For Mohammed's sake James, you've left out important details. Don't fret, I've added them

I'm not following. Is there something wrong with these maps? I'm pretty sure both were in my geography textbook.

cbwm I think you made Texas too small. Doesn't it take up 83% of the country?

Originally Posted by vangogh

Doesn't it take up 83% of the country?

No, that's Alaska

Originally Posted by vangogh

I'm not following. Is there something wrong with these maps? I'm pretty sure both were in my geography textbook.

I guess that must have been one of Ward Churchill's classes you were attending, right .

I was long out of school when Ward first started teaching, though it would be hard to live here and not know who he is.

Are you sure it's Alaska? Don't let wubya hear you say that.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

No, that's Alaska .

Steven is right
Alaska has more oil than Texas but Texas is BIGGER


fastreplies

And Better. Don't mess with Texas. Sorry all, forgot to color Yurop and French Canada in Red.

So it looks like the local Commies are the ones producing most of America's GDP, and the non-Commie states are the ones living off the dole? Or are oceans evil?



I think you meant for the Wealthy Commies to be New England, or NY, and not Virginia, no?

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

So it looks like the local Commies are the ones producing most of America's GDP, and the non-Commie states are the ones living off the dole? Or are oceans evil?

I think you meant for the Wealthy Commies to be New England, or NY, and not Virginia, no?

Now that is embarrassing. Not that the map was to scale, but guilty as charged. I did place NYC somewhere in Virginia. I never did have much use for the east coast, there be dragons there.

It may be a misnomer to say the local Commies are producing most of the GDP, except maybe in the case of California. I may be completely off here, but it seems likely that religious voters likely vote republican. If one assumes that densely populated areas are less likely to be highly religious, and clearly the coastlines are more densely populated, one is left with more communist voting patterns on the coastlines (Can there be any doubt that killing off god is the first requirement of communism according to Marx?).

For non-religious voters, the dividing line between communist and republican used to be $70,000 a year annual income, though I believe that line has moved to 90 or so. Given the 80/20 rule, which states that 20% of a population earn as much as the other 80%, and within each subgroup the 80/20 rule applies recursively, I think it's safe to say the GDP, even in states with heavy communist leanings, is being produced as much by republicans as by communists.

The exception here being California, where many of the wealthy vote communist because of social issues(stance on gays, abortion, etc) and peer pressure(high homosexual population in hollywood and SF, truly communist leaning socialites (Sarrandon, Penn, Robbins, Fonda,etc,etc ,etc)), despite the potential impact to their pocket book. In a way, their vote is very similar to those who vote Republican in the heartland for religious reasons only.

In my opinion, one really has to discard hi-income votes which go communist for social issues as those votes are mostly hypocritical. Like Arriana Huffington and John Kerry, most of those people do not pay taxes, and do not plan to pay taxes, so they don't feel the financial pain of their vote. This contrasts with the poor Christian from the heartland who votes Republican because of social issues(Stance on Abortion, Guns, God), regardless of the fact that the Republican they are voting for is more likely to vote against funding a social welfare program that might benefit them.


Of course, I could be wrong.....

cbwm, you know nothing of politics. You don't even know what communist is. Social programs and human rights don't equal communism.

BTW, you can't "kill off" something that doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by joder

cbwm, you know nothing of politics. You don't even know what communist is. Social programs and human rights don't equal communism.

BTW, you can't "kill off" something that doesn't exist.

Hah, your drinking your own cool aid now. I use the word commie in a very loose sense just as the picture which sponsored this wonderful thread did. Mostly, I was referring to the democratic party, though I've been known to refer to many other groups of people as communists.

I also did make mention of the fact that communists are by definition Athiests, something they share with Secular Humanists. Given that Secular Humanists are now listed as the third largest religion on the planet, perhaps Karl Marx was not a complete failure after all.

Anyhow, to the point, I use Commie is a convenient slang word to refer to those who blindly believe in the goodness of mankind, each working according to their ability, each receiving according to their need, blah blah blah blah. The USSR may be dead, but that ideology lives on today. And here I thought Animal Farm was a required read to get out of high school.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Hah, your drinking your own cool aid now. I use the word commie in a very loose sense just as the picture which sponsored this wonderful thread did. Mostly, I was referring to the democratic party, though I've been known to refer to many other groups of people as communists.

Then I guess by your logic, you could refer to Republicans as fascists.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I also did make mention of the fact that communists are by definition Athiests, something they share with Secular Humanists. Given that Secular Humanists are now listed as the third largest religion on the planet, perhaps Karl Marx was not a complete failure after all.

Anyhow, to the point, I use Commie is a convenient slang word to refer to those who blindly believe in the goodness of mankind, each working according to their ability, each receiving according to their need, blah blah blah blah. The USSR may be dead, but that ideology lives on today. And here I thought Animal Farm was a required read to get out of high school.

Atheist means a lack of belief in the supernatural and were around long before Marx. Atheism and Secular Humanism are not religions.

Originally Posted by joder

Then I guess by your logic, you could refer to Republicans as fascists.

I'm not sure I would call it logic, but yes, one could certainly jokingly call Republicans fascists, much as I called Democrats Commies

Originally Posted by joder

Atheist means a lack of belief in the supernatural and were around long before Marx. Atheism and Secular Humanism are not religions.

According to my understanding, atheists are categorized as Secular Humanists, though not all Secular Humanists are atheist. A careful review of the questions asked on the site for the Belief-O-Matic thread, actually asks what belief system your religion would mandate of its disciples, not just be indifferent about. I'm no expert, but it seems to me the minute a group of people start shoving their beliefs about how mankind came into existence down everyone else's throats(And many other things), they start to look an awful lot like a religion.

I find it particularly interesting that members of this non-religious religion are working towards, and have been successful at, taking every aspect of Christian beliefs out of our public schools, and yet the theory of evolution was allowed to stay. If we are going to teach our children theories, perhaps it wouldn't hurt to teach them creation theory according to the bible as well, just to be even handed.

This would probably be a good place to address a funny post I saw Fast Replies make on a different thread, something about a made up personality people have been worshiping for 2000 years. I believe he is referring to Christ, and generally speaking, there is more evidence that Christ existed than there is that Julius Caesar existed. To believe the stories of miracles is one thing, but to deny he existed is, well, just ignorant.

As a side note, the US supreme court disagrees with your assessment that Secular Humanism is not a religion. Sorry for the crappy link, but I did a lazy google and just took the first link that came back... **** Google.

Evolution is a scientific theory just like Newtons theory of gravity. Theories in science are factual and still theories. Facts support them and they are falsifiable. If facts are brought forth contradicting the theory, it is revised or discarded. The facts support evolution by natural selection.

Creationism is not a scientific theory but just a religious belief system. Any tenets that creationists have put forward that can be investigated scientifically have been falsified, yet creationists still hold on to their irrational beliefs.

Actually there is very little historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth. There is a lot of historical evidence showing the origins of many of the Jesus stories from sources before the time of Jesus.

Originally Posted by cbwm

taking every aspect of Christian beliefs out of our public schools, and yet the theory of evolution was allowed to stay. If we are going to teach our children theories, perhaps it wouldn't hurt to teach them creation theory according to the bible as well, just to be even handed.

Please tell me you're joking. Evolution is much as fact as Newton's theory of universal gravitation. We've seen many, many examples of it in action, like bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics. Our understanding of the mechanics of evolution isn't complete, and changing as we learn more, but evolution is as real as the theories about electrons that your computer would not work if these theories were wrong.

With as much respect as is possible, if you believe what you wrote, that shows a profound lack of basic 'literacy' of what science is ... making it hard to take seriously the idea that it's "even handed" instead of promoting a future of ignorance, to fail our children in their educations, giving reality the same credence as ancient mythology.

Guess what ... it's not just evolution that was "allowed" to stay in public schools. Math, geography, history, language, and other things that are true are also "allowed" to be part of the education we give to each new generation to keep America as competitive as possible in the global economy. "There's no crying in baseball..."

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.


An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Please tell me you're joking. Evolution is much as fact as Newton's theory of universal gravitation. We've seen many, many examples of it in action, like bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics. Our understanding of the mechanics of evolution isn't complete, and changing as we learn more, but evolution is as real as the theories about electrons that your computer would not work if these theories were wrong.

With as much respect as is possible, if you believe what you wrote, that shows a profound lack of basic 'literacy' of what science is ... making it hard to take seriously the idea that it's "even handed" instead of promoting a future of ignorance, to fail our children in their educations, giving reality the same credence as ancient mythology.

Guess what ... it's not just evolution that was "allowed" to stay in public schools. Math, geography, history, language, and other things that are true are also "allowed" to be part of the education we give to each new generation to keep America as competitive as possible in the global economy. "There's no crying in baseball..."

Quite right Forrest. Evolution by selective breeding, for example, is that scientific theory put into practice for much of the food we eat. We both came up with Buddhist on our religious assessment which may (or may not) have answered the creation question the same. I'm referring to the answer allowing for the possibility of evolution by divine guidance.

Whether we agree on that point or not, the ego required for the blanket dismissal of everything we don't know as "superstition" demonstrates arrogance and ignorance. (We know how DNA works, therefore there is no god can hardly be considered logic) In that spirit, we remove all other religious teachings from our schools to prop up our new religion. Ego. Self.

Oh, and if there was any argument about whether Secular Humanism is a religion before, I think the vehemence of the responses makes my case for me. Just goes to show you, nobody likes their religious beliefs shat upon.

Joder, I'm sorry man, but we are talking about history now, and that statement without any supporting documentation is just ridiculous. None of us will know exactly what happened from 0ad -33ad, but I feel pretty confident that for piece of evidence you produce to argue that Jesus didn't exist, I can produce 100 that say he did. These types of overreaching attempts to eliminate not only the stories about the man, but the man himself, exemplify the very agenda I mentioned in my first post.

"There is no crying in baseball .." - Ha! The minute I start whining in my posts, please ban me from this board, I'll get more work done. I'm the guy in the bleachers behind first base, with a beer in his hand, another in the cupholder, yelling at the first baseman of the opposing team, describing sexual acts I performed with his wife until he errors.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Quite right Forrest. Evolution by selective breeding, for example, is that scientific theory put into practice for much of the food we eat. We both came up with Buddhist on our religious assessment which may (or may not) have answered the creation question the same. I'm referring to the answer allowing for the possibility of evolution by divine guidance.

Which is also a religious belief that, though I may share it, does not belong in a science classroom. We've already choked our kids with enough "special programs" and outcome-based education to be pushing this. I'd much prefer that my kid can read, write, and compute(mind you, without having to rely on a computer). On the other hand, if they're going to teach about different religions in classes like social studies and history, they should teach about all of them or none of them.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Whether we agree on that point or not, the ego required for the blanket dismissal of everything we don't know as "superstition" demonstrates arrogance and ignorance. (We know how DNA works, therefore there is no god can hardly be considered logic) In that spirit, we remove all other religious teachings from our schools to prop up our new religion. Ego. Self.

Just how does our limited knowldege of DNA prove God's existence? That's a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one. I have not seen one logical argument that can prove God; nor have I seen one that can disprove Him. That's a matter of faith. Yes, it is ignorant to dismiss a religious explanation of the unknown as superstition. There are things that can be known that cannot be directly seen or quantifiable. But science at least attempts to remove even the self from what's being observed. And not all who follow the Gospel of Me are atheists.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Oh, and if there was any argument about whether Secular Humanism is a religion before, I think the vehemence of the responses makes my case for me. Just goes to show you, nobody likes their religious beliefs shat upon.

Surely there's another way to put this? I would think that anyone who considers his/her views immutable ought to have a reality check.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Joder, I'm sorry man, but we are talking about history now, and that statement without any supporting documentation is just ridiculous. None of us will know exactly what happened from 0ad -33ad, but I feel pretty confident that for piece of evidence you produce to argue that Jesus didn't exist, I can produce 100 that say he did. These types of overreaching attempts to eliminate not only the stories about the man, but the man himself, exemplify the very agenda I mentioned in my first post.

I think all of you missed the point. So what if fastreplies thinks Jesus of Nazareth is mythical? That's his prerogative. I think he was real, but much that has been attributed to him may or may not be. When I brought up the Force, it was because though it is entirely fiction the concept draws upon different belief systems for its creation. This obvious myth is as good an explanation for some things as any other, more to the point in the absence of any other. So while you two are debating whether or not Jesus existed I'll just keep on being an ecumenical Christian, whether either of you like it or not.

Originally Posted by cbwm

"There is no crying in baseball .." - Ha! The minute I start whining in my posts, please ban me from this board, I'll get more work done. I'm the guy in the bleachers behind first base, with a beer in his hand, another in the cupholder, yelling at the first baseman of the opposing team, describing sexual acts I performed with his wife until he errors.

While I'd be right there with you, I might not do so if there was someone with kids in the section right next to me.

Once again I find myself generally agreeing with you Tim. I do, however, think there is a case to be made that the removal of all things spiritual from the schools, going so far as to remove Christmas, leaves us with a growing populous that believes any person of faith is a loon. And whether you believe in the bible or not, I think that many of it's moral principles should be mandatory (respect for self, others, life, do on to others before they do on to you, etc) lest we soon have an amoral society. That qualifies as foisting a belief system on our children, but it is the belief system that is the basis for our laws. Change the beliefs, change the laws. I know there are many in favor of removing Christmas and easter as national holidays, or at least renaming them. Disturbing IMO.

Originally Posted by serandfae

Surely there's another way to put this? I would think that anyone who considers his/her views immutable ought to have a reality check.

Very very very very very true.... IMO.


As far as baseball is concerned, yes it would be best to be sure there were no children near by. When I used to go to games, it seemed those bleacher seats were usually empty (Home plate seats=$$). Funny stuff though. I couldn't help but crack a smile on the Gary Sheffield and Charles Barkley incidents.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Oh, and if there was any argument about whether Secular Humanism is a religion before, I think the vehemence of the responses makes my case for me. Just goes to show you, nobody likes their religious beliefs shat upon.

Last night while feverishly putting finish touches to website I am working, I listen to CNN “God’s Worriers” show. I am sure many of you know what was this show is all about. By reading what you are saying I have no doubts in my mind that you are one of those who will without hesitation shot abortion doctor the same way Muslim lunatic will blowup himself just to kill in the name of his religion.

Let me make this clear to you and you alike. I am not against your beliefs and your God but against your religious fanatics desire to replace the Constitution with the Bible and Laws with verses. You are no longer a group of people united by common religious beliefs because after you stepped over the line, which by your Constitution separate State and Church, you became a Political Party and as such you became a fare game.

Your "other" Republicans (if they ever want to have political power) very soon will adopt bumper sticker that will say:
Don’t blame Republicans, blame Christians


fastreplies