Jump to content

boogie hands

Premium Member
  • Posts

    6,012
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by boogie hands

  1. my dad did the amateur radio thing for a couple of years. had the whole set up going, huge antenna and all. i never really figured out why the fuck he did it. he would just contact various people around the country, they would exchange call signs and that would be that. from what i remember the process of getting into it was really interesting but once it was all set up and figured out it got kind of boring. needless to say the ham radio stuff just kind of disappeared one day.

  2. in my belief of things, there is room for god and science....at the same time...i know, i know, call me a rebel....but that's it.

     

    however, i think we kinda need to keep god away from government.

     

    what i do see wrong is that people are mocking others who believe one or the other. that's un-american, to me. not what this country was founded on or for. ya know?

     

    i certainly wouldn't vote for a candidate who was "running on god" solely.

     

    the god and science debate is such a can of worms i wont address it right now because i dont have time and wont be able to do it justice....i will comment on my attitude towards others beliefs and why i feel i have the right to criticize…or in this case, mock.

    the thing that angers me and a lot of americans is that when it comes to the majority of topics, criticism is perfectly acceptable. i can sit here with you and talk about eugenics, for instance. you can tell me why i am wrong and that i am ignoring blatant facts and i can tell you that you are reading into things, bridging huge gaps to create a point, etc. we may grate on each other a bit (nothing wrong with that though, we are both passionate about our positions...it happens) but for the most part we are having a discussion and an exchange of ideas. now you apply this same situation to someones religion, their belief in god, and all of a sudden you are an asshole for "attacking" a "sacred personal belief". my main problems are the fact that these "sacred personal beliefs" have, and continue to, encroach on others basic civil liberties and they have no substance, nothing to offer us when faced with real world problems...in general no positive effect on the progression of our society and understanding. its just "god did it" or "god will do it" and then the thumb goes up the ass and everyone waits around.

    ive thought about my combative attitude, whether i am right (which i feel i am) in approaching religion as i do, or whether i need to be more diplomatic and sympathetic when speaking about religion. ive been wrong many times in life and it could be i need to "grow up" and discuss this in a more rational way but right now my feelings seem right. as i said, religion is on a pedestal and the sharing of beliefs seem at times like a one way street. religion can say "id like to teach creationism along side the big bang and darwinism" and they are just (in some peoples eyes) looking for an even playing field, but i cannot go back and say "i do not want my child being taught creationism because i feel it is an antiquated theory that has been (as much as it can be..science can only refute faith to a certain degree) disproved and has no place in a public classroom." without mocking a "personal belief" (which ceases to be personal when other people are forced to confront it and defend themselves against it). as the view stands to many, i am not pointing out that this view has no real world context...i am an intolerant bigot beating up on people of faith. its perverse.

    i think it would do people a lot of good to look at this and ask themselves why it seems opponents of religion always seem so condescending. its not that we think we are intellectual elite (i know many believers who are much smarter than i, more successful, etc.)...its just that you cannot place something like an omnipotent god (who you can pray to in order to change things) against hundreds and hundreds of years of discovery and research of the world around us, have a serious discussion without selling your side short (would this courtesy be applied to any other topic?), and avoid altogether coming off like a dick. its so lopsided that all it takes is pointing to facts to back up your argument and all of a sudden youre beating up the retarded kid.

    im getting longwinded as i often do but the point is that when you have a presidential candidate with certain ideas you disagree with, someone who is going to mold the world around you for the next four to eight years, you should have the right as an american to speak out against it. there should be no difference between attacking him over stating "i am for a flat rate consumption tax" and attacking him for stating "i believe the world was created by god and evolution is wrong". both have the potential to encroach on my life in some way, at some point, and i should be able to fight them tooth and nail without being labeled as anything but concerned for my country.

    • Like 1
  3. thats what blows me away. you can get on televison and say that in front of millions of people and the majority of people are like "yeah, hes still a viable candidate.". are you fucking serious? im not going to go the richard dawkins spaghetti monster route but im saying....that is some seriously foolish shit to think or say. i wish bill hicks was still here to drop some jewels on this subject.

     

    and yeah, heavy lox. you have a valid point there....americans love their stupidity like no other.

  4. Okay boogie hands. We are now e-mortal enemies.

     

    Yes, i said e-mortal.

     

    ha...there was some sarcasm behind that. from a journalistic standpoint fox news is a steaming turd. from the standpoint of me sitting on my couch laughing and wondering how deep stupidity amongst conservatives actually runs, its fucking rich.

  5. i agree with glik on this one....

     

    ....what i dont agree with is freeways gay ass r&b-ish hooks on every song, foxy brown rapping in general, soulja boy living and breathing or busta rhymes pretending like he sells crack and didnt get his start as a goofball in a generally positive rap group from the 90s (dude is such a fucking turd). if it wasnt for those 4 things i think i would be 100% on board with rap right now. there is some great stuff coming out.

  6. i guess im coming solely from the perspective of an american. i would never expect someone in a poor, developing nation to cast aside the technology available to them (a late model diesel car, coal burning train, etc.) to better our planet. that would be the height of arrogance. im simply saying that those of us who live in wealthy, developed areas of the world should spend more time using that wealth to better our lives and the world as opposed to going ape shit, consuming everything we can, and then scrambling around with our pants down when we run low on resources. why not add your argument to the list of reasons why we should care more about "greening" than whether global warming is fact or misinterpreted data?

     

    you are 100% right, mams, there could be major blowbacks if we just run headlong into the world of alternative fuels. i think the current debate surrounding corn based ethanol is a good indicator that this whole things isnt as cut an dry as we thought. i just dont think we need to have the type of dialogue about this issue we are having right now. its not a rational scientific argument that is going to help us advance in our understanding of what is or isnt actually happening...its a hard headed, politically driven argument thats confusing the public and prolonging what some say is killing our planet. given the context of our situation, even if the theory of global warming is wrong the people behind it are still doing us more of a service than ego fueled "warnings" from the john colemans of the world.

     

    main point - if you can do it, do it, because its absolutely fucking infuriating to see the people who can afford to change fighting this thing tooth and nail.

  7. i read caseks initial post and skimmed the rest so maybe someone can fill me in. what is the point of this giant, widespread scam exactly? im coming up with reduced dependency on foreign oil, reduced waste by humans...maybe its been designed to support local farming by convincing us that imported foods will speed up this "crisis". yeah, thats probably it. those blue collar fuckers have tons of money.

     

    my argument has always been this.

     

    "ok, youre right, global warming is not caused by humans. these scientists dont understand their data but you do. got it. now where exactly is the harm im modifying our lifestyle to have less of an impact on our planet? oh...ok. shut the fuck up and move on to something relevant. youre wasting your time and everyone elses."

     

    seriously...even if science turns out to wrong on this one i cannot for the life of me see any harm in improving awareness of the way we live. i guess hummers, mcdonalds and leaving all the lights in the house on are really important to some people.

     

    also...here is something to listen to. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17926941

  8. HOWEVER, putting issues like welfare and health care into the hands of the free market is...well, it scares me, because a LOT of the problems in this country have to do with the Bush regime's brand of unchecked capitalism for a select few (Enron, Worldcom et al.).

     

    I think people ARE ready for change...but they have to be willing to take the initiative and the responsibility that comes with change. That's when I start to wonder if some (not all, but some) of Ron Paul's supporters REALLY understand the kind of radical shift he's advocating...and how they would fare if it came to pass.

     

     

    two HUGE points in my opinion.

     

    caseks argument above kind of speaks to this. on one hand you have "socialized healthcare equals big government" and then on the other side you have the massive cons of leaving something as important as healthcare (healthy people = healthy economy if you didnt know) to corporations who are already doing their best to make medicine and medical care a luxury item. im not terribly versed on paul but he and a lot of his supporters strike me as one giant, well intentioned, half formed thought.

     

    its a nice thought but placed into the setting of the world as it is, hardly feasible on any level.

     

     

    ok....done.

  9. "Besides, I was at the State of the Black Union 2007 at my alma-mater Hampton University with 13,000 other Black people, including 2 Congressmen, Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., Rev. Al Sharpton, and former VA Governor L. Douglas Wilder, and Senator Obama found it more important to be in Springfield Illinois that day announcing his candidacy than at Hampton, but now we're supposed to see him as the Black peoples' choice?"

     

    i hardly think that someone who considers jackson and sharpton legit black leaders needs to be telling others what is good for their race. this isnt the time or place for that conversation....im just saying.

  10. yeah, we get it, hes the worst thing to happen to america since aids.

     

    im finally coming off my bender of rage and hatred and actually thinking about the possibility of positive change coming down the pipe. after 8 years of what i hope will be the worst president i see in my lifetime, it feels really, really fucking good to have the first caucus under our belt.

  11. _44334514_iowa_result203x416.gif

     

    wow...thats actually a pretty great sign, all things considered.

     

    of all the republicans i would most certainly take paul as a candidate though he would still be behind kucinich, obama and not voting at all due to total frustration.

×
×
  • Create New...