8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
I'm told Ohio might be fairly important to the election this year... So Romnid devoured the company that owns the machines and does the counting...
I wonder why they'd want to buy that company and have direct control over it?
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13221476-romney-family-buys-voting-machines-through-bain-capital-investment
Tagg Romney, the son of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, has purchased electronic voting machines that will be used in the 2012 elections in Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, Washington and Colorado.
"Late last month, Gerry Bello and Bob Fitrakis at FreePress.org broke the story of the Mitt Romney/Bain Capital investment team involved in H.I.G. Capital which, in July of 2011, completed a "strategic investment" to take over a fair share of the Austin-based e-voting machine company Hart Intercivic," according to independent journalist Brad Friedman.
But Friedman is not the only one to discover the connection between the Romney family, Bain Capital, and ownership of voting machines.
Truth out reports:
"Through a closely held equity fund called Solamere, Mitt Romney and his wife, son and brother are major investors in an investment firm called H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. in turn holds a majority share and three out of five board members in Hart Intercivic, a company that owns the notoriously faulty electronic voting machines that will count the ballots in swing state Ohio November 7. Hart machines will also be used elsewhere in the United States.
In other words, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and his brother, wife and son, have a straight-line financial interest in the voting machines that could decide this fall's election. These machines cannot be monitored by the public. But they will help decide who "owns" the White House."
Both The Nation and New York Times confirm the connection between the Romney family, Solamere and the Bain Capital investment in the voting machine company, Hart Intercivic, whose board of directors serve H.I.G. Capital.
"Mitt Romney, his wife Ann Romney, and their son Tagg Romney are also invested in H.I.G. Capital, as is Mitt's brother G. Scott Romney.
The investment comes in part through the privately held family equity firm called Solamere, which bears the name of the posh Utah ski community where the Romney family retreats to slide down the slopes." Truth out added.
There are also political connections between Solamere and the Romney's. "Matt Blunt, the former Missouri governor who backed Mr. Romney in 2008, is a senior adviser to Solamere, as is Mitt Romney’s brother, Scott, a lawyer," according to the New York Times.
Voter ID and voter fraud have been a top issues in the 2012 race, as have claims of Republican voter suppression. Mr. Romney's campaign has also been the subject of controversy over misleading ads, false claims, sketchy math on his tax plan, and overall vagueness on women's rights and other hot button issues.
Raising further questions of legitimacy in the Romney campaign is an audio recording recently made public, where Mitt Romney is heard asking independent business owners to apply pressure to their employees to influence their votes. What has also been made public are the emails those employers have sent to their employees with an implied threat that if they don't vote for Romney they may lose their jobs.
What it all says is that Mitt Romney, with the help of his family and Bain Capital connections, is more than willing to try to take the White House through illegitimate and highly unethical, if not specifically illegal means.
With each passing day, the character and campaign methods of Mitt Romney cast an ever-darker shadow over free and fair American elections.
Yet there in an irony in the Romney campaign that cannot be ignored. For all the noise the right-wing has made in questioning the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, there have been so many questionable efforts made to help put Romney in the White House, if he wins, there should be great dispute over whether his election could ever be called genuinely illegitimate.
The nagging question is why, if Mr. Romney truly has the qualities that American voters want in their president, does he have to go to such great and questionable lengths to try to win the election.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Ohio is always important.... Idk why, though it only takes like 9 counties out of like... 83? to turn the state from Republican to Democrat... Other than that, we are a red state.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Gearing up for the loss already.
I like it.
Don't worry MGS it will be over soon.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Sounds like something that has no way of ever going wrong 
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
 AustonT wrote:Gearing up for the loss already.
I like it.
Don't worry MGS it will be over soon.
Hey you funny guy.
So, if Obama (history's greatest monster) had bought up the voting machines in a major swing state, let alone bought up the voting machines whilst being a candidate in the first place, you nice polite folks on the right wouldn't all be foaming at the mouth and shrieking about the muslim communist nazi takeover of America? Instead we have to ask ourselves why the Romney's would buy up voting machine company right before the election, guess it was just for the profits...
Pull the other one pal.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Black-box ballot systems are evil enough. This should be illegal.
1206
Post by: Easy E
In the old days, you use to have to throw a ballot machine into the river. What has the world come to.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 MeanGreenStompa wrote: AustonT wrote:Gearing up for the loss already.
I like it.
Don't worry MGS it will be over soon.
Hey you funny guy.
So, if Obama (history's greatest monster) had bought up the voting machines in a major swing state, let alone bought up the voting machines whilst being a candidate in the first place, you nice polite folks on the right wouldn't all be foaming at the mouth and shrieking about the muslim communist nazi takeover of America? Instead we have to ask ourselves why the Romney's would buy up voting machine company right before the election, guess it was just for the profits...
Pull the other one pal.
SO you're alleging that a shareholder who owns shares in another company are going to go through two boards of directors (one of which is a public company) to do what again?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
It's already shady enough to begin with that it wasn't Mitt himself, but his son who did it this time.
29110
Post by: AustonT
MeanGreenStompa wrote: AustonT wrote:Gearing up for the loss already.
I like it.
Don't worry MGS it will be over soon.
Hey you funny guy.
So, if Obama (history's greatest monster) had bought up the voting machines in a major swing state, let alone bought up the voting machines whilst being a candidate in the first place, you nice polite folks on the right wouldn't all be foaming at the mouth and shrieking about the muslim communist nazi takeover of America? Instead we have to ask ourselves why the Romney's would buy up voting machine company right before the election, guess it was just for the profits...
Pull the other one pal.
Pray tell how many counties in Ohio use machines provided by Hart?
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
 Frazzled wrote:
SO you're alleging that a shareholder who owns shares in another company are going to go through two boards of directors (one of which is a public company) to do what again?
I allege that it represents a clear conflict of interests and opens up the possibility of manipulation of the figures.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Thread title is misleading. Its not Mitt who is involved as is implied. its his son.
Secondly, he mearly has a controlling interest in the company. He doesn't have control over the counting of the votes.
I quite sure the Company just rents the machines out and government employees are the ones who handle the vote counts.
221
Post by: Frazzled
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Frazzled wrote:
SO you're alleging that a shareholder who owns shares in another company are going to go through two boards of directors (one of which is a public company) to do what again?
I allege that it represents a clear conflict of interests and opens up the possibility of manipulation of the figures.
BY who and how?
Again you're going through two boards of directors, therough executive management, all the way down to programmers to perform felonies on a galactic scale? You think all of them are going to do that?
Even the Democratic ones?
29110
Post by: AustonT
Frazzled wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote: Frazzled wrote:
SO you're alleging that a shareholder who owns shares in another company are going to go through two boards of directors (one of which is a public company) to do what again?
I allege that it represents a clear conflict of interests and opens up the possibility of manipulation of the figures.
BY who and how?
Again you're going through two boards of directors, therough executive management, all the way down to programmers to perform felonies on a galactic scale? You think all of them are going to do that?
Even the Democratic ones?
Didnt you know through Eugenics Mittens is breeding out Democrats, that's why he supports Planned Parenthood...
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Conservatives just tend to have larger families. its not Eugenics, its culture. 
29110
Post by: AustonT
Epic face palm
34390
Post by: whembly
This is entertaining...
Please... go on...
EDIT: oops sorry Auston... meant this for MGS...
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Frazzled wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote: Frazzled wrote:
SO you're alleging that a shareholder who owns shares in another company are going to go through two boards of directors (one of which is a public company) to do what again?
I allege that it represents a clear conflict of interests and opens up the possibility of manipulation of the figures.
BY who and how?
Again you're going through two boards of directors, therough executive management, all the way down to programmers to perform felonies on a galactic scale? You think all of them are going to do that?
Even the Democratic ones?
Of H.I.G.’s 22 American directors, 21 donated to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. One person made no political donations at all; one person donated to both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama; the remaining 20 directors donated exclusively to Mitt Romney in 2012.
Links to H.I.G.’s American directors:
Tony Tamer – Bain alum; Romney bundler; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Sami Mnaymneh – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign as well as Barack Obama’s campaign
Douglas Berman – Bain alum; Romney bundler; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
John Bolduc – Bain alum; Romney bundler; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Rick Rosen – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Brian Schwartz – bundler for the Romney campaign; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Timothy Armstrong – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
John Black – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Dave Blechman – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Peter Cornetta – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Marc Kramer – No known donations to presidential campaigns
Chris Laitala – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Elliot Maluth – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
William Nolan – Bain alum; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Michael Phillips – Bain alum; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Matt Sanford – Bain alum; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Lewis Schoenwetter – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Richard Stokes – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Neil Tuch – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Bret Wiener – donated exclusively to Mitt Romney’s campaign for 2012; donated initially to Mitt Romney and then to Barack Obama during the 2008 election
Rob Wolfson – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
Jeff Zanarini – Bain alum; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign
465
Post by: Redbeard
Frazzled wrote:
BY who and how?
Again you're going through two boards of directors, therough executive management, all the way down to programmers to perform felonies on a galactic scale? You think all of them are going to do that?
Even the Democratic ones?
First, it's software that essentially counts and logs. An intern programmer could do this. As a result, it doesn't take any huge conspiracy to rig anything, it takes one guy.
Check out code, make evil change.
Compile code, put in location where it'll be written onto the machines.
Undo change, check code back in.
But, there are still ways to pick that up. I think the real issue isn't that the machines will operate incorrectly, it's that the company that sets up the machines can do interesting things with distributing them, not having enough in some critical locations, or something of that nature. I'd think it should be much easier to under-order production and then plan where gets shorted than it is to change code and binaries that leave a trail and get audited.
Afterall, if on the day of the election, several minority districts only end up with half the machines they need to count everyone's vote, it might look bad, but it's not a felony. And I think this is how
19370
Post by: daedalus
Frazzled wrote:
Again you're going through two boards of directors, therough executive management, all the way down to programmers to perform felonies on a galactic scale? You think all of them are going to do that?
Or, you'd just need one programmer who likes money more than honesty, or genuinely toes the party line that much. I could find you five of those at my company who'd probably do something like that by the end of next week, and I doubt I'd set off red flags.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Redbeard wrote: Frazzled wrote:
BY who and how?
Again you're going through two boards of directors, therough executive management, all the way down to programmers to perform felonies on a galactic scale? You think all of them are going to do that?
Even the Democratic ones?
First, it's software that essentially counts and logs. An intern programmer could do this. As a result, it doesn't take any huge conspiracy to rig anything, it takes one guy.
Check out code, make evil change.
Compile code, put in location where it'll be written onto the machines.
Undo change, check code back in.
But, there are still ways to pick that up. I think the real issue isn't that the machines will operate incorrectly, it's that the company that sets up the machines can do interesting things with distributing them, not having enough in some critical locations, or something of that nature. I'd think it should be much easier to under-order production and then plan where gets shorted than it is to change code and binaries that leave a trail and get audited.
Afterall, if on the day of the election, several minority districts only end up with half the machines they need to count everyone's vote, it might look bad, but it's not a felony. And I think this is how
I can guarantee no on on the Board of directors knows how to program their clocks much less a computer program.
You're still alleging a massive conspiracy from two different boards of directors TO MULTIPLE FELONIES. Thats absurd on its face.
18698
Post by: kronk
Programming can be back tracked and emails from executives can lead to jail time.
But appropriating fewer machines to key locations is just a screw up (nothing illegal about incompetence) that could lead to long ass lines and discourage voters.
I'm not saying I believe that, though.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
AustonT wrote:
Pray tell how many counties in Ohio use machines provided by Hart?
I think 2, how many 'mistaken votes' would it take to make it contentious in what's cited as a vital swing state? I'm also not sure what kind of counties those are and whether they would be more likely minorities/working class populated or populated by white professionals.
I remain convinced that a presidential candidate and his family should not own significant financial and managerial influence over the people gathering the votes.
Not from either bloody side.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Frazzled wrote:
I can guarantee no on on the Board of directors knows how to program their clocks much less a computer program.
You're still alleging a massive conspiracy from two different boards of directors TO MULTIPLE FELONIES. Thats absurd on its face.
I'm trying to figure out which part, specifically, makes it absurd.
I'm not saying it's happening, merely that it's not outside of the realm of possibility. The situation is certainly not lending itself to not showing a conflict of interest.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Frazzled wrote:
I can guarantee no on on the Board of directors knows how to program their clocks much less a computer program.
Really? Not one member of the board of directors of what is obviously a tech company might have a tech background? I mean, I don't know who they are, but I think that's a big claim to make.
You're still alleging a massive conspiracy from two different boards of directors TO MULTIPLE FELONIES. Thats absurd on its face.
The second point I was trying to make is that no board of directors needs to be involved. Do you think that the board of directors (who, according to you, don't know how to program) are doing code reviews? That's far more absurd.
Likewise, "underestimating" need is not a felony, and it's a hard paper trail to prove that said underestimations are deliberate.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Frazzled wrote:I can guarantee no on on the Board of directors knows how to program their clocks much less a computer program.
You're still alleging a massive conspiracy from two different boards of directors TO MULTIPLE FELONIES. Thats absurd on its face.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/us/15ohio.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&
Also, you seem to be back in brick wall territory Fraz, there is every way to pull off a crime within a company without the entire board or even any of the board being aware.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Actually, yeah, there were also all those controversies and flaws with the Diebold machines that they made every last effort possible to keep buried, such that California got too spooked to even use their machines anymore. Take that, along with the observation that Diebold machine ran voting in swing states had a particular knack for always winding up Republican. Of course, you only hear people talking about stuff like that at places like infowars, so your mileage may vary.
But then there was the nasty Diebold fraud thing where a bunch of the top executives got fined for misrepresenting company earnings. That DID come to the light of day: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/02/dieboldsec-fraud-settleme_n_598627.html
So, yeah, I guess if the tampering DID in fact occur with their machines, then there would be multiple felonies there.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 kronk wrote:Programming can be back tracked and emails from executives can lead to jail time.
But appropriating fewer machines to key locations is just a screw up (nothing illegal about incompetence) that could lead to long ass lines and discourage voters.
I'm not saying I believe that, though.
Thats an interesting idea... (runs off and makes a phone call).
OK, Q I thought the machines themselves were owned by the various state governments no? I know Texas is, we lost a bunch in a fire. I have an alibi. I was er walking my dogs... Automatically Appended Next Post: Redbeard wrote: Frazzled wrote:
I can guarantee no on on the Board of directors knows how to program their clocks much less a computer program.
Really? Not one member of the board of directors of what is obviously a tech company might have a tech background? I mean, I don't know who they are, but I think that's a big claim to make.
You're still alleging a massive conspiracy from two different boards of directors TO MULTIPLE FELONIES. Thats absurd on its face.
The second point I was trying to make is that no board of directors needs to be involved. Do you think that the board of directors (who, according to you, don't know how to program) are doing code reviews? That's far more absurd.
Likewise, "underestimating" need is not a felony, and it's a hard paper trail to prove that said underestimations are deliberate.
If you're alleging one person can do it, they don't need the company. In fact thats the wrong thing to do. You just pay off a programmer, which anyone can do. Ask the Daly Machine. They'll tell you how.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Frazzled wrote:
If you're alleging one person can do it, they don't need the company. In fact thats the wrong thing to do. You just pay off a programmer, which anyone can do. Ask the Daly Machine. They'll tell you how.
Buying the company and filling it's board of directors with your cronies and underlings does aid inaction and how 'failsafe' your processes are. Along with facilitating direct and legal decision making processes like voting machine placements, voting machine upkeep and accuracy testing.
Hardly much consolation to the other side to say 'well, guess our company didn't do a great job' when your owning company's major investor's are now the first family and will 'remember' your board of directors for their contributions and 'contributions'...
25990
Post by: Chongara
These are brave men ensuring that people will vote for the candidate they really want, even if they press the wrong button. We can't allow the election to be decided by people making mistakes.
Carry on true american heroes, it's thanks to you that we will again have a true american president.
I remain convinced that a presidential candidate and his family should not own significant financial and managerial influence over the people gathering the votes.
Romney isn't a candidate, he's the president. They just haven't done had his election yet. Stop getting stuck on formalities.
53059
Post by: dæl
Romney has bought the company that counts the votes?
There's no need for satire when things like this happen.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Redbeard wrote: Frazzled wrote:
I can guarantee no on on the Board of directors knows how to program their clocks much less a computer program.
Really? Not one member of the board of directors of what is obviously a tech company might have a tech background? I mean, I don't know who they are, but I think that's a big claim to make.
Its possable they don't know how the machines their company is currently selling operate.
It can take years to reach the top of a company, during which time the technology will have advanced beyond what you learned in your educational field.
Many directors will also be investors that simply bought large quantities of capital stock in the company. You need to know jack squat about programming to invest millions in the electronic industry.
Its really only the CEO who you could reasonably assume would have knowledge of how to reprogram the product.
25990
Post by: Chongara
 dæl wrote:Romney has bought the company that counts the votes?
There's no need for satire when things like this happen.
Not Romney his son, Romney. Just because Romney is Romney doesn't mean he's Romney. Besides why shouldn't Romney own the machines that count Romney's votes for Romney? It sounds like you're biased against Romney and Romney, heck you're probably biased against Romney too.
121
Post by: Relapse
Frazzled wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote: Frazzled wrote:
SO you're alleging that a shareholder who owns shares in another company are going to go through two boards of directors (one of which is a public company) to do what again?
I allege that it represents a clear conflict of interests and opens up the possibility of manipulation of the figures.
BY who and how?
Again you're going through two boards of directors, therough executive management, all the way down to programmers to perform felonies on a galactic scale? You think all of them are going to do that?
Even the Democratic ones?
Just to build on your remarks, Fraz, consider the fact that Romney can't even fart without it being posted all over the internet.
34390
Post by: whembly
Wow...
and I'm the one been accused of tin-foiling about Bengahzi-gate...
o.O
tin foil
He doesn't need to cheat!
/tin foil
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Is he trolling the democrats? Or is he actually stupid enough to do something that looks this shady right before an election?
There's got to be a strategy here.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
As said, its not Mitt doing this. Its his son.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Are you serious? I mean, that that is a defense?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I state a fact. Mitt is not the one that did this.
My guess is his son made a business decision that could have political backlash. My guess is Dad is going to be on the phone shortly and have some choice words for his son.
5742
Post by: generalgrog
 Chongara wrote: dæl wrote:Romney has bought the company that counts the votes?
There's no need for satire when things like this happen.
Not Romney his son, Romney. Just because Romney is Romney doesn't mean he's Romney. Besides why shouldn't Romney own the machines that count Romney's votes for Romney? It sounds like you're biased against Romney and Romney, heck you're probably biased against Romney too.
Cause I'm the real Romney, yes I'm the real Romney
All you other real Romney are just imitating
So won't the real real Romney please stand up,
please stand up, please stand up?
Cause I'm the real Romney, yes I'm the real Romney
All you other real Romney's are just imitating
So won't the real Romney please stand up,
please stand up, please stand up?
GG
34906
Post by: Pacific
Didn't this happen once already in Florida in 2004 ?
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
The tin foil in here is fantastic.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Almost as fantastic as the obtuse head in the sand behaviour of some who think that the family of a presidential candidate owning voting machines isn't questionable.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Almost as fantastic as the obtuse head in the sand behaviour of some who think that the family of a presidential candidate owning voting machines isn't questionable.
We can trust Romney to count the votes honestly. I mean, its not like he'd lie about something that important. He's a very honest man.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
LOL almost everyone on this thread sounds like they still listen to their parents regardles of their age
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Jihadin wrote:LOL almost everyone on this thread sounds like they still listen to their parents regardles of their age
Hey man, your man pushed you headfirst out of her [censored]. That's kinda like gakking a whole watermelon. You ought to respect her.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Hey man, your man pushed you headfirst out of her [censored]. That's kinda like gakking a whole watermelon. You ought to respect her.
Lictor you probaly just mentally scarred a few teens on here....
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Jihadin wrote:Hey man, your man pushed you headfirst out of her [censored]. That's kinda like gakking a whole watermelon. You ought to respect her.
Lictor you probaly just mentally scarred a few teens on here....
Teenagers have it coming. Ungrateful hormonal bastards.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Truth. fethers have it coming.. Let them think about that next time they insist upon shooting their genetic code around like it's some kind of super soaker.
I mean, the rest of us have to LIVE with that.
49775
Post by: DIDM
anyone having ties to a campaign should be barred from owning voting machines
PERIOD.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the old folks have to worry the most
us 30 somethings will have plenty of more bad presidents
you old timers will get all your benefits cut and be stuck relying on your broke ass kids
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
So if you are in any way related to anyone running from office you are prohibited from owning any portion of a company that makes and sells voting machines?
Pretty sure thats are very convoluted path to take and draw up an arbitrary restriction.
49775
Post by: DIDM
 Grey Templar wrote:So if you are in any way related to anyone running from office you are prohibited from owning any portion of a company that makes and sells voting machines?
Pretty sure thats are very convoluted path to take and draw up an arbitrary restriction.
this should be fething mandatory
stores running "lottery" promotions BAN all employees and ALL THEIR FAMILY from participating
and here we are talking about a person who's fething FATHER is running for arguably the highest office on EARTH
33125
Post by: Seaward
Now, Roswell, that's a bunch of crap. The Air Force was in possession of captured alien technology years before that. In '43, they started reverse-engineering a torus-shaped craft that came down in Arizona, and the next thing you know, America has The Bomb, supersonic aircraft, and a space program. Glenn saw stuff up there, flying lights. You can look it up. You know what I think? I think that skirt-chaser Kennedy wanted to spill the beans about our alien friends, so they killed him. He told his girlfriend Marilyn Monroe, and they killed her, too. No doubt, you're wondering, "Who are 'they'?" Well, I think the numbers speak for themselves: The Trinity site, where the first A-bomb was detonated; Dealey Plaza, where Kennedy bought the farm; and Area 51 are all on the 33rd parallel. And what other significance does the number 33 happen to have? It's the highest rank of the Masonic order. Wheels within wheels, my friend. Wheels within wheels.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
You don't think it's at all improper for someone so closely linked to an important political campaign to own the machines that count the votes?
5534
Post by: dogma
Grey Templar wrote:
Its possable they don't know how the machines their company is currently selling operate.
That doesn't really matter. Even if they don't the board still has power over the people that do. Its an easy thing to ask technicians to ensure a Romney victory.
Of course, being an easy thing its also a stupid thing that nearly all technicians would have an incentive to report to media sources.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Electronic voting machines: the only slot machine where you lose 100% of the time.
Seriously, though. In Canada, we have a piece of paper with a large circle beside each candidate's name. You place a big X through the circle of your chosen candidate. Then at the end of the day, we count up all of the pieces of paper and determine who received the most votes. And we find it hilarious that anyone could ever possibly screw this up.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
And thats how most ballots here are counted too. Machines aren't present everwhere.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
And so my faith in the US continues to slip...
After all this is the country where a child molester has more chance of becoming president than an atheist.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
 Squigsquasher wrote:After all this is the country where a child molester has more chance of becoming president than an atheist.
Aren't they considered to be pretty much the same thing in some circles (perhaps ironically give some churches not so distant histories ).
29110
Post by: AustonT
Squigsquasher wrote:And so my faith in the US continues to slip...
After all this is the country where a child molester has more chance of becoming president than an atheist.
Lolwhut?
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
AustonT wrote: Squigsquasher wrote:And so my faith in the US continues to slip...
After all this is the country where a child molester has more chance of becoming president than an atheist.
Lolwhut?
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm
Turns out people don't trust atheists.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
The same people who don't trust science.
11653
Post by: Huffy
MGS, c'mon you know science is a product from the deepest levels of hell. Some call it the love child of Darwin and Satan's affair
29110
Post by: AustonT
Don't see anything about a child molestor becoming president.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
AustonT wrote:
Don't see anything about a child molestor becoming president.
People trust child molesters more than atheists is what it was saying.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I would say people don't trust them equally.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Which is still really quite a ridiculous stance. Even if they only trusted atheists just a bit more than child molesters it would still be a ridiculous and untenable position.
29110
Post by: AustonT
 LoneLictor wrote: AustonT wrote:
Don't see anything about a child molestor becoming president.
People trust child molesters more than atheists is what it was saying.
That's funny I read the whole thing, no molesters at all in that article.
18525
Post by: J-Roc77
LoneLictor wrote: AustonT wrote:
Don't see anything about a child molestor becoming president.
People trust child molesters more than atheists is what it was saying.
Hyperbole much?
But yes atheism is looked at in an unfavorable light.
As for the original topic, the Romneys' buying up the voting machines before an election should raise some eyebrows and should be scrutinized. Lottery officials families are not able to participate in lottery and I would note that lottery is much less important and less money involved than the presidency. While there are hurdles to prevent tom foolery with the machines(board of cronie....directors etc) the prize is just to much to to risk by not looking at the actions taken by the governors son. The act of being watched may be enough to ensure that no unfair actions will be taken.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Not really,
Aetheists, being that they don't have any belief that there will be a divine judgement at some time in the future, have no motivation to follow any sort of moral principles. As such, an Aetheist can act purely out of self-interest with no fear of the consequences. Beyond what is imposed upon him by the government, but when the Aetheist is the government we have a problem.
That is why an Aetheist cannot be trusted in the broad scheme of things.
You may not agree with it, but it is a logical belief.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Sorry, I linked the wrong article.
http://ethicalnag.org/2012/05/25/anti-atheists/
This is from a gakky blog, but the blog is citing non-gakky sources. So its legit.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
Grey Templar wrote:Not really,
Aetheists, being that they don't have any belief that there will be a divine judgement at some time in the future, have no motivation to follow any sort of moral principles. As such, an Aetheist can act purely out of self-interest with no fear of the consequences. Beyond what is imposed upon him by the government, but when the Aetheist is the government we have a problem.
That is why an Aetheist cannot be trusted in the broad scheme of things.
You may not agree with it, but it is a logical belief.
I would counter argue that atheists are more trustworthy than religious folk. When an atheist performs an act of kindness or does someother good deed, they are doing so out of genuine good will. Hyper religious types only do so to avoid their patron's displeasure.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I trust none of you all...not even my dog when there's a steak nearby...
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Correct for many people, however the Aetheist has no motivation to do said kind act. And can change their beliefs on a whim.
A person that follows a religious moral code has plenty of motivation to do kind acts, and not to change.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
They also have motivation to do many evil things. For example, to shoot young girls who try and get schooling for girls. Or to lynch doctors who give abortions. And these people believe such evil acts are morally correct and righteous.
Religion is a danger to humanity.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Only certain religions 
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Grey Templar wrote:Correct for many people, however the Aetheist has no motivation to do said kind act. And can change their beliefs on a whim.
A person that follows a religious moral code has plenty of motivation to do kind acts, and not to change.
I don't think you know what atheism is.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Grey Templar wrote:Correct for many people, however the Aetheist has no motivation to do said kind act. And can change their beliefs on a whim.
A person that follows a religious moral code has plenty of motivation to do kind acts, and not to change.
That isn't how atheism, or theism, works.
We've also seen religious people change their beliefs on a whim as well, like changing Mormonism from a cult to not being a cult just because suddenly a Mormon is more of a political ally then a Christian you don't agree with, so that doesn't seem to hold much water either.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
No, religion full stop. Clinging on to fairy stories and believing them to be scientific truth is a bad, bad idea.
Religion causes war, hatred, violence, delusions, and mass stupidity. The 3 most popular religions-Judaism, Christianity and Islam-were based on the misogynist, incoherent drivel scribbled into the sand by loathesome old men in ancient Israel who wanted to keep their women in line.
Holding onto religion is like gnawing on a bare chicken bone. Any benefit it may have had is completely exhausted.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Then please, inform me.
Aetheisim is the non-belief in any sort of diety or supernatural force. Am I wrong?
And I believe that without any of those things, having a true moral code is impossable.
Because codes have to be enforced and drawn up by a third party. Otherwise, anyone could change the code at whim. Which makes the very existance of the code absurde in the first place.
If we take any sort of law or moral code(which is what Laws really are), but anyone can change them at any time. Then the reason for the law/moral code's existance just doesn't exist.
Aetheists can draw up and follow a Moral code. But nothing is forcing them to do it. Thus, at any time, they can choose to ignore the code and not suffer any consequences.
And because people are naturally inclined to do evil things, this is not a good position.
But this is way off topic at this point so we should probably drop it.
40919
Post by: spiralingcadaver
 azazel the cat wrote:Electronic voting machines: the only slot machine where you lose 100% of the time.
Seriously, though. In Canada, we have a piece of paper with a large circle beside each candidate's name. You place a big X through the circle of your chosen candidate. Then at the end of the day, we count up all of the pieces of paper and determine who received the most votes. And we find it hilarious that anyone could ever possibly screw this up.
Nicely put!
And, yeah, I don't care who it is or how much I trust them or think they deserve to/will win, this voting crap shouldn't exist. If you're going to steal an election, at least you should need to be sneaky about it.
I certainly wouldn't be happy if Romney won the vote fairly, 'cause, well, fair is fair. My problem will be, at this point, I'll assume that, regardless of outcome, the basic freedoms my country was founded on were repeatedly violated along the way.
As one immigrant friend of mine said rather despairingly, at least in China, they were more honest about the corruption and suppression...
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
We shouldn't follow moral codes because people force us to. We should follow them because they feel right to us.
Morals exist because of fundamental human kindness and good will. No one can force people to have this, no matter how powerful or divine they are.
True, sincere moral goodness is not enforcable or imitatable, nor can a mere threat of consequences produce it.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
And nobody forces you to worship a particular god. You do so by choice, and then the moral code comes with that. And because of your beliefs, you follow it because you know what the consequences are. A moral code without motivation to follow it is worthless.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
I disagree. A moral code which is only followed in fear of the consequences to yourself is worthless. And the "moral codes" of many religions are questionable to say the least. For example, believing that it is morally correct to lynch or spew hate upon homosexuals is most definately not morally correct.
18525
Post by: J-Roc77
Morality exists outside of religion, it is perpetuated by society. You only need to be a member of a society, family, or group to be in a moral/social network. The argument you present is that people will only do good if there is a reward/punishment involved by a third party which is not true. I can do something good because it makes me feel good and avoid doing bad because it makes me feel bad, no third party involved in the judgement. It can be beneficial to me doing good not only due to the feelings I receive but also can cause reciprocation further reinforcing the behavior, same goes for the bad (here is your motivation). Religion has no sole claim to morality.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Grey Templar wrote:
Aetheists can draw up and follow a Moral code. But nothing is forcing them to do it. Thus, at any time, they can choose to ignore the code and not suffer any consequences.
And because people are naturally inclined to do evil things, this is not a good position.
But this is way off topic at this point so we should probably drop it.
An atheist's moral code (and probably just about everyone's is) is almost entirely defined by consequences, also people being naturally inclined to do evil things is an opinion not a fact when was the last time someone called you a witch, stole from you, beat you up, raped you, vandalized
your property, attempted murder, burned your gak, etc if it doesn't happen that often then I would say most people aren't doing a very good job at being evil.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Grey Templar wrote:Aetheisim is the non-belief in any sort of diety or supernatural force. Am I wrong?
Generally the disbelief in gods.
And I believe that without any of those things, having a true moral code is impossable.
You bear the burden of proof to demonstrate this.
Although just to give you something to think about - the prison population of the UK (where atheists may up a much larger percentage of the overall population than the US):
"Detailed data on the religion of prisoners is provided in Offender Management Caseload Statistics annual tables. As at 30 June 2011 one-half of prisoners in England and Wales were of Christian faith while 30% were recorded as having no religion." - www.parliament. uk/briefing-papers/SN04334.pdf (page 10 of the report).
In the US (I can't be bothered to go find the report that this site references):
"In **1997**, the Federal Bureau of Prisons released the professed religious adherence rate of those in the U.S. Federal Prison system.
Christians make up about 80% of the American population AND prison population.
However, Atheists make up about 8% of the American population but only 0.2% of the prison population." - http://askville.amazon.com/Religion-prison-populations-Atheists-ethical-Christians-Muslims/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=8384184
Because codes have to be enforced and drawn up by a third party.
What codes, what third party, and why?
Otherwise, anyone could change the code at whim. Which makes the very existance of the code absurde in the first place.
Again, burden of proof lies with you here. Ultimately atheists disbelieve in god, not being a good or nice person. Plus if atheists are right, all "moral codes" are man made, including those purported to be handed down from the mouth of god (and we all know that the majority of biblical commandments are completely ignored by 99.99% of Christians about 99.99% of the time, so apparently even if codes of conduct are straight from god to you Christians are not exactly in any place to claim the high ground on following a code of conduct).
Do you have any tattoos? They are against the written word of the bible, so I hope not!
If we take any sort of law or moral code(which is what Laws really are), but anyone can change them at any time. Then the reason for the law/moral code's existance just doesn't exist.
You know, I seem to recall that slavery is permitted according to the bible... How many do you own? Or have the commandments of your god been changed at some point in the past?
Aetheists can draw up and follow a Moral code. But nothing is forcing them to do it.
Other than their own conscience (I also like how the word conscience has "science" in it ), no. But then, only the fear of punishment (or lack of reward if you want to put it that way) is forcing Christians to follow their moral code too...
Thus, at any time, they can choose to ignore the code and not suffer any consequences.
Why would they change or ignore their own personal code though?
And because people are naturally inclined to do evil things, this is not a good position.
Burden of proof is on you again. I can't say I or anyone I have ever known has ever been particularly evil, regardless of their personal belief (or lack there of) in a god.
But this is way off topic at this point so we should probably drop it.
Damn, I should have read your whole post before replying
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
Silver, have an exalt. You earned it.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Again that doesn't say anything that helps to prove this.
Squigsquasher wrote:And so my faith in the US continues to slip...
After all this is the country where a child molester has more chance of becoming president than an atheist.
40919
Post by: spiralingcadaver
Make that two for silver!
Grey Templar wrote:
And because people are naturally inclined to do evil things, this is not a good position.
This, right here, is the core of the argument. If you're a pessimistic essentialist (you believe things are the way they are by nature (or essence) rather than being defined by their actions and experiences as a developing being, and believe that this essence is essentially evil, then, yes, an authoritarian code of punishment would be the solution, assuming that punishment is a deterrent.
However, being an optimistic existentialist, I believe that people are capable of change, and that this change can be for good (though is hardly necessarily so), therefore, I expect people to function with some degree of morality, regardless of consequences, and hope that their morality is sound.
I believe, though, being a realist, that not all people are good, at which point, in theory, governmental and practical (rather than religious and, said with a little cynicism, outdated) law will hopefully step in.
33816
Post by: Noir
OK, I don't have a problem with the son, being a dumbass and not waiting to buy the company. What I worried about is Mitt winning, then 4 years after he leaves office. His son run with the hope of using his daddy name to win, just like Bush did. It would be so bad if the son didn't just prove by this he is a dumb a child Bush is.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Alright, third exalt for Silver. That was very well said.
121
Post by: Relapse
Squigsquasher wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Not really,
Aetheists, being that they don't have any belief that there will be a divine judgement at some time in the future, have no motivation to follow any sort of moral principles. As such, an Aetheist can act purely out of self-interest with no fear of the consequences. Beyond what is imposed upon him by the government, but when the Aetheist is the government we have a problem.
That is why an Aetheist cannot be trusted in the broad scheme of things.
You may not agree with it, but it is a logical belief.
I would counter argue that atheists are more trustworthy than religious folk. When an atheist performs an act of kindness or does someother good deed, they are doing so out of genuine good will. Hyper religious types only do so to avoid their patron's displeasure.
I disagree strongly with that since I'm in an area where there are a lot of religious types that genuinly love and care for people. The steryotype you put forth is as ridiculous as saying all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Relapse wrote:all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.
Only in the Boy Scouts, which as you know is a bible based organization that will ostrasice gays but cover up pederasty.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Relapse wrote:I disagree strongly with that since I'm in an area where there are a lot of religious types that genuinly love and care for people. The steryotype you put forth is as ridiculous as saying all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.
I don't think he was suggesting that religious people are not genuinely capable of caring and loving, but that atheists are able to be without having a metaphysical gun to the head. Vis they are caring and loving because it is who they are rather than because they fear the consequences of not being so.
121
Post by: Relapse
Just to add to what I wrote earlier, there are plenty of athiests out there that do good just to look good and get some advantage out of being seen doing things for people. Automatically Appended Next Post: AustonT wrote:Relapse wrote:all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.
Only in the Boy Scouts, which as you know is a bible based organization that will ostrasice gays but cover up pederasty.
Why are you taking what I said out of context?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I think he was pointing out the irony. The way the BSA goes about being a Christian organization seems to involve concealing the crimes of predators, and throwing out moral and honest gay people.
29110
Post by: AustonT
It's more fun without context.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
 SilverMK2 wrote:Relapse wrote:I disagree strongly with that since I'm in an area where there are a lot of religious types that genuinly love and care for people. The steryotype you put forth is as ridiculous as saying all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.
I don't think he was suggesting that religious people are not genuinely capable of caring and loving, but that atheists are able to be without having a metaphysical gun to the head. Vis they are caring and loving because it is who they are rather than because they fear the consequences of not being so.
Basically this.
18525
Post by: J-Roc77
Relapse wrote:Just to add to what I wrote earlier, there are plenty of people out there that do good just to look good and get some advantage out of being seen doing things for people.
There we go...fixed it for you. But by all means denounce the painting of one group with a broad brush while at the same time doing it to another. It really drives home your point.
121
Post by: Relapse
 J-Roc77 wrote:Relapse wrote:Just to add to what I wrote earlier, there are plenty of people out there that do good just to look good and get some advantage out of being seen doing things for people.
There we go...fixed it for you. But by all means denounce the painting of one group with a broad brush while at the same time doing it to another. It really drives home your point.
Before you go jumping all over my comment, check the one I answered and please keep the context. The comment I answered painted religious people doing good only to avoid divine retribution, while atheists were put in the light of doing good only because they genuinly care about the people the help.
I just pointed out it wasn't entirely a cut and dried truth for either group as to why they do good.
If you want to get all bent out of shape, though, be my guest.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Relapse wrote:Before you go jumping all over my comment, check the one I answered and please keep the context. The comment I answered painted religious people doing good only to avoid divine retribution, while atheists were put in the light of doing good only because they genuinly care about the people the help.
No it didn't.
Squigsquasher wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:Relapse wrote:I disagree strongly with that since I'm in an area where there are a lot of religious types that genuinly love and care for people. The steryotype you put forth is as ridiculous as saying all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.
I don't think he was suggesting that religious people are not genuinely capable of caring and loving, but that atheists are able to be without having a metaphysical gun to the head. Vis they are caring and loving because it is who they are rather than because they fear the consequences of not being so.
Basically this.
25703
Post by: juraigamer
SilverMK2 wrote:Relapse wrote:I disagree strongly with that since I'm in an area where there are a lot of religious types that genuinly love and care for people. The steryotype you put forth is as ridiculous as saying all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.
I don't think he was suggesting that religious people are not genuinely capable of caring and loving, but that atheists are able to be without having a metaphysical gun to the head. Vis they are caring and loving because it is who they are rather than because they fear the consequences of not being so.
Silver, I wish there were more intelligent, logical people like you in the world.
5742
Post by: generalgrog
Squigsquasher wrote:We shouldn't follow moral codes because people force us to. We should follow them because they feel right to us.
Morals exist because of fundamental human kindness and good will. No one can force people to have this, no matter how powerful or divine they are.
True, sincere moral goodness is not enforcable or imitatable, nor can a mere threat of consequences produce it.
You know what it doesn't feel right to me that religious people should be allowed to teach their lies to the proletariat. So I think it would be best for society as a whole to put them all in reeducation camps and if they don't shape up we will just put them in work camps until they die or get wise.
Certain athiestic states thought that line of reasoning was moral goodness. And there are certain atheists today that are going around preaching doctrine, that teaching religion to children is child abuse.
GG
p.s. I have no problem with atheists..just the crazy religious zealot ones.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
 generalgrog wrote: Squigsquasher wrote:We shouldn't follow moral codes because people force us to. We should follow them because they feel right to us.
Morals exist because of fundamental human kindness and good will. No one can force people to have this, no matter how powerful or divine they are.
True, sincere moral goodness is not enforcable or imitatable, nor can a mere threat of consequences produce it.
You know what it doesn't feel right to me that religious people should be allowed to teach their lies to the proletariat. So I think it would be best for society as a whole to put them all in reeducation camps and if they don't shape up we will just put them in work camps until they die or get wise.
Certain athiestic states thought that line of reasoning was moral goodness. And there are certain atheists today that are going around preaching doctrine, that teaching religion to children is child abuse.
GG
p.s. I have no problem with atheists..just the crazy religious zealot ones.
Well all groups have there bad apples after all.
5742
Post by: generalgrog
SilverMK2 wrote:Relapse wrote:I disagree strongly with that since I'm in an area where there are a lot of religious types that genuinly love and care for people. The steryotype you put forth is as ridiculous as saying all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.
I don't think he was suggesting that religious people are not genuinely capable of caring and loving, but that atheists are able to be without having a metaphysical gun to the head. Vis they are caring and loving because it is who they are rather than because they fear the consequences of not being so.
So do you think that ALL religious people are nice because of this "gun" or can there be some that are just genuinely nice, regardless of the "gun".
GG
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Silver, I wish there were more intelligent, logical people like you in the world.
Or at least in Dakka OT...
19370
Post by: daedalus
 Mannahnin wrote:I think he was pointing out the irony. The way the BSA goes about being a Christian organization seems to involve concealing the crimes of predators, and throwing out moral and honest gay people.
Being an Eagle Scout, and an atheist, it's quite frustrating. On one had, I applaud them for sticking to their "traditionalism" as they do seem really firm in their beliefs, but on the other hand, I don't agree with a lot of the things they demand. Covering up these crimes is frustrating as well, and definitely a black mark on what they do. From my own personal experience, it was mostly live-and-let-live. There were kids we knew were pretty gay. And I don't mean "wow, that kid is SO gay", I mean, "feth, my tent is next to those guys. I need to make sure to go to sleep before they do, otherwise it's going to be uncomfortable around here". And if we knew, the adults HAD to have known. I mean, c'mon.
Further, I wasn't even practicing any religion nor did I make any efforts to 'prove' my belief at any point throughout my career. In a community of about 600 people, my family had never joined any of the local churches. I don't think I was ever even asked about it. It wasn't something we did, and no one cared. Maybe my troop was one of the better ones though.
Honestly, I think it's because most of the admin is made up of the staunch old-guard who's set in their ways. I wouldn't be surprised if it changes in a future generation or two. Maybe when the time comes, I'll go back and help change it myself.
Part of me also wonders if the majority of stuff that makes the news are people making a scene about being atheists or gay. I mean, I didn't 'preach' atheism, and the guys who were clearly gay weren't screaming it from the rooftops, demanding parades. Maybe that's the bit that creates the friction that isn't sensationalist enough to make the headlines? Maybe I'm just rationalizing?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
 daedalus wrote: Mannahnin wrote:I think he was pointing out the irony. The way the BSA goes about being a Christian organization seems to involve concealing the crimes of predators, and throwing out moral and honest gay people.
Being an Eagle Scout, and an atheist, it's quite frustrating. On one had, I applaud them for sticking to their "traditionalism" as they do seem really firm in their beliefs, but on the other hand, I don't agree with a lot of the things they demand. Covering up these crimes is frustrating as well, and definitely a black mark on what they do. From my own personal experience, it was mostly live-and-let-live. There were kids we knew were pretty gay. And I don't mean "wow, that kid is SO gay", I mean, "feth, my tent is next to those guys. I need to make sure to go to sleep before they do, otherwise it's going to be uncomfortable around here". And if we knew, the adults HAD to have known. I mean, c'mon.
Further, I wasn't even practicing any religion nor did I make any efforts to 'prove' my belief at any point throughout my career. In a community of about 600 people, my family had never joined any of the local churches. I don't think I was ever even asked about it. It wasn't something we did, and no one cared. Maybe my troop was one of the better ones though.
Honestly, I think it's because most of the admin is made up of the staunch old-guard who's set in their ways. I wouldn't be surprised if it changes in a future generation or two. Maybe when the time comes, I'll go back and help change it myself.
Part of me also wonders if the majority of stuff that makes the news are people making a scene about being atheists or gay. I mean, I didn't 'preach' atheism, and the guys who were clearly gay weren't screaming it from the rooftops, demanding parades. Maybe that's the bit that creates the friction that isn't sensationalist enough to make the headlines? Maybe I'm just rationalizing?
This is a great post, thanks. I think undoubtedly some of the gay or atheist Scouts or Scouting parents are deliberately drawing attention to themselves. Because they don't feel it's just to have to be dishonest and hide their true identities, thoughts and feelings. They do no harm to others, and as your first sentence shows, can exemplify the scouting principles and skills. By making them conceal their true identities and beliefs, BSA denies the reality of your example. That you can be an atheist (or gay), and also be a good scout and good person.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Mannahnin wrote:
This is a great post, thanks. I think undoubtedly some of the gay or atheist Scouts or Scouting parents are deliberately drawing attention to themselves. Because they don't feel it's just to have to be dishonest and hide their true identities, thoughts and feelings. They do no harm to others, and as your first sentence shows, can exemplify the scouting principles and skills. By making them conceal their true identities and beliefs, BSA denies the reality of your example. That you can be an atheist (or gay), and also be a good scout and good person.
We're totally off-topic at this point, of course, but I might continue: I want to speculate, referencing your second sentence, that perhaps the staunch policies of the BSA are in fact backfiring on them. Perhaps if they did just maintain a policy where they didn't make a big deal about sexuality or religion, then they wouldn't have to deal with people who may want to go to war with them (for lack of better expression) on those terms.
I mean, the Boy Scouts never officially had anything to do with religion or sexuality in practice, only dogma. There was a religious service at summer camp, but it wasn't compulsory. There were no classes or lessons I took on either topic. I shot rifles and shotguns, learned boating, fishing, firebuilding, survival, and first aid. Maybe they just need to cut out all the extraneous stuff, and not even have to condone homosexuality or atheism, but not condemn it either.
Yet I'm somewhat troubled on the topic of sexuality. I mean, when you think about it, well, so say you allow two 17 year old, openly gay boy scouts to the same tent. They may have an attraction to each other, they genuinely might not. But now consider that we have a 17 year old boy scout and a 17 year old girl scout (are there such things?) in the same tent together. Again, they may have an attraction to each other, or they genuinely may not.
Obviously, not many parents would be cool with the latter. Why is the former alright?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
generalgrog wrote:So do you think that ALL religious people are nice because of this "gun" or can there be some that are just genuinely nice, regardless of the "gun".
GG
No, undoubtedly there are religious people who are as close to living saints (if you will forgive the expression, and ignore the saints who were complete bastards) who are that way because they are genuinely excellent people. Just as there are people (because at the end of the day, everyone is just a person no matter what they believe) who are complete and utter bastards, regardless of whether they have a belief in god.
And regards your comments about "atheist states" rounding people up and putting them into work/death/re-education camps because they disagreed with the ruling party, I think you will find they did that because they were evil bastards, not because they were atheists.
19370
Post by: daedalus
SilverMK2 wrote: generalgrog wrote:So do you think that ALL religious people are nice because of this "gun" or can there be some that are just genuinely nice, regardless of the "gun".
GG
No, undoubtedly there are religious people who are as close to living saints (if you will forgive the expression, and ignore the saints who were complete bastards) who are that way because they are genuinely excellent people. Just as there are people (because at the end of the day, everyone is just a person no matter what they believe) who are complete and utter bastards, regardless of whether they have a belief in god.
I absolutely agree with this. Some of the most devout people I've meet have been people that I've wished there was a heaven for, though I doubt there is. Likewise, there have been a significant number of devout people for wish I've wished there was a hell for, though I likewise disbelieve in it.
And regards your comments about "atheist states" rounding people up and putting them into work/death/re-education camps because they disagreed with the ruling party, I think you will find they did that because they were evil bastards, not because they were atheists.
Also, theists doing the same, for simple genetic reasons, and far more popularly.
/godwinned
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
I wasn't going to mention all the religious states
But you very rarely find atheist terrorists as well. I struggle to think of any off the top of my head actually, other than some communist groups who have substituted religion with their political views.
49775
Post by: DIDM
my major question is
do Mormon's all have game style names?
Mitt = well a baseball mitt
Tagg = well; fething tag
if Romney wins it will be recalled and this will NOT LOOK GOOD FOR HIM OR HIS PARTY
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: Squigsquasher wrote:We shouldn't follow moral codes because people force us to. We should follow them because they feel right to us.
Morals exist because of fundamental human kindness and good will. No one can force people to have this, no matter how powerful or divine they are.
True, sincere moral goodness is not enforcable or imitatable, nor can a mere threat of consequences produce it.
You know what it doesn't feel right to me that religious people should be allowed to teach their lies to the proletariat. So I think it would be best for society as a whole to put them all in reeducation camps and if they don't shape up we will just put them in work camps until they die or get wise.
Certain athiestic states thought that line of reasoning was moral goodness. And there are certain atheists today that are going around preaching doctrine, that teaching religion to children is child abuse.
GG
p.s. I have no problem with atheists..just the crazy religious zealot ones.
the most FETHED up part is
The US of FETHING A is still mostly run as a religious governing group. ALL presidents, ALL of them have been religious so don't tell me we are not a religious nutjob of a country. We are just a bit more advanced than most of the ME. We are crazy as all gack, and we are run by tyrants who care for nothing more than profits. The day you realize this and start just living for you and your circle the better off you will be, IMO
people are flying rodent gak scared of CULTS, but they are also all members of RELIGIONS
the GACK?
19370
Post by: daedalus
 DIDM wrote:my major question is
do Mormon's all have game style names?
Mitt = well a baseball mitt
Tagg = well; fething tag
if Romney wins it will be recalled and this will NOT LOOK GOOD FOR HIM OR HIS PARTY
The two I recall in high school were Lance (supports your theory) and Lincoln (who was a surprising hard-ass, though he refutes your theory).
By my understanding, they had a younger sister whom I never met nor knew the name of. As I'm 28 and the eldest was my age, I'm willing to bet she's hot now. I shall ask my younger brother next time I see him.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
....well I suppose if you count protestant as a form of Catholic that's correct.
There's been two Roman Catholic Presidents and we shot both of them.
(Lincoln and Kennedy)
19370
Post by: daedalus
DIDM wrote:
people are flying rodent gak scared of CULTS, but they are also all members of RELIGIONS
the GACK?
I'm scared of cults AND religions, but yet I repeat myself.
I am drunk and this may be considered inflammatory. I apologize in advance. Automatically Appended Next Post:  KalashnikovMarine wrote:....well I suppose if you count protestant as a form of Catholic that's correct.
There's been two Roman Catholic Presidents and we shot both of them.
(Lincoln and Kennedy)
Clearly, they should have been protestant.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Well, the only difference between the two is numbers and possibly also age.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
...sociologically speaking.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
generalgrog wrote:So do you think that ALL religious people are nice because of this "gun" or can there be some that are just genuinely nice, regardless of the "gun".
GG
Normally, I'd be inclined to take the reasonable route and suggest that people are people irrespective of their belief structure, and behaviour is constructed out of a combination of both genetic predisposition and environmental/sociological factors.
Unfortunately, in this particular instance, all true believers are faced with such an overwhelming level of deterrence that it is designed to completely dwarf all other reasoning: torment such that can barely be understood for a duration of time that cannot be fathomed, administered by an omniscient and omnipotent deity lacking in a moral compass itself.
As soon as a circumstance such as the above is incorporated into a person's psyche, and if that person truly believes this, then all other frames of morality are eradicated by the risk-reward analysis of the deterrence equation.
In other words: that gun is so big and accurate and scary that it supercedes any pre-existing niceness.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Well,I don't really see a great deal of difference between a cult and a religion. Both have organised worship and beliefs that may or may not be directed towards a god. Both generally deal with matters of the spirit. Both can require dressing up in funny clothes
The basic fundamentals of a religion and a cult are the same as far as I am aware. The only difference really is a religion has gotten to a size where it can force people to stop calling it a cult.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Not sure how "kid of presidential candidate" turned into the Atheists v. The World thread, but I'm just going to leave this here:
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Yeah, that's probably a good end to the atheism vs. religion off-topic digression.
53002
Post by: Tibbsy
So to drag this kicking and screaming back on topic - speaking as a foreigner with no bias towards either party, how the feth is Romney getting away with this? I know it was his son that actually did it, but either way it looks incredibly shady....
29110
Post by: AustonT
KalashnikovMarine wrote:....well I suppose if you count protestant as a form of Catholic that's correct.
There's been two Roman Catholic Presidents and we shot both of them.
(Lincoln and Kennedy)
There has only been one Roman Catholic POTUS.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
AustonT wrote:KalashnikovMarine wrote:....well I suppose if you count protestant as a form of Catholic that's correct.
There's been two Roman Catholic Presidents and we shot both of them.
(Lincoln and Kennedy)
There has only been one Roman Catholic POTUS.
Yeah I got corrected on that else where, not sure why I thought Lincoln was Catholic.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Because Vampire Hunters are Catholic?
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Only the good ones.
5470
Post by: sebster
 Alfndrate wrote:Ohio is always important.... Idk why, though it only takes like 9 counties out of like... 83? to turn the state from Republican to Democrat... Other than that, we are a red state.
Ohio is important because if you give the Republicans all the states they will win in a presidential election where they're somewhat competitive (so basically what McCain won plus Indiana and North Carolina) then you get to 197 votes. From there you have to start figuring out different ways to get the other 73 votes needed to carry the Whitehouse, and if you don't include Ohio then not many of them make much sense. So, for instance, it isn't that unlikely that in an election the Republicans might win states like Ohio and New Hampshire... but to suggest they might win them in an election where they couldn't manage to win Ohio doesn't make a lot of sense.
The Democrats actually have some plausible ways to win the election without carrying Ohio, but it means they basically can't put a foot wrong elsewhere.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
I mentioned this on another thread, but maybe the USA could look to Chavez on how to run an election - observers had said it is one of the best run, and corruption free elections they have ever seen. And yet, Chavez is a dictator to most sections of the USA. No wonder I'm always confused 
Land of the free = election problems
Evil 3rd world Joe Commie tyrant = model election
I can't criticise the USA that much, because UK elections have been dogged by problems as well. But for the son of a candidate to have influence over a company providing vote counting machines... What the feth!!
Still, looking forward to November.
|
|
