Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Brian Shanahan

ninja900 wrote: »

She's actually four of those things!

Hey 'twas eleven o'clock! You can't expect a man to see his fingers straight at that hour.

robindch

What about widening out this thread a bit to include other countries?

UKIP ran into a spot of bother recently when it turned out that their now-former Commonwealth spokesman spent seven years in jail for kidnap and blackmail:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26019668

jank

Isn't that already? This thread is a just an opportunity to have a great big circle jerk about all that is not progressive, liberal and enlightened in regards to politics. Textbook case of an echo chamber effect.
Ironic as there is a part in the charter about soapboxing but sure when did rules apply across the board?

jank

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

This young woman is young, she's black, she's from a poor background. Why do I say she's a republican fruitcake you ask?

Because she's a republican! The three things republicans hate the most, she is. The three things republicans victimise the most she is. It must take a really self hating or idiotic person to join and promote the values of a party which is the complete anthesis of what you are.

Yes, someone who doesn't share your personal political outlook must either be (a) and idiot or (b) hate themselves……

Isn't great to be so *cough* high minded so that you can tell others how to live their lives, what they do and what they think…. very much like the RCC you so hate. Again, Ironic!

Pherekydes

jank wrote: »

Isn't that already? This thread is a just an opportunity to have a great big circle jerk about all that is not progressive, liberal and enlightened in regards to politics.

What's wrong with having a laugh about non-progressives and the unenlightened?

jank

Pherekydes wrote: »

What's wrong with having a laugh about non-progressives and the unenlightened?

Well seeing as there are almost half a dozen threads in this forum already dedicated to such activities I am wondering why one needs to have yet another thread dedicated to such same activities but with the added "cause" to cross over into the political sphere. Surely not all Atheists are carbon copy left wing, vegan eating, sandal wearing, oxfam donating, right wing wing haters, progressive and 'enlightened' members of boards.ie?

Now of course one could actually discuss this matter with more seriousness in a dedicated politics forum (there is even one for the US!) yet no one is really interested in this as they just get a childish kick out of googling what the right win are up to, find a story, post it here and engage in said circle jerk. Everyone feels happy that they feel they belong and that they are so 'enlightened'. Rinse and repeat. Instant gratification really yet most of these posters are never seen near the politics forum. I suppose there the charter is actually adhered to and the discussion is normally more reasoned and deliberate rather than what passes of as a discussion in this thread.

Again why the fact that one doesn't believe in god mean that you have to hate a faction that do is middy amusing to say the least. I suppose one has to fill in their spare time rather than actually discussing something that would make one think. Everyone thinks that they are the 'most' enlightened I suppose. Yet that doesn't make it so.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Well seeing as there(...............) it so.

I see we've confused 'angry and resentful' with 'post' again.

The Black Oil

jank has us all figured out, right down to the sandals.

Bannasidhe

The Black Oil wrote: »

jank has us all figured out, right down to the sandals.

Ah he's just trying to jank our chains bless him.

Hotblack Desiato

jank wrote: »

Well seeing as there are almost half a dozen threads in this forum already dedicated to such activities I am wondering why one needs to have yet another thread dedicated to such same activities but with the added "cause" to cross over into the political sphere.

I am wondering why you even read, never mind post in, these threads if they cause you such annoyance?

Just like there are thousands of gods not to believe in, there are thousands of forums on Boards not to post in if you don't like them.

Surely not all Atheists are carbon copy left wing, vegan eating, sandal wearing, oxfam donating, right wing wing haters,

Nope, none of the above. Eating a vegan would be bound to give me indigestion anyway.

Now of course one could actually discuss this matter with more seriousness in a dedicated politics forum

G'wan then.

Everyone feels happy that they feel they belong and that they are so 'enlightened'. Rinse and repeat.

And you feel so superior to everyone by telling them how superior to them you are.
Rinse and repeat.

Instant gratification really yet most of these posters are never seen near the politics forum.

I wasn't aware that we were prohibited from discussing any topic here for which a dedicated forum exists?

I suppose there the charter is actually adhered to and the discussion is normally more reasoned and deliberate rather than what passes of as a discussion in this thread.

Please specify in detail how the charter is being violated and provide examples. Or put your money where your keyboard is and report posts?

Again why the fact that one doesn't believe in god mean that you have to hate a faction that do is middy amusing to say the least.

Hate? No, pointing and laughing at utterly ridiculous behaviour.
It's not the fact that they believe in god, it's that they are biblical literalists who will not accept any evidence that contradicts or questions their interpretation of their translation of their copy of a copy of a copy of a copy ..... of a copy of a 'holy' book, and that they seek to use political power to enforce their religious views on an entire society (and other countries as well) that is (a) nuts and (b) frightening.

jank

ninja900 wrote: »

Please specify in detail how the charter is being violated and provide examples. Or put your money where your keyboard is and report posts?

Have a look for the word soapboxing in the charter. Would this thread not be classified as political soapboxing? Never mind the fact that name calling is part of parcel of discussion, by a moderator no less.

ninja900 wrote: »

Hate? No, pointing and laughing at utterly ridiculous behaviour.
It's not the fact that they believe in god, it's that they are biblical literalists who will not accept any evidence that contradicts or questions their interpretation of their translation of their copy of a copy of a copy of a copy ..... of a copy of a 'holy' book, and that they seek to use political power to enforce their religious views on an entire society (and other countries as well) that is (a) nuts and (b) frightening.

That is all well and good, so why not post it in the 'hazards of religion' thread or 'the funny side of religion'. Never mind that certain high minded posters start topics that they like to rant on about with their 'progressive views'. Gun control and Atlas shrugged (wasn't even read by the poster if I recall) comes to mind (they ended well!! :rolleyes:). I have been a long time member of boards and by far the group think and the thanks whoring on this forum far outdoes anything I have seen elsewhere. Which I find amusing because I imagine most A&A posters pride themselves not their individuality and non conformity. Also, the very fact that most of these posters never venture far from this high minded enclave to actually discuss these matters in other forums. As I said there is a US politics forum, yet the vast majority of posters here will not venture there to actually discuss US politics, far better and easier to snipe on the side lines where high fives are had by all. I think it makes an interesting case study into the phycology of humans where one always has a need to belong, wether to a church, religion, political movement or in this case the anti antithesis of a political movement (Democrats have been wrongly labeled as GOP god fearing devotes as well by the way, but I suppose if it quacks, and walks like a duck….:rolleyes:).

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Have a look for the word soapboxing in the charter. Would this thread not be classified as political soapboxing? Never mind the fact that name calling is part of parcel of discussion, by a moderator no less.



That is all well and good, so why not post it in the 'hazards of religion' thread or 'the funny side of religion'. Never mind that certain high minded posters start topics that they like to rant on about with their 'progressive views'. Gun control and Atlas shrugged (wasn't even read by the poster if I recall) comes to mind (they ended well!! :rolleyes:). I have been a long time member of boards and by far the group think and the thanks whoring on this forum far outdoes anything I have seen elsewhere. Which I find amusing because I imagine most A&A posters pride themselves not their individuality and non conformity. Also, the very fact that most of these posters never venture far from this high minded enclave to actually discuss these matters in other forums. As I said there is a US politics forum, yet the vast majority of posters here will not venture there to actually discuss US politics, far better and easier to snipe on the side lines where high fives are had by all. I think it makes an interesting case study into the phycology of humans where one always has a need to belong, wether to a church, religion, political movement or in this case the anti antithesis of a political movement (Democrats have been wrongly labeled as GOP god fearing devotes as well by the way, but I suppose if it quacks, and walks like a duck….:rolleyes:).

Can't bate the ol phycology eh jank.

What do you think is the phycology behind your need to pop in here and take us all to task?

Mr. CooL ICE

Can I post in this forum? I'm an atheist, but sure there are enough atheists here already. Do you really need another?

Bannasidhe

LordChessington wrote: »

Can I post in this forum? I'm an atheist, but sure there are enough atheists here already. Do you really need another?

Have you any biscuits?

PopePalpatine

Jank, eat a Snickers.

robindch

jank wrote: »

Would this thread not be classified as political soapboxing?

Certainly any time you drop by, yes, I think it could be.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Again why the fact that one doesn't believe in god mean that you have to hate a faction that do is middy amusing to say the least. I suppose one has to fill in their spare time rather than actually discussing something that would make one think. Everyone thinks that they are the 'most' enlightened I suppose. Yet that doesn't make it so.

Ah here! You're not trying to have us believe that you have ever been amused?

And btw, the Politics forum is overly populated with GOP enthusiasts, so I felt like the 'jank' of that forum. (like a fart in a space suit)

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

That is all well and good, so why not post it in the 'hazards of religion' thread or 'the funny side of religion'. Never mind that certain high minded posters start topics that they like to rant on about with their 'progressive views'. Gun control and Atlas shrugged (wasn't even read by the poster if I recall) comes to mind (they ended well!! :rolleyes:). I have been a long time member of boards and by far the group think and the thanks whoring on this forum far outdoes anything I have seen elsewhere. Which I find amusing because I imagine most A&A posters pride themselves not their individuality and non conformity. Also, the very fact that most of these posters never venture far from this high minded enclave to actually discuss these matters in other forums. As I said there is a US politics forum, yet the vast majority of posters here will not venture there to actually discuss US politics, far better and easier to snipe on the side lines where high fives are had by all. I think it makes an interesting case study into the phycology of humans where one always has a need to belong, wether to a church, religion, political movement or in this case the anti antithesis of a political movement (Democrats have been wrongly labeled as GOP god fearing devotes as well by the way, but I suppose if it quacks, and walks like a duck….:rolleyes:).

I know you'll instantly disagree, such is your want, but there's nothing stopping theists popping in here to argue their case. There's no fear of them offending any of us, but the same cannot be said for when we post over there.

Also. You like to think of this forum as a 'circle jerk', but can't the same be said for the christianity, buddhism and islam forums?

If you weren't treated so well, and given so much leeway, you wouldn't be posting in this forum so often. You love this forum but can't admit it.

joseph brand

Republican Official Says Gays Should Be Purged From GOP, Blames Homosexuality On Satan

Here's a fruitcake with added nuts.

A new candidate for a Michigan seat on the Republican National Committee wants gays "purged" from the GOP and claims homosexuality is a "perversion" created by Satan himself.

Mary Helen Sears of Houghton County in the state's Upper Peninsula, elected vice chair of the Michigan Republican Party's 1st District last year, posted a rant in April on the Schoolcraft County GOP website -- preceded by a warning asking readers to "please use your discretion before taking any decisions based on the information in this blog."

In the post, Sears claimed that homosexuals prey on children, argued that "Satan uses homosexuality to attack the living space of the Holy Spirit" and advocated that Republicans "as a party should be purging this perversion and send them to a party with a much bigger tent."

Sears, in her post on the Schoolcraft County GOP website, wrote that Communist college professors were indoctrinating young people and claimed that Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory "gave rise to Hitler’s Third Reich, Mussolini’s Italy and Stalin’s Russia."

"If the GOP continues down this trend and stand for perversions and the daily social fad ... The GOP will be truly dead and Satan will have had his day," Sears wrote.

Satan could not be contacted for comment. He's a wily one.

PopePalpatine

joseph brand wrote: »

Ah here! You're not trying to have us believe that you have ever been amused?

And btw, the Politics forum is overly populated with GOP enthusiasts, so I felt like the 'jank' of that forum. (like a fart in a space suit)

I would have thought the recent financial meltdown would have convinced some that economic libertarianism is unsustainable. *sigh*

joseph brand

I don't know why those in the business of spreading ignorance, and it's 'virtue', despise college education so much. Oh yeah, here's why (from the horses mouth):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20pjeeQ611s

Remember he said that college was for snobs (how wealthy is he I wonder?):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkjbJOSwq3A

Apparently, NOT indoctrinating people into blind faith is indoctrination. Maybe jank could explain this way of 'thinking'.

joseph brand

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I would have thought the recent financial meltdown would have convinced some that economic libertarianism is unsustainable. *sigh*

Libertarianism is 'wealthy wing' politics at the end of the day. They haven't suffered, so it's business as usual. "Nothing to see here, carry on."

In the eyes of the GOP and Libertarians:
1. If you want a single-payer health care system, or at least Obamacare, you're a communist hippie.
2. If you're not happy with big money influencing politics in favour of 1 - 5% of the population, you're a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist.

Religion is the perfect tool for getting the less well off to vote in the best interests of the wealthy.

Brian Shanahan

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I would have thought the recent financial meltdown would have convinced some that economic libertarianism is unsustainable. *sigh*

Horatio Alger is almost as powerful a myth as Jesus Christ.

Hotblack Desiato

jank wrote: »

Have a look for the word soapboxing in the charter. Would this thread not be classified as political soapboxing? Never mind the fact that name calling is part of parcel of discussion, by a moderator no less.

Have you reported any?

That is all well and good, so why not post it in the 'hazards of religion' thread or 'the funny side of religion'.

Because there's plenty of other loony religious goodness to keep those threads going. This one is specific to a particular topic, and yet when people stick to that topic you say they're 'soap boxing' :rolleyes:

As I said there is a US politics forum, yet the vast majority of posters here will not venture there to actually discuss US politics

This topic is not politics, it is not religion, it is the intersection of religion and politics. This is where it belongs.

I think it makes an interesting case study into the phycology of humans where one always has a need to belong, wether to a church, religion, political movement or in this case the anti antithesis of a political movement

So we're really conformists in denial? Hang on, I thought we were stuck at the adolescent rebellion phase of development? I'm sure our bearded IT columnist friend has said as much.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

And btw, the Politics forum is overly populated with GOP enthusiasts, so I felt like the 'jank' of that forum. (like a fart in a space suit)

There are only 2-3 GOP enthusiasts in the forum really that I can think off where the majority of people in the forum would still heavily lean towards the Dems. I suppose having your views challenged even by a handful of posters was too much for you as I do recall that you used to post there but were told to stop the childish name calling and to post more maturely. Since then I have not seen you there. I suppose this place suits you well.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I would have thought the recent financial meltdown would have convinced some that economic libertarianism is unsustainable. *sigh*

Ah, yes the downside of liberty. :rolleyes: One sure can't tell one what to do socially but we sure can tell people how to spend their own money or that they simply earn too much….

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/the-downside-of-liberty.html?_r=0

Progressives trying to have their cake and eat it.

joseph brand wrote: »

2. If you're not happy with big money influencing politics in favour of 1 - 5% of the population, you're a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist.

See this is again where you are totally wrong. Both the GOP and the Dems use big money to influence big business and politics. Obama has been bought and paid for many times during this term, a fact conveniently forgotten by his disciples, yet have no pause to criticise the GOP for their own methods of raising cash. Even though Obama raised more money in 2012 than Romney…

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

Libertarians basically view the behaviour of this two party system where the state gets to dictate terms to the highest bidder (even though its harmful for the nation) to be against the purpose of the constitution. Therefore they view that the enabler of this duopoly (the federal government) should be emasculated of many of its powers. Now one is free to disagree with this and put forward their own solution to the current predicament facing US politics but the only thing I ever hear is either (A) GOP/Libertarians are heartless fools who 'hate' blacks, poor people, women and anyone else that is convenient (B) some occupy nonsense about the 1%…. nothing concrete, nothing substantive…. classic hurler on the ditch.

Meanwhile threads such as this perpetuate the usual nonsense that follows the endless mundane black and white blinkered view.

ninja900 wrote: »

This topic is not politics, it is not religion, it is the intersection of religion and politics. This is where it belongs..

Religion and politics belongs in an Atheist forum? Wow.

MrPudding

jank wrote: »

Religion and politics belongs in an Atheist forum? Wow.

Seriously, how many years have trolling frequenting this forum, and still you don't understand the reason for this? Really? Seriously? Still don't get it? Huh?

You frequently appear to be, or at least give the impression of being, a reasonablby intelligent person, surely after all this time and all the explanations that have been given you should have copped onto this by now? Or perhaps you are <gasp> being intentionally obtuse...?

MrP

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

There are only 2-3 GOP enthusiasts in the forum really that I can think off where the majority of people in the forum would still heavily lean towards the Dems. I suppose having your views challenged even by a handful of posters was too much for you as I do recall that you used to post there but were told to stop the childish name calling and to post more maturely. Since then I have not seen you there. I suppose this place suits you well.

Ouch. I may have used the derogatory term 'Tea Baggers' once or thrice in one sitting. Turns out that although the Tea Baggers came up with the term themselves, it was deemed offensive. Fair enough.
I stopped frequenting the Politics forum when I started back in college. Keeping abreast of US politics was only distracting me from study. Haven't even played any games since WOW and COD back in 2011.
It's nice to know you were thinking of me.

jank wrote: »

Ah, yes the downside of liberty. :rolleyes: One sure can't tell one what to do socially but we sure can tell people how to spend their own money or that they simply earn too much….

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/the-downside-of-liberty.html?_r=0

Progressives trying to have their cake and eat it.

When I was growing up in Omaha, rich people who could afford to build palatial houses did not and wouldn’t dream of paying themselves 200 or 400 times what they paid their employees. Greed as well as homosexuality was a love that dared not speak its name.

“Do your own thing” is not so different than “every man for himself.” If it feels good, do it, whether that means smoking weed and watching porn and never wearing a necktie, retiring at 50 with a six-figure public pension and refusing modest gun regulation, or moving your factories overseas and letting commercial banks become financial speculators.

Is the author equating the recreational use of cannabis with putting people out of work by shipping jobs overseas? Personally speaking, I would sleep better at night after some weed, rather than the guilt of destroying jobs. Maybe it's the hippie commie in me.

jank wrote: »

See this is again where you are totally wrong. Both the GOP and the Dems use big money to influence big business and politics. Obama has been bought and paid for many times during this term, a fact conveniently forgotten by his disciples, yet have no pause to criticise the GOP for their own methods of raising cash. Even though Obama raised more money in 2012 than Romney…

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

Try again. I didn't point to the GOP as the only beneficiaries of 'big money'. It should be a cause for concern for everyone (except the very wealthy of course). Thanks for the link you kindly provided.

Candidate donors:
Under $200 $2,500 (max)
Obama: 57% 11%
Romney: 24% 39%

Obama received more small donations from the people while Romney received more big donations from the wealthy. Let that sink in for a bit.

jank wrote: »

Libertarians basically view the behaviour of this two party system where the state gets to dictate terms to the highest bidder (even though its harmful for the nation) to be against the purpose of the constitution. Therefore they view that the enabler of this duopoly (the federal government) should be emasculated of many of its powers. Now one is free to disagree with this and put forward their own solution to the current predicament facing US politics but the only thing I ever hear is either (A) GOP/Libertarians are heartless fools who 'hate' blacks, poor people, women and anyone else that is convenient (B) some occupy nonsense about the 1%…. nothing concrete, nothing substantive…. classic hurler on the ditch.
Meanwhile threads such as this perpetuate the usual nonsense that follows the endless mundane black and white blinkered view.
Religion and politics belongs in an Atheist forum? Wow.

You can't deny that the GOP is associated with christianity. This where they differ with Libertarians. And as long as the GOP and the Tea Partiers deny climate change (blaming storms on the gays), deny equal rights to LGBT's, push for policies that disproportionately affect the poor and minorities, say that the Earth is 6,000 years old, the Grand Canyon was carved in a day, salivate about the 'rapture'. . .etc etc they will be called out as "heartless fools". Which would be putting it mildly.

The only upside to the lunacy and bigotry of many Republicans and Tea Partiers is that they have provided so much source material for Stewart, Colbert, Maher, Dore and Uygur. Let's not forget the ultra liberal, extremely moderate, progressive-agenda-driven media bias which brings to the fore; Republican propaganda, bat sh1t insanity and lies. (see FOX 'news')

Some things ARE black and white. I want to say racism, but there's an unintended pun in there. So I'll go with the treatment of LGBT's by ring wing conservatives. The bible is supposed to teach morals (said W L Craig), but all we see is hatred and discrimination. Well, that's our blinkered view anyway.

jank

MrPudding wrote: »

Seriously, how many years have trolling frequenting this forum, and still you don't understand the reason for this? Really? Seriously? Still don't get it? Huh?

You frequently appear to be, or at least give the impression of being, a reasonablby intelligent person, surely after all this time and all the explanations that have been given you should have copped onto this by now? Or perhaps you are <gasp> being intentionally obtuse...?

MrP

'Atheist: I lack a belief in God'.... how does that translate into "because of my non-belief I share a common poltical outlook" I share a similar non-belief in the easter bunny, should I then automaticly be inclined to share similar poltical values with you and others who don't believe in the easter bunny? Its all very Atheism+ of course where posters will want to believe they are non conformist but many just can't help themselves to ... well conform.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

Is the author equating the recreational use of cannabis with putting people out of work by shipping jobs overseas? Personally speaking, I would sleep better at night after some weed, rather than the guilt of destroying jobs. Maybe it's the hippie commie in me.

I think the author is celebrating one form of liberty (the freedom to smoke weed) while denouncing another by the fact the economic liberty means that the owners of a factory are well within their right to shut it down and move it somewhere else. Boo hoo! Morals doesn't come into it as morals were the reason used by some to stop people having the liberty to smoke, drink and have sex with who they wanted. Yet on the same breath morals are introduced because someone has the audacity to earn more than you, well just cause.

The above article is discussed here in the US politics forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056693551
You will see plenty of back and forth there. You can of course join in but be warned you will be taken to taken to task if you only copy and paste opinion pieces as you seem very fond of doing.

joseph brand wrote: »

Try again. I didn't point to the GOP as the only beneficiaries of 'big money'. It should be a cause for concern for everyone (except the very wealthy of course). Thanks for the link you kindly provided.

Candidate donors:
Under $200 $2,500 (max)
Obama: 57% 11%
Romney: 24% 39%

Obama received more small donations from the people while Romney received more big donations from the wealthy. Let that sink in for a bit.

You directly mentioned 'big money' and I factually pointed out that the candidate with the biggest amount of money in 2012 (and 2008 mind) was in fact Obama. What you are trying to do here is insinuate that it is OK for Obama to spend over $1.1 billion dollars in getting re-elected because sure the money came from 'the folks'...while then denouncing big money Romney... when in fact BOTH are big money. When Obama wins an election it was 'fair and square', if the GOP win an election it was bought, when in fact BOTH are bought...

Again you fail at this simple logical step to compare and apply your own set of rules and morals to both parties as that would indeed open up uncomfortable questions for you. Libertarians in the US believe in another way..

joseph brand wrote: »

Some things ARE black and white. I want to say racism, but there's an unintended pun in there. So I'll go with the treatment of LGBT's by ring wing conservatives. The bible is supposed to teach morals (said W L Craig), but all we see is hatred and discrimination. Well, that's our blinkered view anyway.

Isn’t it nice to live in such a world where one doesn’t even have to challenge their own opinions, safe in the knowledge that they are right and everyone else who disagrees is wrong, etc, etc, etc. Sounds very evangelical doesn’t it. Tbh people like you who believe that 'something’s ARE black and white' and crazy religious types are two sides of the same coin, continuing and perpetuating the endless narrative that they are right and the other is wrong/bad/evil/stupid and so on. Long live the internet echo chamber.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

I think the author is celebrating one form of liberty (the freedom to smoke weed) while denouncing another by the fact the economic liberty means that the owners of a factory are well within their right to shut it down and move it somewhere else. Boo hoo! Morals doesn't come into it as morals were the reason used by some to stop people having the liberty to smoke, drink and have sex with who they wanted. Yet on the same breath morals are introduced because someone has the audacity to earn more than you, well just cause.

The above article is discussed here in the US politics forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056693551
You will see plenty of back and forth there. You can of course join in but be warned you will be taken to taken to task if you only copy and paste opinion pieces as you seem very fond of doing.

Let's take Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as a glaring example of the wealthy. These are two extremely, ridiculously wealthy individuals. I've no problem with them (not that they'd ever know or even care). Gates has his foundation, doing charity work, and Buffett will be donating almost all of his fortune (99%) upon his expiration. Both are self-made men afaik. Hats off to them.

I do however have a massive dislike of the Koch Bros, Sheldon Adelson, Gina Rinehart and their ilk. Not sure about Adelson, but the others are not self made, but merely born into wealth. It fell on their lap. Not content with laying low with their billions and squillions, they prefer to poke their snouts into the political discourse.

jank wrote: »

You directly mentioned 'big money' and I factually pointed out that the candidate with the biggest amount of money in 2012 (and 2008 mind) was in fact Obama. What you are trying to do here is insinuate that it is OK for Obama to spend over $1.1 billion dollars in getting re-elected because sure the money came from 'the folks'...while then denouncing big money Romney... when in fact BOTH are big money. When Obama wins an election it was 'fair and square', if the GOP win an election it was bought, when in fact BOTH are bought...

Again you fail at this simple logical step to compare and apply your own set of rules and morals to both parties as that would indeed open up uncomfortable questions for you. Libertarians in the US believe in another way..

I put forward my point in the simplest of terms, yet you missed it. Why am I not surprised? I said that it should be a cause of concern for everyone. Obviously that includes me too. What about you? Not bothered?

Even the link that you provided, shows that the Romney camp spent more than the Obama camp. Romney $992 > $985.7 Obama.

jank wrote: »

Isn’t it nice to live in such a world where one doesn’t even have to challenge their own opinions, safe in the knowledge that they are right and everyone else who disagrees is wrong, etc, etc, etc. Sounds very evangelical doesn’t it. Tbh people like you who believe that 'something’s ARE black and white' and crazy religious types are two sides of the same coin, continuing and perpetuating the endless narrative that they are right and the other is wrong/bad/evil/stupid and so on. Long live the internet echo chamber.

One can hardly become an atheist without challenging their own opinions and the opinions of those around them. You seem to think that if we point out the lunacy of Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, christianity and a host of other charlatans/ crackpots/ religions, that we are just like them. Somehow we're ignorant too? In what Universe does that make any sense?

In the interest of remaining topical, there was a 'debate' between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. Ken believes that dinosaurs pulled ploughs on farms. Nye disagrees. But all you can see is Nye's evangelical smugness and unwillingness to listen to Ham. Fact is, Ken is wrong, and he couldn't be any wronger.

I will agree with you on one point. Your sentiments towards the "internet echo chamber."