And FUCK this video, trying to fucking scare me. Fuck the guy that made this shit. I would fucking beat his panty wearing, ganja smoking, prostitute paying face in. Fuck his mother. And fuck his mothers mother. And fuck his prostitute!
I agree we should not give up freedom for security. But is it giving up a freedom to be scanned in the airport, have your phone tapped, or be on camera?
I can still fly, talk dirty over the phone, or go anywhere I want. If I'm not doing anything illegal, there is no problem. If I am doing anything illegal, do I have a right to privacy to do these illegal things? Is there any impingement of my freedom? Is there a right to privacy anywhere in the constitution or bill of rights? Here are a couple interesting sites on this:
So I'm not sure I care if some law enforcement agency collects bio data, watches me, or listens to me, so long as they still need a charge to arrest me, or a warrant for surveilance. I don't believe cameras have stood up as probable cause to arrest anyone, without a warrant. And I'm pretty sure no one has been arrested ordering weed over the phone, without a warrant to tap. Not like your local policeman has time to listen to every phone conversation in town.
I'm sure this video was designed to get everyone stirred up against the Patriot Act, but I'm not sure there is a problem with law enforcement screening international phone calls only for very specific terrorist activity. And it can't be people listening to every phone call, its got to be some automated word recognition software, just due to the volume of phone calls. So if I describe your momma naked, I'm not real worried about Barney Fife blushing 2000 miles away.
So I have mixed feelings about this surveilance. It may very well be one step closer to big brother. I'd be against government just spying on everyone for the hell of it, or using this precedent to further degrade your privacy.
Its one of these issues where you have to trust the good intentions of your government not to abuse it, well that's not something I'm very good at. Yet the very liberals who so willingly trust their government to do the right thing collecting more of their taxes, controlling the economy, and soon controlling their health care, are the most distrustful of government when it comes to trusting them on right to privacy. So you either trust government or you don't. I've always said people are foolish to implicitly trust government on anything, so maybe the patriot act is the same way, but then I'm not worried about being arrested as a terrorist. Some things you just have to trust others on.
So I'm glad we have so many Americans vigilant over our civil rights and right to privacy, but why aren't these people concerned about our right to economic freedom?
HD- sounds like you voted for Stewart Smalley.
The advent of technology to quietly watch us has come at the same time when that same technology somewhat polices itself, at least socially.
The internet has become a public forum that, while imperfect, keeps many of the abusers out in the open, in the public forum of debate.
I am not really worried about the surveillance as an abuse of a nebulous right to my privacy. (Ask Blago...poor fella never even got to commit his crime. Those eaves-droppers didn't even give him a chance. Wait...that might have been the point. But,I digress.) Should the knowledge attained be used without warrant...well, that's why I keep a loaded gun.
The gubment has no intentions, any more than a computer. Their capabilities grow first at our own hands, then we ask later if we should go in that direction. After the fact. That is what makes bureaucracy so insidious...or is that, Darth Sidious?
On a related note: When will the Annointed One stop the Bush phone tapping policy? (BTW- that practice is what lead to the capture of the shooters in the Mumbai hotel. Cooperative sharing of info between Pakistani and Indian lawr enforcement types.) Probably the same time the doors close at Gitmo. Or, when he nominates a non-tax evader for a cabinte post. Or, when he cuts taxes. Or, when he ends global warming. Or, when he harnesses the sun and wind.
No I most certainly did not vote for Franken! LOL. And I haven't been to Lake City in many years, but I have been there. I don't usually get any further than Redwing. It is a great motorcycle ride though, from Hastings, down to Lake City, across to WI, and back. All curvy, hilly rides along the river bluffs.
I have little kids at home, so my loaded gun needs a trigger lock, which almost defeats the value of keeping it loaded.
I want economic freedom for many reasons. One, I want my chance to be a greedy SOB. But more so, the rich do provide the investment and jobs for us little people. I don't want the government socialist utopia trying to control the economy. I've seen what that gets you.
C-
No, it is not because of greedy Wall Street types, solely.
Please include the other players. Among them: Fed Gubment encouraging the type of home ownership loans that have now bankrupt the financial industry and banking industry.
I believe GWB et al. brought that up a few times.
HD
How fast can you unharness that smokewagon?
I will be in Lake City in August...for about a week. I am marrying a Minnesota girl and we will be doing a reception there.
If "unharness that smokewagon" means getting my gun armed, well its a 4 digit combo lock, so at least I don't have to look for a key. In the light, probably 10 seconds. In the dark, maybe longer.
If I wake up and the bad guy is already in my face, I'm in trouble. But luckily between 3 kids, one of them wakes me up every hour. :-{
I'm thinking I should slide my SKS under the bed, it would be better for home security anyway, and I can load a stripper clip damn fast. But I worry about the kids playing with it and figuring it out. Guns are far more likely to shoot your kids than a bad guy.
Plus I might not want a gun too accessible to my wife! =D
So tell us about the blushing bride to be... the future Mrs. Streamo...
Does she know about your Glumbert addiction?
HD
The wedding is actually in FLA. Much of her fambly can't get down there (Oh no, he says sarcastically.) When I'm in Lake City, I'll get you a beer...or three.
My future wife, whom I have begun oppressing as she is my inferior, knows of extramarital Gumberting. It may get reined in. Doubtful, since I am spotty and inconsitent as it is now.
I imagine keeping the firearms away from the kids is a chore. My folks taught me about guns when I was kid and I stayed clear of dad's stuff lest I develop a previously unseen knot on my head.
Yep. But remember, her solution to the economic crisis was less babies, ostensibly through abortion.
Let me get this straight, when the nation needs more money, her solution is less producers. I guess that is how the Left sees people: drains on society. And, as long as they can keep people in a position of cost...you know th rest.
Imagine if GWB had gone up to a door and pulled on it to open it and it...hehe...wouldn't open because he went to the wrong door. HAHA that would be proof he is a doofus.
Wait, that did happen. And the din of noise as to his dimwittedness was so loud you couldn't hear a Canuck fart. So, when BHO does something very near that, at the White House...why the cacophony of laughter and jokes that ensued must have been epic. Or not.
But it sure is nice to see you zealots like yourself pounce on this, when you say NOTHING of all the 8 years-worth of stupid things that have come out of Georgie-Boys' illiterate sewer gate.
Both of you should be thoroughly ashamed and embarrassed, that that backwoods hayseed (from Conneticut, no less) was representing you on the world stage.
It's that simple.
Because if you're not....well, then....you're still asleep.
I never said Bush didn't say stupid things. How many times have I said he's a horseshit public speaker? Maybe Nancy spent too much time learning from Bush? I am not in the proper rush to pass the stimulus bill that Nancy desired. More fucking unneeded and unhelpful government waste, assuming you can't just call it outright wealth redistribution, since so many non-tax-payers will receive government checks.
Oh I'm sorry, I should clarify... When I said non-tax-payers, I meant the poor, not well-off democrats.
Backwoods Hayseed from Conneticut, who the hell are you talking about?
C-
It was your side (by your side, i mean the GWB haters)that routinely used the "cowboy" moniker for GWB.
I see that now you would prefer his origin be the northeast.
By the way, C-
Who needs zealots like us jumping in the things said by GWB. We had an entire mass media and entertainment industry dedicated to that task. Now, we desperately need us pointing out this lunacy.
Now that is funny. Everyone in New England knew that Bush and his family were from here, and that the Texan thing was just political hogwash for the southerners.
The media very rarely mentioned that fact for over 10 years, and not at all during his campaigns.
The Bush family also has a lavish palace on the coast of Maine where George and his siblings lassoed wild steers, rode the range, and wildcatted fer oil on lazy afternoons.
Weel Stream-O, you might actually have a heart-attack if I told you that "my side" used that "cowboy" label with Georgie-Boy as a PUT-DOWN, intended to highlight his FOOLISHNESS at pretending to be something he's NOT, i.e., an honest-to-goodness, shitkicker-wearing, tobacco-chewing, Alamo-rememberin' good ol' boy from Texas........instead of a dumb, illiterate, C-average, Yale-cheerleader-type who was constantly bailed out by Poppy (whether it be from 'Nam, jail, or whatever...Poppy was always there).
So...good to see some irony CAN be lost on you.
Plus...lookit at what Pods said up there....and smarten up.
C-
Right...ironic terminology. You had better go back and read your own posts calling him the same things you claim now were used in irony.
C'mon Pods...you know the point I was making, even if C- doesn't. Everyone knew and knows the Bush family are nor'easterners at heart and birth. It was the Bush haters who used the cowboy epithets when it was convenient, not his supporters.
stream - I disagree. To my observation Bush did everything he could to promote the Texas cowboy image during the first campaign, and continued it on to the next. At some point I think Bush himself actually began to believe his own media messages.
It was done and promoted to make many think he was a Texas rancher, and willingly believed by those who wanted to believe that he was from Texas. LBJ did the very same thing during his campaign.
Pods
You and I don't disagree on your last point. Bush and his family may have desired that image for a long time. Who knows. It would seem logical as they are politicians and all politicians try to carve an image they believe is sellable...like Barack Obama being black and appealing to America's black population as if he could appreciate the struggle. Same thing.
The point I have made twice now, is that his detractors have called him a cowboy, loner, go-it-alone maverick, etc...including C-...as an epithet. Such is politics.
Stream, Let's not kid ourselfs George bush was not the sharpest pencil.
As for surveillance, not having seen all the video as it's taking forever to load. I half agree with HD, if you're not doing anything illegal, does it matter, maybe not. However, is there a physchological effect from all this big brother monitoring?
This is the great part, a camera pointing at you doesn't even have to be switched on for you to feel as if you're being watched, that's the strength of surveillance, the idea of it, is enough to surpress society.
The question is, does the advantages out weight the negative socialogical effect?
Privacy is freedom, but when enough fearful cowards are willing give their freedom away in exchange for the delusion of security supplied by the state, then everyone's freedom is in jeopardy.
Personal freedom is not determined by government actions, but by the percentage of individuals in a society with the individual courage to fight for liberty, in opposition to those groups bound by fear in service to, religion, politics, or patriotism, who by nature and conditioning are willing to wear any yoke of oppression, that presents the illusion of enhanced 'social' security.
"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live%u2014did live, from habit that became instinct%u2014in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized." - George Orwell
"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself%u2014anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face%u2026 was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime%u2026" - George Orwell
canuck is an unreconstructed canadian masturbator. he has a brain the size of an ant's and the cognitive powers of a portuguese man of war. he has rabies, syphillis, gonorrhea, cerebral palsy, alzheimer's, body odour, cushing's syndrome, hepatitis B,C and D, aids, chronic diarrhoea, downs syndrome and suffers from morbid obesity.
these are his good points. but he is a democrat.
A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in
the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed
one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and
stretching as if his back hurt.
The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student
told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while
fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow
his country's government and install a new communist government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a
strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The
young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a
suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs
find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are
used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place
where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they
begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.
They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you
have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The
pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to
eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and
around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to
eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten
how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their
captivity.
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees
happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism
and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as
supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies,
dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine,
drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at
a time.
One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than
you can do it yourself.
Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam
the gate on America .
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough
to take away everything you have"
Canuck, in your own way, you are vigilent about government too, but you worry about a different threat. You're more concerned about government perceived threats of getting us into unnecessary wars, spying on us, and ruining America's image overseas. (the fences, even literally on the border with Mexico) These are worthy things to be vigilant on. But myself and others don't share your concern, we see these things in a different light as necessary. We see the fences as a way to keep America safe.
Myself, and others put the priority more at controlling government growth, government spending, fighting increased taxation, and stopping more and more unnecessary benefits (the corn). You don't share our concern, and you see these things in a different light as necessary. You see the corn as a way to provide for the common welfare of all Americans.
Both sides being vigilant of government, out of concern, out of fear, out of compassion? But believe it or not, both sides actually need each other to keep the country balanced. Either extreme could bankrupt the nation, too many wars or too much government welfare. Either extreme could push this nation to a point it will never recover from. Hopefully with your side fighting the fences, and our side fighting the corn, American pigs will forever run wild, as our forefathers dreamed. But I fear the fences are half-built, and the corn diet tasting better and better.
Stream; I loved the wild pig analogy , however this could be deemed the same for all political idealogies. It's just the choice of farmer that we disagree on.
Actually, while you've raised a valid point about the necessity of there needing to be a balance of viewpoints re: vigilance about government, I can tell you (speaking for only myself) that I was NEVER as vocal before with other Presidents (Bush Sr., Reagan, Clinton, Carter, Ford....hell, even Nixon!) as I have been, with the most recent one.
This guy (in particular) just didn't belong there at all, by ANY stretch of the imagination. I keep it all simple, and just follow Trumans philosophy: The Buck Stops Here (one of the top five greatest Presidents, IMHO).
C-
Where have ou been, besides not reading my posts?! I have been railing GWB for years about his grotesque expansion of the Fed Gubmnet. I just happen to support a few things he has done, among them: the war and tax cuts. I feel very vindicated on both accounts. By and large, he has dissapointed me as he has not governed conservatively. (The analogy in the wild pigs story is not starkly appropriate to GWB, in my opinion, but many lines were greyed by him and his admin.)
Further, the analogy (for you socialists out there) is a basic one: whence comes your needs? Who provides them? The pigs, proir to the fence, provided their own needs. Doesn't take much to make them wards to their captors and then, the captors take control... stealing generations of responsibility and self-worth. (New Orleans, anyone?)
This bailout is a great illustration of another fence line going up. BHO et al. believe that gubment spending stimulates the economy better than the citizens, who created that money in the first place. This argument has to be debunked and those who further it thrown out of office.
Privacy is certainly not freedom, nor has it ever been. That is anarchy. The strictures on society, both morally and legally, assume a higher standard than privacy. No such right exists. The argument, as it should be acknowledged, is where do you draw the line? That line has historically been drawn, as HD suggests, with procedural language. In other words, it is not so much that something is known but what is done with that knowledge by people in authoritarian positions. Laws governing private property and its use apply here as well. My privacy has not been at risk lo these last 8 years. It is left to be seen if that remains the case.
C-...if BHO is trying to clean up GWB's messes with regard to that illegal surveillance you kept harping on, he sure is doing a fine job.
"I just happen to support a few things he has done, among them: the war and tax cuts. I feel very vindicated on both accounts."
Well, when a zealot like yourself feels "vindicated" because the idiot that is now the ex-Prez cranked up TWO 'wars' and never RAISED taxes to PAY FOR THEM, thus greatly helping (along with other lousy economic factors) to leave the entire nation where it is now (i.e. BROKE, BANKRUPT, a dollar that's teetering on the brink of collapse, rampant job-losses, etc.).
I love folks like YOU, Stream-O. I really do.
It must be nice to live in that perpetual, Leave-It-Beaver, 1950's fantasy world.
C-
If the government, fed and state, needs more tax dollars...they get it by lowering taxes, not raising them.
I know that news is not good for the socialists but it is true nonetheless.
Please explain again how the military budget has contributed to the recession? I thought military build ups and spending were associated with jobs, etc.
WAIT, WHAT?
I thought it was the New Deal. I had better go back and read my history. Everone keeps telling me that FDR and gubment spending got us out of the capitalist-caused depression.
That is correct (much to the chagrin of zealots like yourself).
And considering that right now, the U.S. has essentially adopted/become a socialist system (in every sense of the word----except for universal health----but give it time) especially during a recession, this make government take-overs/spending even more crucial.
Try to taking Economics 101 and figure that out, Stream-O.
So, C-
FDR "helped" with gubment spending or hindered?
Given your previous responses and your lunacy regarding universal health care, Econ 101 should be on your agenda. I suggest Thomas Sowell, "Basic Economics".
I have read it and you will understand...but, will remain furious until the end.
Look, many years back, I did a mind-busting thesis on FDR's New Deal. I passed it, with a mark of 91 per cent.
Instead of spiralling off into long, circular debate with you....I'll be happy to sum it up in briefly and thusly:
Conservatives (and a few liberals) opposed it; a majority of of those to the left of the political spectrum supported it. When viewed today, the same sides still hold the same views. No change. So, I'll toss a simple relative comparison at you:
The Great Depression was ushered in by the incompetent policies of Hoover (a Republican) ......and the the resulting mess had to be cleaned up by FDR (a Democrat)----one way or another; the current horrendous recession was ushered in by the incompetent Georgie-Boy (a Republican).....and the resulting mess must now be cleaned up by President Obama (a Democrat)----one way or another.
Those are the facts, no matter how badly you want to give Georgie-Boy (or Hoover, for that matter) a free pass. The buck STARTED with THEM.....and now it's gonna END with Obama.
Thank you for chickening out.
How about a little credit to GWB, huh?
Had to clean up the Bill Clinton recession, (Hey-wasn't really Clinton's fault...tech bubble- POP!) and then 9/11.
But, again. I am attempting to get some ideas and ideals from you.
Not to be done.
FDR worsened and prolonged the depression. Not helped it.
That is economic fact.
We are about to do the very same thing.
There was a Great Depression in 1929----Hoovers watch; there was a recession in 1957----Eisenhowers' watch; there was a recession in 1973----Nixons watch; there was a recession from 1980-1982---Reagans watch; there was a recession from 1990-1991----George Sr.'s watch; there was a recession from 2001-2003----Georgie-Boys' watch; the current rescession running from 2007 to the present----Georgie-Boys' watch AGAIN. Seems a depression/recession always hits with a Republican President on duty. ALWAYS. Kinda sad, those "conservative ideals", huh Stream-O? And you're somehow inserting "Clinton" in all of this? You mean the guy that presided over the healthiest U.S. financial surplus in its history? The guy who put 100,000 more cops on American streets? The who came at least the CLOSEST to actually catching/killing Bin Laden (the family of whom were Daddy Georgies' business partners)? The guy who improved maternity leave for women and improved vacation rights for the average working stiffs? You mean the guy that gets MOBBED to this DAY by adoring fans wherever he goes? You mean THAT guy???
Please Please Please....THINK!
Recessions are natural occurrences in any economic system that requires the exchange of currency for goods and services. The larger the system, the longer it takes for a recession to occur.
For you to attribute the recessions to one party is juvenile and proves beyond a shadow of adoubt that you cannot think.
I mean really. Use your head and quit being a shill. I don't evenknow where to begin. You simply tried to attribute, by association, those recessions to the party of the men who were there when they occurred. I suppose you mean to implicate them as being the cause of the recessions.
Show me.
Aside from giving the president way too much credit for what occurs in the economy, you still avoided my simple question above.
(The Reagan recovery from what happened in the mid-late 70's was one of the biggest ever...BY REDUCING TAXES. What did he do in '81 and 82 that caused the recession again?)
The average recession will last 5-11 months, if left alone. FDR's New Deal prolonged the recovery by maybe 10 years. (At the 7 year mark, unemployment was still 15%. You must be proud.)
Your love affair with Bill Clinton is disgusting.
Your examples simply...aren't.
The cops number you cited is a joke. No, honey, those cops didn't get on the streets. But, it is cute that you believe that.
Bin Laden...are you joking?! Openly turned down an opportunity to take bin Laden when offered him on a silver platter by Sudan. (Hey, he admitted it at a lecture and (gasp) it was caught on tape.)
I see you still hold popularity as a standard for what is good and/or right.
1. "The average recession will last 5-11 months, if left alone." LEFT ALONE??? I'm sure that's great comfort to the 2.9 million that have lost their livelihoods thus far (and counting). Brilliant idea, Stream-O. Sterling, that is.
You're insane.
2. "What did he do in '81 and 82 that caused the recession again?"
I already answered that. Don't you READ??? Not gonna repeat myself again. Your homework is to go back and READ. I know you can do it.
3. "No, honey, those cops didn't get on the streets"
I know, I know....the "liar-liar-pants-on-fire" retort again.....*yawn*
4. Then I guess is there really is NO pattern there, huh? Personally, after THAT track record, I think the Republican Party itself should be rendered illegal and outlawed.
5. Bottom line of ANY recession?: They occur always occur on a Republi-goons watch.
So what would you call the rampant unemployment and inflation on Jimmy Carter's infamous watch? Sound economic leadership?
I personally do not believe in the idea of government spending your way out of a recession. And Canuck, you shouldn't either if you truly opposed the bailouts. When I'm in debt, I cut back spending, I don't max out my credit cards. I don't pass my debt on to my children and grandchildren.
Yes, Obama will be in charge when we get out of this recession, whether he does nothing, or leads a bunch of wasteful government spending to get us all further into the hole. Either way, the recession has to end sometime.
C-
Streamy here, serving up your butt on the silver platter that was originally reserved for bin Laden.
1. Yes, leave the recession alone. No constitutional authority or mandate to interject into the economic ups and downs. Further, whenever the feds spend our money it must pass through the bureacracy. Also, the 5-11 months is a pitance compared to the possible years it takes to slowly crawl out from under our own weight.
So, you are against the bailot...but, not principly.
Did you listen to BHO tonight? Many of his answers are GWBs. Odd. I thought we voted for change. Oh, and that remark about the success in Iraq and their recent elections. Must've frosted you. (BTW- 37% of Americans oppose the current bailout. Principly.)
2. Uh...no you didn't. Or, I would have shown you to be in err, again. HD busted your silliness wide open with just a line about the Carter years. Those were grand times. We should all want that again. (We might just get it.)
3. Easily documentable. All over the place. The jobs never got created, let alone filled. Those that did were largely desk jobs. (Another easily found point.) Not many new cops on the street because of Slick Willy.
4. There is a pattern to recessions and their staying ability. A. They are natural in economic systems using currency. B. They are exacerbated by federal intrusion either before or during their time. Pretty simple. Who is in power is only important to the small minded.
5. When proven wrong, one should not tout their previously disproven notions.
HD-
You may not spend your kids money to pay your debts, but the American liberal has no problem with it, either practically or principly. This includes the current crop of Republicans.
Canuck, Honestly I'm not sure which rather good question I've asked you, that you're now ready to answer. I've asked you so many, that have gone unanswered...
Directly above, I asked you if you thought Carter was a fine democrat financial leader?
I've asked you before if you initially supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which you answered yes. I then asked you if you initially supported (and maybe even voted for) Bush?
Since Obama supports the war in Afghanistan (and apparantly agrees that Iraq is on the road to victory), I've asked you who is wrong, you or Obama?
I also asked you if you support this "stimulus package"? This is nothing more than Bush's bail-out on steroids, which you did not support. Do you now support it just because Obama is requesting it? Do you truly feel that 4 billion dollars to ACORN is sound economic stimulation?
This is what happens when inexperience and campaign promises meet the frying pan of reality.
I hope the campaign promises take a back seat to clear headed judgments.
Bigots have never had trouble hangin' folks.
The Spending plan...biggest in history, dwarfing anything the NeoCon Bush and his Democratically contolled Congress could belch forth.
Soooooo...how about that Stimulus package, huh? Makes one proud to be a Dem.
I noticed the House Republicans, nary a solu, voted for this monumental load of pelosi. No authorship...no votes.
Let's see if the truly conservative can hold the fort.
Doubtful, though.
Olympia, Specter...
I see the "Change" Obama referred was the leftovers from his drunken Dem spending.
Plus, you've got some mythical image of what "truly conservative" is. Reagan increased spending while cutting taxes; Georgie-Boy increased spending while cutting taxes... just exactly who IS your ideal here? I mean....come on...seriously.....you can't be THAT out of it.....can you?
So if was an Employer, and I had an Employee sitting in front of me in my office...and I said to him/her: "Look, you've been working for me for such-and-such number of years and you've been unproductive and and irresponsible in your duties. Sorry, but you better clear out your office. Here's your pink-slip. Good day".......well, by YOUR reckoning, that Employee is quite right to call me a "bigot"....right?
C-
Conservatism is not a person.
I know you need to hate someone when disagreeing with them, but goodness...
And another thing...I have been promoting ideals. Human beings are flawed, deeply. So, since you cannot read and refuse to stick to the argument at hand:
I am not a Republican.
The ideals that I support have, until recently, been largely on the Republican side of the aisle. Smaller gubment, low taxation rates, strong military, lion's share of responsibilities on the states, no federal entitlements, market place unencumbered by federal encroachment.
The are conservative notions carried for the last 150 years by the Republicans, by and large. Carried imperfectly.
C-
When you can depersonalize this and not hate those with whom you disagree, the debates will rise a great deal.
Hey Stream-O! Here's a perfect representation of YOU and YOUR buddies' approach to the current economic crisis (you know....the one where you and folks LIKE you say no one should "do" anything):
I'm afraid there are entirely too many people in this country that may require some hunger to motivate them. Each citizen must do his best to be self sufficient, and help support those that can't support themselves. When entirely too many able-bodied citizens are content to sit on their asses, collecting government welfare, living in government housing, and eating with government food stamps, then our entire system of government collapses. People with nothing understandably vote for more and more government handouts, at the expense of taxpayers. If this cycle is not broken, these people with nothing not given a hand up (and sometimes a swift kick in the ass) but rather a hand out, only increases our slide into socialism until it cannot be stopped.
Socialism is not utopia, as you might believe. Socialism is economic stagnation, sapping of your economic freedom, and government telling you how to spend your money. It does not lead to everyone working at their full potential, it leads to everyone working at their lowest potential.
There goes that "Look-Out-For-Number-One" mentality that some folks seem to think exemplifies "America". By that line-of-thinking....some folks should have said on 9/11, "Oh well. They're just New Yorkers. Let them fend for themselves." But instead, it took THAT, for eveyone to come together and say "We are all Americans, by golly and we gotta stick together and I AM my brothers keeper!!".....and they were suddenly one big, tight family. But during an economic blight? Nope. YOU say it's "Look out for Numero Uno". Okay. Whatever you say. Just try to stay the course on a specific track, will ya?
"Socialism is not utopia, as you might believe. Socialism is economic stagnation, sapping of your economic freedom, and government telling you how to spend your money. It does not lead to everyone working at their full potential, it leads to everyone working at their lowest potential."
And you know this....how? 'Cause I'll tell ya: it works jes' fine fer moi. Always has. Always will. And I'll wager you at any time, that this 'system' I live in will allow this nation, as a whole, to at least weather the muck a little better than the situation YOUR ex-President caused YOU under THAT system. It ain't gonna be pretty; nope. It won't even be easy. But we'll we'll be a little more secure than some folks down south.
Not a criticism.
Just a fact.
Plus, after a lifetime of living up here, I'll tell you right now: MY lifestyle lacks in NO WAY the lifestayle YOU may/may not have, or be accustomed to. Evere think about that?
"Socialism"?
It works for me.
Simple as pie (apple, that is; another fine, fine Canadian invention).
P.S. I even gots me a T-shirt. It says on the front "What is the definition of a Canadian?" On the back, it says "An unarmed American with health care--heh-heh-heh."
Its not about "look out for number one", its about everyone pulling their own weight. Socialism does not inspire everyone to work to their full potential, it inspires people only to work to some lowly standard. Now if that's all you're willing to work, and all you're capable of, then you're probably happy with socialism. Why should those rich people get all the money, just because they have good ideas and work 80 hours a week?
If socialism were truly only a safety net for the physically disabled and temporarily unemployed, than it might be defendable. But we already have that with unemployment, welfare, and social security. Why do we need more?
Socialism is also a net holding down the highest achievers from reaching their full economic potential.
As for your T-shirt, I'm already "an armed American with health care", which sounds better to me.
Actually, I DO believe that the QUALITY of American health care is par excellent. Our quality is pretty good, too----not perfect, not at all. But pretty good. BUT......it's the ACCESSABILITY for a lot of folks down there (or the lack of it), that I think is a shame.
Is your health care paid for at the province level, or "federal" level? What are your "federal" and province tax rates? And could the difference in tax rates pay for medical care with some to spare?
I suspect health care quality would drop without competition and customer ability to sue or not pay, in other words, no more customer accountability.
I'd be more inclined to believe the government beaurocratic imcompetance would make health care far more expensive than needed, or you would suffer a resulting drop in quality of care, quality of medical equipment, and quality of doctors.
But maybe I'll just let you know in a few years. :-(
1. The money that the federal government collects at their level by way of taxes, is apportioned to each province to (called "transfer payments") to administer services. The province then uses that money towards those services. Some services remain exclusively federal (i.e. defence, immigration, foreign affairs, domestic security, old age pension, unemployment insurance benefits, to name a few). Provinces have a great deal of power relative to the federal government, with jurisdiction over many public goods such as healthcare, education, welfare, and intra-provincial transportation. They receive "transfer payments" from the federal government to pay for these, as well as exacting their own taxes. In practice, however, the federal government can use these "transfer payments" to influence these provincial areas. For instance in order to receive health care funding under medicare, provinces must agree to meet certain federal requirments, such as universal access to required medical treatment. If they don't make sure EVEYONE gets it.....they get no money from the Feds (which has never happened, at least that I know of).
2. Taxation rates are actually relative to our American counterparts----roughly thirty per cent. But it's all a give-and-take. Some things WE are not taxed on, but YOU are (eg. lottery winnings comes to mind). And vice-versa. You have a state sales tax...we have a provincial sales tax. And yes, there CAN be money left over, as you say. Prior to this economic mess, Canada has had billions of dollars worth of federal budget surpluses for the past 10 years or so, year-over-year (that's even with a health care system to support, AND a 'war' to boot). However, because we have the largest oil/natural gas deposits in the world (outside of Saudi Arabia), it's probably this, that will help us weather this economic storm.
3. As I've said, I think we have a pretty good health care system up here---not 'perfect'----but pretty good. And yes, there those odd times where some governmental beaurocracy does damage it....BUT....to say that this is a wholesale problem and so widespread is purely a myth. Quality of care....doctors....medicaql equipment? Well, all I can answer to that, is by giving you a short, brief list of Canadian medical inventions/discoveries: the insulin vaccine, the pacemaker, a cancer treatment called "Cobalt 60", the electric wheelchair, to name a few.
But beyond that, there is a very basic disagreement you and I have about the PHILOSOPHY towards a 'health care system': I (and most up here) believe that this concept is to be approached with the priority of it being for the betterment of society as a whole, instead of financial success being the deciding factor (although to a degree, we have that as well); you believe it should be approached as a profit-driven enterprise, with HMO's calling the play-by-plays, and that 'competition' will spur 'excellence' and anything other would dampen or hinder the quality. As I've indicated above, I think this is largely a myth; a myth that is propagated in large part by this stigma some folks down there have about the word "socialism". There are SOME services that MUST be "socialized", i.e., police, fire services, federal defence, etc.
I just happen to believe that health care is one of those services.
Other than that, as an American, you'd be surprised to learn that there are more similarities---than differences----to your neighbours up here (or compared to anywhere else outside U.S. borders, for that matter).
Except....for your beer; sorry, man. But you have really got to smarten up with the quality of your beer.
Hold on....back onto the whole health care thingy:
Several months ago, one of your countrymen posted this video, and pretty well says what I've said (almost verbatim, actually, but he's a little more eloquent):
Well Canuck, I can appreciate your viewpoint and opinion. Government provided health care would have advantages and disadvantages, but I think the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages. I think maybe it boils down to your trust in the willingness of government to do the right thing, to not be corrupt, and not generally make a friggin beaurocratic mess out of the whole thing. Maybe your Canadian upbringing inspires more faith in your government. I trust my government only as much as I absolutely have to. And possibly Canada's oil wealth basically pays for health care, much as Saudi Arabia's.
Again I argue, at present, any of 50 states in the union is perfectly able to implement a state run health care system, and none of them have. Maybe in the mainland US, you could argue that one state offering state healthcare would get inudated by sick people from other states. But states could require proof of state citizenship for free health care. You don't see Americans running to Canada for free health care. And certainly Alaska and Hawaii would have greater immunity against out of staters. Yet still, not one state out of 50 wants to make that leap. Why? We have some very liberal and wealthy states. My belief is because most Americans believe the current system is superior. I can always find articles on socialist countries having problems with their health care services. Maybe Canada is the gold standard? That doesn't mean the US would do as well.
I do appreciate your more friendly tone, apparantly socialists can be social! ;-)
"You don't see Americans running to Canada for free health care."
Uhhh......you'd be quite shocked if you dug a little into that, and see how much that happens. I kinda was....and wasn't. I think you have to take into consideration that should your federal government regulate it across-the-board for ALL states, i.e., put them ALL on a level playing field, so to speak, then you wouldn't have a potential problem of "state-jumpers", as you called them (much like we don't have "province-jumpers"....see what I mean?). You're correct, in that you would have to "trust" your federal government to do that and THEY, in turn, would operate that way ("By-the-people-for-the-people", etc.). THAT point, however, is a little beyond my scope of opinion.
That's another one of my favourite videos! By-the-by....we don't have "nationalized" dental care up here; that's about the only aspect of our health system that falls under the "free-market" scheme (unless, of course, you have a job with dental benefits as part of your employee benefits package).
And my friendly tone?
Well, let's just say that I save the 'unfriendly tone' for folks who come at me with, shall we say......blind arguments, with little substance compunded by some silly nonsense of nationalistic jingoism.
Because brother, if that's ALL they got and keep harping the same damn thing over and over again....then it'll piss me off to no end.
My in-laws are like that. Nice folks, but goddamn it.....I just wanna slap'em sometimes, hoping it'd smarten them up, so that they'd at least be able to have a SENSIBLE debate or discussion.
There was one time (out of many) I was having a back-and-forth with my father-in-law on this very issue. I pointed out what I thought were more advantages than disadvantages to a universal health care system.
"It's still no good", he says.
"Why not?", I asked.
"Because it ain't American", he replies.
Rather than choke the life out of him out of pure frustration, I said "okiee-dokiee".....and that was the end of it.
Based on that alone, he wasn't gonna listen...and I wasn't gonna be able to get through to him.
C-
There is a deeply American principle, or series of principles, that drew people here by the millions for the better part of 200 years:
One could own property.
One could use that property.
One could make their own way, in their own way.
One could move about as one pleases.
One could keep the VAST majority of one's own work and production.
Notice these ideas, not exhaustive, require the initiative and pro-action of the "one" involved. No one came here because of what the government allowed or spent on them. (Although that may be changing.)
Health care is your own responsibility. period.
Feeding yourself, clothing yourself, housing yourself and transportation are your own responsibilities.
NONE of this implies selfishness since we tend to live in communities that have commonalities; among the commonalities: churches, schools, businesses, norms, etc.
Up until recently in American history,if one struggled with a medical cost, food cost, etc they could and would approach their family, church or local philanthropic organizations for the help. These are more efficient in their methods and, more importantly, held the beneficiary accountable for what they received.
Locally dealt with problems done by the good hearted citizens who care for the society in which they live.
Not when things are nationalized:
Inefficiently and bureaucratically run. Hundreds of middlemen. No one needs to care since their money is taken, without their choice, and spent in ways that they may not agree. (How's that for freedom?)
One size must fit all.
But, most insidious of all: The responsibility for one's own well-being is removed. This explains New Orleans. This explains BHO's press conference in Ft Meyers yesterday.
I am always shocked and disheartened that the people in favor of huge gubment entitlement programs actually belive they are doing it based on some perverse sense of charity.
One could own property.
One could use that property.
"One could make their own way, in their own way.
One could move about as one pleases.
One could keep the VAST majority of one's own work and production."
Ummm....errr....so can we.
LOL!
These are NOT uniquely "American" concepts.
I kinda hope at this point you feel like I did in high school, when my 'girlfriend' said to me : "Honey.....you ain't the first....but you're still damn good!"
You're obviously pretty passionate about your "concepts" and "Gawd-fearin' christian" way of life, and so forth, and hey....that's cool.
But....like.....ummm....errrr....how come you never put on a uniform in your whole life to defend those "concepts"? Don't get me wrong: you're a pretty vociferous cheerleader when it comes to egging on OTHERS to do it, and that's still cool. But....why not you?
Now that you are done laughing, presumably from lack of understanding, listen closely.
I certainly did not buttress your arguments, C-. You have defended nationalizing health care for a number of reasons. In a short rebuttal, I have undone that. Where do you and I agree?
Those ideals ARE uniquely American. The fact that now, 250 years later, some other countries have adopted some of the ideals is great and I would hope eventuate worldwide. That is why America, for a couple hundred years was called an experiment...it didn't exist anywhere else. Read my post again, cutie: I was referring why people immigrated to America for the previous years. Duh.
I never felt the need to put on the uniform when I was younger. You seem to think that that is the only expression worthy. I had pursuits that i wanted to follow since I was a kid. One does not need to be a soldier to be patriotic.
Well C, I guess I also share that opinion that universal health care maybe ain't the American way. Again, not saying it couldn't be implemented well, but complete and absolute trust in any government, that is just not the American way.
Read the Declaration of Independence. It says basically anytime we find our government pissing us off, its our right to revolt. I think us gun-toting conservative Americans will always be a little more distrustful and rebellious toward government than Canadians. Its a mindset that has served us well for over 200 years. Your father-in-law shares it, Streamo shares it, and I share it to. I've said this before, this may be a fundamental difference between conservative Americans and every socialist nation on Earth. Maybe you just will never understand that.
Sometimes what is "American" is really just a gut feel. I think compared to Canadians, we maybe have more of a sense of every man for himself. That doesn't mean we don't care about our neighbors, we just expect our neighbors to get off their asses and support themselves, as we are expected to do. If our neighbors are busting ass to clean up after a hurricane, by God we'll get to work right with them. If our neighbors sit on their asses wondering why the gubnent hasn't come got them yet, we all collectively roll our eyes with disgust.
Maybe us conservatives have too much of a sense of personal drive or personal responsibility, and of course we just can't understand why everyone wouldn't see things the same way. But you look at hardcore socialism, like they have in Denmark or Sweden, that's just not American.
Maybe it goes against our sense of independence, our sense of self-reliance, maybe we just all distrust our own government. Too many governmental snafus over the years: above ground nuclear testing with the fallout dumping all over America and being told it was safe, Vietnam, Kennedy's assassination theories, the military-industrial complex, cold-war spying, watergate, the red scare, the list goes on and on. I just don't think Americans trust their government to the same level that Canadians do, maybe the Canadian government has given its citizens less reason to be distrustful over the years?
And Streamo is a pretty damn reasonable guy, if you gave him a chance. There's no need for the constant bashing of his beliefs. Maybe had you served during a time of war, your own spirituality would have been strengthened in a foxhole somewhere. I don't know why Streamo never served, maybe he just had a decent job at the time. I enlisted almost on a friggin whim, I can't say I was driven to enlist by some deep patriotism at the time. I don't hold service as a pre-condition for being a citizen, (although I wouldn't mind a nationalized service requirement for all, like Israel has) I do hold service as a pre-condition for high elected office.
When you ask why Streamo has never served in the military, I could ask Obama the same thing. Streamo didn't run for president last year.
"......your own spirituality would have been strengthened in a foxhole somewhere".
Could have been true.
But I tend to think that "foxhole religion" is just as hypocritcal (if not worse) than organized religion in general. Maybe worse, come to think of it.
As for Stream-O and his views, you cannot possibly argue with a man who believes a book of supernatural mumbo-jumbo makes him, his basis for government and his 'nation'.......to be the end-all-to-be-all.
I'd sooner have better luck telling a pygmy in the jungle that that Coke bottle is NOT a gift from the Gods.
And his pitiful retort about never having served to defend any of his grand "ideals", or not being able to put his money where his mouth is, or some vague notion about being too busy?
"And his pitiful retort about never having served to defend any of his grand "ideals", or not being able to put his money where his mouth is, or some vague notion about being too busy? "
As you most likely know, military service is not an obligation in this country. I didn't join to defend any grand ideals, I was still formulating my political views then. Well I like to think I still am...
And joining the military is kind of one of those window of opportunity things. If you don't join between 18 and 20, you probably never will. I really think I fell into it a little bit by chance. I'm the only one in my family that served. I didn't plan it since I was a kid, I didn't even plan it my senior year. I just decided I was sick of school after graduating high school, I wasn't ready for college, and I wanted to experience something bigger than myself. I had always loved military jets since I was a kid, and didn't have the eyes to be a pilot, so I signed up with the Navy as an avionics tech. It certainly wasn't extreme devotion to country or patriotism that started me off, and I don't think it makes someone a coward for not choosing that path. If you're gonna call Streamo a coward for not serving, than that applies to P-BO as well. You calling Obama a coward? Even Bush had more military service than Obama or Clinton, and I know you deeply respected Bush's military service.
"It seemed to serve Georgie-Boy and his GOP supporters purdy good for 8 eight years."
No one in this country had complete trust in Bush, not even die hard righties, well maybe the ones who thought God was speaking through Bush. That wasn't Streamo. That sure as hell wasn't me. Why is it that polls repeatedly say America is over 50% conservative, yet Bush had 30% approval ratings? (still better than congress I might add, who had almost as many Americans believing in UFOs, as approving of congress) Bush did not enjoy the broad support of the American people, or even the American conservative. He just sucked less than Gore or Kerry. That is not implicit trust in government, that is voting for the lesser of two evil slimy politicians.
Considering Bush received less trust of the American people, than probably any president in decades, I don't see how you can even say that. But trust in your government isn't just the president. How about that 9% approval rating of congress? That's some fantastic trust there, and you think we should give them control of our health care?
"Even Bush had more military service than Obama or Clinton"
Well, Georgie-Boys' "military service" was a joke, if not an outright disgrace. But I think you know that. Same goes for Cheney's five-time draft deferrment record. But lack of military service in general for a President? Hell, even Lincoln didn't have any service, and he's revered.
No.
I just have a problem with civvie cheerleaders who act like they know what they're talking about.
Good evening, C-
Tough words typing away on the keyboard.
You have, again, by implication stated that if one does not enlist, one is a coward. That goes out to everyone, my friend. Odd way of defining.
I view cowards, in part, as those who would not lift a finger to help or defend those who need it...like oppressed citizens under tyrrany. Or, those who would give their backsides to terrorists.
Should you ever meet me and maybe that time will come, your verbal swaggering will be tested. Until then, wail away.
Thanks, HD for the kind words. Your tolerance for C- is better than mine.
"You have, again, by implication stated that if one does not enlist, one is a coward. That goes out to everyone, my friend. Odd way of defining."
Uhhhh......no.
I think you missed the....ummm...what's that word again?......oh yeah!...
CONTEXT....of what I was saying (wryly chuckling here).
My, dear, sweet, tunnel-visioned Stream-O......
I am SAYING that when one is as rabid, vocal and unremitting in his passion as YOU are in your 'beliefs', i.e. how precious YOUR religion is to YOU, how intensely important YOUR 'way of life' is to YOU, how supremely important that flag is (and all it stands for) is to YOU, how inferior all others are to YOU and YOUR ideals and (most importantly) how great you feel it is that you vocally cheer on the deaths of soldiers to fight and die for YOUR ideals whilst never having had EVER to lift a finger to do it yourself (much like Cheney, come to think of it---no, wait---EXACTLY like Cheney).......
then yes....I'm afraid that the label does certainly apply to YOU. Certainly NOT to "all".....just you.
See, you remind me also of that father-in-law of mine I mentioned above: he'll yap on and on and on ad nauseum about a lot of the shit you do, including politics.....and then I found out THAT the guy hadn't voted in YEARS!!! LOL! Man-oh-man, I could have had a goddamn FIELD DAY with him on that one! (But I chose the high-ground, and didn't). Sort of like that.
Opinions are like assholes, y'know? Everyone's got one. And that's cool. Really...it is.
But I'm sorry....I just never could stand the rabidly-opinionated civvies who lift themselves above all else because of their own ingrained sense of self-importance.....and at the same time, never walked-the-walk.
They only talked-the-talk. And why? Because of some deep, brainwashed psychosis that THEIR way is not only the BEST way.....but the ONLY way. And everyone else is clearly either wrong....or less than them, simply because of a set of stupid 'beliefs'.
That, Son......(and the rest)....fir YOU to a tee.
Well Canuck, since you and I are both well completed with military service, I'd say that makes us civilians again. And I don't hear either of us being shy with our arm-chair generalship.
You really have a chip on your shoulder towards Streamo, as you once did me. Of course his beliefs and his way of life are important to him, just as yours are to you. I have to say that Streamo's words to you have been far kinder than your words to him.
I think I would get along with your father-in-law well, maybe he's not such a dick afterall?
Great points, HD
C-...why must you so completely point out your bigotry. All you did, in the above note to me, was rationalize you anger with me and possibly your father-in-law.
Even in your defense of your statement: You still implied that if one does not don the uniform but still holds strong beliefs or opinions about his country...he is a coward.
Keep talking because your words do more damage than mine ever could.
I gave you the clearest possible context in which my remarks were intended (and well-founded, I might add). No skin off my nose if you're in a snit, and you (and maybe he) want to disregard them. Personally, I think I've pegged you completely on-the-mark. Other than that....I could care less about your insipid, holier-than-thou philosophies.
If you want to feel sorry for my father-in-law (another shining example of deluded, right-wing hypocrisy), again: I could care less.
Wouldn't surprise me.
But could still care less.
You've got one ONE sympthetic ear around here. Okay. Yippee for you.
Possibly you hate your father-in-law, because he doesn't approve of your beliefs or politics, and therefore feels you're not good enough for his daughter. Obviously this enrages you greatly, since you feel you're a good guy.
Deep down, you now hate any Glumbert poster who sounds like he may be your father-in-law. You've convinced yourself that I am not your father-in-law, but perhaps you still think Streamo may be...
HD-
(doing my best James Earl Jones here.)
"Indeed you are powerful."
My own psychoanalysis on C-.
Deep rooted feelings of inadequacy sparked by a broken relationship somewhere early on in life. (Broken for any reason-abandonment, divorce, death, etc.) Not being trite here. I mean that.
C- has a deep and possibly narcissistic desire to be accepted. Not just regular acceptance but validation by all...or at least a majority. Constant references to being in the majority and even the reference above that I ONLY have one co-conspirator.
Ummmm......once again, because you're so deeply entrenched into a religious psychosis, you failed miserably to read/understand the question; the question I asked (verbatim) was "Who would Jesus give a bill to?", meaning if one believes that "He" healed the sick (i.e., made the blind see, made the crippled walk, etc.) and performed these miraculous feats of delivering quality health care.....then who would "HE" give a bill to, for rendering said services? See, for all the blathering you do about following "His" teachings and principles, you sure do make it a solid point about disregarding them with apparent ease.
The question CLEARLY did NOT indicate that "He" either needed, (or even 'was').....a "doctor". So your comment is deluded at worst...supremely ignorant at best.
Besides, between getting eviscerated by Mako on the topic of religion and getting drawn-and-quartered on the topic of universal health care by me......how do you STILL find time for all of these silly, asinine rationalizations?
You superstitious, torch-burning, flag-waving, lapel-pin-hugging, Cheney-worshipping peasant, you.
C-
Regarding your Jesus remark...thought for sure it was a Creator-as-arbiter joke you were making since I have heard a few of those. I guess I gave you WAY too much credit.
Jesus would not have given the bill to anyone. He healed the sick as a gift.
Doctors could do that if they wished...just not forever.
I think you had better peruse the universal health care issue some more, C-.
You have never answered the basics (eg. Who is responsible for your health care?) and have been spanked routinely when it comes to the principles of your arguments.
Just like IQ10.
On a serious note about health care and your approach: When a country faces near-bankruptcy and/or its population ages beyond its tax base, whence comes the money for your universal health care.
That was a cute comment, and is obvious.
But, since you failed to answer the question in its context (What?! Really?!) I am left to assume you have no real answer.
But, to address it anyway since you are the SWAK to my envelope:
1. Correct, but our Constitution calls for a military and "provide for the common defense." It does not call for a health care system. So, right off the bat it is out of bounds.
2. Do we really want our tax-collected money, in times of fiscal starvation, to be prioritized as for health care OR military?! That might be a choice somewhere down the line, either absolutely or to some degree. Your health care system is partly dependent on a large tax base as a result of peaceful time capitalism AND (drum roll please) the lack of a need for a large military. Were we not sharing this continent you might need a larger and more expensive military that would require more of your tax payer funds.
A universal health care system can, in theory, only succeed fiscally if the taxbase produces enough money, whatever that figure is. Now, if the population ages (needs more regular and more expensive health care) AND the replacement birthrate decreases (as is happening right now in Canada and the US) AND we hit a recession or, God forbid, a depression...
"........as a result of peaceful time capitalism".
Where have you been?
"Capitalism" (at least as YOU knew it)....is dead. Has been for a while now, come to think of it.
Everything else is now "socialized" (i.e., military, police, fire, mail, etc.) so you may as well add health care to the list. In for a penny--in for a pound, as they say.
The money IS there; there just has to be a will to divert it from Georgie-Boys' pointless 'war'.....and voila. All it takes is a simple choice to do so, on a sensible persons part.
Well, C-, we agree on something.
Capitalism is dead...or almost dead.
Where you celebrate the death of individual freedom and responsibility, I lament it.
By the by, the military was always a gubment funded entity. That's because it is supposed to be.
"Where you celebrate the death of individual freedom and responsibility, I lament it."
Ummmm......nope. I think that's just a life-long, brainwashed psychosis talking, on your part. If the majority of SANE, ordinary Americans truly believed that.....then I would have seen a coup d'etat happen long before now. As it stands, I think, once again, you're in the paranoic, flag-waving minority.
" By the by, the military was always a gubment funded entity. That's because it is supposed to be."
Ummm.....nope. If THAT was the case, then your private 'contractors' (i.e. MERCENARIES) operating in Georgie-Boys' pointless 'war', wouldn't outnumber regular soldiers 2-1. Besides, whether you call it a 'gunment funded entity" or not......it is STILL......"socialistic". And the definiton remains that way, like it or not.
No matter how much the likes of YOU are dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world.
C-
Tell me how taking my money, forcibly, and spending it on entitlements DOES NOT eradicate individual freedom. If I can't spend my own money how I see appropriate, then how am I not encroached upon by a distant behemoth.
Remember the fence analogy above.
No, the military is not private. The fact that some work is contracted out does not mean it is private. However, I should not expect any other kind of answer from someone who blurs the lines of private and public so easily.
"Tell me how taking my money, forcibly, and spending it on entitlements DOES NOT eradicate individual freedom. If I can't spend my own money how I see appropriate, then how am I not encroached upon by a distant behemoth."
Uhhhhh....wrong again.
Niether YOU.....nor I....nor ANYONE....has EVER had a direct "say" in how our tax dollars are spent. Mind you, you'll get a lot....I mean a LOT....of lip-service from politicians otherwise, but that's all it is: lip-service. Fact of the matter is, is that ANY governments that collect taxes ANYWHERE in the world since pretty well the dawn of creation (that's about 6,000 years to YOU), have ALWAYS done as THEY see fit with that money. Always have. Always will. To say/think otherwise is supreme naivite and ignorance at its blissful, flag-waving best. At least under what I'VE said, you may as well speak up and tell them where it'll do the most good. But to think that YOU, specifically, have this imaginary "say" in what they do with "your" tax dollars??
"The fact that some work is contracted out does not mean it is private"
Huh? Try using the word "most", or "majority" or "bulk"-----but NEVER "some". Then you'll be closer to the reality of it all. And the military STILL is run on a "socialist" model. Oh crap. Wait. I'm talking to YOU about the "military"????? Sorry. My bad.
Wow.
That is some powerfully stupid rationalizing.
I asked a pretty good question. You did not answer. And, upon re-reading your bright post I am left with the conclusion you believe that it is simply ok for gubments to spend as they please.
It begs a few questions:
1. Why complain about GWB's priorities?
2. Why complain about recessions?
My point was that the Constituition (which is an agreement between the gubment and the people) was written with a few starting points of agreement.Namely, what the powers of the fed are and what the limits of the fed are.
The things you tend to support at a national level have no foundation in our Constitution. Anywhere.
The one thing that is in the Constitution as charged to the fed gubment, our national defense, you think is socialist in nature.
Dolt.
What country does not have as its first function and priority of its gubment to protect its people?
These basic questions I am asking should be very easy for someone as learned and well-read as you.
C-, IQ10
I said the military is:
a. A Constitutional responsibility of the Fed Gubment. Ergo, funded by taxdollars. Ergo, not a private institution.
b. How that is disputed, is beyond me.
Again, the fact that military budget (taxdollars) are used in subcontracted work is irrelevant.
What point do you two geniuses think you are making?!
Stweem'O'Bullshit let's just break down your argument shall we:
You said
"The military is a constitutional responsibility of the Fed Gubment. Ergo, funded by taxdollars. Ergo, not a private institution"
Now I agree fully that a military should be the responsibility of the government funded by taxpayers money. HOWEVER when you bring to bear the sheer numbers of PRIVATE contractors in the field WORKING ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS then, ergo, the military then becomes a semi-private institution.
That is why they are called PRIVATE CONTRACTORS and is also why there have been huge issues with their deployment in such large numbers. I make no comment on their ability as soldiers, just that they operate under different ROE to the 'proper' military and issues arise over their conduct. This has sadly oft been the case when mercs are used - there's a reason it's a fairly derogatory term.
You then state:
"How that is disputed, is beyond me"
Most things are Stweem'O, most things are...
You then state:
"... the fact that taxdollars are used in subcontracted work is irrelevant"
It's not irrelevant when your initial point has been destroyed...As the fed govt military is in fact using taxpayers money to employ large numbers of PRIVATE CONTRACTORS in Iraq, then, ergo, the gubment is paying a private army, and therefore by definition the military is semi-privatised.
This makes the military a PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYER.
This means all your ergos sum to nothing
The only point to this was an outing of your idiocy.
I swear, you outdo yourself each and every time.
Is English your first language?
Since the money to pay for the military and its operations comes from tax dollars, it is not private. They may hire private entities but the budget to do so comes from tax dollars. For example, Boeing is a private company. The gubment buys stuff from Boeing, including services. This does not make the gubment a private enterprise.
Gads.
Keep changing the argument.
You say it is private. I show that it is not.
You then hedge it a bit with the semi-private terminology. Nice try.
Now, you claim the military is private even though it doesn't generate its own capital but happens to use contractors.
The government buys EQUIPMENT from Boeing...It... doesn't... buy... human... lives.
The military runs strong on a VOLUNTEER force who understand, ackowledge and accept the risks because they are doing this on behalf of their country and their people. They also put their faith in their commander in chief not to fuck them over.
Private contractors are not bothered who pays the bills and tend to operate under notional local laws, causing the problems we see in Iraq.
Once you have the government paying private firms to put mercs into a theatre of war, AND allowing those mercs to operate OUTSIDE the ROE of the full miltary then the government IS operating both a private army on the one hand, and a full army on the other
Hence the term semi-private. You have demonstrated nothing.
Any idea of the kickbacks that contracting firms will offer and which thereby generate income for the government??
If those private contractors are being paid with taxpayers money and carrying out military operation then BY definition, the military has a private arm! You cannot see that?? You're dumber than a rock!
IQ
Here it is. I re-read this thread and could not figure out what you disagreed.
I mean, stating that our military budget is tax based and a product of our Constitution...where could one disagree?
Unless
One has a petty ax to grind. And, you do.
I found it, in your interrupting post: "You say that because some of the military work is contracted out that does not make these mercenaries 'private' "
I never said that, nor implied it.
Mercs are private. You brought up mercs.
There's your ax.
Met head on with a frying pan.
I still love you, despite gross negligence and illiteracy.
Forgive the use of capitals - they are not meant in this instance to imply an 'e-shout', they are used because it's just easier to respond back. Here is your entire post above dissected. The autopsy suggests a dumb person wrote it. Do you need someone to give you a second opinion?
*Here it is. I re-read this thread and could not figure out what you disagreed. I mean, stating that our military budget is tax based and a product of our Constitution...where could one disagree? (I DIDN'T - I SAID THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT should BE BUT IN FACT IS NOT)
Unless one has a petty ax to grind. And, you do. (NOT AT ALL - MERELY POINTING OUT WHERE YOU'RE BEING POMPOUSLY INCORRECT IN YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT THE MILITARY IS ENTIRELY NON-PRIVATE)
I found it, in your interrupting post: "You say that because some of the military work is contracted out that does not make these mercenaries 'private' "
I never said that, nor implied it.
(YES YOU DID - THESE ARE YOU EXACT WORDS): "The fact that some work is contracted out does not mean it is private"
Mercs are private (AND CONTRACTED OUT UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTRACT). You brought up mercs. (NO I DIDN'T CANUCK DID, IN THE CONTEXT OF YOUR ARGUMENT ABOUT THE MILITARY HAVING A HUGE PRIVATELY CONTRACTED ARMY AT IT'S DISPOSAL)
There's your ax. (NO AXE; JUST TRUTH STARING IN THE FACE OF YOUR STUPIDITY)
Met head on with a frying pan. (RE-READ AND SEE HOW DUMB YOU'VE BECOME)
I still love you, despite gross negligence and illiteracy. (CARRY ON - ONE DAY YOU'LL GET OVER THOSE PROBLEMS)
*Here it is. I re-read this thread and could not figure out what you disagreed. I mean, stating that our military budget is tax based and a product of our Constitution...where could one disagree? (I DIDN'T - I SAID THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT should BE BUT IN FACT IS NOT)
I meant to add that I didn't say you were wrong here...The military should be funded by taxpayers money and under the control of the fed government.
What I did say was that the use of taxpayers money to pay private contractors who are NOT under the control of the federal government, but are none the less doing its bidding, means the military ain't what it used to be. In other words it's now getting a little more privatised.
IQ
I see a few things that are now clear in this ax-to-grind thread.
1. My statements have been consistent and remain correct. The US military is not a private entity. It utilizes private work, like all gubment entities.
2. I think you are making a threshold argument, as to say: If a certain percentage of the military work crosses a certain line then the military may as well be called private. (This argument is not a formal one but one of opinion. Like if I say the democrat party is largely a socialistic party, you may disagree since their stated objectives are not explicitly socialist. I don't have a problem with this argument.)
3. You quoted me correctly bus misapplied it. The following quote from me: "The fact that some work is contracted out does not mean it is private".
The word "it", in the last part of the sentence, references the military in general, not mercs...which is what you referred, and of course, mercs are private as they are employed by the military.
So, I correctly stated that I did not say what you attributed me, nor did I imply it.
4. Under "Scrub this": I would agree with those points. You just never articulated them. I believe you had an ax to grind and weren't reading what I said but what you thought I meant.
The argument about the degree to which the military farms out its jobs has been around since the war of 1812. It may be so that our military spends too much of its tax-based budget on private companies and entities.
That was not the argument I was making.
Arguments about the use of mercs notwithstanding, you think the military in Iraq remains a completely non-private organisation where all the dealing of death and all the dying is done by the enlisted man, with the full chain of command in place and operating perfectly amongst all the fighters in field.
All the action taking place there is fully under the control of the federal government with the combatants following direct orders from the government.
"So I'm not sure I care if some law enforcement agency collects bio data, watches me, or listens to me, so long as they still need a charge to arrest me, or a warrant for surveilance. I don't believe cameras have stood up as probable cause to arrest anyone, without a warrant. And I'm pretty sure no one has been arrested ordering weed over the phone, without a warrant to tap. Not like your local policeman has time to listen to every phone conversation in town. ""so long as they still need a charge to arrest me, or a warrant for surveilance" You have not been paying attention. - they don't need a warrant for surveillance nor arrest anymore, nor do they need to charge yo with a crime anymore. They can hold you indefinitely without audience to a lawyer as long as they label you a "terrorist".
"I don't believe cameras have stood up as probable cause to arrest anyone" - Michael Phelps just got arrested for smoking weed because of a picture that appeared online somewhere... was there a warrant or a search?" Not like your local policeman has time to listen to every phone conversation in town" - If you think that phone and email taps are done by people then you are way behind the times dude. All electronic communication (video, phone, email, banking networks) is monitored by computers, not people. Then the computers flag you or your conversation, then you pop up on some analyst's screen somewhere to be looked into.
You're either a bit naive, or you're a psy-ops analyst yourself and you wrote that comment on company time.
"they don't need a warrant for surveillance nor arrest anymore, nor do they need to charge you with a crime anymore. They can hold you indefinitely without audience to a lawyer as long as they label you a "terrorist". "
Only if you're not an American citizen. An American citizen still has a right to habeas corpus. However, this right to "no arrest without a charge" has been suspended twice before in Americas' past. Once during Lincoln's time, and the other under FDR, ironically both presidents that we keep comparing Obama to. Any Americans held without charge under Bush?
Police have had the right to search you if they have "probable cause" to suspect a crime is being committed for some time. That is, if they sense something casually, (like they pull you over for a broken tail light, and hear someone knocking in the truck) indicating there is a crime, they can dig deeper.
"- Michael Phelps just got arrested for smoking weed because of a picture that appeared online somewhere... was there a warrant or a search?"
Good point, maybe this falls under probable cause? But it wasn't the police running the camera.
"If you think that phone and email taps are done by people then you are way behind the times dude. "
I said they weren't in my first post.
"You're either a bit naive, or you're a psy-ops analyst yourself and you wrote that comment on company time."
Maybe I'm one of those, (I couldn't tell you if I was the latter) maybe you're a bit paranoid.
interesting point about FDR and Lincoln. I think you're right about habeus corpus being suspended for non americans although I'm not 100% sure.
I wasn't refering to Police searching with probable cause. I was referring to surveillance that is ongoing... no probably cause.
I'm sure we're all naive. I'd love to work there but I have problems with authority and I'm too curious and a big mouth... I'd probably divulge some secret I wasn't even supposed to know about.
I don't think I'm paranoid... I just know exactly how many people have been following me lately... wait, someone's knocking on the door... gotta hit the window and put computer on self destruct.
I see your history lesson amounts to a 10 minute summation, and an incorrect on at that.
Just like all your other posts: based on the work of others; incorrect or otherwise.
Now that I think on it...maybe I am a bit too harsh. You need distillations and abridged view points. How else could you maintain you wildly narrow and bigoted stances.
yeah, right. The American experiment has no place for God or the social consequences of acknowledging such a being. How silly of me. Where on earth did I get such a notion.
"He CHOSE to believe that a book of supernatural fables is the foundation of everything, including the formation of countries.
Sounds kinda ludicrous, don't it? Making that kind of 'choice' in the 21st "
Well now, our nation and our constitution were founded over 200 years ago, when belief in that book of supernatural fables was the foundation of everything, including the formation of countries. It was much less ludicrous to make that kind of choice back then.
What is ludicrous, is how some no longer respect each others right to freedom of religion, and want to further remove God from anything to do with the state, breaking 200 years of national tradition.
The constitution calls for "seperation of church and state". Church doesn't mean God, church means organized religion. There is no implied seperation of God and state. How can a state be based on God-given rights of men, if God was believed not to exist?
Men at one time believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, but through a a simple process called "growing up" and "becoming enlightened", they decided to modify and adjust accordingly. This applies to fairy tales that once ruled all peoples' lives. Eventually, humanity decided that they didn't ned to be ruled by such nonsense.
If YOU two want to remain stuck in a time-vaccum, and go by such standards.....then be my guests. Don't forget, "freedom OF religion" ALSO means "freedom FROM religion".
As for myself and the rest of civilized society? Thanks, but no thanks. WE'LL continue our march towards progressive enlightenment.
C-
Wow. Everytime I think you cannot possibly outdo yourself...you post something like this.
What you described to humanity, NEVER HAS HAPPENED. When? 90% of the population of the planet did not get the enlightened note.
When you stop looking with disdain at those people who think and feel differently, you may be able to put forht an argument.
I asked you where the notions of liberty, human equality and the role of man inside a democratic society emerged...you could not answer. HD pointed it out to you. I have pointed it out, and you wish to either deny or ignore.
Furhter, as I have asked before: What portions of the judeo-christian ethic and historicity of western society do you disagree? Which part do you deny is rooted in this background?
I didn't think so.
Finally...NO, freedom "of" and freedom "from" are not the same thing, nor do they overlap. The amendment addresses one's freedom to practice religion or not practice religion; no where is it stated or implied that others in the society are free from these practices.
I believe there's a specific name for what Stweem'O'Bullshit denies
It was called the 'Age of Enlightenment'
Some chose to learn from it. Others chose not to.
Stweem'O'Bullshit assumes all we ever need to know is found in his booble.
He'd have been a much happier little chappie back when he was legally able to burn heretics. Now he can only do it between track and field days and local clan meets.
Plus. the minute he (and those like him) start balthering on and on about America "being founded as a God-fearin', christian nation", (which it was NOT, and is simply a myth propogated for generations by the mentally-infirm and fearful), he/they once again go the extra mile to erase that so-called line "separating church and state", as HD put it.
This world no longer has the time, luxury nor desire to return to those Dark Ages.
C-
I would be glad to prove to you the Judeo-Christian foundations of liberty, equality and the founding of the . As a simple teaser, please read the Preamble to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. (When you find some other time, read the letters of Madison, Jefferson, et al.)
These were men of the Enlightenment. Men of letters. Study a little bit. You may need to read a book or two, including an 8th grade Civics primer.
What do you say about Obama, his feelings of being called into public service and his attendance in his church? Robert Byrd's? Bill Clinton's? All of whom have claimed that God was integral to making the public service plunge.
It just so happens that I didn't TWIST or PERVERT them into something I desperately want to believe in....like you have. And much like folks have done in the last two thousand years, with your Book of Fables.
I noticed you did not attempt to explain away the obvious hypocricy of our Founding Fathers who clearly wnet against everything they believed and included a "Creator" as the foundation of ALL the liberties and rights included in their fledgling democracy. I mean, they were all atheists (I debunked that myth a long time ago.) and anti religious types, right?
Right.
They put all that stuff in their founding documents DESPITE their beliefs otherwise. I mean, they prayed before sessions of Congress, met at churches, left their homelands-in part- to have religious freedom, had parents who were ministers, tried to end slavery based in part on the moral argument against forced servitude...you tired yet?...there's TONS more.
It is one thing to not like that our founding was thus.
It is another to deny it. Kinda like denying the holocaust as just propoganda by a segment of society you already have prejudices against.
See, I still think your side of the argument belongs at the table...you believe that people like me should not be allowed at the table.
You said so above, in this thread.
My, my, C-...you are all about the Freedoms found in our Constitution.
Hey, by the by...from where do those freedoms come? I mean, from whom...according to the hypocritical founding documents.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
There can be no doubt our founding fathers believed in a God, a creator. I don't really give a crap which denomination. Our very rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are endowed by our creator. If you don't believe in a creator, then you can't much believe you have a God-given right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. And once you starting doubting your God-given rights, doubting that your fellow humans have rights, you have a fine system of government much like the Germans and Russians enjoyed around 1940.
If you truly doubt the existance of God, that we are all evolved monkeys, then you start wondering if some of us are more evolved than others. That maybe certain people deserve no rights, and government can do with them as the majority please.
This would be my only counterweight to denying American rights to non-US citizens. That even enemy combatants in Gitmo have a right to due process, because a creator endowed even these scumbags with certain rights.
"And once you starting doubting your God-given rights, doubting that your fellow humans have rights, you have a fine system of government much like the Germans and Russians enjoyed around 1940."
I see.
Sayyyyy.....maybe you're on to something there!
Hmmmm......let's see if we can find anywhere in history where "religious beliefs" have ensured peoples' "rights":
Salem, Mass.? Hundreds of innocent women burned alive at the stake? Most of whom were simply accused of a devilish "crime" (and even in some cases had a Kangaroo Court-trial)? Okay...forget that one.....
The Spanish Inquisition? Ummm...errrr.....no. Forget that one , too.
Iran? WHOA! Now THERE'S a GREAT example of peoples' "rights" in a religious-run government being taken care of! HA!
Saudi Arabia? Whoops! See above.
The Roman Empire? Oh my! I'm sure THEY had a tolerance and acceptance for OTHER religions besides their own....didn't they? OMIGOD! Lookit at that 'christian' get eaten up by them thar lions! YEEE-HAAAA!!!
And what do them KKK in the deep, DEEP South like to say? Okay...never mind.
Gee...maybe you're right.
Maybe having 'religion' as a foundation for basic human rights is purdy good after all!!!
(except those times, I guess, when "Gawd" tells me PERSONALLY that some folks ain't special like ME, and ain't got the same "rights" as I do! That's even better!)
My favorite T-shirt:
"9 out 10 voices in my head tell me not to kill you."
I never said a religious society guarantees you you're rights. Religious people are just as guilty of intolerance, as all your examples have in common. But whether religious or not, we can all be guilty of intolerance.
Hitler murdering the Jews...
Stalin murdering Russians, Chechans, etc...
Pol Pot murdering Cambodians...
All defy your belief that religion makes you evil, and believe in man-made government alone makes you more enlightened.
Actually the Roman Empire was generally pretty tolerant of other religions. Somehow the Christians done pissed off the emperor real good, up until Constantine became a Christian.
C-...examples of abuse in the name of any cause is (stay with me here) not necessarily an argument against the cause. Abuse is abuse. All causes must be critiqued based n their own merits.
In all of our threads, in all of our arguments...You nor IQ100 has ever asserted a positive notion about where you think the following come from:
Rights
Notions of Equality under the law
Liberty
Moral Absolutes
You have railed and railed about the faulty manner in which those who believe in a Creator have acted on their beliefs while NEVER EVER asserting your own beliefs about the above.
I believe it is because living in ignorance bliss, willfully, allows you to temporarily avoid the eventually unavoidable.
"every knee shall bow and tongue confess" does not have a time limit.
I have said many times before that rights, equality under law, liberty and moral absolutes all need no creator to exist.
They simply need to evolve (touchy subject with you I know) as humanity evolves.
Sadly, religion has been used as a stick with which to beat its own notions of those facets of human nature into the less evolved, and thereby to help control them. Most of the time this has resulted in a backlash as other religions claim primacy and hence we see bloodbath after bloodbath...all in the name of superstition.
Nothing more, nothing less
You like being controlled this way. You've just evolved less quickly than most.
Talking of which, Muffdiver do you think we are NOT evolved monkeys?
IQ100-
I am sorry that you can't read nor want to answer any of my questions.
So, I will say this very slowly about my claims:
I made claims about the principles of liberty, equality and human rights AND where, historically, they came from. In other words, those folks who ushered in these United States...they claim that liberty, equality and human rights descend from a Creator.
If you are disagreeing with that premise, prove it. I have volume after volume of information about what the founders believed and why they belived it. Again, you are out classed.
If you disagree with their notions, as notions, fine. But, you have no logical and/or historical reason to base your opinion. Again.
You suffer the same affliction as C-...no contextual ability to think.
C-
I recognize that some of the witch hunts were argued for in the name of Christianity. Nazism and Communism has been sold for the same reason, but in the name of man's supremacy, not God's.
Feeling smart yet? You big bunch of thinkers, you.
"Spanish inquisition: Arm of the government, not a church. This is, in part what the USA feared: A state run church. NOT a church run state. "
I disagree with Streamo on one thing... I do think our forefathers worried about a church run state, just as much as a state run church. When you look at the crusades of the dark ages, the church of Rome held enormous power over the states. Americans want no part of that shit.
"And it's not like YOU would EVER rationalize/argue that religion is BAD in ANY "context"....would you? "
Well not like he needs to, with Canuck and Mako around, Christ.
"I have said many times before that rights, equality under law, liberty and moral absolutes all need no creator to exist. "
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean our US forefathers who created our founding documents were atheists. I don't think you atheists are necessarily immoral, even if you may burn in hell! The Japanese adopted our democracy and humanism, and they sure weren't majority Christian. In fact, they were more like todays fanatical Islamic militants.
"Sadly, religion has been used as a stick with which to beat its own notions of those facets of human nature into the less evolved, and thereby to help control them. "
Religion has been a force of good and evil. But humans are good at finding other things to control and abuse the less evolved. Such as Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. If all religion ended tommorrow, do you honestly believe all inhumanity would forever cease?
"Talking of which, Muffdiver do you think we are NOT evolved monkeys?"
I could get used to that username... I've always said I was a lesbian trapped in a man's body!
Even the evolution guys don't say we evolved from monkeys. Monkeys, apes, and humans evolved from a common primate, bla, bla, bla. But I think I know what you meant. I do believe in evolution very strongly. I think the evidence is everywhere, even observable in recent history. And I don't believe the world is 6000 years old, or that God planted fossils or faked carbon dating ages to trick us in any way. I think if there is a God, he made us intelligent, to further understand and appreciate his creation. Any less of a God, and I see no reason to worship him. I don't believe God directly shaped evolution, but maybe God created life, and set the laws of evolution in motion. I don't have any idea what "God" is.
"I thought that ANY kind of "rocking on", be it music or otherwise.....
was satanic to types like you."
Streamo ain't the friggin Taliban here! He's just a solid conservative American. Maybe he only thinks Alice Cooper and Ozzy Osbourne are evil, like my parents probably did?
Oh I have, I just don't think Streamo falls into that category.
I have an empty lot across from my house, that is sold, but no house on it yet. I met the owners in the road over the summer. They were introducing me to their kids. I asked them if they planned to have anymore kids? They answered "if God wills it". Well I politely got the fuck out of there, I was done with them. People that leave birth control up to God, they just give me the willies.
Kinda like that fine welfare recipient with 6 kids, that just cranked out a litter of 8. Apparantly God was telling her to stop having kids. WTF! This is an outrage to all self supporting Americans, because our tax dollars will have to care for this women's horseshit selfish judgement for the next 18 years. In your esteemed liberal opinion, should taxpayers have to support that? Maybe if she wasn't receiving welfare, she might have reconsidered her planned fertilization of 8 eggs? She's an obvious sponge on society, who will raise her children to be little sponges. But I digress...
My tolerance for bible thumpers is relatively low. That don't mean they aren't perfectly welcome to their right to practice their religion, or their right to free speech. I may not always enjoy hearing their mini-sermons, but then I don't much enjoy TV commercials either. Free speech is like that. You don't get the free tv, without the commercials.
As usual Stweem'O'Bullshit you make my point for me as you simultaneously come across as a pompous backwards ass.
You may have volumes and volumes about what the founders believed. I am not denying that. You spout enough utter wank for me to believe you have access to a lot more crap (thinking abortion, evolution, biology and any number of subjects on which you've been shown lacking)
I am simply stating that your assertion that the founding fathers 'invented' these notions BECAUSE of a god and ONLY because of a god is (as usual with most of your claptrap) wrong.
CLAIMING these notions come from a creator does not make it so. The founding fathers may all strongly have believed in a god, but had they not the only real difference to the 'volumes' of texts you pretend to know so much about would be the removal of the terms 'god-given'. Nothing else would alter would it??
The term 'god-given' is a man made term. Religion is a man-made concept.
Human kind does not NEED any theist belief in order to live by these pretty basic rules
So...not outclassed Stweem'O'Bullshit. Never have been been by the likes of you.
Out of patience a long time ago more like...
HD - glad you liked the name, justa cheeky dig :-)
No, inhumanity would not cease if there were no religion. Just a whole load more people would live longer lives that's all. Oh, and the dumber ones would probably be a little richer as a result of not being suckered into giving their cash up for whatever church currently leaches it out of them
HD you mention a low tolerance for bible thumpers - my threshold too is low. Thus Stweem'O'Bullshit's arrogant assumptions and self-perceived omnipotence in the face of all rational thought and discussion on religion need correcting. He's perfectly welcome to continue spouting shit, as I am to continue telling him he's doing so
I know it won't make a difference as he's a little too dumb for that and would prefer to thump boobles than develop rational thought.
By the way Stweem'O'Bullshit, guess who's birthday it is today???
Your favourite guy... the one you hate because it means your 'reality' of a 6000 year old earth is shown to be madness. Google it.
IQ100!
I miss you man. Where on earth have you been?
I would like to first point out that you have avoided the question...AGAIN.
If the aforementioned ideals did not descend from a belief in a Creator, where did they come from?
Wait...they simply evolved, as the most common sensical, right? I mean, if survival of the fittest is a mindless force that eventually meets up with a conscious being (man) who can then create "the fittest" (including ideals) then equality, liberty, etc are at the top of the fittest ideals.
No, wait...that can't be right. Human beings with power can trump ideals. So, the ideals are creations of some human beings that may be rejected at some later date...by more advanced human beings. That would also mean there are no absolutes. Except that one.
Boy, IQ100, you are smart to arrive at where you got by having no source.
So, no denial that the founding fathers and the establishment of America, at least by their beliefs, required a Creator.
Good.
You then, as a nonbeliever, are the beneficiary of a society, culture and mores developed by people who believed that God is the source of these ideals that we all hold dear. Interesting.
Carry on.
Which countries and beneficent gubments were formed by a smart group of people who had no foundation and no belief in a Creator?
HD
As a specific, the framers of our country weren't really afraid of church-run states because historically there really weren't any that amounted to anything. The governments that took over churches wrecked the religion and wrecked the governments. That is the whole history of the post-Constantine empire(s). I don't know of any churches that took over states/principalities, outside of Islam...and that religion commands it.
It is not a Christian notion to establish a national religion or a state-run religion. There maybe some nuts who would like that but it is not Christian and has no Christian history. The framers were more concerned about the integrity of the individual and the integrity of local religion when they put the establishment clause together. (Hey C-...notice the wording of those establishmnet clauses: It limits what the gubment does, not the churches)
Further, the original colonies were locally run by the established denominations. This bit of history is interesting if you read what was both written and said at the Constitutional Congress. Arguments for and against states being "Baptist", "Puritan", etc were all about. In fact, the largest argument against establishing a federal gubment was that it would reduce each individual state's ability to do as it pleases, religiously or otherwise. (Hence, the tenth amendment.)
This is stuff that C- and IQ100 hate to hear, but, it is true nonetheless.
Deeply religious men forming a secular government that ultimately tolerates the most people and beliefs. (Read about the Mass. bay Colonies and how they established their governance.)
If you read C- and IQ100 you'd think that it was just the other way around.
Not sure which brand of excrement you most relate to Stweem'O - am banking on pig shit because that's pretty damn thick.
There has never been any denial that the founding fathers had belief in a creator. Trying to turn the argument to something different I see (again). That this belief is outmoded is where I stand. You don't. You're a self confessed conservative; only in this case your preference seems to be for the dark ages
It's your continued assertion that belief in a creator is the only correct way to live that I find laughable...
...that anyone capable of thinking for themselves and who therefore refuses to follow your little superstition is in some way bereft of moral absolutes that I find laughable...
...that those who refute the idea of a little omnipotent man in the clouds who rules over all, are incapable of understanding liberty, that I find laughable...
You see Stweem'O'Bullshit? Most of what you say is laughable. This is why you are a Glumbert joke.
Good afternoon, IQ100...ahem...IQ10
Let me again correct you, since you struggle with reading.
1. Still have not answered my very basic question.
2. I have made a few claims about our founding and what our founders claimed and believed. Among them: They believed that our liberties, rights and the very fact that we are equal under the law descends directly and depends upon a belief in a Creator. It permeates the ideologies that helped establish our nation. For some reason, you want the situation to be otherwise.
3. I have never said that being an atheist meant one was not moral, I simply said that, by definition, there is no source or foundation of morals if one is an atheist. People can still be good and be atheists. The questions that are begged run off the page.
4. Yes, being an atheist, by definition, removes absolutes. There must be other rationales for an atheist's morality, just not absolutes. Pragmatists are a good example. Further, if you believe morality evolved along with the development of man, then it is entirely possible that we are not currently done evolving, therefore we cannot have any claims to moral absolutes. Period. It would still be subjective.
5. Never said belief in a Creator was necessary for understanding liberty, etc. I have said, however, that you nor C- understand and that is currently on display.
6. carry on
Why does this always turn into a religious witch hunt? I don't care what Streamo believes religiously, (I haven't even heard it, so he must not be preaching too hard) religious beliefs don't necessarily affect political beliefs, and Streamo's political beliefs are usually dead on from a conservative standpoint. Disagree with him all you want, but mocking him for his religious beliefs, just not cool in my book. I just don't get your irrational annoyance by Streamo. He's probably one of the most rational posters I've met here.
Without religion, there would be considerably less charity to the world's impoverished, you guys usually support welfare of all. Or is that only the governments job, and religion must be replaced? I would disagree. A small town local church is far more likely to require accountability, and guard against fraud, when it comes to distributing aid. Plus, its not tax dollars, so who gives a fuck how they spend their money?
However, I do disagree with Streamo that our founding fathers weren't wary of religious control of government, and possible religious infighting, when they had hundreds of years of dark ages European history to observe. Its quite probable that our founding documents are nonspecific about God or denomination, precisely because there were so many different denominations represented at the constitutional congress. But I believe the vast majority did believe in God.
Could America have been founded without any belief in God? Could renaissance humanism alone have been enough? Well, we'll never know for sure, because apparantly (luckily) our founding fathers were a bunch of narrow-minded superstitious bible-thumpers. And they did a pretty damn good job.
"I don't care what Streamo believes religiously, (I haven't even heard it, so he must not be preaching too hard)"
Well, maybe you ain't been listenin' suh good. :-)
"And they did a pretty damn good job"
No one ever said they didn't.
It's the successive generations (such as Stream-O's ilk) that have perverted, twisted and otherwise distorted and maligned their ideals, and basically shaped it to suit their own narrow-minded views.
Well that's where I disagree with you. See I think Streamo and I see things more as our founding fathers did. The government is only what's in the constitution, no more, no less. And its democrats that have been perverting, twisting, and distorting US government ever since; adding authority to the federal government, that the constitution never gave it, and creating bullshit entitlement programs.
But I am glad you can agree that narrow-minded, superstitious, bible-thumpers can be useful.
Frankly, I think the founding fathers were as divided as we are, and that's why reaching a compromise was so damn difficult. Hamilton and Adams hated each other, and personally slandered each other on a regular basis. So I think its very difficult to say one side has distorted the ideals of the founding fathers, since they're ideals were often polar opposites.
The true beauty of the constitution, is that it sets up eternal balance of left and right wing, and always promotes the middle ground.
1. Thought the answer had already been given? Your reading skills shine through as usual. By the way you might want to check out the actual origins of the words 'liberty' and 'equality' before you start harping on about the constitution and the founding fathers being the start of everything great and good. The USA is only 233 years young. All the notions you seem to think unique to your constitution had already been in place thousands of years before elsewhere. In any case, the constitution is a secular document and nowhere does it appeal to any supreme being. If I am wrong please explain where and back it up.
The mentioning of god in the declaration of independence doesn't describe the personal god of christianity. Jefferson held deist beliefs and he wrote the majority of it... It describes 'the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God'
This nature's view of god agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs so any attempt to use it as a support for christianity alone fails. In addition, the declaration doesn't represent a lawful document as it came into being before the establishment of the government. Attempting to rewrite history by saying the US was founded purely on christian belief is type A Stweem'O'Bullshit typical
2. Not sure what your point is here - you keep moaning on about the founders having belief. I don't deny that. Never have. I simply state that a theist belief was never NEEDED in order to have come up with the ideas espoused by the founders. You can't understand that. Fine. Since failing your biology basic, understanding has clearly never been your strong point
3. Atheists have no foundation of morals BY DEFINITION? Which definition would that be Stweem'O'Bullshit? How you can go through life just making shit up as brazenly as you do really defeats me.
4. I agree - it is subjective as mankind is still evolving. But wait... you don't believe in evolution do you? Wasn't everything created in 6 days 6000 years ago...Your proclamation of absolute moral superiority through theist belief is rendered idiotic if you then agree that absolutes are evolving.
You love to use the term 'by definition' and then fail to explain what you're defining. Let me clarify for you - an 'absolute' is (whether one is an atheist or, like you, a rabid follower of fable) a never changing constant.
However, those with any cognitive ability (ie not you) understand that historically few real absolutes exist - you want a discussion on relativism here? You will as usual be found wanting but you might learn something... By the way, would the commandment 'thou shalt not kill' be deemed an absolute? How did Jefferson defend slavery again?
Nice to see you considering the possibility of continuing evolution at least
5. LMFAO - epic stupidity versus failure to understand. Makes for great debate dontcha think Cleetus?
6. Imitation is the apparently the sincerest form of flattery. Carry on.
Can't wait to see the new depths of dumb you'll plumb...
IQ10
This is going to be painful.
Quickly to dispense with your article: The Catholic Church has for years claimed that evolution (DE) and Christianity were compatible. Where have you been? You, like C-, think that consensus is the same thing as evidence. (It is not surprising that the Catholic Church holds this opinion, were you to ever look into Catholic doctrine.) The Catholic Church does not speak for Christianity and the members of the church are free to disagree.
Now, to your illiterate prose.
1. No, the answer has not been given. The origins of the words are not germaine to thios debate any more than the origin of the word insipid. Were you to take time to read anything other than the Decl of Independence, you would see that our founders arrived at their beliefs based on ideas that were in fact, old. I have never claimed that liberty or equality were our framers inventions, just that the context they were placed were their inventions. Please, for the love of all things, read what I wrote. Stop reading into it what you think I meant.
The Constitution is a secular document. Never said otherwise. But, the founding of which is predicated on Judeo-Christian beliefs...enacted by a Judeo-Christian group of men...and accepted by a people that were predominantly Christian in their beliefs. I recognize you hate these facts to the point of denial, Mako. It doesn't change them. Further, these claims are not the same as saying we are a Christian nation, which I have never said.
Take some time and read, not just the legal documents, but the letters and speeches given at the time...their rationales...who they addressed...etc. You eyes will be opened wide for the spotlight to reach every corner of that empty head.
Finally, take some time to read about Thomas Jefferson. Much is made of his deism. However, he wasn't so dogmatic about his beliefs. (Slavery, in fact, weighed very heavy on him and the moral juxtaposition it placed on him.) His letters and words, taken in time and context, don't reveal the staunch deist you belive him to be.
2. Why would you feel the need to to state that a theist belief was never needed? I find that very odd, Mako. It obviously was needed. No other country on the planet arrived at these beliefs and then founded a system of gubment on them. You take for granted so much that you cannot coherently place these thoughts on liberty, equality etc in their proper historical context.
Just name the other countries/gubments that were founded on these beliefs. Have fun.
3. If you are going to ridicule what I postulate, the least you can do is support your own ideas with a claim to the opposite. Listen, why would my claim about atheists bother you? Many atheists who believe in evolution have no problem it. They even make no apology for it. They recognize that, as they claim, human beings are still evolving and any claim to moral absolutism is not possible in that framework. Why is this so hard for you?
If you disagree...(Drum roll please)...what is the foundation of your morality?
4. I never said that human beings were still evolving and by extension, that moralities were involving. I was stating your position and its logical impossibilities. (Honey, science is not above or beside the laws of logic.) And, by your writing...made it crystal clear.
Atheism, BY DEFINITION, cannot have moral absolutes since moral absolutes need a fixed foundation. Atheists cannot answer this question. That is not a cut-down, but a definitive statement. Sorry you struggle so.
I know of a few absolutes that have been around for thousands of years, unchanged. The commandment you refer is actually "Thou shalt not murder." And, yes, it is an absolute.
Jefferson did not defend slavery as an institution. He was part of the movement to make slave trafficking inside the US illegal. He was furhter part of the movement to make the slave trade with Africa illegal, as well. You had better put these people and ideas in thier proper contexts. (Read Thomas Sowell: Black Rednecks and White Liberals)
Ummmm......once again, because you're so deeply entrenched into a religious psychosis, you failed miserably to read/understand the question; the question I asked (verbatim) was "Who would Jesus give a bill to?", meaning if one believes that "He" healed the sick (i.e., made the blind see, made the crippled walk, etc.) and performed these miraculous feats of delivering quality health care.....then who would "HE" give a bill to, for rendering said services? See, for all the blathering you do about following "His" teachings and principles, you sure do make it a solid point about disregarding them with apparent ease.
The question CLEARLY did NOT indicate that "He" either needed, (or even 'was').....a "doctor". So your comment is deluded at worst...supremely ignorant at best.
Besides, between getting eviscerated by Mako on the topic of religion and getting drawn-and-quartered on the topic of universal health care by me......how do you STILL find time for all of these silly, asinine rationalizations?
You superstitious, torch-burning, flag-waving, lapel-pin-hugging, Cheney-worshipping peasant, you.
Catholicism is clearly wrong then%u2026you are the one true way%u2026 is that the case Stweem%u2019O%u2019Bullshit? LMFAO at your continued and still stultifying arrogance... By the way I wasn%u2019t actually suggesting this view was anything new, just that this article was. What is it you always mumble about context and failure to understand again??
1. Holy fucksticks batman, your dumbness takes new and interesting directions. Yes%u2026the answer HAS been given. You are clearly incapable of understanding. The rest of your comment under (1) was actually mindless bollocks. Oh..apart from your mention of Jefferson%u2026more of that later
2. This one makes me laugh as you sounded so goddamned sure of yourself. I asked whether you understood the actual origins of the very words %u2018liberty%u2019, %u2018equality%u2019 etc. You clearly don%u2019t. You clearly are crystal-stupid. They are French. Liberte and egalite are the founding tenets of France%u2026
In this vein, read a little too of the speech by Patrick Henry who was a member of the convention who ratified your constitution. On talking about where the best examples of government were to be found:
"It has gone to regions where it has never been expected; it has gone to the people of France in search of a splendid government, a strong, energetic government... We are descended from a people whose government was founded on LIBERTY; our glorious forefathers of Great Britain made LIBERTY the foundation of everything. That country is become a great, mighty and splendid nation, not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because LIBERTY is its direct end and foundation%u201D
You're really an arrogant little snot aren't you?
To rub it in a little further you thick little peasant; read up on John Locke's 'Second Treatise of Government' and Baron De Montesquieu's 'The Spirit of the Laws' both of which had a HUGE influence on the constitution.
Feeling stupid yet dumbo?
3. Onto your third point %u2013 so you admit it's your CLAIM and not actually a definition. Thanks.
However I know your self-congratulatory view is based on a viewpoint whereby you absolve responsibility for your own actions and devoid yourself of any empathic ability by blindly following the booble.
I've been over this before when your little alter ego Cum Chin turned up... I'll do it again for you as you were probably too busy trying not to get caught using an alias...
Generally speaking morality has to do with human conduct - what is right and what is wrong.
For you, there is some sort of inseparable connection between morality and religion.
Belief in a little beardy guy in the clouds constitutes the foundation for you.
When confronted with questions concerning rightness and wrongness or goodness and badness, you turn to the superstitious for answers. I simply contend that morality is relative to human experience, human nature common sense and empathy.
We won't agree, but you'll still no doubt crow on and on about how superior your existence is whilst guided by the apparent absolutes instilled by your little beardy man.
Carry on, but do understand I will continue to mock you for it.
What%u2019s more moral? Helping people out of the goodness of your heart or doing it because you think it will score points with a little invisible chappie after you've shuffled off this mortal coil?
4. For your apparent 4th point, do you want to discuss relativism like I asked you? That might help you understand the concept of evolving morality which actually leads me neatly onto the the whole 'thou shalt not kill' thing.
Once again you just plainly and simply lie and say that what IS, is not... In fact it's not quite a lie, more a failure to acknowledge the whole truth. You're like a little Glumbertian Dick Cheney who hopes that by saying something it will be true.
Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Deuteronomy 5:17 Thou shalt not kill.
Mathew 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.
Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Oh%u2026wait%u2026.my guess is you are looking at the modern bible transcripts where those apparent 'absolutes' have been amended to state the term 'murder' so that apparently lawful killings (self defense, or the legal killings in an illegal Iraq invasion for example) don't mean you fall foul of your little beardy fella?
Did we not talk previously about how the bible had been constantly re-written many times in the past?
Were you not shown to be full of shit then too?
It is, of course, not just a question of etymology. Your idiocy, sorry, ideology that adduces the commandment in support of supposedly gentle-hearted causes is compelled to feign ignorance of all those other places in the Bible that condone or command warfare, the slaughter of sacrificial animals, and an assortment of methods for inflicting capital punishment.
And yes, just to reiterate, Jefferson DID defend slavery. He used the bible to do it. During his inauguration speech he said:
'Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God... it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation... it has existed in all ages, as been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts'
What were you saying about lack of dogma again Stweem'O'Bullshit?
You're a hypocritical little shit aren't you?
Not to mention fond of ignoring that which slaps you in the face.
IQ10
It is so much easier to show you to be silly when we number things. Thank you for following my lead.
Please do not deny that posting that article on Catholicism was anything but news to you. It is one thing to use it as a-buttressing your point...it is another to deny it was not revelation to you.
I mean, where has that little tiidbit been in our previous discussions.
You are too easy.
Now, to bring you back to earth.
1. No answer has been given, IQ10. Just rationalizing. You have danced around the issue and gotten close, but when pressed into a very obvious corner you simply stamp your feet and tell me I am wrong. I even feel the spit hitting my face from the froth you generate.
2. You CANNOT be this stupid. I keep saying this to myself and then you write these things. If you read what I wrote, you cannot disagree. So, you construct an argument I am not making. Keep going, IQ. Keep going.
NO, those word origins are not French...they are Latin. (Liberty seems to have come by the Greek word for 'free' as in peoples vs. slaves.)
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read what I wrote. You are making an argument with yourself, IQ. You obviously have an ax to grind.
I never said our founders invented these concepts, dunder. I said, and it is still true, that NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS BEEN FOUNDED ON THEM.
That is why the origins of the words is irrelevant.
As to your quote from Patrick Henry: So what. It was a speech filled with generalities as many political speeches are. Our founders knew very well their ideas' antecedents, C-. Plus, remember, the French Revolution and its philosophical arguments were well under way.
Context, man!
3. No, ETHICS, is what you are referring...not morality. And then you say what I have been begging you to address: what is right and wrong. What is its source? You say human experience, nature and common sense.
But, IQ10...if we evolved then those things change too. Please explain the cultural differences about what is right and wrong.
Here you are: NO FOUNDATION to even make the claim of right and wrong because iur foundation is completely subjective. Simple disagreement renders your argument null and void.
What is more moral, you ask? I would answer by saying that it would not matter to the recipient of my help. However, one does not do good to score points with God. That would completely undermine what is good. You know, like when mom and dad make the kid apologize for a wrong-doing. The kids most likely doing so to appease mom and dad...thus, possibly rendering the apology empty.
4. I do want to discuss relativism.
I appreciate you quoting the Bible...IN ENGLISH. It wasn't written in English and the Greek and Hebrew in which it was written, is very clear as to context: murder is the operative.
Do you think that murder and killing are the same?
You, of all the posters here, clearly don't draw too thick a line.
Wouldn't it be an odd thing for the God of the Bible to decree "NO KILLING" and immediately thereafter sanction certain kinds of killing?
Use your little noodle. Clearly the reference was to murder and, just so you know, Christians and Jews alike have taken it in that context for over 2500 years.
Must I prove you wrong on the re-writing of the Bible?! Honestly, IQ. When over your head, you should simply drop the matter.
Finally, to blow up your Thomas Jefferson quote:
a. It would be irrelevant to my claims about Jefferson. At best, he was conflicted about it, since it was a part of his and everyones normal everyday life.
b. HE DIDN'T SAY THAT! That was Jefferson Davis.
You must be feeling super duper smart now.
I know it is difficult typing with your head buried in your butt...but to do so with a foot in your mouth, now that is truly a miracle.
1. Ask the question again and I will answer it again
2. Ok you pathetic little pedant. Point scoring on technicalities may be what drives you. The true ancient origins may well be Latin / Greek...MOST words in most languages in the western world ARE you cretin.
My point was that Liberty, Equality etc are the principles on which France as the state we know it today was founded on. This was only mentioned as a counter to your pompous (and incorrect) statement that the US was the ONLY nation founded on those principles. You are wrong, as you normally are...
You say 'So what' regards Patrick Henry - a little cowardly of you but then again we see your typical tap dance away response. He was stating that the very principle of Liberty was not solely a principle of the founding of the US.
So, wrong again numb nuts...
3. No foundation to claim right or wrong because my viewpoint is subjective??
Erm...tell me oh silly sage...how subjective is YOUR basis for moral absolutes when it's based on an unproven supertitious entity?
Selfishly claiming them as christian absolutes alone is especially pre-school, especially when most other susperstitious beliefs also list similar little rules. Remember...they're man-made constructs. Man kind is pretty bright (present company excepted) and thus manages to make some pretty good rules up
Now let's just reiterate for you as you're stupid...I asked you which was more moral...helping out of the inate goodness of one's heart, or helping because you feel obliged by the booble to do so?
In essence I asked which reason for OFFERING that help assumes the 'greater' moral foundation.
You have not answered.
This is because you are stupid and afraid to be made to look more so.
Read slowly...
I did NOT ask you about the recipient and whether or not it mattered to them. The assumption is the recipient needed help.
I asked...Which.... is... more... moral?
a) Helping from the goodness of your heart / because you simply want to
b) Helping because you think it's a religious commandment to do so
The outcome is the same; help is offered
It's just the atheist had the common sense to offer it without having his parents/church/local religious loon indoctrinate him into believing that god has told him to do so.
This is human nature at work and, yes it has evolved. Most of us no longer stone our children to death for not disobeying us - where do you stand on that one? Thought your booble had something about that somewhere...
Do you need your booble by your side at all times to refer to in case you suddenly feel compelled to satisfy some primal urge to kill...ya know...something to refer to in case those in-bred southern hillbilly frustrations get a little too much to bear?
Gimme a break about your moral absolutes - you're a hypocritical idiot.
You happily support an illegal invasion where hundreds of thousands have been killed/murdered and THEN have the temerity to say YOUR morals are absolutely without subjectivity? On top of this, there's no proof of existence WHATSOEVER of the very god you profess these commandments to be the word of.
Unmitigated idiocy.
If you think your god created moral absolutes then prove absolutely that she exists/existed to have done so in the first place. Or was Moses just a cleverer little bugger than people thought and he simply came up with a pretty good list whilst fucked off his face on some acacia bark concontion - after all they say acid opens the doors of perception...
Whether it was a fucked up hippie who came up with a good list, or a collection of them, they were all undoubtedly human.
What you are then left with is the evolution of these supposed absolutes as societal development (NOT beardy cloud guy) deems them more or less relevant to and within society over time. Let's take a simple example...not coveting your neighbour's wife probably evolved out of common sense...Too much coveting saw inbreeding take place. Not sure the rule took hold in your red-neck of the woods. Exceptions always occur right?
You're simply full of the most pompous crap it's unreal.
4. Moral relativism is probably a step too far for you - tell me what you 'know' it is before I have to go through the tedious process of teaching you what it actually is... Ya know, here I feel like a therapist trying to assess jusy how retarded my patient is before commencing treatment...
Erm, you have never proven me wrong on the re-writing of the bible in your stunted forgetful world - does this little source remind you:
Yup - that's an admission from your own little sect of superstites that the biblical tale is a constantly changing crap fest. It's one I used a year ago to destroy the bollocks you come out with...Care to comment? Or is it simply that religious idiots like you can't even agree amongst themselves
Stweem'O' complete and utter Bullshit, can you tell me what the Apocrypha were, or the Gnostic Gospels? Guess they weren't included in your current book of fables as they apparently didn't conform to what the editor wanted in the propaganda piece that you still are sucked into...
Oh, this little passge may jog your memory: "Martyn Percy, a canon doctor at Sheffield university, welcomed the initiative but suggested the results may be less than dramatic. "There has never been a settled, definitive version of the Bible, it has been an evolving book which has gone through many translations. Only fundamentalists think it came in a fax from heaven"
Remember the context of that Stweem'O'Stoopid?
That was where a team comprising Etienne Nodet, author of the The Origins of Christianity; Paolo Garuti, a biblical scholar; and Garcia Martinez, president of the international movement for Qumranic studies were embarking on a recent re-write of the bible
Now...about your little arrogant proclamation that the bible has never been altered or changed?
So the term 'murder' was always actually used was it? The term 'kill' was NEVER used or inferred?
So why such a big debate about it amongst religious scholars as to the true meanings of these ancient decrees? You are certainly not bright enough to know the true meanings of some texts written thousands of years ago if true scholars are debating it...
Guess an all knowing, all powerful beardy cloud man wasn't that omnipotent if he managed to create such division over something that's actually pretty simple to most free thinking humans - killing a living, breathing, talking, walking human being is actually widely regarded as a 'bad' thing, whether it's justified or not, whether via premeditated murder or not.
Your superstition suggests you need to be told that, and the fact that you jump immediately to the side of 'murder' means you quite clearly like to have the ability to 'kill' on your side...No right minded person 'wants' that right but I understand the need for it
The fact that modern interpretations of the bible suggest that the true translation 'should be' the word 'murder' instead of 'kill' only goes to prove how your supposed 'absolutes' have and are evolving.
It's only as human kind develops and legal precedents are set, that justifiable killing becomes legally acknowledged. It's here that the booble then needs to hit the reset button and come up with a revised 'this is the word of god' crapola more in tune with modern times
Finally regards T Jefferson, you say it's irrelevant to your 'claims' (not facts I hasten to add but 'claims'), and then contradict yourself by suggesting he was conflicted about it. That... surely means... it's... relevant??
Forgive the ommission of Jefferson D's surname. My mistake. Would you care to comment on how a President of the USA used the bible to defend slavery during his inauguration?
If Jefferson D used the bible to defend his view on slavery, AND he was a committed christian with his moral foundations based on your percieved absolutes then he must have been completely in the right...right?
How does that work my little womble-brained idiot?
Should we add an absolute commandment - 'Man shall not be kept as slave by another man? (subclause: unless he willingly submits to it and gets paid with annual leave entitlements, a decent salary, health insurance and maybe some decent promotion opportunities if he grafts hard enough)
You're regressing faster than the economy
The economy might recover faster though. You're growth curve isn't.
I've always generally gotten along with you, even though we have some pretty serious disagreements. I gotta say, your constant insults to Streamo, do not bolster your arguement. I'm not saying Streamo isn't dishing it right back, but I just don't sense the frothing venom spewing from Streamo's words. Take a break and count to 10,000 or something.
I've always said fanatical ideology of any kind is the real evil of the world. Religion is one possible ideology to be fanatical about, but so is atheism, and the fanatical ideology to discredit all things and all people supporting religion. Its just wrong to force your beliefs down anyone's throat, even if you know your viewpoint is the more scientifically correct one. Its not a crime to put your personal religious beliefs above science.
I share your distrust of religious organizations (actually just all organizations), recognize historical abuses in the name of religion, recognize discrepencies in the bible, and generally put science well ahead of religion, but you won't find me calling a believer in God a moron or an idiot believing in superstition. I don't pretend that my version of reality is better than theirs. I don't see a harm in their right to practice their religion. I don't see faith as a mark of stupidity. Can you adequately explain all the mysteries of the universe? Where we came from? Why we're here? What's the meaning of life? I know I can't, and science leads us down the road, but we never reach the end. I don't mind a second opinion.
Streamo isn't the face of religion, and the source of all the world's evil. Bush isn't the natural and clear evil outcome of religious belief.
Frankly I'm not too kean on just ending up as wormfood, as any human probably isn't. This probably inspires the many versions of the afterlife throughout history. But I think we all want to believe in something bigger than ourselves, why try to destroy that for someone else? I'm not saying you're denting Streamo's faith, but I suspect you go through life stomping on religious thought whenever and wherever you see it. In a cruel world, some people desperately need their faith. Let them have it. Maybe they'll be kind to you someday, just because their booble told them to.
Please forgive me if I took your intent the wrong way.
IQ
Dude. Really.
You are looking awful here. Please stop.
1. You are now beginning to answer the question. This is good and thank you.
2. Don't be mad when I point out your error by generalization. You tried to make a point about the origin of words as proof that the founding of the US was not the first to use these concepts. (That was NOT my claim, IQ. You continue to create strawmen that you then, in error, try to knock down.)
France was not founded on those ideals, IQ. Their revolution was not exactly like ours...which is why I kept saying "a country found on those concepts in their contexts". I never said nor suggested that liberty and equality were unique to the US, just that their contexts (as descending from a Creator and then leading to our current system) in our founding were.
You have shown nothing to dispute that. But, you have made stuff up to support an argument with yourself.
Patrick Henry was acknowledging France's growing pains out of its monarchy. They were fighting for liberty, etc. JUST NOT WITH THE SAME MORAL CONTEXTS or FOR THE SAME REASONS. We still supported them regardless of their differences...and there were many. The roll of God being among them. The roll of the state being another.
3. This is really easy...you just don't like it.
If I believe that there is a Creator of all things, that would include what is right and wrong. If I believe that Creator transcends time and space; If I believe that that Creator communicated His rules for living here on Earth through the Bible; THEN, I have a fixed place, an unchangeing set of guidelines for established right and wrong.
You do not.
Why is this a point of dispute. Many relativists and atheists relish this idea. Your argument proves you have NO FOUNDATION. You said so yourself, IQ: Common sense, etc are your roots. Those are subjective.
I did answer the question, IQ. You suffer the same affliction as C-.
I SAID: "However, one does not do good to score points with God." Bingo. Direct answer to your question.
Got anymore?
Which atheists do you refer when you say it is common sensical to help the less fortunate: Hitler? Mao? Stalin?
You are upset that a church instilled the value of charity and gave it a foundation. Not all cultures view that type of common sensical charity the same. You are benefitting from a culture that has such largess that charity is now common sensical.
You don't understand the world in which you live.
By the way: Your charity morality is common sense to you, right? Well, people's lot in life and their poverty/deprivation is "common sense" to certain eastern cultures.
What does that say about your "foundation" argument for your morality?!
I do keep my Bible close, thank you. I don't remember the part about stoning children to death for disobedience.
You asked for proof that God exists. I suppose that is very important to you. From my end, if there was absolute proof upon which everyone agreed, then Faith would be a non-existence concept...and, ipso fact, human will.
I would ask you the same question...prove the non-existence of God and the claims that morality is man-made. You rely on proof for your beliefs...knock yourself out.
We are left with your claims that defy logic:
You have a moral foundation that is not subjective.
That foundation has been arrived at through evolution.
Those two sentences cannot coexist.
You are not sure what you believe, IQ.
4. Your claims about re-writing (at the time you made them) were to butress a case that there are a legion of changes, etc and that the Bible was put together and is still being put together on all sorts of faulty and maybe even fake documents.
It was those claims that I exploded.
The Bible has been translated and written thousands of times. It remains enormously unchanged despite the efforts of all sorts of people. It remains the MOST studied book on the planet. This counts all the differing opinions about specific passages, contexts, etc. Yet, it remains largely unchanged.
Were you to be in a Christian circle of people, you would likely see a firestorm of debate whenever an effort is made to change or alter even a sentence in the Bible. You aren't so you speak from a grand position of ignorance.
Now to your further claims about the Bible: Did you read the article you sited. It does not undermine anything I have said. Seriously, which huge doctrinal issues have changed in Christianity as a result of a re-write.
There are: Transcriptional errors done during writing processes. There are disagreements about verbiage, etc. There are were)discussions about what is to be included in the canon. How does any of this undermine what I said? Unless, you speak from an ignorant perspective of bigotry; one in which Christianity is not just disagreed, but hated.
If you knew of the Apocrypha and the Gnostics, you would not ask silly questions. The fact that you asked that speaks a lot as to your understanding. You have no idea what the Gnostics believed nor what is comprised in the Apocrypha, without googling of course.
Go get educated, IQ. Then we'll talk.
Finally, and WOW...
Jefferson Davis was not a Pres of the US nor was he the same as Thomas Jefferson. You have just rendered future comments about American History from you...silly on their face. You might as well be C- quoting the Constitution.
Christianity and slavery...normally, I wouldn't do this for you but I will since you need the education
A. The views of one man do not necessarily constitute the accurate view contained in that religion. So, Jefferson Davis' supposed biblical support for slavery doesn't make it so. Your question is illogical.
B. The Bible, in no verse, condones slavery. Anywhere. It does however, acknowledge that slavery exits and therefore had lots to say about the relationship between slave and master. The same or similar can be said of divorce.
C. Many politicians at hte time of the Civil War attempted to use the Bible as support for the institution of slavery. SOOOOOO, and listen closely, this is key: THE ABOLITIONISTS DID TOO! Their argument was entirely Christian morality!
D. Disagreement among and between Christians is no different than among atheists. Which is why I refer to my foundation, my Bible, first...then go from there. You just use your common sense which seems to be working really well about now.
Having no reference points keeps you going in all sorts of directions.
This is, like, the third or fourth time you've taken up Stream-O's cause. Don't get me wrong: I think it's great that at least one person feel;s sorry for him enough to do so. But I DO want to ask you a question, though: how come you're all over Mako and what he says to Stream-O.....and yet give Stream-O a clear pass? Look, I think Makos point (well, I know what MONE is) is that he (nor I) have a particular problem with anyone's so-called "faith" or "belief"; rather, it's when a certain few (like our mutual friend) use whatever "faith" or "belief" they have to cower behind, and thereby use it as a justification to knock others. In turn, they use this "faith" for all sorts of silly and stupid reasons to justify and use it as a jump-off point for other issues, i.e., political views, views on sex, views on 'equality', views on history, etc. And throughout all of thjis....they happily fall back on this 'faith' to ratoinalize away why 'they' are better than anyone else, in this regard.
Now, on a couple of occassions, you've said you haven't See Stream-O go to these lengths. I even replied at one point "Maybe you don't listen/read so good". You think I was kidding? Fine. If you STILL can't see the forest for the trees, then just say so, muh man. I'll be happy to make it a pet project to go back at least a year on these threads, and cut-and-paste clear examples of this for you.
Buuuuut.......if you want to be somehow FAIR and BALANCED (and NOT like Faux News)......then maybe itd be best if you were a little more, shall we say, even-handed in your observations around here.
My intention is not to slam Mako. And I wouldn't necessarily call my efforts championing Streamo's cause. I'm not really defending religious belief, I'm not religious. I'm not arguing if the bible is real and accurate, I'm not speaking on God's existance.
What I am defending is Streamo's right to practice and preach his religious beliefs, (which he only seems to do when you directly challenge him) without being discredited and insulted as a moron, or some poor unenlightened being. I see no intelligence improvement with your more enlightened atheist beliefs.
Now if you want to disagree and say you don't belief in God, that's just great. If you want to devote long-winded tirades against all religious beliefs the world over, I'm gonna jump in. It ain't about Streamo.
I don't need to feel sorry for Streamo, he holds his own. I may actually feel more sorry for you hard-core atheists, convinced their is no God, and feeling its their duty to destroy everyone else's faith as well. What do you have to look forward to? You grow old, you die, that's it. Life is a brutal, empty, meaningless existance to you. Unless you're satisfied with eating, pooping, and fucking.
"how come you're all over Mako and what he says to Stream-O.....and yet give Stream-O a clear pass? "
I thought I answered that already. Though both are throwing insults, I find you and Mako's insults to be far harsher, and your arguements far more judgemental, and less based on facts. I'm reasonably convinced that if you weren't insulting Streamo, he wouldn't be insulting you. The reverse does not appear to be true, as I went through the same insult war with you.
"Look, I think Makos point (well, I know what MONE is) is that he (nor I) have a particular problem with anyone's so-called "faith" or "belief""
Really? Not the way I read it. Religion is responsible for all the world's wars, and should be abolished. All people of faith are morons, clinging to superstition. etc. etc.
"rather, it's when a certain few (like our mutual friend) use whatever "faith" or "belief" they have to cower behind, and thereby use it as a justification to knock others. In turn, they use this "faith" for all sorts of silly and stupid reasons to justify and use it as a jump-off point for other issues, i.e., political views, views on sex, views on 'equality', views on history, etc. "
I don't see it, maybe its my viewpoint. Streamo's arguments are typically heavily based in fact, and only go religious when you bring it up. Maybe that's a change in tactic from Streamo's past arguments? I don't know.
What I see, is everytime you disagree with Streamo on anything, you discredit him by attacking his faith, as if this alone rebuts any and all of his points. I don't see Streamo using his faith to back his points nearly so often as I see you using Streamo's faith to discredit his points.
So feel free to research your case and present your evidence. I'll read it, but I may not agree with it. And if I do disagree, it will probably only mean that I'm stupid, and therefore probably religious.
See as a conservative, I often share political points of view with religious people, so I tend to see them as often intelligent people. Mako and you clearly disagree with most religious people on just about every viewpoint, so its easy for you to call them all stupid.
So Obama claims to be religious, as does Hillary. Are they stupid? Or are they faking their faith? So in your eyes, their either morons or liars. Which is it?
"I believe in talking snakes and an Invisible Man In The Sky, and because of that...I am better and smarter than everyone else." Is that a little more clearer now?
Plus....he has been told many, many times in past on this site by many others (although nicer than me, I admit) to tone dowm the self-righteous crap. And now? They don't talk to him at all. Have you noticed this? It's only me, Mako and you, that directly communicate with him. Everyone else has pretty well had a bellyfull of his holier-than-thou crud, and simply have chosen not to indulge him. It has NOTHING to do with his personal "faith" or beliefs"....and EVERYTHING to do with how he comes at folks BECAUSE of them, as if they give him some kind of licence to justify this ignorance and idiocy. That'd be like me saying "Because of the fact that I'm a Canadian, that makes me better than ANYONE else." Kinda stupid...ain't it?
Now if YOU want to say you share the same page as this shit....be my guest.
HD-Thanks, man. Your even handed approach always leaves me feeling a little guilty for my inability to do the same. I hope it's a Minnesota thing. My future oppressed slave-wife has similar qualities. Doncha know.
C-...when all else fails: Sum it up. Use inaccurate stereotypes. Yell, whenever possible. Accuse those who might disagree with you of the same short-comings. You know, stick to the tried and true.
Just spoke with Miter the other day...and Pods.
I think they simply don't like certain arguments and stay clear. Some people don't come to the websites like this to argue about everything. I don't jump in everywhere nor do I see it as a stamp of disaprroval, necessarily, that you and mako are the only ones engaged in certain types of arguments.
Listen, your method of argumentation is largely one of shouting and attempting to demean through sarcasm, cut-downs, etc anyone who deigns to disagree. Citing websites and news articles as proof and then counting on those who disagree to NOT investigate. Using popularity as tool to stifle dissent. It has not worked with me nor HD. And will continue not to work.
I did not come here to be popular. It seems to be very important to you.
Jonathon Winters was asked why he checked himself into the "nut house". He said, and has been echoed by Robin Williams and others, something like this: "I spend my life trying to get the approval of complete strangers. How nutty is that?"
HD - I give Stweem'O'Bullshit a hard time because when I first arrived here he began trumpeting a lot of crap about the earth being 6000 years old. He really truly believes this and put forward a load of crap in defence of his views. None of his evidence has ever stood the test of time nor passed scientific peer review...
He contends that there are better theories than evolution and fully intends to demonstrate to the world that he can overturn a scientific theory more hated and contested than any seen since man realised the earth wasn't flat.
Trouble is Stweem'O'Bullshit hates peer review as well. He considers it elitist and too far in favour of...science.
This makes him a cretin in my view.
Don't get me wrong HD, everyone IS entitled to their beliefs. Most understand that they are personal. Putting one's own interpretation on a faith (which is what Stweem'O'Bullshit does; you'll no doubt see that his christianity is 'better' than catholicism and 'his' god the only, ahem, 'real' one) and then putting it into a forum for open discussion will invite attack by people who think the opposite.
S'O'Bullshit feels that he is superior to everyone BECAUSE of his superstitions and this comes through terribly in most of what he writes.
This is why I like to keep him on the line - the more people who see how blind faith has created this arrogant little snot, the fewer will follow his path and become like him. They will chose to follow their faith in a forum away from those who'd rather not be subjected to obsequious preaching, redneck christian snobbery and idiocy.
Stweem'O'Bullshit was crowing his superstition loud and long before you arrived HD, and I've been getting on his tits about it. That's all.
Stweem'O'Bullshit - let me get to the weekend before launching into an insult laden argument turkey-shoot. Until then my little cranially challenged inbred a bid you adieu.
IQ
I would expect nothing more than invective.
That's all you have and it's all you have delivered. Even in your explanation to HD...you lied and gave nothing but insults.
Why on earth would I expect something different? It is just your common sense arrived at by evolutio that renders you powerless to do otherwise.
Canuck,
"I believe in talking snakes and an Invisible Man In The Sky, and because of that...I am better and smarter than everyone else." Is that a little more clearer now? "
I don't tolerate people pushing religion on me, in fact, I react rather harshly. I don't care what you believe, so long as a person keeps it to themself. If a person started off with a holier than thou arguement, I would bite. I haven't seen that from Streamo, I typically see that from liberals.
Also there are two kinds of bible-thumpers in the world... those that believe every word literally, and those that believe the bible has some historical accuracy, and lots of analogies and stories to teach a point. My thinking is that the bible (at least creation) is dumbed down deliberately to explain really complicated shit to really stupid illiterate peasants.
I have no idea which camp Streamo would fall in (sorry to talk about you Streamo), not sure it matters for my point.
"It's only me, Mako and you, that directly communicate with him. "
I think its only the four of us that can hold an intelligent conversation on topics, with historical background. And since we all want to be enlightened, intelligent, civilized people, couldn't we make our discussions civil as well?
"Everyone else has pretty well had a bellyfull of his holier-than-thou crud"
Or they simply have real jobs...
"Now if YOU want to say you share the same page as this shit....be my guest. But I think you do yourself a disservice. "
I can find points of agreement and disagreement with both of you. I'm not religious, but I respect Streamo's right to religion. I support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I tried to respect your right to disagree, but found the mutual respect lacking. If you're trying to sway me to the dark side, you'll find I only dig in. When Streamo proves to me he's an asshole, I'll treat him as such. He hasn't done that. Frankly you're still recovering...
Streamo,
They don't call it "Minnesota nice" for nothing.
"Just spoke with Miter the other day...and Pods.
I think they simply don't like certain arguments and stay clear. "
Maybe they have religion, and don't want to get into it with Canuck and Mako?
"Using popularity as a tool to stifle dissent. It has not worked with me nor HD. And will continue not to work. "
If we wanted popularity, we wouldn't be on Glumbert. Or is the secret to happiness really low expectations?
Mako,
"I give Stweem'O'Bullshit a hard time because when I first arrived here he began trumpeting a lot of crap about the earth being 6000 years old. He really truly believes this and put forward a load of crap in defence of his views. None of his evidence has ever stood the test of time nor passed scientific peer review... "
And while I agree with you Mako, that doesn't make Streamo an ass to be ridiculed. What is it to you what he believes? Is it your personal duty to spread your version of the truth to all? You can only expose people to ideas, some people will never learn.
"Trouble is Stweem'O'Bullshit hates peer review as well. He considers it elitist and too far in favour of...science. "
Well his political and historical opinions have stood peer reviews. You can be a great politician and historian, and still be a lousy scientist. Take Al Gore for inst... no never mind.
"Don't get me wrong HD, everyone IS entitled to their beliefs. Most understand that they are personal. "
Well I will agree that if you're willing to trumpet your personal beliefs in a public forum, you are open to ridicule. That doesn't mean your ridicule of one point has to become the defacto response to any post. Again, I haven't heard it, or I might be dishing some God-boy cracks. Now I can't, cause you've made me the religious rights champion. Thanks a lot!
How are personal beliefs about religion any different than personal beliefs about ideology, war, politics, etc. I could ridicule you for your anti-war beliefs, I won't, well I won't try to cut too deeply. ;-)
"you'll no doubt see that his christianity is 'better' than catholicism and 'his' god the only, ahem, 'real' one"
WTF? Now he's ripping on Catholics? I was raised Catholic... ;-) My favorite homily was when the guest speaker came to church one Sunday, and told us all God gives us all our money! We should be grateful enough to give back 10%, that's before taxes. I almost laughed myself out of my seat. Now I go to church twice a year, whether I need to or not, and weddings and funerals count.
Personally, I think if there is a God, all religions have the same God.
Story time...
God looked down at his people, and he sent them Moses, so that they could follow God's plan. Well that started off well, spread for awhile and created Jews, then kinda lost steam. So God sent Jesus. That hooked a few more people called Christians, and spread over the whole Roman empire, but it still didn't spread much east of Judea. So God sent Mohammad, and this started Islam spreading around the world, but this didn't spread into India and China. So God looks down on India and China, and he says fuck it, let the rest burn in hell!
Its in the bible somewhere... ;-)
"S'O feels that he is superior to everyone BECAUSE of his superstitions and this comes through terribly in most of what he writes. "
I don't see it. He may feel superior because his opinion is better researched, or better grounded in history and facts. I don't see the religion, unless you guys start razzing him on it. Maybe he used to be religiously superior, and you've shut him up about it? I don't know, but I don't see that now. I'd be perfectly happy to have a discussion on evolution with Streamo, probably battling him on every point, but I think I could do it without insulting him, provided there was mutual respect.
"the more people who see how blind faith has created this arrogant little snot, the fewer will follow his path and become like him. They will chose to follow their faith in a forum away from those who'd rather not be subjected to obsequious preaching, redneck christian snobbery and idiocy."
So you're saying religious people aren't welcome here at Glumbert? That all opinions are not respected? That Glumbert is a bastion of liberal atheist delite? He isn't reverend Phelps screaming soldiers are dying in Iraq because they're gay. Maybe you could give him a second chance?
"Stweem'O'Bullshit was crowing his superstition loud and long before you arrived HD, and I've been getting on his tits about it. "
I fully understand, but I don't hear it now. I think you've made him realize his preaching is not welcomed by you heathens and infidels. Maybe he's even given up trying to save your souls? Oops, sorry, atheists have no souls, just rot in the ground.
Great battery of points, HD.
I would love to have a civil discussion about evolution some time. Ask away!
You poit out something very prescient whether you intended to or otherwise: the modern leftist wishes to deligitimize religion and remove it from the arena of ideas.
Rather than debate the merits of religious components to anything, they try to minimize and even remove it from a crucial role in most human beings lives.
Just look at the sidestepping done by C- and IQ.
The left knows that in order to maintain its power over people, there can be no higher being than the state. Just lookat the enormous power they willingly grant to the state to nanny, mother and father the people because they believe the people are ultimately incapable of tending to themselves.
To acknowledge that a Higher Power is actually the source of all things would be to eliminate most functions of the state. Read Marx. Read Hitler. Read Mao. Holy crap...read what Lenin thought about religion and what he did to the intellectuals (useful idiots) who actually supported his rise to power.
Step one: destroy God.
C- and IQ suppose that they can eliminate this area of the discussion by appealing to their own pride: We are more enlightened now and have, in effect, disproven the existence of God.
They also appeal to man's desire to be accepted by others: I have been admonished to get with the program, join the educated, come into the 21st century, etc.
Notice, however, that their concern is really a hatred for Christianity borne of extreme ignorance, willful at that, and cowardice to face their own philosophical and logical impossibilities.
Your point that religion as a basis for belief and opinion is no less legitimate than theirs is about as good a point made here in some time.
I guess, given some of the C- and IQ past points, freedom of speech is only good as long as it is not speech about God.
C-
I know that is a lie (shock and horror...noooooo). You have spent many a post not just belittling Christians but attempting, with no less vitriol, to dispute and even refute Christianity's claims.
I need only refer you to your characterizations of the Bible as a book of fairy tales. You even argued that Jesus was likley a mythical figure and that Christianity was just another run-of-the-mill cult surrounding already existing cults.
Yeah, right....you have no problem with Christianity.
HD - fair enough on most of those points. If your point is that you feel I attack him unfairly for his position then do, please, please have a discussion on evolutionary theory with S'O'B.
You will find it most enlightening in terms of helping explain why I treat him with the contempt I do.
You stated, "...the bible (at least creation) is dumbed down deliberately to explain really complicated shit to really stupid illiterate peasants...I have no idea which camp Streamo would fall in (sorry to talk about you Streamo), not sure it matters for my point"
Before your debate with him, I urge some light reading of the following threads. These help highlight which camp S'O'B falls into, and also illustrate why I think he's an idiot:
HD this last thread doesn't actually show Stweem'O'Bullshit being silly but may give you more inkling on my position on faith. It demonstrates that I am EVENLY opposed to ANYONE trumpeting their superstition as 'the one'. I'm an equal opportunities atheist if you like... Actually I'm probably more of an apathist - I don't actually care unless and until people start spouting superstition or hurting each other because of belief in the unproven
By the way, S'O'B didn't appear in that latter thread as he was licking wounds from previous threads. I half expected an appearance though.
S'OB is so unbelievably bound by his dogma that sensible discussion is impossible in the context of creationism and evolution.
S'O'B - here's one right back attcha on choice in the context of abortions:
By the way S'O'B, apparently the video has gone 'viral'??
Strange, can't find it on youtube which is where one would expect a truly viral offering (you know, one which spreads by common interest across all groups and amasses huge views) to end up... By all means do direct me to where it sits there. 35K views is by no means 'viral'. It's simply a cynical opinion piece video.
HD - see S'O'Bs opinion on pro-choice... you may see here why I think he's a smug little turd.
"need only refer you to your characterizations of the Bible as a book of fairy tales"
Yup - your point being what?
"...even argued that Jesus was likely a mythical figure"
Doesn't matter really does it... most of the bible IS mythical
"... and that Christianity was just another run-of-the-mill cult surrounding already existing cults"
It is. - your belief system can only claim primacy over other superstitions in your OWN mind. Adherents to other religions and/or atheists simply think you're a cock for assuming the mantle of spokesman on behalf of the 'greatest of all' superstitions
IQ-
Did you read what C- claimed and then what I refuted?
What points were you arguing? It looks like you were agruing agianst points I was not making...like the private-military thread above.
Read, in context, what was written.
By the way, thank you for the walk down memory lane. You citing those links back into Glumbert do not support your assertions.
I can't imagine HD wants to read all of our commentary. But, he might.
I never even saw the last link in the list of four..I am sure it would have been fun. (I was gone for a long time.) No wounds to lick, IQ. After re-reading all of those posts, I have to say I ahd a really good time handing you your butt...on the same frying pan used to spank you.
You did say an interesting phrase though: "...hurting each other because belief in the unproven." Like, the eugenics movement or nazism.
Plus, I don't think he liked that, Mako.....I mean, bringing up historical posts where he makes a fool outta hisself. Kinda ruins his 'mystique', I think.
Has a severe problem owning what he says, that boy does.
Streamo:
"M-I need to make clear, as Christians sometimes do not: I am not judging you. I am no better than you and in no position to judge you. However, it is imperative that we judge actions and words. It is important for you to know that we are both broken and frail human beings, no better or worse than the other. As I check myself, I have to ask-did I chastise in love? Not always. But I will get better, God willing."
[reply][inappropriate]
mako1001 year ago"No worries - I'll reduce the invective too! :-)
S'fun sometimes to vent tho!"
To this:
"Mako-
From superficially well-reasoned to duncedom in two posts.
The law makes it right, according to you. So, how's that stance on US and illegal wars working for you? Since the war is not illegal, it must be right...according to you. "
Maybe Streamo crossed the line first? I understand your girlfriend had an abortion at 17. That is a bitch for children to have to make such a decision. I can fully understand you making the choice you did at that age, and yet how would you're life be different today had you had that child? You might have some guilt, and certainly don't need someone else chastising you for it.
As for your views on when a child becomes sentient:
"it's during the second trimester that motor functions begin to work at approx 4 months. This to me suggests the beginning of brain function. Frankly whether this also reflects conscious sentient thought and being, I very much doubt, but we are talking my belief and it is here that I believe a %u2018life%u2019 begins. Consequently if abortion is being considered then obviously the earlier the procedure is carried out the better. "
I agree with you on that. I think abortion is a horrible thing, but so is destroying two teenagers lives. I have friends knocked up in their teenage years, one who had the child and gave it up for abortion, an extraordinarily brave and selfless thing to do, others who had the abortion. Its just an emotional bitch any way you slice it, and as Bristol Palin pointed out, abstinence don't work.
For better or worse, I don't have Streamo's moral absolutes. You guys started off as friends, and somehow got twisted up over morals. It doesn't make either of you bad people.
I do believe Streamo takes the bible literally. I certainly don't. But I don't bash Streamo's belief system. I have noticed lots of atheists seem to put their faith instead into their government, trusting government absolutely to look out for their best interests. This might have been Streamo's eugenics track he was on. You can't trust government, its man-made and flawed, with flawed men making the decisions affecting your life. However, religion may be God made, but is still interpreted by flawed humans, so I don't fully trust it either. Religion can be distorted and perverted by man for any purpose (like strapping suicide belts to teenagers), but so can government (like eugenics and genocide). That's why I'm conservative - less government the better. That's also why I'm not religious, or at least certainly not a member of a church. I may occasionally pray as I see fit, without a clue if it does any good. Partly because I'm not sure God exists, and partly because if he did, he wouldn't bother listening to me, being a helldiver and all.
I do lump religion and nazism / socialism / communism together in one way. All of us want to believe in an ideology, religion can be one more ideology taken to fanatical extremes, as in fanatical Islam, which is both religion and political ideology. I think any ideology can be taken too far, be used to justify abuse and murder, and be a source of evil.
I believe atheists who are so disgusted by historical abuses of religion, often unwittingly fall for the "compassionate socialism" big government, which has been just as historically guilty of abuses.
Bush grew government larger, and considering his abuses, do you want that government larger? Sure Obama might be your savior, and have your best intentions at heart when he grows government, and puts government in charge of your health care, economic security, and ass-wiping procedures... but sooner or later... we'll get another Bush. Do you want government even larger and more powerful then?
I invited Mako, he's generally on your side. You're just so damn stubborn, and won't admit when you're wrong, that I wanted a second opinion.
"I think you're confusing government that's larger and CORRUPT....with government that might be larger but RESPONSIBLE. "
How long have you lived in the US anyway? Haven't you noticed government's fiscal irresponsibility, border security and law enforcement irresponsibility, diplomatic irresponsibility, war planning irresponsibility, etc. etc. There is more than enough corruption in Washington. How many of Obama's staff members have failed to even pay all their taxes? Congress has a public approval rating of 9%! Cey-rist.
Again, I suggest maybe you're used to a Canadian standard of government, that maybe is more responsible?
But consider this... sooner or later than larger government will be run by another George Bush. We don't need a larger more irresponsible government, we don't need a larger potentially once-in-a-while responsible government. We need less government, with more responsibility in the hands of citizens, making their own decisions about their own lives.
"How long have you lived in the US anyway? Haven't you noticed government's fiscal irresponsibility, border security and law enforcement irresponsibility, diplomatic irresponsibility, war planning irresponsibility, etc."
How long have I lived in the U.S.? Good one. Answer: I haven't.
BUUUUT.......
YOU have never lived in Canada, have you? But that doesn't stop YOU from having some pretty strong opinions about OUR way of life, "socialism", our military OR our government in general.....does it?
So let me get this straight: you don't believe in a "large" government, even IF it IS responsible, and running like a Swiss clock, as long as it's...what?....small? Does that about sum it up? Yes or no?
Look, I don't blame you for being pissed off; I really don't. I'd be pissed off, too. But rather than writing off the government as a whole.....shouldn't the priority be to make sure it at least OPERATES and RUNS properly, regardless of "size"? Or does that not make sense? Seems to me one can have a "small" or "minimal" government, and it can be just as corrupt, incompetant and scewed-up as a "big" one.......BECAUSE IT WON'T RUN PROPERLY.
C-
HD and I agree, as history has shown, the larger (no matter how large is measured: dollars, people, bureaucracy) the gubment, the more power it has...regardless of who is at the helm. As the gubments powers grow, the individuals diminish. I don't think anyone here would disagree.
The US Constitution defines our gubments limits. Currently it is a lumbering behemoth of a bureacracy that in no way resembles the small, part-time staffed gubment that it was intended to be.
You may believe this is party stuff, but I see it largely ideological and foiled always by human nature: Republicans are just as susceptible to grabs for power and establishment mentalities as any Dem. It is just that they didn't, by and large, stand for those things as principles of their ideologies whereas many Dems did and do.
The lines are blurred to a nasty degree now.
A small gubment can be corrupt, but by its own nature, it cannot have the size, scope and impact of a huge gubment that is corrupt.
Thanks for the calm rationale, HD, on the follow-up to Mako's and my threads. I would say this only to your abortion thoughts...as horrible as abortion is (and we all readily admit that), why does having a baby by teenagers mean that thier lives are "ruined?"
With adoption, close family ties, etc...I don't think the choice is ruin the teenagers' lives by having the child or abort the baby. There are more choices.
I know a woman who had an abortion at 20 years old. It is now 18 years later and she has deeply regretted that decision...to some very near-despair moments.
I imagine that mako has had his share of second thoughts and "we-probably-could -have -done-all-right-if -we-had-the-child" moments. For all the talk and banter I believe he and his girlfriend/wife could have weathered such a storm and not regretted it.
Thanks HD - you and I may hold opposing views on some things but you deliver your views in a very even handed manner (at least to me; perhaps you and C are getting off on the wrong foot ;-)
Stream, regards abortion, yes there are choices. We took one of them. And whilst I have on rare occasions wondered 'what if', I can honestly say without ANY feeling of guilt that I have never, ever regretted the decision. Not once. You may feel that selfish. You may be right. Sorry if I don't lose sleep over it though.
Now obviously I cannot speak for my partner at the time, she and I parted ways a long time ago. I have no doubt she thinks of it more often than I - it was her body that went through the process after all - however at the time she was fully in favour.
It's a very tough decision to take as we all agree, and doubtless some people may regret taking the decision as your lady friend did. However that should not, IMHO, prevent it being available as one of the choices you mention.
Contraception it is most certainly NOT.
Now, are we done being nice and civil here??? For fuck's sake this is all feeling a little too cuddly here.
After helping A-6 bombers take off over Iraq full of bombs, and come back empty, (I worked on F-14s, but I often had to run the IFF sniffer on the A-6s launching. They didn't leave the deck without a clean IFF, or they might have gotten shot down by friendly fire.) I have a tougher time acting morally superior about someone else's decision to end a life. The world is not always black and white, just because the bible says so.
Can't we all just have a big internet hug and sing Kumbayah? =D
I would add to Canuck's argument, I don't think it matters how large the US government is, it has already proven itself to be inefficient, wasteful, corrupt, and prone to political infighting, regardless of who is in charge. Therefore, we should limit its power and responsibility as much as possible, to limit the damage from its dysfunctional ways.
To believe in that optimistic perfect government, is similiar to believing all wars will one day cease. Never gonna happen. I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist.
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Wow.
That is some powerfully stupid rationalizing.
I asked a pretty good question. You did not answer. And, upon re-reading your bright post I am left with the conclusion you believe that it is simply ok for gubments to spend as they please.
It begs a few questions:
1. Why complain about GWB's priorities?
2. Why complain about recessions?
My point was that the Constituition (which is an agreement between the gubment and the people) was written with a few starting points of agreement.Namely, what the powers of the fed are and what the limits of the fed are.
The things you tend to support at a national level have no foundation in our Constitution. Anywhere.
The one thing that is in the Constitution as charged to the fed gubment, our national defense, you think is socialist in nature.
Dolt.
What country does not have as its first function and priority of its gubment to protect its people?
These basic questions I am asking should be very easy for someone as learned and well-read as you.
Comments (270)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.