Tom Delay says "God wrote the Constitution."

[One Bad Pig]

Time for you to go back to school.

* Socialism, broadly defined, is social ownership of the means of production. "Social ownership" can be defined as cooperative ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership (where all citizens are deemed owners of public property), or the like.
* Regulation is not ownership. Regulation has NEVER been ownership.
* Those people who have been telling you that regulation of an industry is the same as ownership of an industry are lying through their teeth.

If the ACA is "state ownership of the means of production," kindly point out to me what hospitals, doctor's offices, insurance companies, or medical goods manufacturers are now owned by the government, rather than by their previous owners or shareholders? Tell me what the USGS pay grade is for a GP, a specialist, a surgeon, or a professor-level physician? Show me how doctors are now getting their paychecks from the government, rather than from the accounting department of their various practices or hospitals.

And if you can't show me those things, then your statement that the ACA is socialism is not just false, it is so false that it should shame you either at the thought of participating in such dishonesty, or of falling prey to such dishonesty.

DE already covered this, but I will concede that "fascism" (which is right only in comparison to communism) is a better descriptor for it than "socialism."

Show me any EOs that "enormously expand the regulatory burden," WITH a quantified example of "enormously," or admit that you've been played for a fool.

I'll admit that I unfairly placed the blame on Executive Orders. However, the regulatory burden has indeed grown enormously under Obama's watch (despite his stated intentions otherwise).

Now you're simply making wild accusations, OBP--every bit as wild as the Truthers.

Show me the facts and figures, or admit that you have been played for a dupe. Refusal to do either indicates the latter.

Outis, a man who boasts that he has "a pen and a phone" isn't going to be limited by much else. Do I really need to explain that to you?

ETA: Sorry for dragging this off-track.

[Outis]

DE already covered this, but I will concede that "fascism" (which is right only in comparison to communism) is a better descriptor for it than "socialism."

First and foremost, if you're agreeing with DE, you're probably headed down the wrong road already.

Time for more schooling. Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism. The closest we have ever come to fascism are the fringe groups, all on the right of the political spectrum, all (rightly) rejected by the mainstream. Economically, fascism relies on a unified industry in service to the state, and uses protectionist and expansionist military and economic policy to achieve the goal of utter self-sufficiency. Fascism is a word that has a very specific meaning, not just a random insult that you can throw at politicians you don't like.

Obama is not fascist.

I'll admit that I unfairly placed the blame on Executive Orders. However, the regulatory burden has indeed grown enormously under Obama's watch (despite his stated intentions otherwise).

Look at the list. Who passed these regulations--Obama, or Congress.

More than that, look at the list of Obama's executive orders. They're readily available on the internet. Point me out one EO, just one, where he exceeded his constitutional authority.

Outis, a man who boasts that he has "a pen and a phone" isn't going to be limited by much else. Do I really need to explain that to you?

Yes. You need to explain why you are either (a, and unlikely in my opinion) dishonest enough to repeat known falsehoods, or (b, and more likely) foolish enough to be a dupe for the talking points of the liars who are pushing known falsehoods.

Unless you can point to where Obama has exceeded his constitutional authority, the only person in this conversation who is spewing a " load of bovine fecal matter" is YOU.

[Carrikature]

I understand they're a large political demographic, but it's apparently irrelevant when it comes to political influence on larger issues (at least issues that non-theists should be whining about), and I explained why it's irrelevant by giving a few examples in the post you quoted. But I don't understand what you mean by "how they should vote," or what relevancy that has to the post you quoted.

I think it depends on what you consider larger issues, nor is it irrelevant even then. Science education is a common sore point for a lot of non-theists, and it's one area where the Christian demographic shows up in force. However, other issues are not so cut and dried. The pro-life/pro-choice debate is not cleanly split along religious views. That's why the huge demographic isn't immediately obvious. It's still present, but it's not clearly acting for one side alone.

You said, specifically:

Christians have very little influence in political matters other than minor ones

and

they have no influence at all when it comes to major issues

Both of these statements are absolutely false. The influence is the same for all issues. The difference, as I noted, is that the demographic isn't unilaterally in favor of one side or the other. This is why I said that they aren't voting the way you think they should be.


In other words, your claim that

abortion would be illegal, prayer and bibles would be allowed in public schools, and we'd most likely see less raunch in the media

is indicative of how you think they should be voting. It's not how Christians actually vote in practice. This in no way negates their political influence.

[Carrikature]

First and foremost, if you're agreeing with DE, you're probably headed down the wrong road already.

Careful with that. I have him on ignore, but this is pretty close to poisoning the well.

[Darth Executor]

I think it depends on what you consider larger issues, nor is it irrelevant even then. Science education is a common sore point for a lot of non-theists, and it's one area where the Christian demographic shows up in force.

This only happens in a small number of heavily fundamentalist areas. It's pretty small considering nearly half the US is creationist.

However, other issues are not so cut and dried. The pro-life/pro-choice debate is not cleanly split along religious views. That's why the huge demographic isn't immediately obvious. It's still present, but it's not clearly acting for one side alone.

It's only not clear cut because atheists and liberal Christians (but I repeat myself) are part of the same infernal coalition. It's pointless to claim that Christians have a lot of influence when large groups of Christians are functionally indistinguishable from atheists.

[Cow Poke]

It's pointless to claim that Christians have a lot of influence when large groups of Christians are functionally indistinguishable from atheists.

OUCH. But, yeah.

[Outis]

Careful with that. I have him on ignore, but this is pretty close to poisoning the well.

You are correct. OBP, I withdraw that part of my statement.

[Carrikature]

It's pointless to claim that Christians have a lot of influence when large groups of Christians are functionally indistinguishable from atheists.

Accuracy is always pointless.

[Darth Executor]

Accuracy is always pointless.

Broad accuracy that gives the opposite impression of what is actually happening is pretty pointless, yes.

[rogue06]

Tom just doesn't know that the US Constitution REALLY came from the Iroquois Confederacy Articles.

Seriously, Tom Delay has been a very big disappointment to a lot of us in Texas.

The influence that the Iroquois Confederacy Articles had appear to be exaggerated.

And I agree that Tom "I am the Federal Government" Delay was at best a disappointment

[Cow Poke]

The influence that the Iroquois Confederacy Articles had appear to be exaggerated.

nuh unh! The man in that video was talking very slow and serious in a low voice -- it HAS to be true. Besides - it's on the internetz!

And I agree that Tom "I am the Federal Government" Delay was at best a disappointment

He's a classic example of the type of politician I love to point out "on the other side", but am embarrassed to admit was (cough sputter) on "my side".

[Carrikature]

Broad accuracy that gives the opposite impression of what is actually happening is pretty pointless, yes.

What's actually happening is that you, seanD, and now CP clearly espouse the idea that True Christians(TM) only act (or vote) a certain way. The broad brush is all yours.

[Darth Executor]

What's actually happening is that you, seanD, and now CP clearly espouse the idea that True Christians(TM) only act (or vote) a certain way. The broad brush is all yours.

That sounds like a pretty narrow brush to me.

[Cow Poke]

What's actually happening is that you, seanD, and now CP clearly espouse the idea that True Christians(TM) only act (or vote) a certain way. The broad brush is all yours.

That's just downright goofy, C, and not true. You're sounding bitter.

[Carrikature]

That's just downright goofy, C, and not true.

DE specifically said, "It's pointless to claim that Christians have a lot of influence when large groups of Christians are functionally indistinguishable from atheists." To which, you agreed. Tell me what I'm misunderstanding.

You're sounding bitter.

Do you mind explaining how I sound bitter? I'm not being facetious. If I'm coming across as bitter, it's unintentional, and it's definitely not how I feel.


In an effort to clarifty: I think people, by and large, expect those who share some major classification to be in general agreement in nearly every matter. That seems to ignore everything else that goes into worldviews, though I expect it's ignorance or lack of imagination (or simply not having thought about it) rather than something more malicious. This expectation manifests itself a lot in politics as evidenced by the liberal/conservative and democrat/republican labels (which are largely meaningless).