New Election 2008 thread

[Guest Jules]

That's great and all yet no one has offered any practical alternative energy solutions applicable to a very mobile society with an extensive geographical area. Quite a few of the states in this country cover more area than a lot of European nations. Fact: we need a source of fuel to move goods/items/people/etc. Even under the best scenarios it would take decades to create a whole new infrastructure in this country that doesn't involve the automobile/trucks.

 

Nudge Nudge brought up a good point about Brazilian Sugar based Ethanol, someone explain to me why we subsidize domestic corn based ethanol and place a considerable tariff on Brazilian ethanol imported into this country?

I didn't read one word of this.

[JUDE]

I didn't read one word of this.

 

 

Zip it pot head.

 

There are three major forms of fossil fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. All three were formed many hundreds of millions of years ago before the time of the dinosaurs - hence the name fossil fuels. The age they were formed is called the Carboniferous Period. It was part of the Paleozoic Era. "Carboniferous" gets its name from carbon, the basic element in coal and other fossil fuels.

 

 

 

 

 

The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago. At the time, the land was covered with swamps filled with huge trees, ferns and other large leafy plants, similar to the picture above. The water and seas were filled with algae - the green stuff that forms on a stagnant pool of water. Algae is actually millions of very small plants.

 

Some deposits of coal can be found during the time of the dinosaurs. For example, thin carbon layers can be found during the late Cretaceous Period (65 million years ago) - the time of Tyrannosaurus Rex. But the main deposits of fossil fuels are from the Carboniferous Period. For more about the various geologic eras, go to www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.html

 

As the trees and plants died, they sank to the bottom of the swamps of oceans. They formed layers of a spongy material called peat. Over many hundreds of years, the peat was covered by sand and clay and other minerals, which turned into a type of rock called sedimentary.

 

 

More and more rock piled on top of more rock, and it weighed more and more. It began to press down on the peat. The peat was squeezed and squeezed until the water came out of it and it eventually, over millions of years, it turned into coal, oil or petroleum, and natural gas.

 

 

 

Coal

Coal is a hard, black colored rock-like substance. It is made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and varying amounts of sulphur. There are three main types of coal - anthracite, bituminous and lignite. Anthracite coal is the hardest and has more carbon, which gives it a higher energy content. Lignite is the softest and is low in carbon but high in hydrogen and oxygen content.

[Gobias Industries]

Nudge Nudge brought up a good point about Brazilian Sugar based Ethanol, someone explain to me why we subsidize domestic corn based ethanol and place a considerable tariff on Brazilian ethanol imported into this country?

 

It's presumably "un-American," mostly because America took the wrong path in the 1970s while Brasil took the right one.

[uncle wilco]

"But while Bush's public comments about faith have been mostly within the mainstream tradition of presidential rhetoric, his supporters lately have gone in a less-familiar direction: conveying the idea that God is responsible for Bush being in the White House.

 

"He is one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore in times of challenge," said George Pataki in the high-profile introduction of Bush at the Republican National Convention, an introduction almost certainly scrubbed if not written by the White House." - Slate.com

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2106590/

those crazy-assed republicans better look out for lightning strikes.

 

slate.com...don't know nothing...about my soul...they don't know...

[Beltmann]

Beltmann, you are generalizing those who do not support the policies of Obama.

Actually, I was just referring to a certain segment of Republicans, the group that, for example, actually has convinced themselves that Michelle Obama is nothing more than a "nasty, bitter, openly racist ingrate," and aren't interested in knowing the Michelle Obama that actually exists in reality. They prefer to believe in the cartoon playing in their head, because they are not interested in policy debate so much as demonization. I think my description was accurate for that particular segment. I don't think I even remotely implied that every person who doesn't support Obama must be an irrational hater. Obviously there are many who have legitimate policy differences with Obama. That goes without saying, doesn't it? I mean, seriously--that goes without saying, doesn't it?

 

Strange that you (inaccurately) accused me of generalizing, and then proceeded to make all kinds of unfounded assumptions and generalizations about me.

[ikol]

Nudge Nudge brought up a good point about Brazilian Sugar based Ethanol, someone explain to me why we subsidize domestic corn based ethanol and place a considerable tariff on Brazilian ethanol imported into this country?

 

Because U.S. politicians can't buy the votes of Brazilian sugar farmers (at least not yet; they are currently developing the technology to make this possible).

[uncle wilco]

"Saint Obama" is much like "Bitter Michelle" in that both are cartoon characters that exist nowhere but in the paranoid nightmares of Republicans. These visions have nothing to do with the real Obamas, of course, but when reality stands in the way of demonizing your opponent, it's always been politically convenient to believe the cartoon. When you buy into the myth, it's much easier to work yourself up into a lather and justify your irrational hatred. (The same thing is happening with "Addict Cindy," who I suspect bears zero resemblance to the real-life Cindy McCain.)

i guess you meant "some" republicans. i probably just read that wrong, but what i initially got out of it was a generalization. sorry, if that wasn't your intention.

 

Actually, I was just referring to a certain segment of Republicans, the group that, for example, actually has convinced themselves that Michelle Obama is nothing more than a "nasty, bitter, openly racist ingrate," and aren't interested in knowing the Michelle Obama that actually exists in reality. They prefer to believe in the cartoon playing in their head, because they are not interested in policy debate so much as demonization. I think my description was accurate for that particular segment. I don't think I even remotely implied that every person who doesn't support Obama must be an irrational hater. Obviously there are many who have legitimate policy differences with Obama. That goes without saying, doesn't it? I mean, seriously--that goes without saying, doesn't it?

 

Strange that you (inaccurately) accused me of generalizing, and then proceeded to make all kinds of unfounded assumptions and generalizations about me.

i know that you aren't among the unstable, Beltmann. we just disagree politically, that's all. didn't mean to imply otherwise. when i respond to a post, it's more about me addressing the subject at hand rather than always addressing the personality behind the post i'm responding to. i thought we were past all that.

[Good Old Neon]

Would it be at all possible for the government to get a restraining order of sorts issued protecting it from religious extremists? Perhaps something that has a little more teeth than the constitution?

 

Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/eva...vote/index.html

[Beltmann]

I thought we were past all that.

You know I love you, UW.

[John Smith]

Pretty potent stuff here:

 

Major David J. R. Frakt's Closing Argument in Favor of Dismissal of the Case Against Mohammad Jawad (6/19/2008)

 

 

On Feb 7, 2002, President Bush issued an order. The order stated, in pertinent part

[EL the Famous]

Would it be at all possible for the government to get a restraining order of sorts issued protecting it from religious extremists? Perhaps something that has a little more teeth than the constitution?

 

Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/eva...vote/index.html

 

oh no!

[John Smith]

Would it be at all possible for the government to get a restraining order of sorts issued protecting it from religious extremists? Perhaps something that has a little more teeth than the constitution?

 

Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/eva...vote/index.html

 

Of course the highly credible James Dobson is the topic of the article. Talk about distorting the bible. I'd love for Mr Dobson to tell when and where god amended the bible and dropped the ancient dietary rules etc... from where I stand I only see one bible and nowhere has it bbeen amended except in the minds of the religious leaders around the world throughout time.

[bleedorange]

Of course the highly credible James Dobson is the topic of the article. Talk about distorting the bible. I'd love for Mr Dobson to tell when and where god amended the bible and dropped the ancient dietary rules etc... from where I stand I only see one bible and nowhere has it bbeen amended except in the minds of the religious leaders around the world throughout time.

 

While no fan of Focus on the Family, I'm not sure I see anything inherently wrong with what James Dobson is saying in the article. Other than being a way of life and morality that differs from that of my own.

[Good Old Neon]

"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" he said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

 

"What the senator is saying there, in essence, is that 'I can't seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion, because there are people in the culture who don't see that as a moral issue," Dobson also said. "And if I can't get everyone to agree with me, than it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. Now that is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

[Good Old Neon]

Of course the highly credible James Dobson is the topic of the article. Talk about distorting the bible. I'd love for Mr Dobson to tell when and where god amended the bible and dropped the ancient dietary rules etc... from where I stand I only see one bible and nowhere has it bbeen amended except in the minds of the religious leaders around the world throughout time.

 

Correct

[John Smith]

While no fan of Focus on the Family, I'm not sure I see anything inherently wrong with what James Dobson is saying in the article. Other than being a way of life and morality that differs from that of my own.

 

I have big problems with people who say that there is only one way to interpret the bible. People who say that the bible is the literal word of god to be followed faithfully, who then proceed to tell me which parts should be dropped, and which parts should be followed. Dobson has no problem dropping a majority of the levitical codes and other rules from the first five books. He can dismiss them as ancient dietary rules, or as being impractical (clothing issues, how women treat their menstral cycles etc...) but right next to stuff he dismisses there are passages he emphasizes as being of the utmost importance. But never once does he or his kind ever explain exactly when god told them parts of the bible were invalidated. I wonder how his views go over with the people of Israel and Jews around the world? Probably not any better than they go over with me. Dobson is no religious man at all. He plays one for the cameras, he is and has been a politcal operative for years and years. His message today has nothing to do with biblical interpretation and everything to do with politically trying to hang onto every repubican voter he can by casting a shadow over what Obama has said. Why do I think JD is a politcal operative? Umm open access to the White House for one. And for two how about that he chooses today to go after something Obama said two years ago? If Dobby was really outraged he should have spoken out oh, maybe two years ago. JD has zero credibility with me.

[Good Old Neon]

I have big problems with people who say that there is only one way to interpret the bible. People who say that the bible is the literal word of god to be followed faithfully, who then proceed to tell me which parts should be dropped, and which parts should be followed. Dobson has no problem dropping a majority of the levitical codes and other rules from the first five books. He can dismiss them as ancient dietary rules, or as being impractical (clothing issues, how women treat their menstral cycles etc...) but right next to stuff he dismisses there are passages he emphasizes as being of the utmost importance. But never once does he or his kind ever explain exactly when god told them parts of the bible were invalidated. I wonder how his views go over with the people of Israel and Jews around the world? Probably not any better than they go over with me. Dobson is no religious man at all. He plays one for the cameras, he is and has been a politcal operative for years and years. His message today has nothing to do with biblical interpretation and everything to do with politically trying to hang onto every repubican voter he can by casting a shadow over what Obama has said. Why do I think JD is a politcal operative? Umm open access to the White House for one. And for two how about that he chooses today to go after something Obama said two years ago? If Dobby was really outraged he should have spoken out oh, maybe two years ago. JD has zero credibility with me.

 

ex-fucking-actly.

 

Fantastic post.

[mfwahl]

Yeah, we I saw the headline this morning that Dobson said Obama was distorting the Bible I laughed. Have you ever heard of denominations or theological arguments? When I used to go to church different people would argue about what different passages meant. People argued about rapture. The Bible itself is a distortion. The English (King James) version is not even translated from the original language. I remembering reading that the "original" version of the Bible went through 10 or 11 languages and dialects before it became the King James version. There would be no need for preachers (you could use a computer or Jesus Robot) if there was only one way to read the Bible.

 

BTW, I was reading some of the posts about FISA. Where did Obama state he supports immunity. His language is kind of confusing but since his speech on Friday, he's stated he's going to try and remove immunity this week (while already supporting the bill; i know it does sound sort of crazy). Reid said the same thing. I just can't find where he supports immunity. He's said it in a roundabout way, i guess to sound tough on terror, but he's said he supports the bill but doesn't support immunity.

[uncle wilco]

Of course the highly credible James Dobson is the topic of the article. Talk about distorting the bible. I'd love for Mr Dobson to tell when and where god amended the bible and dropped the ancient dietary rules etc... from where I stand I only see one bible and nowhere has it bbeen amended except in the minds of the religious leaders around the world throughout time.

Dobson is apparently referring The Reformed, or Covenant Theology view (one of dozens). It holds that under the new covenant (provided by Jesus' death), the Mosaic Law (old covenant) fundamentally continues, but that parts of it have "expired" and are no longer applicable. The Mosaic laws were divided into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. Only the moral laws of the Mosaic Law, which include the Ten Commandments and the commands repeated in the New Testament, directly apply to Christians today. Ceremonial laws, in this view, included the regulations pertaining to ceremonial cleanliness, festivals, diet, and the Levitical Priesthood. These were among the "expired" items of the law, as when Christianity began to incorporate more and more Gentiles, much of the Jewish tradition went away.

 

But, with anything relating to religion, there is still much debate among biblical scholars. This is where pure faith becomes diluted with the man-made dogma that I'd rather have no part of. The New Testament covers all of this, especially the book of Acts, and the letters of Paul. There is no real "distorting" of the Bible by Mr. Dobson. However, he is providing yet another example of a religious leader seeking the political spotlight...enough already! And while I'm at it, I've heard quite enough of Obama pandering to the evangelical crowd like he's some kind of theologian. He needs to focus on filling in the details of his hope and change b.s. and quit pandering for votes he'll likely end up turning his back on once he's elected. Can we just take religion out of the political equation and focus on the meat and potatoes? Pleeease?

[Good Old Neon]

Can we just take religion out of the political equation and focus on the meat and potatoes? Pleeease?

 

You've got my vote on that one.

 

For the record, the Dobson story is now the lead story on CNN.com....what the eff????

[MrRain422]

BTW, I was reading some of the posts about FISA. Where did Obama state he supports immunity. His language is kind of confusing but since his speech on Friday, he's stated he's going to try and remove immunity this week (while already supporting the bill; i know it does sound sort of crazy). Reid said the same thing. I just can't find where he supports immunity. He's said it in a roundabout way, i guess to sound tough on terror, but he's said he supports the bill but doesn't support immunity.

 

He didn't say he supported immunity, but he's backed off a LOT in his opposition of it. Last fall, he said he would support a filibuster of any bill that included telecom immunity. Now he's saying basically that he'll ask politely for it to be removed but will still vote for the bill if it isn't.

[sweetheart-mine]

. Can we just take religion out of the political equation and focus on the meat and potatoes? Pleeease?

 

right on! and i would include evangelists who use their whatever to sway politicians and voters both. so tiresome, so fear-mongering, and often so hypocritical. they ought to knock it off, and politicians ought to stop addressing religious issues that have no place in our public life and government.

[uncle wilco]

right on! and i would include evangelists who use their whatever to sway politicians and voters both. so tiresome, so fear-mongering, and often so hypocritical. they ought to knock it off, and politicians ought to stop addressing religious issues that have no place in our public life and government.

well, if it's a politician's intention to unify a country, isn't the discussion of politics divisive enough without throwing religion into the mix? i'm glad that my church isn't among those giving political endorsements...like that's even necessary.

[John Smith]

Dobson is apparently referring The Reformed, or Covenant Theology view (one of dozens). It holds that under the new covenant (provided by Jesus' death), the Mosaic Law (old covenant) fundamentally continues, but that parts of it have "expired" and are no longer applicable. The Mosaic laws were divided into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. Only the moral laws of the Mosaic Law, which include the Ten Commandments and the commands repeated in the New Testament, directly apply to Christians today. Ceremonial laws, in this view, included the regulations pertaining to ceremonial cleanliness, festivals, diet, and the Levitical Priesthood. These were among the "expired" items of the law, as when Christianity began to incorporate more and more Gentiles, much of the Jewish tradition went away.

 

But, with anything relating to religion, there is still much debate among biblical scholars. This is where pure faith becomes diluted with the man-made dogma that I'd rather have no part of. The New Testament covers all of this, especially the book of Acts, and the letters of Paul. There is no real "distorting" of the Bible by Mr. Dobson. However, he is providing yet another example of a religious leader seeking the political spotlight...enough already! And while I'm at it, I've heard quite enough of Obama pandering to the evangelical crowd like he's some kind of theologian. He needs to focus on filling in the details of his hope and change b.s. and quit pandering for votes he'll likely end up turning his back on once he's elected. Can we just take religion out of the political equation and focus on the meat and potatoes? Pleeease?

 

That is one of the better explanations of why, but they still don't address the issue of where and when exactly god amended the Bible. It is man made interpretation of what is supposed to be a divinely inspired book. or as my minister once said a book with one author but many scribes. I'll add...and many many more interpreters. They justify their views using man made and earth bound logic in the same way that the catholic church justifies the pope being gods messenger on earth. i.e. it is not stated as such but they take their logic and establish the argument and pronounce it as being fact. People such as the reverend fred phelps also turn the logic and interpretations their way. So Obama is right with his statement because there are so many ways that the bible is being interpreted, making law based on one groups interpretations will more than likkely infuriated another group. But all in all I fully agree that religion should be taken out of the political equation.

[sweetheart-mine]

well, if it's a politician's intention to unify a country, isn't the discussion of politics divisive enough without throwing religion into the mix? i'm glad that my church isn't among those giving political endorsments...like that's really necessary.

absolutely, i agree with you on this. (i thought i said that.) clearly obama is trying to stand up to those who would swift-boat him, and a certain amount of answering back has to be done, given the vitriol and falsehoods behind many of the accusations -- but i do think it would be wise to ignore and bypass those darts based on religion. no politician will make a lot of headway in unifying the country by trying to please all religions and any accompanying religious fanatics. when it comes to government, religion is or ought to be completely beside the point.