Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Not just his popularity - his almost having been elected, too -- Joe Taylor, 23:05:23 01/09/04 Fri (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

There are some people who are conservative enough that they'd vote for Bush anyway, despite his ignorance of foreign affairs. But why did centrists and moderate conservatives vote for him? The Kevin Phillips article says that about 1/2 of the Bush voters believe in armageddon. We can rightly consider belief in armageddon to be a form of stupiditiy, ignorance, or both, so if we just exclude that then we get a Gore victory of almost 2-to-1 ("almost" because a few Gore voters believe in armageddon, too).

Robert, you know about Germany more than I do: how many Bundestag seats do you think a party with a leader who doesn't know the name of France's president can get - 100? 150?

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> I'm don't understand how otherwise intelligent people are able to believe stuff that blatantly contradicts experience.... -- Robert, 12:19:05 01/11/04 Sun (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

That is I know why they do it, but I don't understand why they completely switch to a belief concept and trash all evidence that doesn't fit in.

Different from you I'm pretty sure that the biblical stuff is widely is correct. However, basic requirement is that it has to match my own experience and any scientific results, and additionally has to make sense in itself. This eliminates for example any literal understanding of the genesis thing. The older the stuff the more it's mythological, it originates from different sort of consciousness, experience and approach, and has to be translated into current mode. That's pretty difficult, partly it gets researched nowadays. The same applys to revelation and in a minor degree to the gospels. To take the stuff literally generally causes misunderstanding and results in shit. The armageddon thing for example is a mythological term and addresses essential time, not the usual one. Same with the end of the world thing, nuts are expecting to come throughout the past 2000 years, always in vain. It's just ridiculous.

The danger with such guys, expecially with one of them now in charge of US power, is that they might try to execute armageddon, more or less consciously. The last one who attempted to do it was Hitler. The result wasn't fun. I hope it's possible to stop the insanity this time.
Nice article The Bush Hitler Thing. - It's somewhat problematic though to adress such stuff here because it upsets our Missouri guys. Hopefully they'll not read it. :)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> I found the part where he introduces the S factor - Darwin Award and stuff - hilarious.... :) -- Robert, 13:24:12 01/10/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

this stuff shouldn't be taken too serious though and shouldn't be generalized. Nevertheless the article contains quite a bit of truth. I like truth presented in a funny way. That's a major reason why I like Moore - the links are from his website under 'Must Read', gets frequently updated and contains a lot of interesting stuff from different sources.

Pertaining your question - he would get not any, because such a guy is completly impossible. *L*

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Ah, I see... -- Joe Taylor, 20:03:22 01/10/04 Sat (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

But still, suppose that someone escaped from a mental institution or something and got nominated as, say, the leader of the Christian Democrats (a contradiction in terms, but we'll leave that to another post). How many seats do you think the CDU could get with such a leader?

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> I don't think this would make much difference.... -- Rober, 12:07:53 01/11/04 Sun (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

they would get the same as without. Stupitity of leaders doesn't make a difference in electing them. Actually I'm under the impression several guys there are indeed escaped from a mental institution or such like. :)

Additionally the people who elect Conservatives should have the lowest educational levels (Greens are on top :-), don't kow exact numbers though. Conservatives always have problems to find some decent people endorsing them during election. They generally are stuck with soccer or minor movie stars. *L*

Intellectuals etc. are predominantly sided with Greens and Social Democrats. All people here I know of voted for Greens last election.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Rober = Robert. -- Auto-Correct Feature, 04:55:22 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Well, we're still several billions from the peak... -- Joe Taylor, 20:01:09 01/10/04 Sat (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

But it's highly unlikely that the population growth in the 21st century will surpass this of the 20th century, in terms of percentages. The percentage rate of population growth peaked in 1990, IIRC, and the absolute increase in population is very close to its peak (I'm not sure from which direction) now. The expected population of the planet in 2050 is 10 billion, while by 1950-2000 growth rates, we'd expect it to be something like 14 billion.

I can't find the article about Mars' colonization, anyway. Can you link me to it?

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Sure thing.... -- Robert, 11:54:02 01/11/04 Sun (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

it's this part:

(January 09, 2004 -- 08:10 PM EDT // link // print)

"Affirming his commitment to manned space exploration, President Bush said Friday that his new budget will significantly boost funding for Space Station Freedom and other programs intended to help send astronauts back to the moon and to Mars and beyond."
Los Angeles Times
January 25th, 1992

As it happens, I'm an inveterate supporter of manned space exploration. But I couldn't miss the feeling of deja vu.

And where's the money come from on this one? I thought we were halving the deficit in five years.

And who gets the Martian reconstruction contracts?
-- Josh Marshall

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Ah... Yeah, I knew about that blog post; I just forgot about it. -- Joe Taylor, 17:19:28 01/11/04 Sun (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)


[ Edit | View ]