PDA

View Full Version : An amazing website:


Clint in Wichita
06-14-2001, 04:51 PM
http://www.carmical.net/

Well, maybe "amazing" isn't the right word...I had to hold my jaw to keep it from hitting the floor as I perused this site. No, not because of the enlightening information it contains, but because it was so ridiculous.

It really is hard to believe that there are people out there whose beliefs line up with this guy's.

Phobia
06-14-2001, 05:50 PM
Touche'

I visited the site briefly and didn't experience the astoundment you did. I guess you could say my views are aligned with his. Somehow, I don't think you will be too surprised and just posted this to generate some discussion.

Clint in Wichita
06-14-2001, 06:17 PM
I can understand having a view or two in common with those on the site, but to me it was waaaay over the top.

I'm sure there are just as many far-left sites with equally looney views.

HC_Chief
06-14-2001, 06:21 PM
Yep - try bartcop.com (chadsux.com)

A DPO resident troll likes to spam that board with sick leftist pictures consisting of W and swastikas.

BIG_DADDY
06-14-2001, 06:36 PM
HC,

Those are the worst sights I have ever seen.

nick
06-14-2001, 07:25 PM
Clint,

Hard to believe you think this sight is so bad?

Just curious as to why...

KCTitus
06-14-2001, 07:29 PM
I read this on the home page:

I am in no way implying that my thoughts are the last word on a subject. These files are merely the result of my study and come from a conservative background.

yeah, really 'over the top'. I'm waiting for Clint's version of a 'looney left wing' site where the views are over the top. Something tells me there wont be one.

Clint in Wichita
06-14-2001, 09:02 PM
I haven't bothered to look. I just stumbled onto this site by chance through an e-mail attachment.

I agree that there are more extreme conservative sites like Nazis, the KKK etc., but they strike me as so unintelligent that they're more like a joke to me.

MrBlond
06-15-2001, 07:28 AM
"On my website, I have tried to present arguments for the unpopular side of the debates. When deciding one's position on these crucial issues, it is important to consider the arguments of the less popular position as well."

"Keep an open mind, and I believe that you will see that the conservative arguments are more logically consistent than their liberal counterparts."

Jawdropping and ridiculous? Not to me.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark M
06-15-2001, 08:06 AM
While this site is not exactly the far left, it is the opposite of the incredibly right-wing messages on the camical site:

http://members.aol.com/nogodhere/index.html

This site is about as absurd as the one Clint posted.

And I do find the religous right jaw-dropping ridiculous ... as I do the liberal left. And the argument that the conservative arguments are more consistent and logical doesn't hold any water with me. Both sides make little sense, IMO.

MM
~~Likes to meet in the middle.

MrBlond
06-15-2001, 08:59 AM
http://www.carmical.net/factsolife.html

I read his "Facts of Life" piece and dont find it ridiculous or jaw dropping. He doesnt advocate burning at the stake or handling snakes, etc. It is pretty fundamental Christianity. Religous doesnt always equal extremist. I have not studied every story on this website, but the few I have don't seem offensive. You and I may disagree with his position, we may argue that his facts are really just popular opinions, but to dismiss his views out of hand as "absurd", "ridiculous" or "jawdropping" is a pretty closeminded stance. Isn't a basic foundation of liberalism acceptance and open-mindness? Or does that only apply to those in agreement with the liberal mantra? Also, IMO, just because you disagree with both sides doesnt make you open-minded.

Iron Chef
06-15-2001, 09:01 AM
Clint, How can you suggest that the Nazis, or the KKK are in any way ďconservativeĒ? I do consider myself conservative and do not hold any of the views or would group them with conservatives in any way. They are nothing but extremist whackos.

MrBlond
06-15-2001, 09:02 AM
Iron Chef,

Nazi's were all for gun control. sounds liberal to me.

htismaqe
06-15-2001, 09:12 AM
The confusion, Chef and Blond, comes from the fact that most people look at the political spectrum as a line, with the left being liberal and the right being conservative.

In actuality, it's a circle. The further left or right you get the closer you get to some sick ideal. I mean, look at the ultimate in conservatism or fascism - Nazi Germany. Nazi is actually short for National Socialist. Hitler was the polar opposite of Stalin, from the political point of view, but look at it realistically and you'll see that both of them were totalitarian butchers, taken pretty much from the same cloth.

My college degrees at work. I'm glad they're good for something. :D

Mark M
06-15-2001, 09:14 AM
MrBlond--
Also, IMO, just because you disagree with both sides doesnt make you open-minded.

I don't know if this was directed at me, but, if it was, I apologize for insinuating that. It is not what I meant. While I do believe that, once you've aligned yourself with one side or the other, there is the possibility that you (generic, not you in particular) have shut out the chance of seeing things without a conservatice/liberal bias, there are, of course, definite exceptions to that rule.

htis--
Very good point. But in many cases there are clear lines of demarcation between the two. Not all, but many.

MM
~~Misunderstood

MrBlond
06-15-2001, 09:21 AM
Mark M.,

My bad. I should have said "Just because a person..." I did not mean to imply you were close minded. My point was that even "Moderates" can be extremist in their views. Again, no disrespect intended.:)

Clint in Wichita
06-15-2001, 09:25 AM
Maybe this sight was so odd to me because I rarely converse with anyone who expresses views like those on the site. Since I'm in Wichita, I probably see them on a regular basis...they just keep their opinions to themselves.

KCTitus
06-15-2001, 09:25 AM
As non-committal as your last post was, Mark, it's hard to follow.

I dont agree that one would 'align' themselves with any particular orthodoxy. It's not like one would 'examine' both sides of political ideology and then pick one. To me it doesnt work that way. One HAS to have some core values or beliefs that one forms their political identity.

The real problem begins when one refuses to form any real beliefs or values...like situational ethics, where one moment you are for/against something due to a certain situation and then the next day be completely and diametrically opposed to that position in the very next situation. I dont understand how one could reconcile the conflict. You usually wind up playing word games or getting into the absurd.

Mark M
06-15-2001, 10:17 AM
Blond--
No problem, none taken! And I can be closed-minded on some things, although I like to think I'm not ... just ask my wife! :D

Titus--
I understand your point. And sorry for the confusion ... Iím at work and donít always have the time to fully explain myself (Iím typing this in Quark right now and will copy and post it, lest big-brother catch me). Let me clarify my personal thoughts on this:

I was raised in a household with a mother who was from a very conservative Irish-Catholic background, and a father from a more liberal non-denominational background (even though his family is Mormon). Very odd mix, to say the least. I was given a few core beliefs that align with both sides: 1.) personal responsibility for your actions (conservative); 2.) those that need help should get it (liberal); 3.) you should be able to make as much money as possible, and hold onto it (conservative); 4.) but if you make a lot of money you should also share it with those less fortunate (liberal); 5.) gun ownership is a good thing (conservative); 6.) but some gun controls (i.e. there is no need for automatic weapons in the hands of the general population) is also a good thing. I could go on but I think you get the point.

Thus, I donít find myself believing what either party believes, but, rather, somewhere in the middle. Some may see it as not believing in anything, but I beg to differ. What I canít understand are those that refuse to find a middle ground. There is something to be said for standing up for your convictions (I can respect that), but something can also be said, and not so positively, for being pig-headed (not saying you are or anyone else is, just saying).

You say people donít analyze both sides and then pick one. Which for the most part is true. But I ask: Why is that such a bad thing? Just blindly following a side because you were taught "That's the way it should and will be" seems silly to me. If that was the case then this country would never have been founded and weíd all be singing ďGod Save the QueenĒ instead of ďHail to the Chief.Ē One should always question what one believes in order to make sure itís the right choice. If one cannot reconcile some issues, then perhaps they need to re-analyze their beliefs. If one can reconcile the issues, then oneís beliefs are made that much stronger. I used to lean more to the left ... as I get older, I find myself more to the right.

And donít get me wrong here ... I donít think anyone is an idiot or gullible just because they say they are a Repub. or Demo. For me neither one applies.

As far as situational ethics go, I donít see the problem in some situations (howís that for confusing? ;) ). It happens all the time. There are those that say ďAbortion is wrong!Ē You bring up rape or incest and then itís okay ... thatís situational, isnít it? (Please, letís not start an abortion debate ... just using it as an example.)

MM
~~Explaining himself ... or at least trying to.

KCTitus
06-15-2001, 11:09 AM
Just blindly following a side because you were taught "That's the way it should and will be" seems silly to me. - Exactly!

Which is why Im constantly amazed at the quick out of hand dismissals of certain concepts as a result of the current cultural orthodoxy that most seem so willing to follow religiously.

A good example would be the 'entitlements' of Medicare/Social Security. I dont think anyone disagrees that when the boomer generation is in retirement that we as a society will not be able to afford either one of these. It's laughable (or jaw dropping) to suggest otherwise, yet there's vitriolic resistance to ANY changes in the programs or to entice people to get out of it all together. There is no discussion in society about it, rather any suggestions to scale back or reduce it are met with chicken little proclimations of starving old people and throwing them into the streets--pish posh!

I would love to see new ideas tried. We've done the 'throw money at the problem' and tax the people incessantly...let's try something else.

nick
06-15-2001, 11:59 AM
Mark,

All very good points, but if you examine them closely they are all
basic conservative Christian values similar to the websight
in question. It all boils down to IS THERE AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH?

Who laid it out and do you follow...

No middle.

Mark M
06-15-2001, 12:20 PM
nick--
I do not believe there is an "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" as you put it. It may be absolute in your opinion, but not mine.

And I don't have a problem with Christian ideals ... it's Christianity itself (too many things to list now ... perhaps on Sunday when I get back from the Lake ... if this thread is still going) and some Christians I have a problem with (not necessarily you, so please don't take that as an insult).

Titus--
I think Soc. Security is one thing we can definitely agree upon. Too many people use it as a primary source of income in their weaning years (i.e my grandmother) instead of saving properly and getting help from their families (which is a sad part of America: the way we cast off our ederly. Different topic though). Should it still be around? I used to think so, especially since I've given a whole lot to it. But anymore I'm not too sure. If it is kept, should we just set aside more $$ and hope that fixes the problem? Hell no. Something needs to be done, and "out-of-the-box" thinking will help it occur. Of course, our politicians (Repub and Demo) aren't known for their creative thinking skills. :(

Hate to post and run, but gotta go before I get busted by the man.

MM
~~Needs a new job ... without internet monitoring software.

Lightning Rod
06-15-2001, 01:09 PM
We have a tendency to read things and filter them through our own biased belief system. When someone says something that agrees with us we tend to believe it. Conservatives on the BB imagine a for a moment that I say that, I know for a Fact that Bill Clinton is under investigation for taking bribes from Sadam to lift the sanctions. Liberal leaners imagine, I say 'I know for a fact" that Dubya accepted illegal campaign contributions from Exxon. Those that look down on these men would most likely accept a week a$$ explanation that I can't reveal my sources. Back to the subject at hand. I think this site clear points out that one can take a part of the Bible and twist it to mean anything you want. I found the "no there aren't mistakes" in it part very hard to swallow. I am not religious and find exact literal interpretation of the Bible, IMHO somewhat silly. Many parts of the Bible are parables, told to make a point. It is the moral of the story that is important, not if it actually happened. I see the Bible as a philosophy of how one should live their life. A good one at that. I plan (time permitting) to read the other major religious books such as the Koran. The only time I am offended by a persons religion is when they attempt to transfer their religious beliefs into Law. There are many things I find immoral and just plain wrong. This does not necessarily mean I think the Government should make that activity illegal.

Clint in Wichita
06-15-2001, 01:44 PM
The elderly should be able to live off social security in their "golden years" if they choose to.

Jesus, give these people a break. For the most part, they've worked for 40 or 50 years paying taxes the whole time, fought in wars, gave birth to and raised either you or your parents, who are more likely to stick them in a nursing home than actually help them.

If 800 bucks a month helps these people to get by, I say fine. They are one of few segments of the population that not only deserve to live off tax dollars, but should be ENTITLED to do so.

S.S. should be voluntary, but it should be there for EVERY senior citizen that wants it.

If the elderly aren't worthy of tax dollars, nothing is.

Iowanian
06-15-2001, 01:48 PM
i agree with Clint :eek:

The "greatest generation" the people who brought in the Industrial revolution, won WWII, put a man on the moon and invented Tang and popsickls should be able to eat and not freeze to death....

~just don't like paying the rent for lazy @ssholes who could lift twice as much as I can but are unmotivated.....

MrBlond
06-15-2001, 02:07 PM
I havent seen anyone advocating doing away with social security. Clints response is typical of liberals when the issue of CHANGING social security is raised..."YOU WANT TO KICK OLD PEOPLE OUT!!!" "YOU WANT TO TAKE FOOD OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF THE ELDERLY!!!" Social Security is not a sacred cow, and IMO fundamental change in the way it is funded, administered, and distributed is needed and inevitable. Who wants to take anything away from the elderly? That is a veiled scare tactic.

Lightning Rod
06-15-2001, 02:08 PM
So so Security
This is where my conservative and liberal side collide. While I think it is your own responsibility to prepare for retirement it I find it obscene with the amount of Taxes we pay they anyone should not be taken care of. I will happily let the GOV keep every penny that I have paid so far If I can decide where to invest My SS from now on.

KCTitus
06-15-2001, 02:09 PM
What part of Baby Boomer generation do you not understand, Clint?

The fact that you feel they are entitled to it speaks volumes and is itself 'jaw dropping' and astounding. BTW, current retirees will receive every dime they paid in PLUS INTEREST in 4 years, yet will draw it an average 20 years. Second, SS is not a savings plan. Current dollars are taken from you and I to pay current retirees, no money is 'set aside' in an account for you.

How can SS be voluntary and the 'given' to whomever wants it.

When the Boomer generation is fully retired, the current geezers will be worm food.

Mr. Blond: see post #19...I called it.

ptlyon
06-15-2001, 02:10 PM
But has anyone ever given a thought of what we personally may have when we retire if we were allowed to take all the money that we have put into SS (and in the future) and invest it ourselves? WOW.

Lightning Rod
06-15-2001, 02:13 PM
Ptlyon

I think about it every time I look at my pay stub.

Iowanian
06-15-2001, 02:17 PM
I fully intend to take personal responsibility and plan for my own retirement without counting on SS...I don't think it will be there when I retire and agree it does need some reform.

I'm willing to sacrifice a little if it means my folks will be able to sleep easier at night....even if it means they get my cut.

~besides, I'm winning the lottery soon.

KCTitus
06-15-2001, 02:35 PM
Iowanian: Obviously any reasonable reform would continue to pay bennies to existing retirees. No one in their right mind would dream of anything that would affect them.

Real reform would be letting qualifying people out of the system. I'll gladly take the 15% that is currently paid by me and my employer and be wholly responsible for funding my retirement. Also raising the current retirement age and the payroll taxes that do want to continue in the system.

Clint in Wichita
06-15-2001, 03:43 PM
Titus,

What I meant by "voluntary" was that paying in should be voluntary, but if you don't pay in you collect nothing.