Jump to content

Glenn Beck and a call for religious rebirth


Zygimantas

Recommended Posts

Just wanna break down a few arguments here.

 

First, science and religion may not have all the answers, but we can all agree science has brought much more answers and even proven religion to be wrong many times. Therefore, science is at very least more reliable.

 

Second. There may be no solid proof on God's inexistence, but the whole belief doesn't make sense. If you look carefully, the Universe is in progress. Dust becomes life, life becomes intelligent, and intelligent life creates artificial intelligence. The existence of a God would assume that we're in regression, since he would be many thousands of times more intelligent than us and would be creating beings inferior to him. And when you look around, Nature clearly isn't in regression (except for a few idiots out there, that is).

 

Third, have a look at this (it's a satire.. not to be taken seriously):

 

signaturemw.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Because this defies our logic - that alone is indication that the human mind cannot comprehend the origins of the universe - thus it must have originated from a higher power whose logic is so above ours that something can come from nothing.

 

 

if the logic that something must come from something else can be violated then the logic that something has to be of a' higher' power than what it creates can also be violated, therefore a 'lower' power can be capable of creating a 'higher' power.

Hence the theory that God is not a "power" whatsoever - and then you get into the "can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?".

 

if god is not a power then what is so special about him/her/it? if it is capable of making something more complex than itself then it is possible to make something even more complex and better, so why should we give a [cabbage] about this 'god'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Because this defies our logic - that alone is indication that the human mind cannot comprehend the origins of the universe - thus it must have originated from a higher power whose logic is so above ours that something can come from nothing.

 

 

if the logic that something must come from something else can be violated then the logic that something has to be of a' higher' power than what it creates can also be violated, therefore a 'lower' power can be capable of creating a 'higher' power.

Hence the theory that God is not a "power" whatsoever - and then you get into the "can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?".

 

if god is not a power then what is so special about him/her/it? if it is capable of making something more complex than itself then it is possible to make something even more complex and better, so why should we give a [cabbage] about this 'god'?

 

The "god is not a power" theory holds that since God transcends our logic, he also transcends our idea of power. Thus God is not a power in our traditional way of thinking.

I won't pretend to have any knowledge of how or what God can create - if he is all powerful, that alone is impossible for us to understand, as it leads to many contradictions such as the ones you've pointed out.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see this as a news ticker:

Glenn Beck holds Rally in DC - Conservative estimates puts attendance at 350,000, Liberal estimates at 87,000.

 

Man, you're one of the biggest hacks I've ever seen. Perhaps of the Poe's Law variety:

 

CBS estimates 87,000

Estimates range from 78,000 to 96,000

 

The only one who says 350,000 is Beck, and he just keeps inching that number higher and higher as time goes on, as this graph shows:

 

becklie.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because this defies our logic - that alone is indication that the human mind cannot comprehend the origins of the universe - thus it must have originated from a higher power whose logic is so above ours that something can come from nothing.

Unfortunately (or should I say fortunately, for my side at least) we have already begun to determine the nature of some things that defy our logic, or at least definitely used to defy our logic. Three instances: general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics. General relativity refers to the effect that time passes differently depending on the mass of nearby objects. Special relativity accounts for the fact that time passes more slowly on faster moving objects. And quantum mechianics accounts for the "movement" of elementary particles. Any elementary particle does not move in the way that, say, a ball does. You cannot talk about the trajectory of a photon, you can only say how likely it would have been to find a photon at any one time. The photon isn't anywhere until you attempt to observe it.

 

Would this make sense to people who lived 200 years ago? I would guess that it probably wouldnt make sense. Right now it doesn't make sense that something could have once come from absolutely nothing, but there is no reason to assume that it is impossible to have happened, because we have observed other such events such as a photon being nowhere and somewhere at the same time.

 

Exactly - yet this particular thing they've aligned themselves with has still done an enormous amount of good.

I suppose what you are saying is just that religion isn't a completely resentful thing through history. I thought that you were attempting to use this to argue for the belief in god, but it doesnt appear that you are. I was trying to argue against why it would be silly to use the fruits of theism as a reason to believe. If thats what you were trying to say, then I would still debate this point. But if it wasnt, then I dont think that we actually have a debate to be had here.

It wouldn't make me respect the theory, but it would certainly make me respect those who believe in it as good people.

Again I think this falls into the point above. I assumed you were using it as an argument for existence, but I think again you were just trying to show that good things have happened to come from religious people.

To be honest(and I'm sure you'll think I've no evidence) but to make a logical argument would take far more time than I have at the moment, and is for a different thread.

I'd be glad to listen if that thread ever arises (which...I thought debates about religion were actually against the rules on this board? :razz:).

Personal preference has nothing to do with fact - but personal preference ties in with faith, that is the belief in something without concrete evidence. All the examples you've given have facts associated with them, yet the existence of a God does not - therefore I personally prefer to believe in something rather than nothing.

But there is no reason to assume that there will never be a fact that describes the origin of absolutely everything.

 

But, correct me if I'm wrong...but are you saying that instead of looking at the lack of evidence and saying "It wouldn't be right for me to have an opinion on this, since there is no reason to judge based on a lack of evidence" you are saying "There is no evidence, and rather than thinking nothing, I would rather think that God is the answer"?

 

If that is true, then suppose science does come up with conclusive evidence for what happened before the big bang, but then has another gap, is that where god steps in for you again?

 

If that is true, then what you are suggesting is that you do not believe that god is THE answer. But rather, instead of having no answer, you will temporarily have god?

 

These are all sincere questions by the way. I was very intrigued by your last statement of "therefore I personally prefer to believe in something rather than nothing." and I just needed to clarify whether you actually believe that god is, and always will be, the answer to what happened before the big bang. Or, if you are sort of using him as a "placeholder" at least until we can determine some evidence.

Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately (or should I say fortunately, for my side at least) we have already begun to determine the nature of some things that defy our logic, or at least definitely used to defy our logic. Three instances: general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics. General relativity refers to the effect that time passes differently depending on the mass of nearby objects. Special relativity accounts for the fact that time passes more slowly on faster moving objects. And quantum mechianics accounts for the "movement" of elementary particles. Any elementary particle does not move in the way that, say, a ball does. You cannot talk about the trajectory of a photon, you can only say how likely it would have been to find a photon at any one time. The photon isn't anywhere until you attempt to observe it.

 

Would this make sense to people who lived 200 years ago? I would guess that it probably wouldnt make sense. Right now it doesn't make sense that something could have once come from absolutely nothing, but there is no reason to assume that it is impossible to have happened, because we have observed other such events such as a photon being nowhere and somewhere at the same time.

None of this truly defies logic, however - they are merely discoveries that make it easy for us to understand something we didn't previously.

 

@middle posts: Yes, I was just attempting to show that religion has done some good. That doesn't mean God exists.

 

But there is no reason to assume that there will never be a fact that describes the origin of absolutely everything.

 

But, correct me if I'm wrong...but are you saying that instead of looking at the lack of evidence and saying "It wouldn't be right for me to have an opinion on this, since there is no reason to judge based on a lack of evidence" you are saying "There is no evidence, and rather than thinking nothing, I would rather think that God is the answer"?

 

If that is true, then suppose science does come up with conclusive evidence for what happened before the big bang, but then has another gap, is that where god steps in for you again?

 

If that is true, then what you are suggesting is that you do not believe that god is THE answer. But rather, instead of having no answer, you will temporarily have god?

 

These are all sincere questions by the way. I was very intrigued by your last statement of "therefore I personally prefer to believe in something rather than nothing." and I just needed to clarify whether you actually believe that god is, and always will be, the answer to what happened before the big bang. Or, if you are sort of using him as a "placeholder" at least until we can determine some evidence.

 

I do like believing in God, but my point is overall that the deductive evidence I have to believe in God makes me do so. If at some point, scientific evidence were to contradict that clearly(which I haven't seen it do, and I doubt it ever will) then I'd stop believing.

 

You make it out to be that there's a gap in my knowledge I've decided to fill with a guess. Really, there's a gap in scientific knowledge that I've decided to fill with what seems logical to me.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like believing in God, but my point is overall that the deductive evidence I have to believe in God makes me do so. If at some point, scientific evidence were to contradict that clearly(which I haven't seen it do, and I doubt it ever will) then I'd stop believing.

 

You make it out to be that there's a gap in my knowledge I've decided to fill with a guess. Really, there's a gap in scientific knowledge that I've decided to fill with what seems logical to me.

 

Well then I really do not disagree with what you are choosing to think. Well, I mean, of course it isn't what I think. But, I do not see any harm (to society or to your sense of reality) in you replacing an unknown with a god, provided that people would accept reality if a greater truth was discovered. Basically, a god in your sense, is not a delusion of reality, but rather it is your psychological coping mechanism with the concept of nothingness.

 

My main concern with religion is the type of religion that is trying to stop such things like teaching evolution in schools. This is the type of religion that spits in the face of evidence. Or the type that thinks that whatever mysteries happen to plague their particular generation is the place where god steps in and always will step in. (For instance, people of our generation thinking that everything up to the big bang sounds nice, but then where science has no theory, they believe god is the cause. Then these people grow up, have children, and tell them that god created the big bang, when maybe we couldve found evidence by then that says otherwise)

 

It sounds like you are a god believer in the way that Einstein was a god believer (or at least closely. Einstein's views on "god" were very complicated and I cant be certain what his final "conclusions" were without completeing some more readings. they weren't quite a "god placeholder" but i think it was something similar) I do not wish to start a crusade against anyone who acknowledges the existence of evidence, and allows for the fact that one day we could explain the things that are currently "beyond reason".

Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see this as a news ticker:

Glenn Beck holds Rally in DC - Conservative estimates puts attendance at 350,000, Liberal estimates at 87,000.

 

Man, you're one of the biggest hacks I've ever seen. Perhaps of the Poe's Law variety:

 

CBS estimates 87,000

Estimates range from 78,000 to 96,000

 

The only one who says 350,000 is Beck, and he just keeps inching that number higher and higher as time goes on, as this graph shows:

082910glenn13.jpg

082910glenn143.jpg

082910glenn76.jpg

 

Come up with your own estimate then.

 

 

A loose crowd is about 1 person per every 10 sq feet. I estimate the available room for people using:

http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-area-calculator-tool.htm

 

First, I measured the area on the inside of the major streets (disregarding the area in the semi-circle behind the lincoln memorial :

SW 23 st

17th St NW

Constitution Ave NW

Independence Ave SW

 

This came out to be 4,968,196.90 feet².

Then, I measured the area of the reflecting pool.

This came out to be 389,638.38 feet².

Then, I measured the approximate area of the Constitution Garden Pond (I drew a large rectangle around it, that was tangent to its sides).

This came out to be 423,346.34 feet².

 

I subtracted out the pool and the pond.

That put the total standing area in that block to be 4,155,212.18 feet².

 

You'll notice in the pictures I provided there are crowds going as far back as the National Mall, and the Washington Monument, we'll ignore them.

 

That puts the crowd to be about 410k, assuming it isn't very densely packed.

For the 87k figure, it would mean the crowd had to be at 1 person per 50 feet². I seriously doubt that.

 

 

 

Furthermore, FedEx Field has a seatting capacity of 91,704.The average attendance in 2009 for a home football game was 84,794. If there were 87,000 people total at the Beck rally, why would the crowd be big enough to disrupt Washington's subway system, with service from at least 12 stops disrupted due to long lines for entry? Shouldn't they be designed to handle that kind of regular load?

 

 

 

 

Way to be a sheep magekillr, following everything one news source tells you blindly.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty interesting, but I honestly fail to see how it matters in the great scheme of things. Really, the numbers only seem pertinent because both sides have an agenda to push. The Liberals want to give a lower estimate in order to de-legitimatize the Neo-Cons, and the Conservatives of course want to give a high estimate.

 

In the great scheme of things, who gives a [cabbage]?

 

EDIT: The people being interviewed in magekillr's video are bat[cabbage] insane. I guess that the majority of Americans are, otherwise I couldn't earn over $100,000 a year as a pharmacist in this country. ;)

SWAG

 

Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how people who oppose the rally are saying that the whole thing is a bunch of white people who don't like having a black president.

 

If said black president were not inept and more a figurehead than an actual president, than maybe we wouldn't be complaining.

 

george-bush-miss-me-yet.jpg

hatsune-miku-wallpaper-49-1.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how people who oppose the rally are saying that the whole thing is a bunch of white people who don't like having a black president.

 

If said black president were not inept and more a figurehead than an actual president, than maybe we wouldn't be complaining.

 

george-bush-miss-me-yet.jpg

 

Your picture is broken.

SWAG

 

Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how people who oppose the rally are saying that the whole thing is a bunch of white people who don't like having a black president.

 

If said black president were not inept and more a figurehead than an actual president, than maybe we wouldn't be complaining.

 

george-bush-miss-me-yet.jpg

 

What changed, ratchet? You tell me, because that's the only thing that changed. These people hate liberals, or anyone they perceive to be a liberal--as Obama is not a liberal; they are the rump of what's left of the Republican party, a bunch of ignorant theocrats. Don't even try and say it's an "independent movement" because that flies in the face of evidence. They are Republicans, and they never, ever, see a Democratic president as legitimate. Plain and simple.

 

And no, I don't miss that torturous war criminal who doubled the size of our debt through fiscal recklessness and left our economy in shambles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, because Obama is handling our econonmy so well.... Right?

 

 

 

And I agree on the Democratic president part, that aggravates me, they write off any President as bad. If they're Democratic.

I have all the 99s, and have been playing since 2001. Comped 4/30/15 

My Araxxi Kills: 459::Araxxi Drops(KC):

Araxxi Hilts: 4x Eye (14/126/149/459), Web - (100) Fang (193)

Araxxi Legs Completed: 5 ---Top (69/206/234/292/361), Middle (163/176/278/343/395), Bottom (135/256/350/359/397)
Boss Pets: Supreme - 848 KC

If you play Xbox One - Add me! GT: Urtehnoes - Currently on a Destiny binge 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, because Obama is handling our econonmy so well.... Right?

 

Well I never said that. He did prevent a Second Great Depression, he did save several million jobs, he did prevent the entire world economy from going under (as if our banks went under, the rest of the world would have been [bleep]ed).

 

So all in all, he is handling it pretty well, thanks.

 

The bad part is, we don't need someone to handle it pretty well, we need another FDR. And sadly for us, with our Congress that doesn't want to do anything even when basic economics says we should be spending more money to create jobs, he's kind of strapped. This is why I criticized him early on when he came with his first stimulus plan. It was far too small, and then Presidents Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter arbitrarily cut it by $100 billion for no reason but to make it smaller, it hurt states.

 

As much as the federal government is doing, it didn't do enough because states and local governments are cutting their spending, which is offsetting the federal stimulus.

 

We had a $1.4 trillion housing bubble to fill. You can't fill that with $787 billion in stimulus over two years, especially when state and local governments are cutting spending.

 

Also, HAMP, which is entirely a Treasury program, has been a complete and utter failure. However, dirty [bleep]ing hippies such as myself knew that from the get-go yet Geithner and Summers didn't is surprising if I'm not being cynical, and if I were to be cynical I'd say they made it that way on purpose to help the banksters some more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. And so what did FDR do, quick tell me. I'm all ears.

I have all the 99s, and have been playing since 2001. Comped 4/30/15 

My Araxxi Kills: 459::Araxxi Drops(KC):

Araxxi Hilts: 4x Eye (14/126/149/459), Web - (100) Fang (193)

Araxxi Legs Completed: 5 ---Top (69/206/234/292/361), Middle (163/176/278/343/395), Bottom (135/256/350/359/397)
Boss Pets: Supreme - 848 KC

If you play Xbox One - Add me! GT: Urtehnoes - Currently on a Destiny binge 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Federal Emergency Relief Act (1933) established the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and gave it half a billion dollars to distribute to the states for any relief they felt necessary. Half was for matching grants, with the states contributing three dollars for every dollar of federal funds. The remainder could be given in direct grants. At one point, as many as 6 million families were on direct relief.

 

The Emergency Banking Relief Act (1933) established a system to close down insolvent banks and reorganize and reopen those banks strong enough to survive, after a mandatory four-day bank holiday that took place immediately after Roosevelt took office. Within 300 days of the act's passage, 5,000 banks had passed inspection and were reopened. Roughly two-thirds of U.S. banks quickly reopened under this act, and faith in banking institutions was restored, with money flowing out from under mattresses and back into financial institutionas as deposits. The act also allowed the confiscation of the gold of private citizens. The US dollar was then devalued by approximately 40%, ending the deflationary spiral of the Depression.

 

The Unemployment Relief Act (1933) established the Civilian Conservation Corps, a work relief program for young men ages 18-25 from unemployed families. The CCC became one of the most popular New Deal programs among the general public and operated in every U.S. state and several territories in 2600 work camps. The young men were paid wages, but were expected to share their wages with their families. They built such things as fire trails, camp sites in parks, and also cleared swamps and planted trees.

 

The Public Works Administration (1933) allowed $3.3 billion to be spent on the construction of public works to provide employment in the construction and building industries, and to stabilize purchasing power,

 

The Home Owners Refinancing Act (1933) helpeds those in danger of losing their homes, by providing mortgage assistance to homeowners or would-be homeowners by providing them money or refinancing mortages. It also created the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC), which lent low-interest money to families in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure. By the mid 1930s, the HOLC had refinanced nearly 20% of urban homes in the country.

 

The Civil Works Emergency Relief Act (1934) allotted new funds for Federal Emergency Relief Administration to run new programs of civil works and direct relief. In 1935 it became the Works Progress Administration (1935) and was the largest New Deal agency, employing millions of people and affecting most every locality in the United States, especially rural and western mountain populations. Between 1935 and 1943 the WPA provided almost 8 million jobs and income to the unemployed. The program built many public buildings, projects and roads and operated large arts, drama, media and literacy projects, employing actors, artists, musicians, and writer (nearly 4 million in 1936 alone). It fed children and redistributed food, clothing and housing. Almost every community in America has a park, bridge or school constructed by the agency, and most public buildings of a certain age will feature architecture or a mural created by one of its artisans.

 

The National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) legalized cartels and funded massive government spending on public works through the PWA. The NIRA operated under codes for each industry, all of which were written by committees of businessmen from the specific industry involved. Including all sorts of subcodes, rules, and regulations, the Act's proscriptions were enormously complex. The entire purpose was to eliminate unemployment and raise wages. In general - NRA codes limited production, had common control of prices and sales practices, outlawed child labor, and established a 40 hour work week and minimum wage.

 

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) restricted production by paying farmers to reduce crop area. Its purpose was to reduce crop surplus so as to effectively raise the value of crops, thereby giving farmers relative stability again (in the past, wild swings in prices, particularly precipitous drops due to overproduction, could bankrupt a family farm during a single year). The farmers were paid subsidies by the federal government for leaving some of their fields unused.

 

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (1933) provided and still provides navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, and economic development in the Tennessee Valley, a region particularly impacted by the Great Depression, with a goal of rapidly modernizing the region's economy and society.

 

The Rural Electrification Act (1936) provided federal funding for installation of electrical distribution systems to serve rural areas of the United States. In the 1930s, the provision of power to remote areas was not thought to be economically feasible and so was largely unavailable in rural areas of farms and ranches. A 2300 volt distribution system was then used in cities. This relatively low voltage could only be carried about 4 miles before the voltage drop became unacceptable. REA cooperatives used a 6900 volt distribution network, distributed over their own network of transmission and distribution lines. which could support much longer runs (up to about 40 miles). Despite requiring more expensive transformers at each home, the overall system cost was manageable.

 

The Glass-Stegall Banking Act (1933) introduced the separation of bank types according to their business (commercial and investment banking), and it founded the Federal Deposit Insurance Company for insuring bank deposits. It also increased the power of the Federal Reserve Board to regulate interest rates.

 

The National Housing Act (1934) made housing and home mortgages more affordable. It created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. It was designed to stop the tide of bank foreclosures on family homes. Both the FHA and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation worked to create the backbone of the mortgage and home-building industries.

 

The Securities Acts (1933 and 1934) governs the offer or sale of securities using the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and requires that they be registered; and also governs the secondary trading of securities (stocks, bonds, and debentures). Contrasted with the Securities Act of 1933, which regulates these original issues, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regulates the secondary trading of those securities between persons often unrelated to the issuer.

 

The National Labor Relations Act (1935) protects the rights of most workers in the private sector to organize labor unions, to engage in collective bargaining, and to take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in support of their demands.

 

The Social Security Act (1935) established a system whereby payroll taxes, first collected in 1937, that paid for lump-sum death benefits and also, beginning on January 31, 1940, monthly retirement benefits.

==============================================================================================================

 

There's a reason FDR is consistently named the greatest president of the 20th century, and regularly the greatest president of all time. There's also a reason why the public loved him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I mean I studied him for 3 months, I meant I want your opinion on how he was great. How did he utilize these, since many hate him, and many love him. As of right now (though I have a opinion on him) pretend I'm neutral, I want to see what other people think of him. Despite saying he saved the great depression, which, he didn't. Which I also want your genuine opinion on, me and my peeps say it was the World war which brought the economy back together.

I have all the 99s, and have been playing since 2001. Comped 4/30/15 

My Araxxi Kills: 459::Araxxi Drops(KC):

Araxxi Hilts: 4x Eye (14/126/149/459), Web - (100) Fang (193)

Araxxi Legs Completed: 5 ---Top (69/206/234/292/361), Middle (163/176/278/343/395), Bottom (135/256/350/359/397)
Boss Pets: Supreme - 848 KC

If you play Xbox One - Add me! GT: Urtehnoes - Currently on a Destiny binge 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I mean I studied him for 3 months, I meant I want your opinion on how he was great. How did he utilize these, since many hate him, and many love him. As of right now (though I have a opinion on him) pretend I'm neutral, I want to see what other people think of him. Despite saying he saved the great depression, which, he didn't. Which I also want your genuine opinion on, me and my peeps say it was the World war which brought the economy back together.

 

Not that many hated him at the time. The people who hated him were the people he described in this speech:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9yoZHs6PsU

 

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

 

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred.

 

The reason people of today hate him, is that they're either ignorant of history, or they can't stand that their way of government has largely failed. Historians always rank him or Lincoln as the greatest president of all time, and as time will go on, FDR will probably have more titles to his name than Lincoln.

 

In any case, the New Deal was working to get us out of the Great Depression. It not only took a huge chunk out of the unemployment rates, but it gave people immediate relief. That's been perhaps the starkest contrast. All of Obama's reforms aren't tangible. No one can see the good they will do right now.

 

Look at unemployment:

 

saupload_us_unemployment_1890_2008.png

 

Look at the unemployment rate from the time he was elected until 1937. Now, what happened during 1937? FDR cut spending, and he balanced the budget. This sent the country back into recession because the private sector couldn't yet sustain full employment on its own.

 

Anyway, you argue that the World War brought the economy back together. FDR had to take over a lot of plants and force them to make weapons and such for the war, something Henry Ford was pissed about because he didn't think he'd ever get his factories back.

 

Now, what do you call it when the government spends massive amounts of money into the economy, effectively putting the debt to GDP ratio at well over 120%, in order to employ people and prepare for the war? I call it a massive public spending project called a stimulus. This, combined with the New Deal before 1937, shows that public spending on infrastructure is what's required to bring countries out of severe recession/depression.

 

It's basic Macroeconomics 101. The only school that protests this are the Austrians, and they're, well, bat[cabbage] crazy and don't rely on any actual data for their theories; they rely on praxeology

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how your favorite president was also the most xenophobic. Say all you want about isolated hate incidents with Muslims, FDR had every Japanese American rounded up and put in camps.

 

Luckily he died in office, otherwise he might've never gone away.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you're one of the rare people around here who do; Ginger_Warrior was the other, and Blue_Lancer. Well, contemporary speaking, anyway. Perhaps it's because I back up what I say with links, links, more links, and evidence, and they don't have anything to refute it? I don't know.

 

Speaking of which, I didn't respond to sees_all1, who says that a good chunk of Americans hate America simply because they're liberal.

 

@sees_all1:

 

Why in the hell would I attempt to make my own guess at the crowd size? Is this my area of expertise? No, it is not. My area of expertise is basic physics, advanced mathematics, economics and aerodynamics; and of course politics and history of US government, but that's a hobby of mine and part of my temporary career. Is this what you do for a living? Look at aerial views of crowds and make guesses as to how many are in the crowd? I very much doubt that it is. So why are you trusting what you perceive to be your own guess and Glenn Beck's words over the people who are the ones who do this for a living? Besides that, Tea Partiers have been known to lie about their crowd sizes. Y'know, the way Tea Party fans claimed 2 million people marched on Washington, D.C. in Sept. 2009, when in fact, according to fire department estimates, just 60-70,000 people marched:

 

Michele Malkin Claims Millions Marched

 

Or how how about Sarah Palin's Search Light, Nevada event back in March?

 

Newsbusters Claims Politico Says 20,000 People Showed Up While CNN Says It wasn't That High

 

Did Politico actually say this? Yes, they did, but it goes deeper than that. Turns out Politico didn't confirm the crowd size, it simply passed along the estimate provided by organizers.

 

What was the actual estimate? According to the the Las Vegas Sun and local police, closer to 8,000.

 

Not to mention when Jon Stewart caught Fox News of airing footage of Michelle "I'm competing in the craziest Congressperson awards" Bachman's rally, when what they actually aired was the rally from 9/12:

 

Jon Stewart Catches Fox Using 9/12 Footage To Make Tea Party Look Bigger

 

So please, spare me if I have the least bit of skepticism of Glenn Beck and other Tea Party estimates when independent estimates present a different story, and time and time again they've shown to be liars in order to present themselves as the mainstream rather than what they are: the fringe lunatics.

 

And yes, actually, these estimates do matter because Americans like to be winners. If they perceive this "movement" to be larger than it actually is, they will join it simply because they see it as the "winner" in the next election. This is why Malkin calls anyone who is a real moderate, someone like Barack Obama, as a radical far-left liberal. It moves the debate far to the right on her terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I mean I studied him for 3 months, I meant I want your opinion on how he was great. How did he utilize these, since many hate him, and many love him. As of right now (though I have a opinion on him) pretend I'm neutral, I want to see what other people think of him. Despite saying he saved the great depression, which, he didn't. Which I also want your genuine opinion on, me and my peeps say it was the World war which brought the economy back together.

 

Not that many hated him at the time. The people who hated him were the people he described in this speech:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9yoZHs6PsU

 

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

 

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred.

 

The reason people of today hate him, is that they're either ignorant of history, or they can't stand that their way of government has largely failed. Historians always rank him or Lincoln as the greatest president of all time, and as time will go on, FDR will probably have more titles to his name than Lincoln.

 

In any case, the New Deal was working to get us out of the Great Depression. It not only took a huge chunk out of the unemployment rates, but it gave people immediate relief. That's been perhaps the starkest contrast. All of Obama's reforms aren't tangible. No one can see the good they will do right now.

 

Look at unemployment:

 

saupload_us_unemployment_1890_2008.png

 

Look at the unemployment rate from the time he was elected until 1937. Now, what happened during 1937? FDR cut spending, and he balanced the budget. This sent the country back into recession because the private sector couldn't yet sustain full employment on its own.

 

Anyway, you argue that the World War brought the economy back together. FDR had to take over a lot of plants and force them to make weapons and such for the war, something Henry Ford was pissed about because he didn't think he'd ever get his factories back.

 

Now, what do you call it when the government spends massive amounts of money into the economy, effectively putting the debt to GDP ratio at well over 120%, in order to employ people and prepare for the war? I call it a massive public spending project called a stimulus. This, combined with the New Deal before 1937, shows that public spending on infrastructure is what's required to bring countries out of severe recession/depression.

 

It's basic Macroeconomics 101. The only school that protests this are the Austrians, and they're, well, bat[cabbage] crazy and don't rely on any actual data for their theories; they rely on praxeology

 

Ok. well the New Deal didn't make the biggest dent in the unemployment >.> . Anyways, I actually lied earlier. I wanted to see what you'd say if you thought I took the conservative approach on him. FDR is surprisingly one of the few (despite maybe Kennedy) presidents which despite my abundance of knowledge in their programs, I don't really have a clear opinion good or bad of him. Was hoping (legitmately) you could convince me. meh. And also it could be said that graph validates my opinion that WW2 helped solve unemployment more so than the great deal. And I'm aware he had to force factories to do that, but I'm not sure if you still agree with me or not on that matter.

 

 

Magekillr I love you

 

You would.

I have all the 99s, and have been playing since 2001. Comped 4/30/15 

My Araxxi Kills: 459::Araxxi Drops(KC):

Araxxi Hilts: 4x Eye (14/126/149/459), Web - (100) Fang (193)

Araxxi Legs Completed: 5 ---Top (69/206/234/292/361), Middle (163/176/278/343/395), Bottom (135/256/350/359/397)
Boss Pets: Supreme - 848 KC

If you play Xbox One - Add me! GT: Urtehnoes - Currently on a Destiny binge 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why in the hell would I attempt to make my own guess at the crowd size? Is this my area of expertise? No, it is not. My area of expertise is basic physics, advanced mathematics, economics and aerodynamics; and of course politics and history of US government, but that's a hobby of mine and part of my temporary career. Is this what you do for a living? Look at aerial views of crowds and make guesses as to how many are in the crowd? I very much doubt that it is. So why are you trusting what you perceive to be your own guess and Glenn Beck's words over the people who are the ones who do this for a living? Besides that, Tea Partiers have been known to lie about their crowd sizes.

You'd make your own guess, follow the mainstream number quoted in more places, or you'd keep quiet so you don't look like a fool.

 

The company CBS hired aren't experts at this. They're experts at attaching cameras to weather balloons. http://airphotoslive.com/

If you look at the services they promote on their website, you'll notice "crowd estimation" isn't even on there. In fact, the only reference to crowd size estimation is under "Press", but that's just praising the aerial photographs they took, not the estimations they did.

 

Not only did I provide you a reasonable number, I also provided you the method which I found that number. The only part I couldn't do on my own came from the first "Crowd estimation expert," and that was the crowd density. You can replicate and verify what I did, which is more than anyone can say about airphotoslive.

 

 

Do I actually think that 410k people showed up at the rally? No, but its a reasonable guess. It's also more likely to be on the same order of magnitude as the actual number than the hack that CBS posted.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. well the New Deal didn't make the biggest dent in the unemployment >.> .

 

Uh, did you look at the same graph? Unemployment before the New Deal was as high as 24%. In 1932 it was 23.6% to be exact. By 1936, it was down to 16.9%. 4 years, almost a 7% reduction in unemployment. That's a pretty damn big deal.

 

It then rose to 19% in 1937 because a lot of programs were ended in order to balance the budget, and taxes were raised.

 

And also it could be said that graph validates my opinion that WW2 helped solve unemployment more so than the great deal. And I'm aware he had to force factories to do that, but I'm not sure if you still agree with me or not on that matter.

 

Of course I agree: WWII is what brought the country out of Depression because it not only put people to work, but we could sell all of these arms to other countries and increase our exports. There was huge demand for the products we were making, so there was a huge incentive to hire as many people as possible.

 

However, WWII was nothing more than a giant public works project. Wars aren't free. The debt rose to 120% of our GDP at one point because of it. Which is to say that it doesn't have to be a war; it could have been the New Deal if it was amplified rather than cut.

 

To same, right now, we need to spend more money. The bond market is practically giving us free money to invest with, something like 2.50% right now. So it would make sense while there's high unemployment and cheap money to invest it into our infrastructure such as mass-transit and renewable energy.

 

To contrast, Ireland made savage cuts in spending in order to satiate the market. Well, compare what they did with Spain:

 

ireland10.PNG

 

spain10.PNG

 

The top is Ireland, the bottom is Spain. Spain hasn't embraced austerity to the degree of Ireland, yet Ireland is doing considerably worse in the bond market. Clearly, the bond market fears economic stagnation and deflation far more than runaway inflation.

 

Why Congress won't get this I'll never understand, but even if they did, the Republicans will do everything they can to stifle recovery, even if it means a double dip recession. They are all about getting into power. They have been bred to be an opposition party because FDR's popularity sent them to the wilderness for almost 5 decades. Conservative ideology grew over time. Its incubative period began in 1933, when a second consecutive landslide election brought Franklin Roosevelt to power. From 1933 to 1995, the Republicans controlled the House for four years (1947-48 and 1953-54) and the Senate for ten (1947-48, 1953-54, and 1981-1987). In the entire post-war era, the Republicans only controlled both houses of Congress twice, and each time they were thrown out at the first opportunity. Forty years elapsed (1955-1995) without the Republicans once controlling the House of Representatives. This is an absolutely crucial fact to know if you want to understand the modern Republican Party. Their childhood and adolescence were completed with almost no experience in actual governing in Congress. They were an almost uninterrupted opposition. This is why a conservative movement began to grow outside the Republican Party. Actual Republican elected officials still had to legislate and they often had a Republican president (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan) to work with. But because the Republicans never had control of the legislative product, their base came to see Congress as an enemy and their legislation as somehow illegitimate. This feeling was extended to the Supreme Court during the Earl Warren era. As a result, conservative ideology cannot easily adapt to actually being in power and having to fund the various agencies and programs of the government.

 

People keep asking the Republicans to offer a positive agenda and they keep promising to provide one, but they can't because modern conservatism does not know of any positive role for the federal government. The few Republicans who try to legislate are now being drummed out of the party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.