timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

timschochet said:

Saints, your article in the Hillary thread leads to a fascinating question: if Hillary chose NOT to run, who then would be the favorite in what would no doubt be a wide open race? I don't think it would be Warren; she is considered too liberal for most mainstream Democrats. Cuomo has some popularity back east but I don't know how he plays in the rest of the country. Jim Webb might be an interesting candidate, as would Corey Booker if he decided to jump in. Biden lacks the "gravitas" to be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate, IMO.

Don't get me wrong; I believe Hillary WILL run, and barring an extremely unlikely chain of events, win both the nomination and the Presidency. But if she doesn't run I have no idea who will be our next President.

Click to expand...

O'Malley

G.G.: You say atheism requires evidence to support it. Many atheists deny this, saying that all they need to do is point out the lack of any good evidence for theism. You compare atheism to the denial that there are an even number of stars, which obviously would need evidence. But atheists say (using an example from Bertrand Russell) that you should rather compare atheism to the denial that there’s a teapot in orbit around the sun. Why prefer your comparison to Russell’s?

A.P.: Russell’s idea, I take it, is we don’t really have any evidence against teapotism, but we don’t need any; the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and is enough to support a-teapotism. We don’t need any positive evidence against it to be justified in a-teapotism; and perhaps the same is true of theism.

I disagree: Clearly we have a great deal of evidence against teapotism. For example, as far as we know, the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if some country with sufficiently developed space-shot capabilities had shot this pot into orbit. No country with such capabilities is sufficiently frivolous to waste its resources by trying to send a teapot into orbit. Furthermore, if some country had done so, it would have been all over the news; we would certainly have heard about it. But we haven’t. And so on. There is plenty of evidence against teapotism. So if, à la Russell, theism is like teapotism, the atheist, to be justified, would (like the a-teapotist) have to have powerful evidence against theism.

I think this guy misses the whole point of Russell's argument. Of course the teapot theory is absurd' it's SUPPOSED to be absurd. But as Russell asks, why then is the theory of a God who is all knowing and all powerful, who can't be seen, who sends his only Son to Earth to commit miracles and then decide who's going to Heaven and Hell based on belief in him, along with all of the legends in the Bible (Noah's Ark, the Red Sea, Jonah and the whale, etc.)- why shouldn't we assume all of this is absurd as well?

Platinga falls into Russell's trap by correctly demonstrating how unreasonable the Teapot argument is, yet he is unable or unwilling to apply the same logic to his own theistic beliefs.

timschochet said:

OK, let's break down the article that Saints posted. There's a lot to cover:

Gary Gutting: A recent survey by PhilPapers, the online philosophy index, says that 62 percent of philosophers are atheists (with another 11 percent “inclined” to the view). Do you think the philosophical literature provides critiques of theism strong enough to warrant their views? Or do you think philosophers’ atheism is due to factors other than rational analysis?

Alvin Plantinga: If 62 percent of philosophers are atheists, then the proportion of atheists among philosophers is much greater than (indeed, is nearly twice as great as) the proportion of atheists among academics generally. (I take atheism to be the belief that there is no such person as the God of the theistic religions.) Do philosophers know something here that these other academics don’t know? What could it be? Philosophers, as opposed to other academics, are often professionally concerned with the theistic arguments — arguments for the existence of God. My guess is that a considerable majority of philosophers, both believers and unbelievers, reject these arguments as unsound.

Still, that’s not nearly sufficient for atheism. In the British newspaper The Independent, the scientist Richard Dawkins was recently asked the following question: “If you died and arrived at the gates of heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?” His response: “I’d quote Bertrand Russell: ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!’” But lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.

In the same way, the failure of the theistic arguments, if indeed they do fail, might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism. Atheism, like even-star-ism, would presumably be the sort of belief you can hold rationally only if you have strong arguments or evidence.

So what Platinga is essentially saying here is that even if one rejects all of the philosophical arguments for God's existence (there are, at last count, 36 of them; I listed them all and discussed them in a previous thread); at best that leads to agnosticism, not to atheism. This argument is part of the insistence by religious people, in these sorts of debates, to insist on the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Apparently by forcing well known atheists like Richard Dawkins to admit that they are actually agnostics, that gives religious belief more clout for some reason.

But to most of us who call ourselves atheists, it's an insignificant distinction. You want me to admit that, instead of being 100% sure there is no God, I am 99.9999% sure? Fine. Does that make me, technically, an agnostic rather than an atheist? Fine. Does being an agnostic therefore mean that I'm uncertain? No, because 99.9999% is enough for certainty.

As a matter of fact, I could and have made "positive" arguments for atheism, separate and distinct from merely rejecting arguments for theism. But I won't repeat them here, because I reject Platinga's thesis here that it's not enough to argue against theism. I say it IS enough for me, and it's probably more than enough for those philosophers.

Click to expand...

I do think that when examining any belief that the person so believing be able to properly know what their true foundation for what their belief is. If their foundation is wrong their conclusion is likely wrong.

And it's a common refrain to say, 'well that's not me' when discussing say the issue of whether emotion or subconscience/ego/id is at the base of one's belief, or, as here, whether one is atheist because of empirical conclusions or because of agnosticism.

Now here you bring up some quotient or estimation of how right an atheist could be that there is no god - say "99.9999% sure." Ok but 0.0001% of a 100% missed, true finding leaves you 0% correct. The universe in fact is vastly wider than our perception, we know this. If you were to quantify our knowledge of anything it would be infinitesimally small. In fact the universe itself is potentially infinitely large, because it keeps growing. Because as we look further out in space the further back in time the real universe we look at is in fact infinite, and indeed one definition of God is the infinite itself, so by trying to quantify your knowledge you may have actually looked directly at God.

I am willing to accept the existence of God as the infinite universe. That definition was developed by Spinoza and was accepted by, among others, Einstein. But it's not a traditional theist definition.

why do we think the universe is infinite again?

joffer said:

why do we think the universe is infinite again?

Click to expand...

We don't have to conclude that it is. But what we do know is that we can only know what our perception allows us or what our reason or knowledge can postulate. Scientists have argued on the size of the universe, and it may be either finite (closed) or infinite (open) and that largely depends on the amount of matter we estimate to be in the universe. My point was about the limits of our own perception and physical knowledge based on the event horizon which means that we can never actually physically "see" the edges of the universe, we are always bound by the relationship of time to space. But even if you concluded the universe was finite, say by extrapolating the evidence we can perceive and via physics and mathematics, we are left with a law of the universe we do not have, that is closed space. All matter has a boundary, outside of that boundary there is always more matter, maybe not directly touching (though arguably even space has matter) but outside any given sphere there is always another sphere, another boundary enclosing more matter. One possibility is that outside our closed universe is another universe and then outside of that additional universes, but even they would have to have a limit. And then what is outside that limit? This is the temporal opposite side of the spectrum from the Big Bang which leads us further and further back in time to find a temporal beginning and matter before our limits of understanding time and matter now. Either way these are two questions that philosophers and scientists have no answer for but which theologists do.

joffer said:

why do we think the universe is infinite again?

Click to expand...

I have been told wind is infinite, so obviously the universe must be also.

In terms of Spinoza's God it doesn't matter whether the universe is actually infinite or not. God is taken to mean everything that exists, and we refer to that as the Infinite for lack of a better term.

It looks like Keystone will be the first issue to confront Obama this month. The House are poised to pass a bill this week; the Senate shortly thereafter. There shouldn't be a filibuster in the Srnate because plenty of Dems will vote for Keystone. The question is, will Obama choose to pull out the veto pen for this issue? I have a feeling he he won't veto, even though lowered gas prices might help him do so. and if he doesn't vero environmentalists are going to be pissed.

SaintsInDome2006 said:

joffer said:

why do we think the universe is infinite again?

Click to expand...

We don't have to conclude that it is. But what we do know is that we can only know what our perception allows us or what our reason or knowledge can postulate. Scientists have argued on the size of the universe, and it may be either finite (closed) or infinite (open) and that largely depends on the amount of matter we estimate to be in the universe. My point was about the limits of our own perception and physical knowledge based on the event horizon which means that we can never actually physically "see" the edges of the universe, we are always bound by the relationship of time to space. But even if you concluded the universe was finite, say by extrapolating the evidence we can perceive and via physics and mathematics, we are left with a law of the universe we do not have, that is closed space. All matter has a boundary, outside of that boundary there is always more matter, maybe not directly touching (though arguably even space has matter) but outside any given sphere there is always another sphere, another boundary enclosing more matter. One possibility is that outside our closed universe is another universe and then outside of that additional universes, but even they would have to have a limit. And then what is outside that limit? This is the temporal opposite side of the spectrum from the Big Bang which leads us further and further back in time to find a temporal beginning and matter before our limits of understanding time and matter now. Either way these are two questions that philosophers and scientists have no answer for but which theologists do.

Click to expand...

Not sure why you equate infinite with open

Saints, any thoughts on Steve Scalise?

timschochet said:

OK, let's break down the article that Saints posted. There's a lot to cover:

Gary Gutting: A recent survey by PhilPapers, the online philosophy index, says that 62 percent of philosophers are atheists (with another 11 percent “inclined” to the view). Do you think the philosophical literature provides critiques of theism strong enough to warrant their views? Or do you think philosophers’ atheism is due to factors other than rational analysis?

Alvin Plantinga: If 62 percent of philosophers are atheists, then the proportion of atheists among philosophers is much greater than (indeed, is nearly twice as great as) the proportion of atheists among academics generally. (I take atheism to be the belief that there is no such person as the God of the theistic religions.) Do philosophers know something here that these other academics don’t know? What could it be? Philosophers, as opposed to other academics, are often professionally concerned with the theistic arguments — arguments for the existence of God. My guess is that a considerable majority of philosophers, both believers and unbelievers, reject these arguments as unsound.

Still, that’s not nearly sufficient for atheism. In the British newspaper The Independent, the scientist Richard Dawkins was recently asked the following question: “If you died and arrived at the gates of heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?” His response: “I’d quote Bertrand Russell: ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!’” But lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.

In the same way, the failure of the theistic arguments, if indeed they do fail, might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism. Atheism, like even-star-ism, would presumably be the sort of belief you can hold rationally only if you have strong arguments or evidence.

So what Platinga is essentially saying here is that even if one rejects all of the philosophical arguments for God's existence (there are, at last count, 36 of them; I listed them all and discussed them in a previous thread); at best that leads to agnosticism, not to atheism. This argument is part of the insistence by religious people, in these sorts of debates, to insist on the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Apparently by forcing well known atheists like Richard Dawkins to admit that they are actually agnostics, that gives religious belief more clout for some reason.

But to most of us who call ourselves atheists, it's an insignificant distinction. You want me to admit that, instead of being 100% sure there is no God, I am 99.9999% sure? Fine. Does that make me, technically, an agnostic rather than an atheist? Fine. Does being an agnostic therefore mean that I'm uncertain? No, because 99.9999% is enough for certainty.

As a matter of fact, I could and have made "positive" arguments for atheism, separate and distinct from merely rejecting arguments for theism. But I won't repeat them here, because I reject Platinga's thesis here that it's not enough to argue against theism. I say it IS enough for me, and it's probably more than enough for those philosophers.

Click to expand...

Without getting into your 100% versus 99.9999% silliness, on a very simple and basic level, you do understand that the absolute certainty of an atheist is just as illogical as the absolute certainty of a religious believer, dont you?

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think it would be smart for both parties to start picking their Congressional leaders as national leaders, spokesmen with appeal. It still seems based on some kind of internal abilities or legislative skills that we don't understand or aren't privy to. This would also go a long way to improving Congressional popularity IMO.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting idea. I don't think I can agree with you. First I doubt it actually would have an impact on popularity. Second, these guys kind of need to know the nuts and bolts.

I believe the reason for the unpopularity of Congress is that there is a significant divide between the two political parties, preventing agreement on most issues. The uninterested public doesn't know or care the reason for this divide.

Click to expand...

The reason for the unpopularity of Congress is because the American polity is mainly ignorant as to their government and how it functions and let themselves to become slaves to the things they say they hate but soak up with the zeal of a ShamWow.

ETA - and this thread is getting boring. I refuse to debate the ridiculous religious stuff and Hillary has her own thread. Get back to the Constitution or you lose me. And yes, I'm that important.

timschochet said:

Saints, any thoughts on Steve Scalise?

Click to expand...

Uh, well let's see. First of all his district straddles Jefferson Parish, part of New Orleans and maybe some ex-suburbia on the North Shore.

Secondly, he says he did not know who Knight was, that's bs, he was Scalise's neighbor and everyone knew the game that Knight, Duke and Armstrong (D), btw) were playing back then.

Third, this little kerfuffle is the greatest thing to happen to Duke in years, he gets all new national exposure for his little fund raising scam and absolute line of total horrific bs.

Fourth - this involves something you and the whole national media can never understand, Jefferson Parish politics. It's so convoluted I can't describe it succinctly but let's just say it's corrupt first, internecine second, and racism comes a distant fifth or so in the line of what's wrong with it all. However I will tell you while shopping in JP during Christmas I saw on a traffic light pole while waiting to turn a little 3x5" sticker that said "Duke For President 2016." yeah, that still lives, or crawls rather.

Fifth - this was uncovered by a blogger, not the local or national press.

I don't recall Scalise ever saying anything racist. He was never on my sht list for crappy, corrupt pols, but he comes out of JP so there's something foul around him, but I would never call him a Dukite. I'd say leave him in his leadership spot.

The BIG scandal which the national press has not picked up on is the LA and national politicians - including Democrats with the GOP - who have paid for Duke's mailing and fundraising lists and his "consulting" work. My guess is now Duke is going around passing the hat extorting these pols to not reveal that they worked together at one point.

It's truly odd when you hear national press talking about local events and issues, I don't know if that's happened to you but it's happened quite a bit here with Katrina etc. They all typically muddle it up one way or another, inevitable.

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

Saints, any thoughts on Steve Scalise?

Click to expand...

Uh, well let's see. First of all his district straddles Jefferson Parish, part of New Orleans and maybe some ex-suburbia on the North Shore.

Secondly, he says he did not know who Knight was, that's bs, he was Scalise's neighbor and everyone knew the game that Knight, Duke and Armstrong (D), btw) were playing back then.

Third, this little kerfuffle is the greatest thing to happen to Duke in years, he gets all new national exposure for his little fund raising scam and absolute line of total horrific bs.

Fourth - this involves something you and the whole national media can never understand, Jefferson Parish politics. It's so convoluted I can't describe it succinctly but let's just say it's corrupt first, internecine second, and racism comes a distant fifth or so in the line of what's wrong with it all. However I will tell you while shopping in JP during Christmas I saw on a traffic light pole while waiting to turn a little 3x5" sticker that said "Duke For President 2016." yeah, that still lives, or crawls rather.

Fifth - this was uncovered by a blogger, not the local or national press.

I don't recall Scalise ever saying anything racist. He was never on my sht list for crappy, corrupt pols, but he comes out of JP so there's something foul around him, but I would never call him a Dukite. I'd say leave him in his leadership spot.

The BIG scandal which the national press has not picked up on is the LA and national politicians - including Democrats with the GOP - who have paid for Duke's mailing and fundraising lists and his "consulting" work. My guess is now Duke is going around passing the hat extorting these pols to not reveal that they worked together at one point.

It's truly odd when you hear national press talking about local events and issues, I don't know if that's happened to you but it's happened quite a bit here with Katrina etc. They all typically muddle it up one way or another, inevitable.

Click to expand...

Rarely lately. During the Rodney King riots and OJ trials, it happened a lot more. I appreciate your insight.

One aspect of Duke which the media never seems to focus on is his anti-Semitism. He has written numerous books and pamphlets blaming just about every American and world problem on an international Jewish conspiracy. But he's typically described as a white supremacist with "borderline conservative views."

Yankee23Fan said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think it would be smart for both parties to start picking their Congressional leaders as national leaders, spokesmen with appeal. It still seems based on some kind of internal abilities or legislative skills that we don't understand or aren't privy to. This would also go a long way to improving Congressional popularity IMO.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting idea. I don't think I can agree with you. First I doubt it actually would have an impact on popularity. Second, these guys kind of need to know the nuts and bolts.

I believe the reason for the unpopularity of Congress is that there is a significant divide between the two political parties, preventing agreement on most issues. The uninterested public doesn't know or care the reason for this divide.

Click to expand...

The reason for the unpopularity of Congress is because the American polity is mainly ignorant as to their government and how it functions and let themselves to become slaves to the things they say they hate but soak up with the zeal of a ShamWow.

ETA - and this thread is getting boring. I refuse to debate the ridiculous religious stuff and Hillary has her own thread. Get back to the Constitution or you lose me. And yes, I'm that important.

Click to expand...

I will be continuing with the Constitution. I agree you're very important!

But I won't stop discussing religion or Hillary. In fact, I'm considering creating a religion around Hillary.

Todd Andrews said:

timschochet said:

OK, let's break down the article that Saints posted. There's a lot to cover:

Gary Gutting: A recent survey by PhilPapers, the online philosophy index, says that 62 percent of philosophers are atheists (with another 11 percent “inclined” to the view). Do you think the philosophical literature provides critiques of theism strong enough to warrant their views? Or do you think philosophers’ atheism is due to factors other than rational analysis?

Alvin Plantinga: If 62 percent of philosophers are atheists, then the proportion of atheists among philosophers is much greater than (indeed, is nearly twice as great as) the proportion of atheists among academics generally. (I take atheism to be the belief that there is no such person as the God of the theistic religions.) Do philosophers know something here that these other academics don’t know? What could it be? Philosophers, as opposed to other academics, are often professionally concerned with the theistic arguments — arguments for the existence of God. My guess is that a considerable majority of philosophers, both believers and unbelievers, reject these arguments as unsound.

Still, that’s not nearly sufficient for atheism. In the British newspaper The Independent, the scientist Richard Dawkins was recently asked the following question: “If you died and arrived at the gates of heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?” His response: “I’d quote Bertrand Russell: ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!’” But lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.

In the same way, the failure of the theistic arguments, if indeed they do fail, might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism. Atheism, like even-star-ism, would presumably be the sort of belief you can hold rationally only if you have strong arguments or evidence.

So what Platinga is essentially saying here is that even if one rejects all of the philosophical arguments for God's existence (there are, at last count, 36 of them; I listed them all and discussed them in a previous thread); at best that leads to agnosticism, not to atheism. This argument is part of the insistence by religious people, in these sorts of debates, to insist on the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Apparently by forcing well known atheists like Richard Dawkins to admit that they are actually agnostics, that gives religious belief more clout for some reason.

But to most of us who call ourselves atheists, it's an insignificant distinction. You want me to admit that, instead of being 100% sure there is no God, I am 99.9999% sure? Fine. Does that make me, technically, an agnostic rather than an atheist? Fine. Does being an agnostic therefore mean that I'm uncertain? No, because 99.9999% is enough for certainty.

As a matter of fact, I could and have made "positive" arguments for atheism, separate and distinct from merely rejecting arguments for theism. But I won't repeat them here, because I reject Platinga's thesis here that it's not enough to argue against theism. I say it IS enough for me, and it's probably more than enough for those philosophers.

Click to expand...

Without getting into your 100% versus 99.9999% silliness, on a very simple and basic level, you do understand that the absolute certainty of an atheist is just as illogical as the absolute certainty of a religious believer, dont you?

Click to expand...

When you put it that way, sure. But I try not to think of it that way. I prefer to think of my atheism in the same way that a scientific theory is regarded- it's considered true until someone comes along and disproves it. Furthermore, the burden of proof for any debate regarding God's existence must by definition be on those who believe in God's existence.

Yankee23Fan said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think it would be smart for both parties to start picking their Congressional leaders as national leaders, spokesmen with appeal. It still seems based on some kind of internal abilities or legislative skills that we don't understand or aren't privy to. This would also go a long way to improving Congressional popularity IMO.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting idea. I don't think I can agree with you. First I doubt it actually would have an impact on popularity. Second, these guys kind of need to know the nuts and bolts.

I believe the reason for the unpopularity of Congress is that there is a significant divide between the two political parties, preventing agreement on most issues. The uninterested public doesn't know or care the reason for this divide.

Click to expand...

The reason for the unpopularity of Congress is because the American polity is mainly ignorant as to their government and how it functions and let themselves to become slaves to the things they say they hate but soak up with the zeal of a ShamWow.

ETA - and this thread is getting boring. I refuse to debate the ridiculous religious stuff and Hillary has her own thread. Get back to the Constitution or you lose me. And yes, I'm that important.

Click to expand...

You'd better do what he says Tim - he means business and he's got a gun brain.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

Saints, any thoughts on Steve Scalise?

Click to expand...

Uh, well let's see. First of all his district straddles Jefferson Parish, part of New Orleans and maybe some ex-suburbia on the North Shore.

Secondly, he says he did not know who Knight was, that's bs, he was Scalise's neighbor and everyone knew the game that Knight, Duke and Armstrong (D), btw) were playing back then.

Third, this little kerfuffle is the greatest thing to happen to Duke in years, he gets all new national exposure for his little fund raising scam and absolute line of total horrific bs.

Fourth - this involves something you and the whole national media can never understand, Jefferson Parish politics. It's so convoluted I can't describe it succinctly but let's just say it's corrupt first, internecine second, and racism comes a distant fifth or so in the line of what's wrong with it all. However I will tell you while shopping in JP during Christmas I saw on a traffic light pole while waiting to turn a little 3x5" sticker that said "Duke For President 2016." yeah, that still lives, or crawls rather.

Fifth - this was uncovered by a blogger, not the local or national press.

I don't recall Scalise ever saying anything racist. He was never on my sht list for crappy, corrupt pols, but he comes out of JP so there's something foul around him, but I would never call him a Dukite. I'd say leave him in his leadership spot.

The BIG scandal which the national press has not picked up on is the LA and national politicians - including Democrats with the GOP - who have paid for Duke's mailing and fundraising lists and his "consulting" work. My guess is now Duke is going around passing the hat extorting these pols to not reveal that they worked together at one point.

It's truly odd when you hear national press talking about local events and issues, I don't know if that's happened to you but it's happened quite a bit here with Katrina etc. They all typically muddle it up one way or another, inevitable.

Click to expand...

Rarely lately. During the Rodney King riots and OJ trials, it happened a lot more. I appreciate your insight.

One aspect of Duke which the media never seems to focus on is his anti-Semitism. He has written numerous books and pamphlets blaming just about every American and world problem on an international Jewish conspiracy. But he's typically described as a white supremacist with "borderline conservative views."

Click to expand...

"Alleged supremacist" yeah that's a good one.

Here's where I hear the anti-semitism: when he talks about world banking. He uses code for everything. It starts with the Fed (ok), and then he talks about financial regulation and transparency (yes, yes).... and then "International Finance!!!!"

Oh FML - Article I Section 8 can't be reviewed in total. If you want the discussions we've been having you need to break it up.

But here, here is the nutshell review of Section 8 - The founders gave certain specific powers to the Congress and deliniated them here. They did because they didn't want a singular monarch to just institute these specific laws - all of which the king had done to them. So these were the ones fresh on their minds and considered most important for the most part.

There. Pfft. The whole section at once. Why not just say, hey, let's talk the Magna Carta - go!

Section 8 is...CRAZY!

jk.

The first thing that occurs to me is that anybody who studies American history, especially the history of the last 100 years, knows that the President has "usurped?" several of these powers. (I don't exactly like using that word, because it seems pejorative to me.)

The most obvious powers that the President has used:

1. Declaring war. We don't declare war anymore. But let's face it, all military acts are decided by the President. (Has Congress ever decided unilaterally to use the military?) According to the War Powers Act, Congress is supposed to approve military acts after the fact (is this Constitutional?) But even that doesn't really happen. So, based on your POV, either the President is acting illegally or this part of the Section is antiquated.

2. "Regulate the value thereof" (of money)- I guess this depends what you're talking about. If by that they mean, how many nickels make up a dollar, then sure, I guess Congress set the rules back in the day and nobody's changed them. But we're talking about the TRUE value of our money in relation to how much can be purchased, then the Federal Reserve Bank has much more input than Congress, and the head of that bank is appointed by the President. Based on this Section, is the Federal Reserve Constitutional?

3. Naturalization- I assume they're talking about how one gets to stay in this country? If that's the case, then President Obama's recent executive order regarding this very issue would seem to contradict this Section. Was the President's order Constitutional?

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other ways that either the President or our various government bureaucracies have assumed many of these powers listed, which may not have been the intent of the writers of this document. (Although it doesn't say that Congress is the ONLY group that has these powers- is that significant?)

Thoughts?

Yankee23Fan said:

Oh FML - Article I Section 8 can't be reviewed in total. If you want the discussions we've been having you need to break it up.

But here, here is the nutshell review of Section 8 - The founders gave certain specific powers to the Congress and deliniated them here. They did because they didn't want a singular monarch to just institute these specific laws - all of which the king had done to them. So these were the ones fresh on their minds and considered most important for the most part.

There. Pfft. The whole section at once. Why not just say, hey, let's talk the Magna Carta - go!

Click to expand...

I tried to break it up, in terms of my own thoughts, in my next post. Please respond.

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

Saints, any thoughts on Steve Scalise?

Click to expand...

Uh, well let's see. First of all his district straddles Jefferson Parish, part of New Orleans and maybe some ex-suburbia on the North Shore.

Secondly, he says he did not know who Knight was, that's bs, he was Scalise's neighbor and everyone knew the game that Knight, Duke and Armstrong (D), btw) were playing back then.

Third, this little kerfuffle is the greatest thing to happen to Duke in years, he gets all new national exposure for his little fund raising scam and absolute line of total horrific bs.

Fourth - this involves something you and the whole national media can never understand, Jefferson Parish politics. It's so convoluted I can't describe it succinctly but let's just say it's corrupt first, internecine second, and racism comes a distant fifth or so in the line of what's wrong with it all. However I will tell you while shopping in JP during Christmas I saw on a traffic light pole while waiting to turn a little 3x5" sticker that said "Duke For President 2016." yeah, that still lives, or crawls rather.

Fifth - this was uncovered by a blogger, not the local or national press.

I don't recall Scalise ever saying anything racist. He was never on my sht list for crappy, corrupt pols, but he comes out of JP so there's something foul around him, but I would never call him a Dukite. I'd say leave him in his leadership spot.

The BIG scandal which the national press has not picked up on is the LA and national politicians - including Democrats with the GOP - who have paid for Duke's mailing and fundraising lists and his "consulting" work. My guess is now Duke is going around passing the hat extorting these pols to not reveal that they worked together at one point.

It's truly odd when you hear national press talking about local events and issues, I don't know if that's happened to you but it's happened quite a bit here with Katrina etc. They all typically muddle it up one way or another, inevitable.

Click to expand...

Rarely lately. During the Rodney King riots and OJ trials, it happened a lot more. I appreciate your insight.

One aspect of Duke which the media never seems to focus on is his anti-Semitism. He has written numerous books and pamphlets blaming just about every American and world problem on an international Jewish conspiracy. But he's typically described as a white supremacist with "borderline conservative views."

Click to expand...

"Alleged supremacist" yeah that's a good one.

Here's where I hear the anti-semitism: when he talks about world banking. He uses code for everything. It starts with the Fed (ok), and then he talks about financial regulation and transparency (yes, yes).... and then "International Finance!!!!"

Click to expand...

In his books and pamphlets, he doesn't bother with code. He's pretty forward about it.

Here is something that is potentially more important than Hillary, religion, and David Duke combined. It's not more important than the Constitution; however, I believe that it very well may be unConstitutional:

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/05/report-jim-mora-to-interview-for-new-york-jets-job/

And here is my challenge of the day for constant readers of this thread: combine Hillary Clinton, religion, atheism, the Constitution, David Duke, and Jim Mora in a single sentence which is both logical and not compound.

timschochet said:

And here is my challenge of the day for constant readers of this thread: combine Hillary Clinton, religion, atheism, the Constitution, David Duke, and Jim Mora in a single sentence which is both logical and not compound.

Click to expand...

Now you're taunting me, I think this is in a transcript from my last Friday night bar expedition... I will see if I can dig it up.

[Old man voice]: The problem with this country today is that the Constitution and good old fashioned religion have been abandoned for lawlessness and atheism and this has been compounded by over-adherence to false loyalties and mythical superstition, just like Jim Mora wouldn't let go of Carl Smith in the 1990's, those in the middle won't let go of Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush any more than those on the far right and the far left won't let go of David Duke and Louis Farrakhan.

[Drops Mic]

SaintsInDome2006 said:

[Old man voice]: The problem with this country today is that the Constitution and good old fashioned religion have been abandoned for lawlessness and atheism and this has been compounded by over-adherence to false loyalties and mythical superstition, just like Jim Mora wouldn't let go of Carl Smith in the 1990's, those in the middle won't let go of Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush any more than those on the far right and the far left won't let go of David Duke and Louis Farrakhan.

Click to expand...

Well done!

Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez first time ballot guys? Absolutely, well deserved.

Biggio finally getting in? Of course, long overdue.

John Smoltz, first time ballot? Not seeing it. I like the guy, but he's a borderline HOFer to begin with.

timschochet said:

And here is my challenge of the day for constant readers of this thread: combine Hillary Clinton, religion, atheism, the Constitution, David Duke, and Jim Mora in a single sentence which is both logical and not compound.

Click to expand...

The battle between religion and atheism in American culture is not unlike the stalwart political defenders of Hillary Clinton and David duke whom take to the airwaves and internets in a ridiculous display of narcissistic rhetoric that has the comedic brilliance of a Jim Mora playoff rant.

Yankee23Fan said:

timschochet said:

And here is my challenge of the day for constant readers of this thread: combine Hillary Clinton, religion, atheism, the Constitution, David Duke, and Jim Mora in a single sentence which is both logical and not compound.

Click to expand...

The battle between religion and atheism in American culture is not unlike the stalwart political defenders of Hillary Clinton and David duke whom take to the airwaves and internets in a ridiculous display of narcissistic rhetoric that has the comedic brilliance of a Jim Mora playoff rant.

Click to expand...

No Constitution.

timschochet said:

Yankee23Fan said:

timschochet said:

And here is my challenge of the day for constant readers of this thread: combine Hillary Clinton, religion, atheism, the Constitution, David Duke, and Jim Mora in a single sentence which is both logical and not compound.

Click to expand...

The battle between religion and atheism in American culture is not unlike the stalwart political defenders of Hillary Clinton and David duke whom take to the airwaves and internets in a ridiculous display of narcissistic rhetoric that has the comedic brilliance of a Jim Mora playoff rant.

Click to expand...

No Constitution.

Click to expand...

missed it completely. Oh well.

timschochet said:

Todd Andrews said:

timschochet said:

OK, let's break down the article that Saints posted. There's a lot to cover:

Gary Gutting: A recent survey by PhilPapers, the online philosophy index, says that 62 percent of philosophers are atheists (with another 11 percent “inclined” to the view). Do you think the philosophical literature provides critiques of theism strong enough to warrant their views? Or do you think philosophers’ atheism is due to factors other than rational analysis?

Alvin Plantinga: If 62 percent of philosophers are atheists, then the proportion of atheists among philosophers is much greater than (indeed, is nearly twice as great as) the proportion of atheists among academics generally. (I take atheism to be the belief that there is no such person as the God of the theistic religions.) Do philosophers know something here that these other academics don’t know? What could it be? Philosophers, as opposed to other academics, are often professionally concerned with the theistic arguments — arguments for the existence of God. My guess is that a considerable majority of philosophers, both believers and unbelievers, reject these arguments as unsound.

Still, that’s not nearly sufficient for atheism. In the British newspaper The Independent, the scientist Richard Dawkins was recently asked the following question: “If you died and arrived at the gates of heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?” His response: “I’d quote Bertrand Russell: ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!’” But lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.

In the same way, the failure of the theistic arguments, if indeed they do fail, might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism. Atheism, like even-star-ism, would presumably be the sort of belief you can hold rationally only if you have strong arguments or evidence.

So what Platinga is essentially saying here is that even if one rejects all of the philosophical arguments for God's existence (there are, at last count, 36 of them; I listed them all and discussed them in a previous thread); at best that leads to agnosticism, not to atheism. This argument is part of the insistence by religious people, in these sorts of debates, to insist on the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Apparently by forcing well known atheists like Richard Dawkins to admit that they are actually agnostics, that gives religious belief more clout for some reason.

But to most of us who call ourselves atheists, it's an insignificant distinction. You want me to admit that, instead of being 100% sure there is no God, I am 99.9999% sure? Fine. Does that make me, technically, an agnostic rather than an atheist? Fine. Does being an agnostic therefore mean that I'm uncertain? No, because 99.9999% is enough for certainty.

As a matter of fact, I could and have made "positive" arguments for atheism, separate and distinct from merely rejecting arguments for theism. But I won't repeat them here, because I reject Platinga's thesis here that it's not enough to argue against theism. I say it IS enough for me, and it's probably more than enough for those philosophers.

Click to expand...

Without getting into your 100% versus 99.9999% silliness, on a very simple and basic level, you do understand that the absolute certainty of an atheist is just as illogical as the absolute certainty of a religious believer, dont you?

Click to expand...

When you put it that way, sure. But I try not to think of it that way. I prefer to think of my atheism in the same way that a scientific theory is regarded- it's considered true until someone comes along and disproves it. Furthermore, the burden of proof for any debate regarding God's existence must by definition be on those who believe in God's existence.

Click to expand...

Thank you for agreeing with me, you filthy agnostic.

After drinking far too much Dome Foam on a recent trip to New Orleans, Jim Mora was overheard mumbling in Snake and Jake's early one morning: "religion, atheism . . . whatever . . . imagine if wikkidpissah had Steadman illustrating . . . it'd be better than Hillary Clinton teabagging that scumbag racist nazi David Duke then slapping him in the nuts with a rolled up copy of the Constitution . . . barkeep!"

timschochet said:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Click to expand...

Some might wonder how the bold impacts modern 2d amendment analysis.....

Well you tried. religion, atheism, whatever? Not exactly coherent. Also the image of Hillary tea bagging David Duke is rather unappealing.

timschochet said:

Well you tried. religion, atheism, whatever? Not exactly coherent. Also the image of Hillary tea bagging David Duke is rather unappealing.

Click to expand...

You're gonna have to give him bonus points for Snake`n`Jake's they do have Naked Wednesdays there or used to so that scenario is somewhat plausible.

I don't think Dukie is going anywhere near that part of Oak though.

Boehner was just re-elected Speaker. But there were 25 votes against him. (Conservatives needed 29 to defeat him.) That's the biggest revolt in over a century. Boehner is weaker than ever with regard to his own party.

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

Well you tried. religion, atheism, whatever? Not exactly coherent. Also the image of Hillary tea bagging David Duke is rather unappealing.

Click to expand...

You're gonna have to give him bonus points for Snake`n`Jake's they do have Naked Wednesdays there or used to so that scenario is somewhat plausible.

I don't think Dukie is going anywhere near that part of Oak though.

Click to expand...

You only get bonus points for Snake'n'Jakes if you're in a "sit on a sofa covered in dried human fluids" contest.

Henry Ford said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

Well you tried. religion, atheism, whatever? Not exactly coherent. Also the image of Hillary tea bagging David Duke is rather unappealing.

Click to expand...

You're gonna have to give him bonus points for Snake`n`Jake's they do have Naked Wednesdays there or used to so that scenario is somewhat plausible.

I don't think Dukie is going anywhere near that part of Oak though.

Click to expand...

You only get bonus points for Snake'n'Jakes if you're in a "sit on a sofa covered in dried human fluids" contest.

Click to expand...

I win!!!

Uh oh this took a bad turn, thread could be locked now!

Damn. I'm going to have nightmares for weeks.

Conservatives are going absolutely nuts on the Sean Hannity show. Hannity is accusing the "establishment" of forcing House members to vote for Boehner through secret pressure. Gohmert was a guest and Hannity treated him as a great hero and patriot. Callers are outraged by the vote and say they've been betrayed again.

timschochet said:

Section 8 is...CRAZY!

jk.

The first thing that occurs to me is that anybody who studies American history, especially the history of the last 100 years, knows that the President has "usurped?" several of these powers. (I don't exactly like using that word, because it seems pejorative to me.)

The most obvious powers that the President has used:

1. Declaring war. We don't declare war anymore. But let's face it, all military acts are decided by the President. (Has Congress ever decided unilaterally to use the military?) According to the War Powers Act, Congress is supposed to approve military acts after the fact (is this Constitutional?) But even that doesn't really happen. So, based on your POV, either the President is acting illegally or this part of the Section is antiquated.

Click to expand...

The formal declaration of war was something that was already out of practice and not considered the absolute requirement for the use of military power. Madison's Federalist 41 is one of the more brilliant in terms of the use of the war powers ever written. IF you want to take that brillinat writing and condense it into a sound clip that would capture the attention of the American polity today you could phrase the argument he made this way - the best defense is a strong offense. That basis is the formation of the war powers. It was not to be simply a defensive tool that the President had but offense was part of the overall defense of the nation. The government would be doing itself and its people a massive disservice if it only reacted with its war powers.

The War Powers Act codified the general practice that had been in place since the inception of the country. The President has the authority and power to use the military and the Congress must approve that use, rarely before but always after its use. The constitutionality of the War Powers Act is an interesting subject all to itself. You could effectively argue it wasn't necessary and in becoming law it is extra-constitutional. Or you could look at it as just a legislative scheme to enact the necessary and proper powers of the Congress the way the Constitution says the Congress can.

We have had a debate about this as it centered around the War on Terror and the Authorization to Use Military Force of 2001. Many anti-Bush people argue that he never requested that Congress formally declare war because there is no romantic resolution in place. But the Authorization is the declaration - the Congress supporting the President's use of the military is the declaration of war - or to put it another way - the constitutional cover to use that force. And te reason for the system to be backwards from where some people try to pin it is fairly obvious - we were at war the second the first plane hit the tower whether we knew it or not. We were at war with Japan the second the Missouri and Arizona were hit. The arguments against the President using the military would logicaly run to the conclusion that the Navy in 1941 shooting back at the Japanese were all criminals acting without proper authority to do so, but we know that is a ridiculous conclusion to reach. Similarly, had Roosevelt been able to move a fleet into Hawaii to counterattack and stop the attack on Pearl Harbor, we are still at war, he is acting constitutionaly and the Congress didn't need to convene real quick to pass a resolution.

The use of the war powers is a fluid and always a moment to moment exercise in government power. The President cannot be Commander in Chief the way the Constitution requires if he must go to Congress before letting the Marines board a ship or the Army shoot at another soldier or international criminal or terrorist. The fact that Congress approves of the measure after the fact is good enough. And the notes of the convention back that up because the original wording wasn't "declare" war but "make" war. To make war is to shoot, or board a ship, or start a blockade, or a hundred other things. That was too much power in Congress and not enough power in the Executive to use the war powers so they changed it to "declare" war. Its a subtle but important difference.

Yankee, did President Lincoln have the legal authority under the Constitution to use federal troops to attack and occupy southern states who legislatures has voted to leave the USA?

timschochet said:

2. "Regulate the value thereof" (of money)- I guess this depends what you're talking about. If by that they mean, how many nickels make up a dollar, then sure, I guess Congress set the rules back in the day and nobody's changed them. But we're talking about the TRUE value of our money in relation to how much can be purchased, then the Federal Reserve Bank has much more input than Congress, and the head of that bank is appointed by the President. Based on this Section, is the Federal Reserve Constitutional?

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

This power is there because the Article of Confederation conferred the power to coin money to the national government and the states. So there were 9-14 different "coin" in the country being used. There was no standard American "dollar." New York had its own money as did Georgia and the usage of the different currencies to stabilize a national economy was impossible. Hamilton's brilliant economic system came because of the mess that having a national and multiple state economy running at the same time with different values to everything.

The ideal of a government power being able to coin and therefore regulate the value of its own money was considered one of the most important powers of a government at the time. And with the mess that was the AoC this was a power that while massively controversial at the time, was ultimately necessary. Without it, Hamilton can't create our economic system and our country probably dies rather quickly under the weight of its own disorganization.

The federal reserve is another topic all to itself. And it is Constitutional. Congress passed the Act creating it. Just because the President has appointment powers doesn't mean it is not constitutional. The reason it was created though, to me, leaves something to be desired and the way we massively overhauled our government foundation from 1911-1919 with many of these laws is really biting us at the moment. I wrote a long diatribe on this when the whole TARP mess was happening. It might still be around.

timschochet said:

Yankee, did President Lincoln have the legal authority under the Constitution to use federal troops to attack and occupy southern states who legislatures has voted to leave the USA?

Click to expand...

Of course.

timschochet said:

Conservatives are going absolutely nuts on the Sean Hannity show. Hannity is accusing the "establishment" of forcing House members to vote for Boehner through secret pressure. Gohmert was a guest and Hannity treated him as a great hero and patriot. Callers are outraged by the vote and say they've been betrayed again.

Click to expand...

[Curly Bill]

Well, bye.

[/Curly Bill]

Yankee23Fan said:

timschochet said:

Yankee, did President Lincoln have the legal authority under the Constitution to use federal troops to attack and occupy southern states who legislatures has voted to leave the USA?

Click to expand...

Of course.

Click to expand...

Couple thoughts:

- look at the provisions for the States to enter the Union, presumably a similar procedure would be needed for them to leave.

- Tim somewhere there is a guarantee of a "republican" form of government, not sure where that is but I always thought that was something that Lincoln could hang his hat on.