Unemployment Falls Only to 8.1%

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The FDA's existence doesn't have much relation with the "Science vs. Religion" debate, if any relation at all. The FDA was created during the Progressive Era because Sinclair revealed how shitty and dirty the meat and food being distributed was.

 

I don't really think that's what the discussion is. Many assume that because science is, well... Science. It's automatically fact. It doesn't really work that way. Science changes every day, and things we have long since thought was fact has been proven by science to actually be false. Science is rewriting itself daily...

 

And my point with the FDA is that their regulation broker from science. They don't give a crap what you eat, snort, or inhale as long as it makes them money.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Isn't there a lot of science involved in energy issues? Hell, economics is a science. It's exactly as asinine as everyone is suggesting. Disappointed in that post JD.

[OSUViking 505]

Especially considering the regulations enacted via the Food and Drug Act/Meat Inspection Act didn't bring in revenue for the government. Those were legit reforms enacted by TDR because he was legit for the people. Triple Cs pretty much outlined this. (FTR, Triple Cs = Protect Consumers, Control Corporations, and Conserve Nature/Resources).

 

Hell, regulation costs money to enact, so it's not like the government would be profiting off of something like that.

 

I'm not trying to nitpick, but I think the FDA example was a poor one.

[War Eagle714 16]

Had to jump in on this.

 

Science = Fact. Religion = Opinion (faith)

 

So yes religion has NO PLACE in politics but science, or facts, do for sure. Just because religion and science are always compared they are by far not the same thing.

That's your opinion and sorry to disappoint but it's no more important than mine.

 

Science = Religion now? LOL. Idiocy abounds.

Didn't say that, you just did though. LOL. Who's the idiot?

 

Wait wait wait...someone said religion belongs in politics?

 

LOLfuckingL.

 

Just try, I mean try, to justify that, War Eagle.

 

You have the right to oppose whatever you want based on your religion, but you have no right to support something that violates our Constitution in any way.

Again, I didn't say religion necessarily belong in politics so clean the shit out of your ears and then come at me.

 

I'm sorry, are you brand new to the concept of how conservatives have certain opinions which can be directly attributed to their system of beliefs?

 

Wow...this site is full of politically dumb people. Most of you need to learn how to read btw.

Edited September 9, 2012 by War Eagle714

[OSUViking 505]

I lol'd.

 

EDIT:

 

By the way, don't ever mention the GOP and Christianity in the same sentence. That bullshit is just to pull votes. I'm not a Christian in any sense of the word, but I do pay attention in my religion courses. You want to know one of the key points made in the New Testament? The wealthy are not doing their job and need to give up portions of their wealth to assist the poor. Considering that lots of politicians are corrupt, greedy assholes, none of them get to claim the "Stout Christian" ticket.

 

I really don't feel like going to quote your post. ;_;

 

Any opinion that favors oppression and the violation of rights granted by the Constitution should be disregarded. If you don't like the Constitution, gtfo. Your religious views have literally no place in politics.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Vikingfan465

[Thanatos 2,847]

And if you weren't a test tube baby then why the hell do you care about In virto fertilisation? Are you that shocked the conservatives don't agree with scientists "playing God" when it comes to child birth? It's not like Ryan is just being an a-hole; In virto fertilisation goes against Christian beliefs.

 

Wait what?

 

There is absolutely nothing about IVF that goes against Christian beliefs. How the blazes did you come to that conclusion? It's a great tool to allow families to conceive children who aren't able to normally.

 

Had to jump in on this.

 

Science = Fact. Religion = Opinion (faith)

 

So yes religion has NO PLACE in politics but science, or facts, do for sure. Just because religion and science are always compared they are by far not the same thing.

 

This is a common misconception. (I do agree with your final statement, but not the bolded part.)

 

Science does not equate to fact. Science, or much of science, is about probability. It's all about what has the most chance of happening.

 

Science uses the method of induction- it's about being able to say: "The vast probability is that the following scenario will happen"- but its not a fact. Science is rarely about "facts" it's always able to be revised based on new discoveries. As a matter of fact, that's what distinguishes science from religion, religious people consider religious doctrine to be "fact", unmovable, unchangeable, no matter what new discoveries happen.

 

Scientists are flexible, always willing to adjust their system if they need to. That is how its supposed to be, at least.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Thanatos19

[OSUViking 505]

No one should care if any scientific practice goes against Christian beliefs. @Thanatos

[Thanatos 2,847]

No one should care if any scientific practice goes against Christian beliefs. @Thanatos

 

I disagree.

 

There are definitely moral lines in the sand that should be drawn. Are you willing to let science do whatever it wants to, regardless of moral sensibilities?

Edited September 9, 2012 by Thanatos19

[War Eagle714 16]

I lol'd.

 

EDIT:

 

By the way, don't ever mention the GOP and Christianity in the same sentence. That bullshit is just to pull votes. I'm not a Christian in any sense of the word, but I do pay attention in my religion courses. You want to know one of the key points made in the New Testament? The wealthy are not doing their job and need to give up portions of their wealth to assist the poor. Considering that lots of politicians are corrupt, greedy assholes, none of them get to claim the "Stout Christian" ticket.

 

I really don't feel like going to quote your post. ;_;

 

Any opinion that favors oppression and the violation of rights granted by the Constitution should be disregarded. If you don't like the Constitution, gtfo. Your religious views have literally no place in politics.

I haven't used the term "Christian" or "Christianity" once in this entire thread.

 

Holy shit, why do other posters keep putting words into my mouth? You people need to fucking ree-lax.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I haven't used the term "Christian" or "Christianity" once in this entire thread.

 

Holy shit, why do other posters keep putting words into my mouth? You people need to fucking ree-lax.

 

Lol, yes you have. Look at the post I quoted.

 

And if you weren't a test tube baby then why the hell do you care about In virto fertilisation? Are you that shocked the conservatives don't agree with scientists "playing God" when it comes to child birth? It's not like Ryan is just being an a-hole; In virto fertilisation goes against Christian beliefs.

 

Ryan is being an a-hole because IVF does NOT go against Christian beliefs, and regardless, he is using his *belief* that it does as a reason to use the *government* to ban it. That is the definition of breaking the separation of church and state.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Wow...this site is full of politically dumb people. Most of you need to learn how to read btw.

 

Ironic post is ironic.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I haven't used the term "Christian" or "Christianity" once in this entire thread.

 

Holy shit, why do other posters keep putting words into my mouth? You people need to fucking ree-lax.

 

 

You cant be serious right ? It must be nice to just say shit and not be held responsible for the fall out and get mad at people who can reason. Who does that sound like ? Mr. Ryan.........? Perhaps.

 

And your christian beliefs have no place in politics whatsoever, nor does anybody elses religion.

[OSUViking 505]

I disagree.

 

There are definitely moral lines in the sand that should be drawn. Are you willing to let science do whatever it wants to, regardless of moral sensibilities?

 

I agree that moral lines should be drawn, but I don't think they should be drawn based on one institution's beliefs. That's what I meant, really. I don't want our legislation to be based entirely on what Christianity preaches, when significant portions of our country don't believe in Christianity.

[War Eagle714 16]

Ryan is being an a-hole because IVF does NOT go against Christian beliefs, and regardless, he is using his *belief* that it does as a reason to use the *government* to ban it. That is the definition of breaking the separation of church and state.

I did use term "Christian" to describe Ryan's beliefs but as far as what you're saying...I've strictly combined "GOP" and "Conservatives". There's several different religions that fall within the Republican party and even many people who don't bother much with religion at all.

 

And this whole IVF debate...

 

"Thou shalt not create test tube babies" may not be in the King James version of the bible but it's unnatural and much like abortion and stem cell research, Conservatives like Paul Ryan aren't in favor. You're completely missing the point on this. And btw, you're really the only person I've encountered who has IVF as such a major issue. How about we worry about fixing the economy?

 

You cant be serious right ? It must be nice to just say shit and not be held responsible for the fall out and get mad at people who can reason. Who does that sound like ? Mr. Ryan.........? Perhaps.

 

And your christian beliefs have no place in politics whatsoever, nor does anybody elses religion.

I'm not a Christian. For the 3rd time in 24 hours, another member joins the discussion and starts "quoting" me.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I did use term "Christian" to describe Ryan's beliefs but as far as what you're saying...I've strictly combined "GOP" and "Conservatives". There's several different religions that fall within the Republican party and even many people who don't bother much with religion at all.

 

And this whole IVF debate...

 

"Thou shalt not create test tube babies" may not be in the King James version of the bible but it's unnatural and much like abortion and stem cell research, Conservatives like Paul Ryan aren't in favor. You're completely missing the point on this. And btw, you're really the only person I've encountered who has IVF as such a major issue. How about we worry about fixing the economy?

 

Amen. How about we do do that, and not focus on using the government to enforce a stance that is completely based on a religious view.

 

It's not "unnatural" anymore than giving someone a test for cancer is "unnatural."

 

Abortion destroys life.

 

Embryonic stem cell research is more shady, but the principle is still there for those who oppose it: it destroys life in order to try to make life better for those already living.

 

IVF *creates* life. They have nothing in common. To compare the three as if they are all the same is simply ludicrous.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Thanatos19

[WindyCitySports 407]

Because Austrian Economics totally has the track record that Keynesian Economics has.

Oh yeah, the Great Depression and all of our other recessions are such wonderful things to have on your record. These "recoveries" that we have emerge with a bubble and weakened companies running the market on the government dole. Imagine if we just held our nose and waited it out. No bubble emerges and businesses that caused the recession will be eliminated so that more advanced and better quality businesses can come into the market.

[GA_Eagle 595]

Religion has no place in politics but science does? What kind of mentality is that? If we're omitting all belief systems from government then those who believe in creating test tube babies are shit out of luck too then...right? I mean it's only fair that it works both ways.

Not so, one can have morals based on reason without being a religious person. The argument is then validated by not being based on a theology that many do not adhere to, and one that should not have a place in government, as long as the argument is sound. Atheists can have a strong sense of morality and not adhere to any belief system.

 

Science is not a belief system but instead a system of testing what is believed.

Edited September 10, 2012 by GA_Eagle

[Thanatos 2,847]

Not sure I'd agree with the last part there, Eagle.

 

Science is not about testing what is believed, it's simply about testing what can be tested. If it cannot be tested, but merely believed, than it is outside the realm of science, and science has no say in it one way or the other.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Oh yeah, the Great Depression and all of our other recessions are such wonderful things to have on your record. These "recoveries" that we have emerge with a bubble and weakened companies running the market on the government dole. Imagine if we just held our nose and waited it out. No bubble emerges and businesses that caused the recession will be eliminated so that more advanced and better quality businesses can come into the market.

 

You've got it completely backwards. The Great Depression lasted so long because the US was tied to the gold standard, limiting the Federal Reserve's inability to pump cash into the economy to temporarily stimulate demand, both of which are tied to Austrian/Classical economic theory. "Waiting it out" is exactly why the Depression dragged on. If not for WW2, there's no telling when the economy would have recovered. If you need anymore proof of this, check the economies of countries during that time period that had already moved away from a commodity-backed currency. They recovered more quickly than did the US.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[GA_Eagle 595]

Not sure I'd agree with the last part there, Eagle.

 

Science is not about testing what is believed, it's simply about testing what can be tested. If it cannot be tested, but merely believed, than it is outside the realm of science, and science has no say in it one way or the other.

 

It was meant to be a partially poetic way to explain it. It may be over generalized however its not completely wrong. A system of predictions and testing to either prove or disprove said predictions is more accurate but did't have the same ring to it. If the preconceived notions or predictions is what is believed and testing them is what the system is all about then well there you have it. Also there have been many attempts by science to attempt to test various aspect of religions in the world, regardless of the success they did or didn't meet, if the method was adhered to, it still falls under the term science.

[Thanatos 2,847]

You've got it completely backwards. The Great Depression lasted so long because the US was tied to the gold standard, limiting the Federal Reserve's inability to pump cash into the economy to temporarily stimulate demand, both of which are tied to Austrian/Classical economic theory. "Waiting it out" is exactly why the Depression dragged on. If not for WW2, there's no telling when the economy would have recovered. If you need anymore proof of this, check the economies of countries during that time period that had already moved away from a commodity-backed currency. They recovered more quickly than did the US.

 

That is the standard liberal explanation. I don't think it's proved at all, the conservative explanation is just as valid. I happen to agree with Windy on this one. FDR made it last longer than it needed to by throwing more money at the problem. I can hardly blame him for it, he was simply trying to do whatever it took to stop it.

[OSUViking 505]

Oh yeah, the Great Depression and all of our other recessions are such wonderful things to have on your record. These "recoveries" that we have emerge with a bubble and weakened companies running the market on the government dole. Imagine if we just held our nose and waited it out. No bubble emerges and businesses that caused the recession will be eliminated so that more advanced and better quality businesses can come into the market.

 

I'm not going to counter the Great Depression mention, because Phailadelphia has already done that.

 

Regardless, just sitting by and doing nothing will take longer. Regulation is needed to prevent something like this from happening again. I'm not in favor of recklessly spending, but I do support government intervention in order to stimulate the economy. From what I've read on the Stimulus Package, the money was allocated decently, but the places it was allocated to recklessly spent it. Also, simply letting some corporations die off would be awful. Had the American banking industry collapsed, well, there goes the entire global economy. Government intervention in this previous economic crisis was pretty crucial.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Vikingfan465

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I'm not a Christian. For the 3rd time in 24 hours, another member joins the discussion and starts "quoting" me.

 

Ok you did not SAY you were christian but brought up the beliefs as to absolve Ryan of an idiotic idea.

 

The fact still remains that no part of religion belongs in government, I cant think of a single good reason as to why it should be there.

[WindyCitySports 407]

You've got it completely backwards. The Great Depression lasted so long because the US was tied to the gold standard, limiting the Federal Reserve's inability to pump cash into the economy to temporarily stimulate demand, both of which are tied to Austrian/Classical economic theory. "Waiting it out" is exactly why the Depression dragged on. If not for WW2, there's no telling when the economy would have recovered. If you need anymore proof of this, check the economies of countries during that time period that had already moved away from a commodity-backed currency. They recovered more quickly than did the US.

 

WOW. That damn gold standard hurt us so much, didn't it?!

 

You Keyensians will never get it. The gold standard is the only way to ensure confidence in the dollar and prevent large scale inflation. It's the only thing that actually makes money worth something. I agree, however, that WWII ended the Depression, and not the New Deal.

 

Thanatos, why do you say you "happen to agree with Windy on this one"? Haven't we been agreeing all election season? lol

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Uh, check inflation, macroeconomic stability, and currency stability when we were under the gold standard. Hint: It's awful. Really, really awful. So yeah, the gold standard did hurt us. There's a reason not a single developed economy in the world still uses a commodity-backed currency. I don't know why you RP people think the gold standard equates to no inflation. That's literally never been the case.

 

We have a central bank that controls inflation and the entire world uses our dollar for transactions. There's no need for a gold standard (which, by the way, would be absolutely disastrous in today's economy) when our dollar is backed by more confidence than any other currency in the world (and it's not even close). There's a reason China owns trillions of dollars worth of US Treasury securities.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Phailadelphia