Tuesday, February 11, 2014

rotflmbao..., “the ideas we’re talking about unite people”


WaPo | It is time, Jim DeMint told his fellow conservatives, to come up with a program beyond opposing everything President Obama does.

“It’s not sufficient for conservatives to run against agendas; they must advance ideas,” the head of the Heritage Foundation advised an audience at his think tank Monday morning. “A mandate to lead without a plan, without a proposal, without original legislation, is no mandate at all.”

And so Heritage Action, the group’s political wing, convened a Conservative Policy Summit to “show Americans what a bold, forward-looking, winning conservative reform agenda looks like.”
But conference organizers must have misread “bold” as “old,” because the proposals they assembled have been collecting dust for years:

They would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from means-tested programs, including Pell grants, school lunches, Medicaid and food stamps.

They would impose a work requirement on food-stamp recipients and perhaps a drug-test requirement on all who receive any form of welfare.

They would open up the outer continental shelf, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and more federal lands to oil drilling, and they would curtail medical-malpractice lawsuits.

They would expand private-school vouchers and introduce Medicaid vouchers, while giving bigger tax breaks for health-care spending — as long as insurance plans don’t cover abortion.

They would abolish Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and cut the federal gas tax by 80 percent, leaving it to the states to fund roads and infrastructure.

They would repeal an 83-year-old law that requires the federal government to pay prevailing wages and they would look into cutting the minimum wage to $5 an hour in some places.

Oh, and they’re backing two more bills that would repeal Obamacare.

DeMint acknowledged the obvious: “Some of the ideas have been introduced before.” But Heritage chose this slate of issues — and not, say, entitlement reform — because “the ideas we’re talking about unite people.”

28 comments:

umbrarchist said...

Yeah, the Christian paradigm of God is really dumb. It serves the purposes of the priesthood.

That is the curious thing about the Gospels. JC was killed by the Jewish religious leaders. So what if the Gospels are actually polemics against religious leaders? I have never heard that possibility mentioned.

umbrarchist said...

Catholics in Europe and the US have become Protestants. LOL

It is just an example of how slowly most people change their thinking. LOL

CNu said...

um..., what exactly disposes you to make this assertion? I would say that Pope Francis is following the big institutional money, which money no longer emanates from the parishes through cathadraxis, rather, it's generated by the universities and hospitals.

umbrarchist said...

I wasn't commenting on the Pope I was simply saying that this is like a continuation of the Reformation from Europe. Protestant ideas have been slowly migrating into the minds of the remaining Catholics for decades.

So the Catholic Church has the problem of following its followers or kicking out the ones that don't conform. I went to Catholic schools but I never became a Catholic. I am just a somewhat indifferent observer.

umbrarchist said...

Well the Protestant Christians actually study the Bible more than Catholics do but their research does not seem very imaginative to me. I discussed that time dilation of Enoch and Melchizedek with a Lutheran minister once. He didn't exactly freak out but said it would "putt the short hairs of some theologians". :P:

ken said...

The 6th reason is what if the debate centers around the evidence and the actual realities of evolution, the evolutionist debating should only go into a debate hoping the other guy talks about the Bible. If the debate centers around all the mechanisms that must take place for evolution to take place and the fossil record to back it up it is a debate the evolutionist should shy away from.


When I read the explanations of evolution and the time table and how things develop, it seems we never get to hear what the video I linked to discusses starting at about 27:15. I know you say what science is SUPPOSED to be, and I am for that, but I wonder why the timeline realities talked about on the video are not a common teaching with evolution.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxh9o32m5c0

Vic78 said...

That's a little too advanced when people waste time debating creationists. First, one moves past the white belt, then one moves on to advanced training. It's not that the scientists can't talk about it, the given audience isn't sophisticated enough for the Cambrian explosion.

Vic78 said...

I believe anything outside of the established religions would be acceptable. It'll be up to given individuals to accept those options.

Vic78 said...

Well, JC did say some pretty unflattering things about the religious leadership that ring true today. They'll make it sound like JC was talking about the guys from back then.

Vic78 said...

I don't see it as odd. A lot of them were serious Christians at one point. Their integrity forced them to walk away. When I say serious I'm talking about the small percentage that really tries to follow the scriptures and honestly believes in them. Careful honest studying led them away. Becoming an atheist was a choice for them. That's what kills me when people act as if every atheist were dogmatic like the Christians.

Uglyblackjohn said...

Fascinating... Mormons seem to give Melchizedek special honor and some of their otherworldly teachings might just jibe with your Star Trek piece.

Tom said...

Ken, I don't get it. Scientists love to talk about the Cambrian explosion. In the crude terms you seem to insist on, it's a core "teaching." It's well established in the fossil record. It's the single most exciting event in the fossil record.


Who on earth have you been debating with, who doesn't want to show off the Cambrian explosion?? Whoever they are, save bandwidth and delete the jackasses.

CNu said...

Which protestant ideas do you specifically have in mind?

Vic78 said...

It makes sense when you look at creationists' debating techniques. They come at you with so much bullshit at once that it's hard to answer anything. Talk of the Cambrian will just frustrate you more than you already are. You're dealing with people that are trying to advance their ideology. I wouldn't call them idiots; they just aren't used to the creationist brand of bullshit.

CNu said...

The Cambrian explosion is indeed where a WHOLE bunch of what's interesting is at http://subrealism.blogspot.com/2008/04/consciousness-and-cambrian-explosion.html

Then let's not forget the Devonian and the mystery of the prototaxites (our Monoliths f'real) http://subrealism.blogspot.com/2011/04/monolith-for-killer-ape-dominated.html

Tom said...

Yeah, I'm sure you're right Vic.

ken said...

I know its long, but did you get a chance to see the video to the end?
,
Maybe, I should rephrase, my point of not bringing it up, they downplay it. The evidence instead of being considered as insight to what might have happened, the find is instead in need to be explained to maintain the consistency of the current theory.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

"This stunning and unique evolutionary flowering is termed the "Cambrian explosion," taking the name of the geological age in whose early part it occurred. But it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years. "

And then with all this new evidence---"It's important to remember that what we call "the fossil record" is only the available fossil record. In order to be available to us, the remains of ancient plants and animals have to be preserved first, and this means that they need to have fossilizable parts and to be buried in an environment that will not destroy them. "

The side of science is telling us there isn't enough evidence to show that there original interpretations are consistent, but if they could find more evidence it will reconfirm the theory, or another idea to explain the new evidence is that for that time period evolution was moving 4 or 5 times faster.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3959/20130913/researchers-solve-darwins-dilemma-estimating-rate-evolution-during-cambrian-explosion.htm

"The current study by Michael Lee and colleagues shows that rates of morphological and genetic evolution were roughly five times faster than the current rate of evolution. According to the experts, a moderate increase in rate of evolution explains how life made the jump from simple to complex systems, without contradicting Darwin's theory of evolution.

Note that what researchers call "the ancient fossil record" are creatures that remained preserved in fossil form until scientists dug them out. Experts depend on fossils of tiny creatures that existed during that time, which makes estimation of evolutionary rate extremely difficult....."In this study we've estimated that rates of both morphological and genetic evolution during the Cambrian explosion were five times faster than today - quite rapid, but perfectly consistent with Darwin's theory of evolution," Lee said.


In the above post for this thread, we are lead to believe creationist on one side bring their Bible and are closed to any scientific observation, and the other side, the side of science, comes with scientific observations and interpretations of the science that we come to view as the facts. The reality is however, is that creationist are also observing the science and interpreting science. The Cambrian explosion is a great example of how both sides look to one events and come up with different interpretations.

Tom said...

Any honest and informed person on either side of your "debate" will tell you that (a) organisms can evolve by natural selection, but (b) we don't know enough to say what other factors have also been at work.
But honest informed people avoid the debate because they can't stand the idiocy of the discussions.


The idiotic online "evolution/creation debate" takes place between people who take their science on faith and insist without persuasive evidence that evolution *explains everything*, and people ignorant of science who insist in the face of persuasive evidence that evolution *doesn't explain anything.* It's like a debate between the positions (a) Reece's peanut butter cups are all chocolate vs (b) Reece's peanut butter cups are all peanut butter. Who has time for that kind of idiocy?

Tom said...

The real reason not to bring God into scientific issues as a proximate cause is that that pretty much ends the science. I say "god makes the apple fall." Well maybe so, but if I accept that explanation as the end of the story, then that's the end of mechanics. That's what irritates scientists about biblically literal creationism, so-called "creation science," and in fact anybody at all who tries to short-circuit the scientific method for any reason. However well-intended, responding to a proximate cause with "God made it" ends scientific inquiry at that point.


On the other side of the same coin, science can speak meaningfully only about the next proximate cause. Scientists (and their would-be lay "supporters") should not indulge in grandiose posturing about ultimates, and faith-based reflex-like spouting of theories that haven't been compared to data. ("The leopard rubs against the tree? It must be due to evolution!" Those things are dishonest and embarrassing.

Vic78 said...

I'm almost convinced these guys are totally shameless. They aren't too far from masturbating in public. DeMint's mom should've drowned him as an infant.

ken said...

I think in the video, that I linked to, it did theorize the idea of intelligent design, but it was formed by what appeared to be a set of logical scientific observations and explanations that were as weighty as the other side of the argument. At the same time the video was not, in any way, trying to short circuit expanded scientific study, in fact believing this truth will actually find more science and more understanding. If you have the time, I don't think you will find the link I posted to be the kind of idiocy you have been describing in this thread.

BigDonOne said...

OT: Whomever it was here on BD's case over allegations of Intelligence being genetic/heritable, without sufficient proof, the latest PRR has now made it to The Drudge Report ---> Scientists discover 'intelligence' gene
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10631319/Is-intelligence-written-in-the-genes.html

CNu said...

Diarrhea is hereditary. It runs in your genes.

CNu said...

Almost convinced?!?!?! lol, what'll it take to fully convince you?

CNu said...

Can you believe the levels of effort - that instead of being directed toward studying and understanding the observable empirical phenomena in question - are instead directed toward persuading self/others that a mysterious and utterly unfalsifiable ghost is at work behind all the observable empirical phenomena?

Constructive_Feedback said...

Again - When Richard Dawkings faced a worthy debate opponent and was forced to move from "Putting Christianity On Trial" over to Defending HIS THEORIES - he adopted "Elfin Magic" by claiming that LIFE came to EARTH in the "slushy center" of a comet.


CNu - since "scientists" believe that all matter was created from "The Big Bang" but Dawkins pointed to the "comet theory" for LIFE ON EARTH...............WHERE DID THAT "COMET LIFE" come from?


A "scientist" can't do a DAMNED THING about the need for SOCIAL ORDER that prevents HUMAN BEINGS from behaving as if they are merely CARBON, OXYGEN, HYDROGEN CALCIUM, AND NITROGEN

Tom said...

A "scientist" can't do a DAMNED THING about the need for SOCIAL ORDER that prevents HUMAN BEINGS from behaving as if they are merely CARBON, OXYGEN, HYDROGEN CALCIUM, AND NITROGEN


So far as I know that's true. It's happening now.

Tom said...

Again with changing the subject BD?


For weeks now you've failed to bring any data showing a genetically based disparity in IQ scores between Black and White Americans. Each time I challenge you, you bluster, disappear, wait a while, then reappear with a different off-topic tangent and a different fantasy question that you wish I had asked.


Verdict: you have no relevant data.