I've been saying that there's nothing we can possibly do to ruin life on this planet
I strongly disagree with this. I may not be pro-global warming, but I'm not naive enough to think that humans do not affect the environment we live in. Prizm is correct in stating that climate change can hurt our species, and I'd take it even farther that we've already hurt the environment, by polluting our lakes and rivers too.
If we can't do anything to ruin life on this planet, then we can merrily go about and set lakes on fire from pollution, and dump our toxic wastes all over the place. Your contention is ridiculous, as we certainly can affect our environment negatively.
My contention with global warming is that I don't believe the science (and facts) are there to support us spending a ton of resources on a problem that may or may not be present. Just to be clear, I am not advocating that we be ignorant of this problem, or that we do absolutely nothing. I'm all for prevention of this problem, if it's proven it exists. However, I don't think the case has been made beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, I don't think it's a top priority in society today, as others claim. There are more important issues to spend our resources on.
It seems quite obvious to me that Ford thinks that Obama being black will drag down the democratic party, because his black skin will lose the democrats some/several votes. How is that racist?
A better question is why you don't think that Ford's comments are racist, while Trent Lott's comments about Strom Thurmond were.
It wouldn't be racist to say that a black person probably couldn't sit in the front of a city school bus if most people that were in charge of seating were against seating policies that allowed black people to sit in the front.
Wow, are you serious? Tell that to Rosa Parks. The people "in charge" of seating at that time actually were against blacks sitting in the front.
That's what Ford is saying. That it's a lost cause.
I understand what his meaning was. However, he didn't say it that way. He said that Obama would "drag down" the Dems because he was black. If he thinks that Obama doesn't have the credentials to lead the Democrats, that's fine. But why did he have to say this was the case "because he was black"? He is insinuating with that statement that black people (Obama) do not have the ability to lead in politics (the Democrats). Why bring race into it at all? The fact that he references it makes it plain that that is the only reason why he thinks Obama is unqualified. Ergo - racism.
I continue to be amazed that people here are defending Ford's comments as not racist, when it's clear to me that they are.
And Laton, congrats on turning a story that actually negative towards a Democrat still into some kind of liberal media bash.
Whatever. That wasn't my intention. I'm trying to point out the double standard that exists today in the media, when it comes to Dems vs. GOP (or, more generally libs vs. conservatives). My main beef with Ford's statement is that he says "because he's black". I understand what his idea is, but the way he said it is inflammatory and racist. It doesn't matter that he's black himself, either.
Here's an analogy: Would you consider it racist if someone said that a black person couldn't sit in the front of a city bus "because he/she is black"? How is what Ford said any different? He is saying that because Obama is black, his inherent qualities of being black will "drag down" the Democratic party. How is that not racist? Ford is saying that Obama can't lead the Democratic party because he's black, just like the analogy is saying that a black person can't sit in the front of the bus because he/she is black.
The fact that the media (and people here) downplay this as a non-story, while they were all over it when Trent Lott made his comments about Strom Thurmond, just show the double standard that exists in the media.
Winter: Fine, it's not technically censorship. Can we stop arguing semantics? False God said that it is tantamount to censorship, and it is.
You're missing Winter's point. You admit that it's not censorship, but yet you're claiming it's just like censorship, so therefore we should treat it just like it was censorship, and complain about it in that light. If you admit it's not censorship, then this whole issue goes away, since the library is not doing anything wrong by not including this book on their shelves. It's not semantics - it's the whole basis of this argument (censorship or not).
It's hardly an admirable sentiment, but neither is it worthy of condemnation.
So, you really think that if Rudy Guliani (or some GOP presidential candidate) supported this guy, that it wouldn't be all over the news? I beg to differ. The media would be blasting that person's character for days (if not weeks). You can minimize this by saying that it's not much of a story, but that's the point. You've been duped by the media into thinking that it isn't a big story, but you would be equally duped into thinking it was a big story if the tables were turned, and this was a GOP candidate supporting this person.
(hell, it'd be pretty impressive for Ford to be racially biased against Obama, given that Ford is also black)
What the heck does that have to do with it? Are you suggesting that since Ford is black, he gets a pass by saying inflammatory remarks about another black? I find it disturbing that he said "because he's black", which is clearly inflammatory (and racist), but I also find your attitude to be equally disturbing, in that you think it's okay for a person to make these types of statements to another person of their race. Racism is racism, regardless of the source.
Honestly, Ford should be getting alot of heat for that remark, and that's another aspect I find interesting, in that it's not getting alot of attention. It's also equally disturbing that Hillary supports this clown. Very much akin to Edwards' support of the staffers and their anti-religion comments.
Ok, I believe that God says that marriage should be between any two human adults, regardless of gender, and that gender is not a fundamental part of marriage. Is that inherently reasonable now? Do you agree with my arguments now?
I thought you said that you don't believe that God exists? How can you believe that He says something, if you don't believe He exists at all? Or, are you now a believer?
Ok, I was tempted to create a new thread about this, since it kind of falls under the "liberal media bias" topic, but since it's related to the 2008 presidential elections, I'll post it here.
Specifically, the last paragraph in the report, which reads:
Quote from FNN article »
Obama said on Wednesday: "It is also ironic that Senator Clinton lavished praise on Monday and is fully willing to accept today the support of South Carolina State Sen. Robert Ford, who said if Barack Obama were to win the nomination, he would drag down the rest of the Democratic Party because 'he's black.'"
I find this disturbing that the major news media isn't all over this. This should be front page news, and you know G*d-damned well that if a Republican supported someone who said this, that he/she would be lambasted by the media for weeks.
Anyone want to take a shot at why this isn't getting front-page attention? I'd love to hear your excuses arguments.
Um, excuse me, but religion doesn't read explicit passages of the Bible to young children. They always read age-appropriate material to them, not verbatim content that has adult messages in them.
Plus, I find your post offensive and completely offtopic. Religion bashing in a thread about censorship? Reported.
In example; the Bible has a number of instances of rape in it, but the Bible is read to second graders ever year, and has been for two thousand years. Is that wrong? Should we keep Bibles out of the reach of children because they might accidentally read the sections about rape?
As I said above - religion doesn't read these types of passages from the Bible to young children. They focus on age-appropriate messages that the Bible teaches (love thy neighbor, etc.).
As for my opinion on this: free speech allows the author to include this type of material in his/her book. It also allows places to disallow this book to be included in their libraries. I totally agree with Senori's position on this. We have the freedom to allow or disallow something from being included in our schools, and this is no different. Libraries are not required to have all books available. Personally, the content of this book is not that bad, but some people might have a problem with it, esp. if young children get their hands on it. I don't have a problem with it, but my children are old enough to know what a 'scrotum' is. I sympathize (and support) families who wish their children to not know about this at their stage in their lives.
I don't see how acknowledging Global Warming exists would do that, that seem like the outcome of doing something about it.
You're splitting hairs. Why would I acknowledge something, and then not do anything about it? The next logical step is to do something about it, which naturally follows from acknowledging it.
If you want to separate acknowledging global warming from actually taking steps to prevent it, fine. I don't acknowledge it because the facts are not there to prove that it indeed exists. We don't have enough information to make a definitive assertion. Most of the data is circumstantial, and I think it is not warranted to assume something based on circumstantial evidence.
That would be because Mother Teresa was about as arch-conservative as you can get. You couldn't be further away from being revolutionary than here.
Just because someone is conservative doesn't automatically remove them from being considered "revolutionary". Other people here have named Pope John Paul II as a revolutionary, and I think you would agree that he was conservative?
Plus, being revolutionary also means being influential (and PurpleD did ask about influential people), and you must agree that Mother Theresa was influential in the world. Leaders throughout the world listened to her, and acutally took the time to do so. She made them consider the plight of the poor, sick and otherwise afflicted, and I think that cause is revolutionary.
In the article you cited, Laton, the author never rebuts the scientific evidence. He makes a lot of noise about repression and witch-hunts, but when it comes to the science of the thing, he is remarkably silent. That, in and of itself, should indicate that all is not as he says.
Well, that's fine to question the credibility of the author. I used that link to start the conversation, and I don't have any "loyalty" to the author.
To you, Laton, in particular, let me present an analogy. Consider the war in Iraq, which both you and I supported 4 years ago. I will assume, for the moment, that if you were given the option of going back in time, knowing what we know now, you would still press on with the war, as I would. I would base this on the premise that given the intelligence at the time, not going into Iraq would have deadly consequences for us.
Consider now global warming. The information we have regarding global warming, like the intelligence we had in 2003 regarding Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, is considered to be good, and plentiful. There are some naysayers, but they are largely viewed to be politically motivated and unreliable. The consequences of not responding to this information with all due force are potentially catastrophic. Just as it was our moral responsibility to ensure that the weapons of mass destruction would never be used, so is it our moral responsibility to ensure that the effects of aggravated global warming never occur.
Well, here's where your analogy fails. The war in Iraq had impending consequences (read: short-term) if the US didn't intervene, whereas not "intervening" in the fight against global warming does not have impending consequences. Don't get me wrong - I don't think we should pollute the environment past the point of making Earth uninhabitable. Quite the contrary. I think it's a good idea to be conscious of saving the environment. But, not at the expense of more immediate and pressing concerns, such as keeping the economy strong, war on terrorism, etc. Global warming (and the prevention of) may be an important issue, but in my eyes, there are more pressing issues that need to be dealt with instead. Plus, I question the science and facts behind global warming. How can we have accurate data for temps on the planet for the last 600,000 years, if we've only been recording temps for the last 150 years? I place less emphasis on those extrapolated temp readings (from core samples, iirc) than I do on direct measurements, to which we don't have enough data to conclude that global warming really exists because of us.
*smack* Zing!!
I strongly disagree with this. I may not be pro-global warming, but I'm not naive enough to think that humans do not affect the environment we live in. Prizm is correct in stating that climate change can hurt our species, and I'd take it even farther that we've already hurt the environment, by polluting our lakes and rivers too.
If we can't do anything to ruin life on this planet, then we can merrily go about and set lakes on fire from pollution, and dump our toxic wastes all over the place. Your contention is ridiculous, as we certainly can affect our environment negatively.
My contention with global warming is that I don't believe the science (and facts) are there to support us spending a ton of resources on a problem that may or may not be present. Just to be clear, I am not advocating that we be ignorant of this problem, or that we do absolutely nothing. I'm all for prevention of this problem, if it's proven it exists. However, I don't think the case has been made beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, I don't think it's a top priority in society today, as others claim. There are more important issues to spend our resources on.
I understand what his meaning was. However, he didn't say it that way. He said that Obama would "drag down" the Dems because he was black. If he thinks that Obama doesn't have the credentials to lead the Democrats, that's fine. But why did he have to say this was the case "because he was black"? He is insinuating with that statement that black people (Obama) do not have the ability to lead in politics (the Democrats). Why bring race into it at all? The fact that he references it makes it plain that that is the only reason why he thinks Obama is unqualified. Ergo - racism.
I continue to be amazed that people here are defending Ford's comments as not racist, when it's clear to me that they are.
Here's an analogy: Would you consider it racist if someone said that a black person couldn't sit in the front of a city bus "because he/she is black"? How is what Ford said any different? He is saying that because Obama is black, his inherent qualities of being black will "drag down" the Democratic party. How is that not racist? Ford is saying that Obama can't lead the Democratic party because he's black, just like the analogy is saying that a black person can't sit in the front of the bus because he/she is black.
The fact that the media (and people here) downplay this as a non-story, while they were all over it when Trent Lott made his comments about Strom Thurmond, just show the double standard that exists in the media.
So, you really think that if Rudy Guliani (or some GOP presidential candidate) supported this guy, that it wouldn't be all over the news? I beg to differ. The media would be blasting that person's character for days (if not weeks). You can minimize this by saying that it's not much of a story, but that's the point. You've been duped by the media into thinking that it isn't a big story, but you would be equally duped into thinking it was a big story if the tables were turned, and this was a GOP candidate supporting this person.
What the heck does that have to do with it? Are you suggesting that since Ford is black, he gets a pass by saying inflammatory remarks about another black? I find it disturbing that he said "because he's black", which is clearly inflammatory (and racist), but I also find your attitude to be equally disturbing, in that you think it's okay for a person to make these types of statements to another person of their race. Racism is racism, regardless of the source.
Honestly, Ford should be getting alot of heat for that remark, and that's another aspect I find interesting, in that it's not getting alot of attention. It's also equally disturbing that Hillary supports this clown. Very much akin to Edwards' support of the staffers and their anti-religion comments.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253482,00.html
Specifically, the last paragraph in the report, which reads:
I find this disturbing that the major news media isn't all over this. This should be front page news, and you know G*d-damned well that if a Republican supported someone who said this, that he/she would be lambasted by the media for weeks.
Anyone want to take a shot at why this isn't getting front-page attention? I'd love to hear your
excusesarguments.Um, excuse me, but religion doesn't read explicit passages of the Bible to young children. They always read age-appropriate material to them, not verbatim content that has adult messages in them.
Plus, I find your post offensive and completely offtopic. Religion bashing in a thread about censorship? Reported.
As I said above - religion doesn't read these types of passages from the Bible to young children. They focus on age-appropriate messages that the Bible teaches (love thy neighbor, etc.).
As for my opinion on this: free speech allows the author to include this type of material in his/her book. It also allows places to disallow this book to be included in their libraries. I totally agree with Senori's position on this. We have the freedom to allow or disallow something from being included in our schools, and this is no different. Libraries are not required to have all books available. Personally, the content of this book is not that bad, but some people might have a problem with it, esp. if young children get their hands on it. I don't have a problem with it, but my children are old enough to know what a 'scrotum' is. I sympathize (and support) families who wish their children to not know about this at their stage in their lives.
If you want to separate acknowledging global warming from actually taking steps to prevent it, fine. I don't acknowledge it because the facts are not there to prove that it indeed exists. We don't have enough information to make a definitive assertion. Most of the data is circumstantial, and I think it is not warranted to assume something based on circumstantial evidence.
Plus, being revolutionary also means being influential (and PurpleD did ask about influential people), and you must agree that Mother Theresa was influential in the world. Leaders throughout the world listened to her, and acutally took the time to do so. She made them consider the plight of the poor, sick and otherwise afflicted, and I think that cause is revolutionary.
Well, here's where your analogy fails. The war in Iraq had impending consequences (read: short-term) if the US didn't intervene, whereas not "intervening" in the fight against global warming does not have impending consequences. Don't get me wrong - I don't think we should pollute the environment past the point of making Earth uninhabitable. Quite the contrary. I think it's a good idea to be conscious of saving the environment. But, not at the expense of more immediate and pressing concerns, such as keeping the economy strong, war on terrorism, etc. Global warming (and the prevention of) may be an important issue, but in my eyes, there are more pressing issues that need to be dealt with instead. Plus, I question the science and facts behind global warming. How can we have accurate data for temps on the planet for the last 600,000 years, if we've only been recording temps for the last 150 years? I place less emphasis on those extrapolated temp readings (from core samples, iirc) than I do on direct measurements, to which we don't have enough data to conclude that global warming really exists because of us.