but overall, the media tends to be more friendly to the left.

Quote:
The internet? Are you the only one who didn't emails full of lies about Obama? There are just as many right wing sites as there are left wing.


Forget the proportion of right wing vs. left-wing sites you see on the Internet as being indicative of Americans' views. There are more than just Americans on the Internet and a lot of foreigners get interested in U.S. elections and get into U.S. politics on their websites. Plus, there is astroturfing. It is easy for one person to make thousands of pretty similar websites and spam existing websites with their views in an astroturfing attempt, which would throw off your count.

Quote:
I think you forget just how equally this country is divided politically. That is why our elections are almost always 50/50. To claim bias in the media, and there are more biased left wing nuts than there are right wing nuts shows your own bias. You just don't notice the right wing nuts as much because you tend to agree with them more...
if you think fox and friends and O'reilly are only partially toward the right show me the 30 - 40% of the time they agree with the Democrat line or disagree with the Republican talking points of the day.


In my experience, the liberals tend to be much more vocal with their views than conservatives. I doubt very many will disagree with that assertion. Thus a small number of liberals will make as many letters to the editor, calls into radio shows, and biased news stories as a much larger group of conservatives. Since the election results show the country is pretty much split down the middle, a roughly equal number of liberals and conservatives will have with the louder liberals predominating in the media, which is exactly what the study I linked to above showed.

I'll give you one big way the Fox guys differed with the Republicans. They absolutely hate the TARP bailout, even though Bush and Bush's Treasury secretary Hank Paulson started it. If you watch the Fox and Friends guys and girl in the morning, rarely a morning goes by without them hammering on the bailout.
August 5, 2009 2:41:37 AM

belial2k said:
Speaking of showing your perspective.....wow....So I would put O'reilly as far right as I would put Oberman far left.


Like I said, you have to listen to Oreilly, then listen to Hannity or Limbaugh, to understand that Oreilly is the voice of moderation on the right.

Of course, the way you've talked you've never listened to a full show, at best hearing just the snippets people use to shout the guy down.

It's like the libs using the birthers to discredit everyone right of themselves, including libertarians who, when honestly libertarian, just want to keep the government out of their lives.

Remember that this guy who stands for the extreme right to you, doesn't argue in favor of restricting first term abortion but dispises abortions that occur when the fetus is old enough to survive outside the womb. And he doesn't support the death penalty. That, as opposed to the farthest left who think it's OK to stab a baby in the head as it's being born, or the farthest right who believe it's OK to enforce capital punishment on the weakest of evidence.

You see, if you don't see the extremes, you become blind to the middle. I feel sorry for you.

Edit: I've heard enough from Oreilly to know that the side he most supports is...his side. This is the guy who rants "See, it was the speculators driving oil prices up, just like I said from the beginning (plays an archive clip of himself)." He of course ignores the fact that he spent months blaming the oil companies almost exclusively before finally jumping the bandwagon against speculators.

The right-wing view on oil speculation and price fixing is...get ready for this...its a free economy, make money while the sun shines and let the losers worry about the damage. Doesn't sound much like self-congratulatory Oreilly eh?
August 5, 2009 3:09:10 AM

"I'll give you one big way the Fox guys differed with the Republicans. They absolutely hate the TARP bailout, even though Bush and Bush's Treasury secretary Hank Paulson started it. If you watch the Fox and Friends guys and girl in the morning, rarely a morning goes by without them hammering on the bailout."

Now that Obama is in office they complain about it and call it his bailout plan. When Bush was in office they didn't say much, if anything bad about it, and many conservatives even supported it publicly. But the conservatives are not alone in this type of behavior...many liberals switched positions when the administrations changed, too.

"In my experience, the liberals tend to be much more vocal with their views than conservatives."
As I have pointed out, if you lean conservative you are more likely to notice liberals being vocal than you are someone espousing views you agree with. I obviously lean the other way, so my perception is different. There are wacko fringes of both parties. ie, the birthers who are everywhere at every town hall meeting, every talk show, ect...and on the other side you have the wackos who think Bush planned 9/11. I think recent history might show more loony behavior by the fringe elements of the party with the least power. Right now its the GOP. For the last 8 years it was the Dems. You have more to complain about when you feel like you have no power to change the things going on you hate.

"There are university studies that confirm that as a whole, the media is more biased to the left than to the right."
I'm surprised this got published. the methodology is flawed. Simple mentions, without context, compared to ADA scores really tells you nothing. Rush mentions the NAACP and ACORN more than anyone, but I can guarantee he isn't speaking favorably of them when he does. If anything, this methodology should be reversed.

"There are a few major differences between Olberman and O'Reilly. Olberman was an anchor while O'Reilly is a host of an commentary program. You would expect Olberman to not obviously portray biases since he is an anchor, while O'Reilly can say whatever he wants as it is specifically billed as commentary and not as news. Olberman in my opinion is farther left than O'Reilly is to the right as Olberman was absolutely gushing about Obama (the whole tingling feeling going up his leg) while O'Reilly is a bit more reserved in his praise of people."

I think you have Oberman confused with Chris Matthews. Although neither claim to be anchors. The anchors on MSNBC are on during the day. All the evening shows including Matthews and Oberman are host driven shows. The only time they are given host duty is when there is an evening debate or election night, ect when the whole crew comes out with Uncle Pat (Bucchanan). Matthews had the quote about the chill up the leg, but that is just one of his many man crushes. He said similar things about Rudy, and he really, really liked McCain and said almost as many embarrassing things about him. "I absolutely love this man, he is a true hero and deserves to be president"...his problem is verbal green grass squirts.

"CNN doesn't have anybody that's even close to being a conservative any more after Glenn Beck left for Fox"
Lou Dobbs and Nancy Grace might not be conservative in the traditional sense...but some of their nonsense feeds the fringe elements of the conservative movement.

ahh...this post is getting too long. I guess I go back to my main point. Your perception colors your view of who is crazier and louder. But I at least know this, and try to be fair to the majority of people who have a different point of view than mine...I might not understand it, but I don't try to judge them on it unless they are veering off into "dangerous" speech that promotes bigotry and intolerance.
August 5, 2009 3:20:26 AM

belial2k said:
Your perception colors your view of who is crazier and louder. But I at least know this, and try to be fair to the majority of people who have a different point of view than mine...I might not understand it, but I don't try to judge them on it unless they are veering off into "dangerous" speech that promotes bigotry and intolerance.


Crazier...I don't want to see a crazy competition between Limbaugh and Moore, but I really have to turn on AM radio if I want to hear Limbaugh.

Like the Acorn people picketing AIG over bonuses, but not even issuing a statement about Fanny Mae bonuses which came later, and were bigger. Their stance against AIG was political, if it were about right and wrong they would have stood against Fanny too. I consider picketing to be a great amount of noise.

But like I said, it's a wide world from one wing tip to the other, you have to be closer to the center to see how far out each side goes.
August 5, 2009 3:24:18 AM

@Crashman....
I doubt we are really that far apart in many ways. I used to listen to O'Reilly a lot back in the day, but I just got fed up with his ego, politics, and the fact that any time he got proven wrong he would shut off the guests mike. He is basically a school yard bully with a talk show. Overall he is not AS far right as Hannity or Rush, but he is far enough right he can never see a good idea from a Democrat.
Its funny you say that about abortion and the death penalty. Almost the exact same thing I say. I try to make it simple...once brain waves start there can be no abortion (except medical emergencies). We call someone dead when brainwaves stop, so why not call them a "life" when they start? I always thought it was odd most pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty...where is the disconnect there? Here is where I get really liberal all over you...I think all life should be protected, including animal life. But I don't think throwing red paint all over someone makes a point very well...it just causes them to go out and buy another fur coat and more animals die. I agree with the sentiment, not the actions of the extremist.
LOL...i did use the birthers to make a point, but also mentioned liberals have their extremist idiots also....I could have used almost any Rush quote, its just that the birthers are being very vocal right now, and that is where this discussion began.
Like I said, we are probably not that far apart, other than you can be entertained by O'reilly and might agree with some of his points, where as I cannot stand the man in any way....but if your point is he not as extreme overall as Rush, I do agree with that.
August 5, 2009 3:33:26 AM

belial2k said:
Like I said, we are probably not that far apart, other than you can be entertained by O'reilly and might agree with some of his points, where as I cannot stand the man in any way....but if your point is he not as extreme overall as Rush, I do agree with that.


DVR is the key...you just skip past the stupid stuff and get your 10 minutes of entertainment per program.
August 14, 2009 10:30:01 PM

jsimeon said:
I just think that politics tends to be a bit of a touching subject. And on most forums that I have been to where the conversation turns in the direction of politics (whether business in nature or GOP vs Democrat) it just seems to break down in ad hominem attacks on each other with no real discussion.


Ad hominem attacks... You into logic, too?
August 14, 2009 10:30:36 PM

1ce said:
Does Canadian Politics count?

Sorry, I'm in the USA. Why don't you start your own thread to deal with CA politics?
August 14, 2009 11:05:54 PM

belial2k said:
@Crashman....
Its funny you say that about abortion and the death penalty. Almost the exact same thing I say. I try to make it simple...once brain waves start there can be no abortion (except medical emergencies). We call someone dead when brainwaves stop, so why not call them a "life" when they start? I always thought it was odd most pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty...where is the disconnect there? Here is where I get really liberal all over you...I think all life should be protected, including animal life. But I don't think throwing red paint all over someone makes a point very well...it just causes them to go out and buy another fur coat and more animals die. I agree with the sentiment, not the actions of the extremist.


Got to disagree that capital punishment is basically the same as abortion. Sure, both destroy human life. But the human life destroyed by capital punishment is usually that of a murderer, who deserves civil execution by most legal and religious standards. The baby in the womb has no such guilt. The two are not basically the same!
August 14, 2009 11:36:16 PM

Well, if we were 100% certain the convicted was really guilty, that all justice was always applied equally, and that person was not sorry for the crime and would gladly do it again...Then we might have a right to stoop to their level and murder them. But this is not the case in most death penalty cases. Blacks are more likely to get the death penalty than whites convicted of the same crime. We are constantly finding people who were wrongly convicted. If justice cannot be applied equally and blindly, and if there is even the smallest chance the convicted might be innocent, we are no better than the murderers.
If a child does not yet have brain waves it is still only "potential" life, but not yet a true life form. We can't save every sperm and egg because of the potential of life, and its better to have an early term pre-brainwave abortion than an unwanted child who has a high chance to become one of those criminals you want to kill.
August 15, 2009 12:04:37 AM

We are never 100% certain; that's human nature. Our US courts do (or are supposed to) apply the principle "innocent until proven guilty". Thus, we don't just require that the prosecutor show a 51% guilt probability. We require that they show there is no other likely alternative but that the accused was the murderer.
You seem to base your arguments on an assumption that only after-the-fact events matter (regrets for the action, etc.). But we cannot ignore that there must be a set rule for determining punishment. We do not know the future or the heart, whether they are truly sorry and might do it again, or not. But we do know (or are reasonably sure of) what did happen. That is what we punish people based on, as it is the only objective standard. Otherwise, you must discard punishment for crimes completely, one of the main functions of government!
As for blacks getting the death penalty more than whites, please don't bring race into this! Nearly everybody feels sorry for slavery and plays the race card to evoke emotions and assume an aura of self-righteousness. It is simply a statistic that can be attributed to the fact that crime rates (including murder) are generally higher among blacks than whites. I do not attempt to speculate why; it is simply a fact.
In any debate, it is important to understand the starting point of your opponent. So, I state here that I am unapologetically a biblical Christian. It is through that lens that I view the world. Everyone has basic religious assumptions that will dominate their views, perhaps subconsciously. What's your worldview?

P.S. Can we start a new thread for this? It's drifted a long way from "Anybody Here?"!
August 15, 2009 1:01:11 AM

Well, I am not a Christian, or any other religion. I am very anti religion and we can trace most conflicts in the world throughout history to people trying to force their religion on others. And I have a hard time believing in an invisible man in the sky who controls everything. The bible reads like a children's fairy tale with outrageous stories that in any other context would make someone who believed them a candidate for the funny farm.
The only reason I bring race into the death penalty discussion is because FOR THE SAME CRIME, blacks are more likely than whites to be given the death penalty. This has nothing to do with who commits the most times per capita. It has to do with equal justice. And you admit we can never be 100% sure. How would you feel if your son or daughter were one of the "mistakes" in the death penalty and they were killed while being innocent. Every study shown on the subject comes to the same conclusion. The death penalty is not applied equally, and mistakes ARE made. We are the only modernized country with a death penalty, which should tell you something.
August 15, 2009 1:20:45 AM

I am not trying to force my religion on you; I'm just telling you my worldview so that you know where I'm coming from. It was meant to be a courtesy, not an attack. Don't fly off the handle! An excess of anger often indicates a deficiency of reason and facts, two areas in which atheists and agnostics claim near monopolies. Back to our original discussions, I've started threads concerning both abortion and capital punishment. Hope to see you and anyone else who would like to join us there!
August 15, 2009 3:40:07 AM

LOL...not angry at all. I was answering your question about my worldview and explaining in more detail my previous post why race does play a part in the death penalty discussion. Almost all of my friends and associates are christian, so I'm used to debating my minority point of view forcefully with them. I don't accept answers like "well, you just have to have faith" when it comes to a point they can't explain. Sorry if you took the previous post the wrong way...I was just defending my point of view and didn't know I was sounding angry or irrational. I'll try to check out the other threads when I get a chance and stir the hornets nest over there.
August 15, 2009 4:08:42 AM

belial2k said:
LOL...not angry at all. I was answering your question about my worldview and explaining in more detail my previous post why race does play a part in the death penalty discussion. Almost all of my friends and associates are christian, so I'm used to debating my minority point of view forcefully with them. I don't accept answers like "well, you just have to have faith" when it comes to a point they can't explain. Sorry if you took the previous post the wrong way...I was just defending my point of view and didn't know I was sounding angry or irrational. I'll try to check out the other threads when I get a chance and stir the hornets nest over there.


Nobody who follows the spiritual phillosophy of Jesus Christ can support capital punishment, what with "casting the first stone" and so forth. Anyone who advocates both should spend their time arguing with themselves rather than bothering us.
August 15, 2009 1:30:54 PM

Genesis 9:6a, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." Later we see that this is qualified to mean only after a fair trial has been given and the sentence pronounced by the proper authorities. From a Chrisitan standpoint, capital punishment is quite viable. But this is turning more religious than political. Love to go into it more; can someone talk to the Admin about opening up a Religion subsection of the News & Leisure section? It's only as controversial as politics can get!

@belial2k, glad to hear I was mistaken on that! Just thought that, "The bible reads like a children's fairy tale with outrageous stories that in any other context would make someone who believed them a candidate for the funny farm." sounded rather "intolerant", which attitude you say you oppose. The list of brilliant politicians, scientists, and those from any other field throughout history who have also been Christians would take volumes just to list. But enough of that; still hoping for a new Religion subsection.
August 15, 2009 6:51:45 PM

Bolbi said:
Genesis 9:6a, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." Later we see that this is qualified to mean only after a fair trial has been given and the sentence pronounced by the proper authorities. From a Chrisitan standpoint, capital punishment is quite viable. But this is turning more religious than political. Love to go into it more; can someone talk to the Admin about opening up a Religion subsection of the News & Leisure section? It's only as controversial as politics can get!

@belial2k, glad to hear I was mistaken on that! Just thought that, "The bible reads like a children's fairy tale with outrageous stories that in any other context would make someone who believed them a candidate for the funny farm." sounded rather "intolerant", which attitude you say you oppose. The list of brilliant politicians, scientists, and those from any other field throughout history who have also been Christians would take volumes just to list. But enough of that; still hoping for a new Religion subsection.


It's so convenient when so-called Christians refer to old Jewish law rather than Christian rules of behavior (read: things that were expoused by Jesus Christ) whenever it suite their predisposition. The old testiment said that an Adulteress should be stoned, too.
August 15, 2009 7:04:44 PM

Crashman said:
It's so convenient when so-called Christians refer to old Jewish law rather than Christian rules of behavior (read: things that were expoused by Jesus Christ) whenever it suite their predisposition. The old testiment said that an Adulteress should be stoned, too.


Really, I would like to discuss this more. Is it okay to do that in the Politics subsection? If not, where can I request that a Religion subsection be added?
August 15, 2009 8:19:28 PM

Please don't lump me in with everybody else who might call themselves "conservative" or "Christian". Perhaps many of us are frightened of socialism because we see what it has to done to other countries. (Think British and Canadian healthcare; do we need another thread on that topic?) And if you think that I like Medicare and Social Security, you're dead wrong. Actually, I'd be pretty happy with a libertarian government; I'm not trying to revive Israel's theocracy.
Finally, don't say that I'm just arguing the death penalty based on the Old Testament. Have you even looked at the new thread I started? I simply brought in the OT in response to Crashman saying that no Christian could support capital punishment. I realize that biblical arguments carry no weight with atheists.
August 15, 2009 8:23:37 PM

Bolbi said:
Please don't lump me in with everybody else who might call themselves "conservative" or "Christian". Perhaps many of us are frightened of socialism because we see what it has to done to other countries. (Think British and Canadian healthcare; do we need another thread on that topic?) And if you think that I like Medicare and Social Security, you're dead wrong. Actually, I'd be pretty happy with a libertarian government; I'm not trying to revive Israel's theocracy.
Finally, don't say that I'm just arguing the death penalty based on the Old Testament. Have you even looked at the new thread I started? I simply brought in the OT in response to Crashman saying that no Christian could support capital punishment. I realize that biblical arguments carry no weight with atheists.


Read the rest of what I said. It's impossible to follow the phillosophy of Jesus Christ ayet still stick to the harsher punishments of the Old Testiment. You can do one, or the other.
August 15, 2009 8:42:21 PM

Good to see old school like Crashman is still around. I never bothered to log into Tom's now for like 3 years or more I have been very busy with other things.

Nothing Political I can assure you all.

P.S I guess the old chat forum is gone and it's more direct to issues and solutions. Oh and are we truly divided by country now? Meaning only U.S posters see U.S content and England or other countrys only see Tom's Content from thier own country?
August 15, 2009 9:35:28 PM

Crashman said:
Read the rest of what I said. It's impossible to follow the phillosophy of Jesus Christ ayet still stick to the harsher punishments of the Old Testiment. You can do one, or the other.

That was in reply to belial2k. You're the moderator, so it seems you're okaying posting about religion in the politics section. Here goes!
Your claim that you cannot follow Jesus's philosophy and Old Testament law is not true. Jesus himself said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Now I do not refer to the ceremonial law from the OT, just the moral laws, such as the 10 Commandments. If you give a specific example of where you think it is impossible to both follow Jesus and the OT moral laws, I will do my best to untangle the knot.
August 15, 2009 10:30:31 PM

"Think British and Canadian healthcare"
I have studied it quite a bit, and while you can point to individual cases where the system screws up, overall I much prefer it to what happens in this country, where we screw up just as many cases per capita and insure a much smaller % of the population. And the people who do have insurance are lucky if 1)the insurance actually pays 2)they are not dropped if the insurance does pay and 3)go broke paying the premiums and deductibles and everything the insurance won't pay.
All the horror stories and lies the conservatives are using about health care are greatly exaggerated. In those countries polls have shown about a 95% satisfaction rate with their health care...we will never see those kind of numbers under a profit driven insurance system, because it is in the best interest of the insurance companies to find more and more excuses not to pay. The only people in this country who are completely satisfied with their health care are the lucky who have never had to use it, the wealthy who can afford the top insurance, and the medicare and medicaid people who are already on socialized programs. The giant mass in between get screwed with overall poor employer plans, or no affordable insurance at all.
I'll take the British, French, Dutch, Canadian, ect. systems over this any day.
August 15, 2009 10:54:04 PM

Bolbi said:
That was in reply to belial2k. You're the moderator, so it seems you're okaying posting about religion in the politics section. Here goes!
Your claim that you cannot follow Jesus's philosophy and Old Testament law is not true. Jesus himself said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Now I do not refer to the ceremonial law from the OT, just the moral laws, such as the 10 Commandments. If you give a specific example of where you think it is impossible to both follow Jesus and the OT moral laws, I will do my best to untangle the knot.


I already did.
August 16, 2009 2:26:59 AM

belial2k said:
"Think British and Canadian healthcare"
I have studied it quite a bit, and while you can point to individual cases where the system screws up, overall I much prefer it to what happens in this country, where we screw up just as many cases per capita and insure a much smaller % of the population. And the people who do have insurance are lucky if 1)the insurance actually pays 2)they are not dropped if the insurance does pay and 3)go broke paying the premiums and deductibles and everything the insurance won't pay.
All the horror stories and lies the conservatives are using about health care are greatly exaggerated. In those countries polls have shown about a 95% satisfaction rate with their health care...we will never see those kind of numbers under a profit driven insurance system, because it is in the best interest of the insurance companies to find more and more excuses not to pay. The only people in this country who are completely satisfied with their health care are the lucky who have never had to use it, the wealthy who can afford the top insurance, and the medicare and medicaid people who are already on socialized programs. The giant mass in between get screwed with overall poor employer plans, or no affordable insurance at all.
I'll take the British, French, Dutch, Canadian, ect. systems over this any day.

Could you point me to those polls? I'd like to see the proof that people actually prefer a system where treatment is rationed and often delayed by years. 95%? The highest satisfaction rates I've seen are around 61%, and that's from those employer plans you put down. If you really champion socialized medicine, then please wait until Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Co. pass socialized medicine here in the US, subscribe to their plan, and purposely give yourself some sort of cancer. Wait for 5 years to see what sort of treatment you receive, then report back here. (Do not try this at home: I'm not serious. I would never recommend putting yourself in the hands of unelected bureaucrats who have no motivation to actually help you. At least the insurance companies have the motivations of profit and reputation. Case in point: my mother had to wrangle to get a treatment covered by our insurance company. We are not wealthy, and have the same plan ordinary people have. Their customer service reps were so bad that she reported them to the commissioner of insurance. Within a few months, all of their customers, including, us, had noticed a complete turnaround in their customer service.) So yes, the private model can work and respond to their customers, even if it does take the threat of a big stick. For me, I see no reason to trust the government with our healthcare when they have screwed up nearly everything else we've given to them. Their job is to administer civil justice and defend the country from internal and external enemies. Once you go very far beyond that, it's dangerous territory.
So, I'll be waiting for those poll references, as well as a list of several recent projects that used to be in private hands, were handed over to the government, and worked better.
August 16, 2009 2:28:44 AM

belial2k said:
"Think British and Canadian healthcare"
I have studied it quite a bit, and while you can point to individual cases where the system screws up, overall I much prefer it to what happens in this country, where we screw up just as many cases per capita and insure a much smaller % of the population. And the people who do have insurance are lucky if 1)the insurance actually pays 2)they are not dropped if the insurance does pay and 3)go broke paying the premiums and deductibles and everything the insurance won't pay.
All the horror stories and lies the conservatives are using about health care are greatly exaggerated. In those countries polls have shown about a 95% satisfaction rate with their health care...we will never see those kind of numbers under a profit driven insurance system, because it is in the best interest of the insurance companies to find more and more excuses not to pay. The only people in this country who are completely satisfied with their health care are the lucky who have never had to use it, the wealthy who can afford the top insurance, and the medicare and medicaid people who are already on socialized programs. The giant mass in between get screwed with overall poor employer plans, or no affordable insurance at all.
I'll take the British, French, Dutch, Canadian, ect. systems over this any day.


Then by all means go there and enjoy their health care.
August 16, 2009 2:47:29 AM

@Crashman, "I already have."
I suppose you're referring to your assertion that it is impossible to follow Jesus and believe in capital punishment due to the story we find recorded in John 8:1-11. I have already responded in part by quoting Jesus as saying that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. Thus, the moral law of God is not to be abandoned completely. However, the laws that were given specifically to the Israelites are no longer applicable in every detail. We can still determine from them which sort of things are morally acceptable and which are not, but we are not required to legislate those things in our own government, much less to proscribe the same punishments. Israel was its own country with its own form of government and its own laws, just as modern countries each have their own. With this is mind, what do we see? The law requiring that an adulteress be stoned was a specific law given to the Israelites. (I'm sleepy at 10:30pm and can't find the exact reference; I believe it was in Leviticus or Numbers.) But the command to execute murderers, as I already referenced, was a general precept found in Genesis 9:6a, given to the remnant of the human race after the great flood. Thus, it applies to all who are descended from them, i.e., everyone. So it is certainly not easy to dismiss capital punishment as a dispensable command. And of course if Jesus is the same God who gave that command in Genesis, we cannot suppose that he would contradict himself.
In John, we do see Jesus removing the death penalty for adultery. To explain why he had that authority requires more of an exposition of Jewish/Christian theology.
Israel was the initial kingdom of God, his special people on earth who were supposed to obey and love him. The Jews looked forward to the coming of a Messiah (Jesus), as a political ruler who would free them from the various nations that oppressed them throughout history. Instead, he came as a spiritual ruler who would free them from the effects of sin. As a spiritual ruler of the Jews, then, he had the authority to abolish (or at least suspend) a part of the moral law. He did that for this case of adultery, but I do not find where he did that for murder.
August 16, 2009 2:49:46 AM

baddad said:
Then by all means go there and enjoy their health care.

:hello:  Thanks for putting it bluntly, baddad, though for most people moving to another country isn't so simple. I was getting a little lonesome without someone else to back me up!
August 16, 2009 3:39:34 AM

From an ABC/USA today poll
"44 percent were satisfied with the overall quality of the American medical system."

From CBS
"92 per cent of Canadians grade the overall quality of health-care services available to them and their families as an A (21 per cent) B (41 per cent) or C (30 per cent)" based on number from the CMA
....I think we can call C as satisfied.....

From Gallup Poll in Great Britian
"38% Very happy, 55% Fairly Happy"

Of course, those polls concern quality of health care, not price. Any poll asking are you happy with the cost of health care would be met with blank stares in other countries, while I'm sure most Americans are VERY unhappy with the cost of health care in our Country. No socialized programs have politicians between patients and doctors...that is just right wing scare tactics. Right now we have insurance companies between patients and doctors. Do you really think that is better? Letting an insurance company tell you what they think should be done to you instead of the doctors? And with socialized medicine you still can pay for anything you want done if you so choose, and it will cost less than it does here. So I really don't see what you are losing. I could pay for a lot of elective surgery in Canada with what I save on insurance premiums here.
Medication cost a fraction of what it cost here in other countries with government run health care...so where is your evidence our government is incapable of running our health care system. I guess you think all those other governments around the world are just better than we are since they can handle it and we can't. ...so since we can't handle social programs, lets get rid of social security, medicare, medicaid, Fema, welfare of any type (including corporate welfare), ect. ect.....
But I don't think you've done much research on this other than spouting the Fox news scare tactics. 14 Months ago Glenn Beck was doing a series about the horrible state of healthcare in America. He said the system was broke and that "it is a shame in the greatest country on earth we have the worst health care system"...now, just a few months later, with a Obama pushing for health care reform he has done a 180 and says things like "why would we want to change the greatest health care system on earth?" LOL...yeah....as usual the Fox talking points change depending on who is in office. Anything Obama proposes is evil and trying to destroy America according to them, yet they sat idly by while Bush and Cheny trashed the Constitution for 8 years. So I'm pretty much done with thread and anyone who can't think for themselves and wants to repeat the right wing talking points like you did by stating
"If you really champion socialized medicine, then please wait until Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Co. pass socialized medicine here in the US, subscribe to their plan, and purposely give yourself some sort of cancer. Wait for 5 years to see what sort of treatment you receive, then report back here."

The right wing knows they'll lose the debate if its honest, so they resort to lies like "Obama's Death Panels" and "your children will die while waiting for surgery'...maybe I should move to another country like baddad suggest. But I'd much rather stay here and make this country better.
August 16, 2009 5:32:18 AM

Bolbi said:
@Crashman, "I already have."
I suppose you're referring to your assertion that it is impossible to follow Jesus and believe in capital punishment due to the story we find recorded in John 8:1-11. I have already responded in part by quoting Jesus as saying that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. Thus, the moral law of God is not to be abandoned completely. However, the laws that were given specifically to the Israelites are no longer applicable in every detail. We can still determine from them which sort of things are morally acceptable and which are not, but we are not required to legislate those things in our own government, much less to proscribe the same punishments. Israel was its own country with its own form of government and its own laws, just as modern countries each have their own. With this is mind, what do we see? The law requiring that an adulteress be stoned was a specific law given to the Israelites. (I'm sleepy at 10:30pm and can't find the exact reference; I believe it was in Leviticus or Numbers.) But the command to execute murderers, as I already referenced, was a general precept found in Genesis 9:6a, given to the remnant of the human race after the great flood. Thus, it applies to all who are descended from them, i.e., everyone. So it is certainly not easy to dismiss capital punishment as a dispensable command. And of course if Jesus is the same God who gave that command in Genesis, we cannot suppose that he would contradict himself.
In John, we do see Jesus removing the death penalty for adultery. To explain why he had that authority requires more of an exposition of Jewish/Christian theology.
Israel was the initial kingdom of God, his special people on earth who were supposed to obey and love him. The Jews looked forward to the coming of a Messiah (Jesus), as a political ruler who would free them from the various nations that oppressed them throughout history. Instead, he came as a spiritual ruler who would free them from the effects of sin. As a spiritual ruler of the Jews, then, he had the authority to abolish (or at least suspend) a part of the moral law. He did that for this case of adultery, but I do not find where he did that for murder.


And the command to kill Adulterers? And the command to kill homosexuals? Jesus said he was there to fullfill the law, which according to the new testement he did by paying the sacrifice for everyone's sins.

That's everyone.

So that excludes murderers from suffering any punishment on behalf of CHRISTIANS.

Now, non-christians can do what they will. They aren't under the moral obligations of the new testiment, therefor they can enjoy the sweet revenge of watching a man fry on old sparky.

After all, your argument is to fullfill the law, not to execute the law. This is already expoused in the original statement for the separation of church and state "Render unto Caesar".
August 16, 2009 7:03:24 PM

the people saying obama wants to kill your grandma, comeon, death pannels and socialism are highly exaggerated, there are people besides obama in his administration, and these people are all americans, helping him, if his plans were really detrimental as fox makes it sound, i think people in his administraton would stand up and say something, or they would resign.

ive been going to church since i was little, never seen the point of it, but if you think about it, there must be a god, this perfect convergence of accidents resulting in life just dosent fly with me, from what i learned, when jesus died, the harsh punishment thing ended, giving people the ablilty to ask god for forgiveness for their sins, without sacrificing an animal. but i never really try to convince people that jesus was gods son because i cant prove it, but anyone with enough intelligence to calculate 2x2 should posess enough teraflops too deduce that there is a god.
!