Politics 4 Nerds - Latest Comments

Re: 03MAY11 Osama Bin Laden is Dead, thoughts on vice and virtue in the wake of this historic victory in a long running war between the Free World and the harbingers of Tyranny.

Adam Ward — Thu, 05 May 2011 18:26:56 -0000

That is a well written thought of your emotions. I feel the same way.

Re: Added Features

Adam Ward — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:57:52 -0000

As you can see, you can log-in via your Twitter, FaceBook, Yahoo, or OpenID account.

Re: Notable Quotable

Passerby — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:15:45 -0000

Yes. People are saying a Mosque can't be built near Ground Zero. Why not? Some people just want to exercise their religious freedom in peace.

Re: Notable Quotables

--adam — Thu, 27 May 2010 06:57:02 -0000

Thank you. It was not easy to find a way without directing it towards takeover of some kind.

I might just do a second notable quotable later today then. I have a whole batch of quotes for Monday, so I think I need to get a second one posted soon.

I like several of Palin's ideas, there is just something about her that I don't like. Some of her comments just come off as, well, lacking in substance. "I can see Russia from my front porch" and others along those same lines are what scares me. I was also not impressed by any of her debates. She seemed to be lacking something, but I can't put my finger on it. I need to go back and watch them again one of these days.

Re: Notable Quotables

Jason — Wed, 26 May 2010 23:21:23 -0000

I am quite impressed with how you related this to politics.

Also, I want the other notable quotable you mention.

I also find it interesting that you seem to argue for fewer $1000 words, but also dislike Sarah Palin, who is about as plain-spoken as a political figure can be.

Maybe you can dislike her, but appreciate her directness...

Re: Notable Quotables

--adam — Thu, 20 May 2010 22:28:40 -0000

Updated to contain the quote. It was during his speech at Hampton University, Virginia, earlier this month.

Re: Texas rewriting US history?

--adam — Tue, 18 May 2010 08:49:45 -0000

Source for the quote has been added. Sorry, I keep forgetting that not everyone has read the same things I do, and that some quotes, no matter how well they should be known, are often times not.

My issue with what Texas is doing, is they are trying to push religion into areas where it does not rightfully belong. I have no issues with religion in a history or philosophy classes, but trying to force "Intelligent Design", which is Creationism, in a Science class is something I do have an issue with. Science should deal with things such as truths or facts, not beliefs.

Now, the two are not mutually exclusive, and only a fool would fail to see how religion and the search for God has led to some amazing scientific discoveries. They two can work together, but pushing a belief system as a science is just wrong.

Why was Isaac Newton dropped? His contributions allow the military to discover their technologies. If not for him, where would we be?

I won't discuss the Senator McCarthy witch-hunts as being justified until I see a completed text book.

Yes, your above quote does express that the founders wanted a place where people could worship freely. They also wanted a Government based on Reason, not Religion. Saying the Founding Fathers were Theists would be correct, but to say they were all Christian, not so much. Thomas Jefferson himself was a Deist. Even Jefferson said "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear"

We are not, and never have been a nation which is ultimately governed by scriptures. We are a nation that is governed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, documents of Reason, not Faith.

Getting back to the article, do you believe that the civil rights movement as "creating unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes for minorities? Do you think that King should be described the same as the Black Panther organization?

I do not believe that Religion should be ignored. I don't. I would honestly love to see a required religion course; preferably something that touched upon more than just Christianity. I believe that religion and religion courses can bring forth some much needed morals and values. I also feel that religion needs to be discussed in courses like History, as most wars are fought over religious beliefs/issues than pretty much anything else.

One can have Faith, and still have Reason. The changes Texas is attempting to make remove Reason from the teaching of our children. No offense, but our Country has enough issues with the Education system as it is, do we really need to make it worse?

Re: Notable Quotables

--adam — Tue, 18 May 2010 08:13:11 -0000

Yes, I can agree with that. I just put 20+, as that is what I can remember.

Re: Texas rewriting US history?

Jason — Mon, 17 May 2010 23:27:46 -0000

Again, source?

I have to say, I agree with about 80% of what the Texas school board is trying to do, based soley on this article.

However, that is just my opinion based mostly on this article.

I do recall seeing something where a member was explaining why Jefferson was not emphasized because they were using the political ideas of the philosophers that influenced Jefferson. The curriculum would have been repeating the same stuff in limited textbook space, but I personally would rather of had them emphasize Jefferson and state where he got his ideas than the other way around.

BTW, Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" is in a letter he wrote to someone (I forget who right now, although pretty sure it wasn't John Adams), but it does not delcare that church and state should be separate as we understand it.

"Believing...that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, [and] that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature [i.e. Congress] should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." (1803)

Keep in mind where these guys came from. In England at the time of the revolution, the church was essentially an arm of the state. The founders didn't want that to happen in America, but they also didn't want to prohibit an individual from freely practicing and exercising one's own religion, as the above quote basically says.

Also, in the early days of the new country, the Bible was one of the books used in education in public schools.

Lastly, to my knowledge, Jefferson is either the only president, or only founder who became president, to sign his government documentation "In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ," instead of the traditional "Year of our Lord."

Oh yeah, and it should be called the slave trade, going back to the article.

Re: Notable Quotables

Jason — Mon, 17 May 2010 22:34:19 -0000

I totally agree, but I think the erosion started in the 1960's.

Re: Notable Quotables

--adam — Mon, 17 May 2010 09:02:47 -0000

Yes, and for the life of me, I can' find the freaking answer...I clipped to much when posting, but I will keep looking!

Re: Notable Quotables

Jason — Tue, 11 May 2010 19:40:35 -0000

Is there a source for this notable quotable?

Re: “Net Neutrality” or Government Takeover: One in the same?

--adam — Wed, 05 May 2010 00:28:27 -0000

Well, since I'm an Systems Analyst by day, I thought I would chime in. Net-neutrality is actually one of the things Obama talked about in his campaign. It was also one of the things I could never find the stance of McCain on. I know it might not seem like a big deal to many, but the freedom of information on-line is a big deal to me.

Did you know Texas senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R) attached anti-net neutrality stipulations to a funding package for the Interior Department? Indeed, this is just one of many Republican oppositions to telecom reform:

Republicans worked to defeat net neutrality language in a House Energy and Commerce bill.
Republicans oppose net neutrality language in a broadband stimulus package.
Republicans oppose regulatory division of regional cable operator monopolies.
Republicans oppose a la carte cable channel purchases.
Republicans oppose ending phone/carrier exclusivity periods.

Granted, I'm not surprised if one leftist group is against Net-Neutrality, but I think you'd be surprised to see which group is getting the Telecom donations.

Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage...

--adam — Mon, 03 May 2010 11:32:03 -0000

Nicole, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, and honestly, I agree with what you are saying. I posted this hoping to get some discussion going on the use of using religion and/or the Bible to push a political viewpoint. I have seen this in many forms, and it is very depressing to see someone use the Bible to push through their agenda.

I know there is realistically no such thing as separating politics from religious beliefs, but I wish people would understand that the US is a melting pot of many different religious beliefs, and if you use your beliefs to pass laws (no gay marriage), then someone else might fight to pass laws approved by their beliefs (multiple wives/women have no rights).

Just my thoughts.

Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage...

Nicole — Mon, 03 May 2010 11:24:45 -0000

I always love it when people use the Old Testament to attempt to make points like this. The laws in the Old Testament were the laws at that time in history. When Jesus died on the cross, those laws became null and void (hence no longer having to sacrifice animals, etc) and in the New Testament he and the apostles lay out the new guidelines under which we should now live (the Ten Commandments--written in the Old Testament time period but they are reasserted in the New Testament by Jesus--amongst others.) The New Testament talks about sexual immorality which includes homosexuality (amongst other acts as well).

I am not a Biblical scholar by any means, but people really need to understand the Bible before they use it to make a political point. Very disingenuous.

Re: Grilled Chicken Pancakes?!?

Jason — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:08:25 -0000

A) Don't change my ingredients.

B) I don't like blueberries.

C) I don't trust the cooks making the pancakes.

D) Pancakes may be tasty with all that stuff, but only temporarily. Too many are not good for you...especially over time. Grilled chicken, on the other hand, is far better for you and is likely to sustain you for a longer period of time.

E) Every major poll shows that a majority of Americans don't want pancakes and would rather go to a different resturaunt with food everyone can enjoy.

Re: Grilled Chicken Pancakes?!?

Josh Left-Right — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:32:36 -0000

Me thinks you should learn more about your pancakes. What you’re calling Grilled Chicken is actually part blueberry; butter and syrup. Blueberries can be added and the butter and syrup were already there, you must have just assumed they weren’t there. I think you were looking in the section called government takeover for them. All I want to know is why are you trying to add Grilled Chicken to Pancakes? It makes no sense. We start off the day with a good breakfast and then later in the day we can talk about meals that contain grilled chicken. When you want pancakes in the morning (that have blueberries, butter, syrup and grilled chicken), are you going to just not eat because your want grilled chicken in them and the majority of American needs pancakes and doesn’t want grilled chicken?

Re: Warp Factor...50? ENGAGE!

--adam — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:42:13 -0000

[quote]Either the captain has no idea what he’s doing, or he’s intentionally taking us beyond “warp/debt factor 10? as a county, in the hopes that our DNA changes (bye, bye capitalist/liberty strain), and he and his pals can restructure us from a sleek Federation star ship to a Romulan vessel, or a Borg cube.[/quote]

Liberty != Capitalism. Just thought you should know.

Re: Warp Factor...50? ENGAGE!

John A — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:27:31 -0000

Captain Kirk would, at times, ask Scottie to push the warp drive to its breaking point. He didn't do it for fun, or to mess with his crew. He did it because they were facing great danger. Because he felt it was necessary.

Our government is currently running a deficit. I don't think the current President and Congress are doing this out of malice or because they're clueless. They're doing it because they feel it's necessary to prop up our faltering economy.

And keep in mind, we were already pushing Warp 10 with Klingons on our tail when the current Captain took the bridge...

Re: I want MY CAP Back!

jkw12 — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:00:52 -0000

I'm from "Real America" and I could have sworn that 95% of the country (along with myself) received a tax break this year. My Health Care costs have went up 225% and I have less coverage than I did 3 years ago. I must have missed the memo were lowering my taxes “is adding a burden on the every man’s back". I stand corrected. Thank you for that. I will now formally attribute my financial situation on lower taxes and not my heath care costs. Stupid Democrats thinking tax cuts are a good thing. Will the liberal leftists ever get and idea.

Re: I want MY CAP Back!

Valerie — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:53:29 -0000

Pretty amusing, Mike. And yes, you can get soy lattes in recycled/recyclable containers in Boise. I mean, who do they think we Idahoans are?

Re: I want MY CAP Back!

--adam — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:31:01 -0000

I am middle-America, and the tea baggers do not represent me!

Re: I want MY CAP Back!

Mike — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:06:20 -0000

I hope you'll find this take on what Marvel's done to Captain America amusing.

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com...

Re: I want MY CAP Back!

--adam — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:44:52 -0000

I see what you are saying Sudsy, but as a long time comic reader, I don't see the big hoopla that this has generated. Most series have various people writing different stories for each comic. Some of those writers/panelers/inkers/penners interject some of their own opinion, even in mainstream/hugely popular series. Read any of the stuff written by Joss Whedon.

With comics, especially with popular characters whose stories are written by several people, it's easy to look at it as kissing up one day and backstabbing the next, when the truth is, that the stories were written by different people with different opinions and backgrounds.

As for painting the Teabaggers in a bad light, I agree, that should not have been done in the comics, they do that enough on their own.

Re: I want MY CAP Back!

Valerie — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:13:44 -0000

I think it's funny to preach liberal open-mindedness, yet perpetuate the stereotype that Idaho is a state full of idiot, anti-government, racist hillbillies.

As a long-time Idahoan, I'm very offended.