< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6300 OF 6300 ·
|Oct-31-14|| ||Jim Bartle: Voting in Texas, now that the Voting Rights Act no longer supervises it:|
<A disabled woman in Travis County was turned away from voting because she couldn’t afford to pay her parking tickets. An IHOP dishwasher from Mercedes can’t afford the cost of getting a new birth certificate, which he would need to obtain the special photo ID card required for voting. A student at a historically black college in Marshall, who registered some of her fellow students to vote, won't be able to cast a ballot herself because her driver's license isn't from Texas and the state wouldn't accept her student identification card.>
|Oct-31-14|| ||Colonel Mortimer: The Koch brothers can afford not to vote. Why bother when sackfuls of cash allow you to bypass the ballot box?|
|Oct-31-14|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|Oct-31-14|| ||Marmot PFL: <Jim Bartle> All those people can vote via provisional ballots. These are almost never counted, but at least they can feel like they voted.|
|Oct-31-14|| ||schweigzwang: <complete ignorance about the purpose>|
So fill us in then.
|Oct-31-14|| ||Petrosianic: <All those people can vote via provisional ballots. These are almost never counted, but at least they can feel like they voted.>|
If those votes matter, they are counted. The reason that things like the military vote and the provisional ballots don't get counted is that they're irrelevant to the outcome. Although they do eventually get counted when it comes time to tabulate final outcomes.
In 2000, there was some wishful thinking among the Republicans that Bush would end up winning the popular vote when all the sundry votes were eventually counted, but it didn't happen, of course.
|Oct-31-14|| ||hv.U.grwnup: <petrosianic : ...demonstrate...>|
<schweigzwang: <complete ignorance about the purpose>
So fill us in then.>
ok. but when i fill you in , you would ask me to substantiate my claim - provide some proof . what kind of proof would satisfy you?
if i say that you and i and others are like waves of ocean.( that is a rough/inadequate analogy. however, it does provider useful pointer to reality). so we are kind of separate and at the same time whole - we are one and all. and we are eternal and changeless at the same time. but then how come we don't know this if this is the reality?
now consider that someone is dreaming and as long as dream is on , it looks real with all emotions (nightmare or joy and so on...) and when dreamer wakes up he becomes aware of 'reality'. however, what if dreamer becomes aware of reality while dream is still on ! our world is like that and this state of knowing that world is like a dream while still within dream is referred to as 'be in the world but not of it ' (quote of bible) and to reach that state , the process is 'be still and know that i am god'. so if you can be still at the level of mind - absolutely free from thoughts and emotion for an extended period of time , you would know that you are god, creator of this universe. putting it more accurately, you are creator of god and universe and god is running universe for you.
|Oct-31-14|| ||Jim Bartle: I think people are missing the point of the Texas voting restrictions. People can't register to vote because they have outstanding parking tickets? Because they can't afford a birth certificate? Because they present an out-of-state drivers license?|
This is simply a campaign to keep poor and young people from voting. It would never have been permitted if the Voting Rights Act still applied.
|Oct-31-14|| ||Petrosianic: <provide some proof . what kind of proof would satisfy you?>|
I haven't got as far as asking for proof, I was just wanting a <description> of the claim, and how it differed from the claim you thought was mind-bogglingly ignorant. Your description of what you see as the relationship between people and God doesn't seem to actually address the original poster's point about why God did it at all rather than remaining satisfied with single cells, golf and pinball.
I felt that my answer did address that claim (i.e. because if those things get dull for me, how much duller quicker would they be for a perfect being?).
|Oct-31-14|| ||schweigzwang: I didn't ask for a proof either--I just wanted you (<hv.U.g>) to make clearer what you were talking about. And I guess you have now done that, or at least tried to, and I thank you for that.|
|Oct-31-14|| ||HeMateMe: The change in Israel's borders as a result of the 1967 Six Day War has no bearing on present day Gaza. This land was returned to Egypt I believe, as part of the 1980 Camp David accords, along with the Sinai peninsula. The territorial size of Gaza has not changed since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Mort would like to blame Israel for the way the Gaza arabs have chosen to behave, but the fault lies with these arabs themselves. |
Look at the man in the mirror.
|Oct-31-14|| ||zanzibar: < This land was returned to Egypt I believe, as part of the 1980 Camp David accords, along with the Sinai peninsula. >|
I don't believe this is correct. Gaza has been a sort of limbo state since 1948.
Let's quote from wiki:
<The Gaza Strip acquired its current northern and eastern boundaries at the cessation of fighting in the 1948 war, confirmed by the Israel–Egypt Armistice Agreement on 24 February 1949. Article V of the Agreement declared that the demarcation line was not to be an international border.
At first the Gaza Strip was officially administered by the All-Palestine Government, established by the Arab League in September 1948. All-Palestine in the Gaza Strip was managed under the military authority of Egypt, functioning as puppet state, until it officially merged into the United Arab Republic and dissolved in 1959. From the time of the dissolution of the All-Palestine Government until 1967, the Gaza Strip was directly administered by an Egyptian military governor.
Israel captured the Gaza Strip from Egypt in the Six-Day War in 1967. Pursuant to the Oslo Accords signed in 1993, the Palestinian Authority became the administrative body that governed Palestinian population centers while Israel maintained control of the airspace, territorial waters and border crossings with the exception of the land border with Egypt. In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip under their unilateral disengagement plan. >
No mention of 1980. [ed- added paragraph structure to make quote easier to read]
Since 1967 Gaza has been Israeli's headache alone, without the help of Egypt.
|Oct-31-14|| ||zanzibar: <<CM> Do you feel it's okay for America as an upholder of democracy and freedom to give military aid to a ruthless dictatorships and terrorist regimes?|
Yes or No.>
Insistent questioning tactic, hmmm, reminds me of something...
<Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
Yes or No.>
|Oct-31-14|| ||HeMateMe: Thanks, Zan, I had the camp David thing wrong. Somehow I think Israel did a better job running Gaza than Egypt if only because Egypt has had a serious problem running Egypt itself, and had no time or money for Gaza.|
I don't think the size of Gaza, or its all arab makeup has changed since 1947. I still don't understand why people like Mort blame the Gaza situation, their poverty and willingness to be led by terrorists, on Israel. I'm pretty sure the residents there had a higher standard of living with Israel in control than they did with the Hamas Fruit Loops running things.
|Oct-31-14|| ||zanzibar: Here's <CM> orginal post:|
<This is what the Egyptian army of junta leader Sisi is doing to people in Sinai..
WARNING: THIS IN NOT PLEASANT.
As reminder to my American friends here who believe their government spreads freedom and democracy - the junta of Sisi is backed by the US government who supported the coup and continue to provide him with weapons and political cover.
<Is this how you wish your country to be viewed around the world? As a supporter of ruthless dictatorships and terrorist regimes?>>
This is an extreme form of argument - showing atrocious behavior of what are basically thugs, and somehow connecting it with US policy.
I don't blindly accept that the video impacts how the US is "viewed around the world". And I don't accept the implied premise that the video shows the US as "supporter of ruthless dictatorships and terrorist regimes".
I asked <CM> to explain the connection between the video and US policy. He can't, or he refuses to.
Instead he adopts an air of superiority, insisting somehow that I'm lacking because of his lack of response.
Explain how the video reflects US policy, and we can go from there.
OK, let me start...
Is it because these are army thugs, and everything the Egyptian army does is the responsibility of the US because we give military aid to Egypt?
Why did you post that video <CM>?
Please explain it to me, slowly enough that I can follow.
(And in your own words, not via references - I want to know why *you* posted that video, your thoughts on the matter if you will)
|Oct-31-14|| ||Jim Bartle: Is there a good choice for the US to back in Egypt? It looks like worse and worser.|
|Oct-31-14|| ||zanzibar: <JB> yes, the resumption of military aid was done with some hesitancy.|
It's a legitimate topic for discussion.
(Despite the video)
|Oct-31-14|| ||zanzibar: BBC article from 2014-06-22
<US unlocks military aid to Egypt, backing President Sisi>
|Oct-31-14|| ||zanzibar: Israel should be commended for reopening Temple Mount in time for Friday prayers:|
<Jerusalem holy site is reopened amid tension>
|Oct-31-14|| ||ljfyffe: The US government was involved in the overthrow of Allende in Chile, and supported the dictatorship that followed.|
|Oct-31-14|| ||al wazir: <hv.U.grwnup: complete ignorance about the purpose.> The universe doesn't have a purpose. It just *is*. Conscious beings have purposes. This is an example of the "pathetic fallacy," the attribution of a motive or emotion or volition to an inanimate object, natural phenomenon, etc. If you mean that the universe must serve a purpose for God (a hypothetical entity whose existence is unproven), what could that purpose be? If you think you know, how did you acquire that knowledge?|
Likewise, life doesn't have to have a meaning. If no humans or other intelligent beings existed anywhere, not only would there be no reason to ask about the meaning of life, there would be no one asking.
|Oct-31-14|| ||Petrosianic: <The universe doesn't have a purpose. It just *is*. Conscious beings have purposes.>|
Yes, but if those beings are a part of the universe then the universe has consciousness. Just as if A is part of B, and B is part of C, then A is part of C.
Of course, the full-blown materialist would question whether conscious beings exist at all (including himself, which is kind of the weakness in the whole thing). If all thoughts are totally determined by non-rational physical laws, and could not be different than they are, then consciousness and reason as we understand them could not exist.
|Oct-31-14|| ||john barleycorn: <Petrosianic: ... Just as if A is part of B, and B is part of C, then A is part of C. ...>|
For sure, you are not talking set-theory and the "being element of" relation when you say "is part of"?
|Oct-31-14|| ||al wazir: <Petrosianic: Just as if A is part of B, and B is part of C, then A is part of C.> I don't think this is relevant to <hv.U.grwnup>'s comment. It certainly isn't relevant to mine.|
|Oct-31-14|| ||zanzibar: Is this what <Rogoff> has become?|
Just kidding of course.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6300 OF 6300 ·