Divorce agreement...

[Hoosier]

Another problem this new country would have is that (on average) red states take more money from the Fed than they contribute. So all those states that whine about paying the Fed are actually taking more than they give.

H.

[BigMat]

I'll throw my hat in on this one too!

I would have to say blending of science and religion is generally speaking, impossible.

For something to be studied scientifically it must follow a few rules that while somewhat vague provide for the ability to differentiate guesses, thoughts, ideas, and beliefs from facts and theories.

For one, for a thing to be scientifically proven, there must be an ability to theoretically disprove it, otherwise its study belongs in the fields of philosophy or religion. Without this specification it is impossible to make scientific fact as it is impossible to create a repeatable experiment with a control of the variables involved.

Can you scientifically prove God, maybe, can you disprove God, no, impossible, the experiments cannot be done.

Second point, saying a book is verifiable because at this point much of what is in it can be attested to by science is a very slippery slope, best left avoided, as the other side can easily say, "you know what, I just finished The Lord of the Rings, and a lot of that really happened...sort of, too." Can you prove the events of The Lord of the Rings, highly doubtful, can you disprove the events ever took place, amazingly, no.

[68Charger]

For something to be studied scientifically it must follow a few rules that while somewhat vague provide for the ability to differentiate guesses, thoughts, ideas, and beliefs from facts and theories.

For one, for a thing to be scientifically proven, there must be an ability to theoretically disprove it, otherwise its study belongs in the fields of philosophy or religion. Without this specification it is impossible to make scientific fact as it is impossible to create a repeatable experiment with a control of the variables involved.

Well said, And the same can be said for many forms of "Science"... Global warming, "the origin of species" as a whole (parts can be observed & proven, but others have never been observed) even the assertions of the age of the Earth are based on critical assumptions that could be false... Darwin's theory, as a whole, is a religion by definition... it requires faith to believe in parts where there is no evidence to support it.

[mutt]

You know, this perfectly illustrates what happens when blind adherence to ideology trumps free thought and common sense. I really wish the two shrilling extremes didn't keep drowning out the moderate voices of the reasonable majority.

We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids,

Are we really going to assert that the USA was some ultra-conservative utopia before the 1950s? Really? Where does this idea come from? This whole country was based on revolution and leftist thinking. We basically pissed on the whole 'Divine Right of Kings' doctrine and decided the create our own country. Our own Declaration has such leftist writings as 'all men are created equal', and 'Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed'. These were crazy liberal ideas in the 1700's. Let's not forget some of our greatest presidents were liberals: Wilson, Roosevelt, Jackson. All before the magical 1950s. Even Abraham Lincoln, though technically a conservative, held the liberal view that blacks should not be slaves. Shocking.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all.

When have we ever? Even at our nation's birth a good chunk for the people wanted to remain subjects of the crown. Our country has a long history of strong political disagreement. It's one of our greatest strengths. Embrace it.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion.

Yeah, that's a great idea for making a better nation. Instead of working through our differences, as we've always done, let's just break it apart. By the way, we tried this idea once, we called it the Civil War. It costs us dearly in blood but it pretty much settled things. Succession is a dead concept.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

While I'll agree that many liberal nut jobs take their ideology to a ridiculous extreme, Right-wing wackos need to wake up and smell the common sense as well. Without the ACLU black people would still be second-class citizens and my parents would have never been allowed to marry (mixed blood). I'd be viewed as some abomination against god or some other ignorant crazy shit. And wind, solar, biodiesel are somehow 'liberal'? Sure glad the liberals won out when Galileo championed the crazy idea the Earth revolved around the sun. Hate to tell you that 'alternative' energy is the inevitable future. But I will agree that the market should decide 'when' and not the government wielding 'progressive taxes'.

We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

While I'm a huge fan of capitalism, do you really want to uphold the likes of Enron or AIG as model conservatism? Wall Street is friend to no one except themselves. Get over thinking those 'greedy CEOs' are on the side of right. Their on the side of 'screw everyone but me'. Sara Palin? Really? Her stupidity is more dangerous than an army leftist hippies. Everything needs checks and balances.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

Last I looked we weren't exactly making nice with Iran and the whole mess in Palestine is the fault of conservative and liberal administrations alike. The whole policy of policing the globe is one of our biggest problems. True conservatism would demand we bring our troops home. We're not supposed to be 'invading and hammering places that threaten us' (till they actually do) and getting into entangling alliances was something our Founding Fathers warned us about. But we all know we're well beyond that now.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain.

That's not very American. We all have the right to practice, or not practice, any religion we so choose without govt or private interference. Or are you trying to say the roughly 30% of us who aren't classified as Christian aren't welcome? Again, think.

You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

Agreed.

We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

What's wrong with Subarus? They're fine cars. Does being a conservative demand one drive some massive hulk of steel irrespective of actual need?

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

So being able to afford the health care one will invariably need in life is a luxury? So only the rich get the 'right' not to die of something curable? While I'm no fan of govt-rationed health care, our current system of corporate-rationed health care is little better. Our system is broken but instead of working together to fix it both sides are too busy exposing their own brand of stupidity. I really wish common-sense would prevail. It will, eventually.

I'm bored with this now. Soap box retired.

[Hoosier]

I really wish common-sense would prevail. It will, eventually.

I agree with almost everything you said, except this. I don't want common sense. It is often wrong. I want the problem to be studied, different solutions proposed, each tested and weighed on it's costs and benefits, and the best solution(s) implemented.

H.

PS: I own a Subaru and it's been a very good car.

[Irving]

The fact that this conversation went from politics to religion as quickly and totally as it did, shows me that the second post is more true than I ever imagined.


Also, even though many of us have seen these emails posted in various places a million times before, not everyone has. So, in the future, if people would put things that they are just reposting into a quote box, it will really cut down on people arguing directly with posters instead of concepts.

[BigBear]

PS: I own a Subaru and it's been a very good car.

lol, my wife wants one eventually. Supposedly they have interchangable parts with other Subarus such as oil filter, etc... if so, that'd make 'em REAL easy to work on....

[Hoosier]

lol, my wife wants one eventually. Supposedly they have interchangable parts with other Subarus such as oil filter, etc... if so, that'd make 'em REAL easy to work on....

I know that most of their cars have the same common design. For example, the Legacy, Outback, and Baja's were almost identical, except for the rear body. The Legacy and Impreza families both use that same boxer 4 cylinder engine. I've had mine since I bought it new in 1999, and still haven't put 100k miles on it.

H.

[68Charger]

The fact that this conversation went from politics to religion as quickly and totally as it did, shows me that the second post is more true than I ever imagined.


Also, even though many of us have seen these emails posted in various places a million times before, not everyone has. So, in the future, if people would put things that they are just reposting into a quote box, it will really cut down on people arguing directly with posters instead of concepts.

I never addressed the original 2 posts, because I recognized them for what they are- satire & commentary... seen them before.. but I disagree that the second post is accurate simply because some chose to DISCUSS religion.. it's one thing to discuss one's viewpoint, completely another to force that view on another... Besides, the thread has now moved on to a discussion about cars- I'll introduce our favorite subject now: How much weight would the roof of your average Subaru support? could you attach a .50Cal belt-fed Machine gun up there without reinforcement?

[mutt]

I agree with almost everything you said, except this. I don't want common sense. It is often wrong. I want the problem to be studied, different solutions proposed, each tested and weighed on it's costs and benefits, and the best solution(s) implemented.

H.

PS: I own a Subaru and it's been a very good car.

Interesting view. And we agree. I guess for me 'common sense' is doing what you described. Maybe I assume too much of my fellow humans =)