| 196 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
Faxxer
 Novice Member
Joined: 11/19/05
Star Wars Galaxies, R.I.P. NGE was your final death blow. |
8/02/09 1:14:19 PM#141
Originally posted by Impacatus
Yup, as is anyone who tries to impose his will over others. That's kinda my point here. Which includes you, up until such time as your anarchist paradise arrives. It includes every Republican politician and almost every single voter in the country.
no sale |
|
8/02/09 2:46:46 PM#142
Originally posted by Fishermage
Actually, no. You'll notice that you spend 90% of your post trying to change the subject to a democrat bashing one and then mentions at the end "Oh but both sides are bad, mkay?". You're not fooling anyone here. You continue to desperately try to pretend as if religious enslavement is on the same level as improving functionality of society. If you do understand that there is a huge amount of difference then there is no real reason to continue to debate with you, because any debate is pointless if you do understand this basic concept. Oh so you said they are willing to destroy and kill in their quest for power? It's good you mentioned this because this totally makes it better [/sarcasm] Sorry, but it's not "simply what leftist believe". It's a Bullshit propaganda line that doesn't have any truth in it.
If you are calling it an improvement, you are saying it is GOOD -- therefore you are making a moral judgment. There is nothing desparate here, simply taking your own statements in context and showing how you are no different than a fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim) in wanting to shove YOUR morality down everyone's throats. Plus if you do not understand the difference between ends and means you have proven my point for me. The whole point of Goverment is to make decision that improve society, not to enslave society to a religion. You need to understand the difference first if you have any hope of having an objective and realistic view.
Yes and that is a MORAL endeavor, and one that God endorses, according to the men who wrote the constitution. Our constitution is a MORAL document. I believe in the morals behind that document. You don't. On the presidential seal it says Annuit Coeptis, which means "Our favored undertaking." This means God is on our side. Our founders thought our entire national undertaking was ordained by God. Our country, and all political thought, is the expression of morality in human action.
Even if you consider it a moral, it doesn't support your argument in any way or form because they are not on the same level.
Then a governments job is to do moral things. You still have not proven anyone wants to enlave anyone to any religion. You are simply making things up and then arguing from your imagination. Governments ARE morals in action.
Oh you're going to try to deny that it's not an attempt at enslavement of religion? Now, why would he oppose, say, gay marriage? let's do multiple choice geez, i wonder which one of those is true?
what could the possibilities be? A - He has found scientific evidence that gays adopting children is harmful and disproves the many scientific studies that show gay couples are very capable parents B - He is a christian and believes homosexuality is evil and becaus he thinks its evil everybody else must follow his religious laws. mmhm, i wonder which of these is true. I mean, it's not like christians in power have a history of enforcing their belief onto every body else, it's not like "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance years after it was first written, it's not like "In god we trust" was added to the dollar bill and..oh, wait..
Gay Marriage has always been illegal in the United States, and in the rest of the world for that matter. It is a recent thing taht people like you and I are trying to convince people that gay marriage is as much a right as straight marriage. Has America always been a religious slave state? Hardly. Adding "In God We Trust" to our money (I'm against that just as much as you are by the way) is an attempt to enslave people? You do realize how nutty this sounds right? Nuttier than anything I have ever said here, that's for darn sure. I guess every country in Europe that has a state religion (that's most of them) are religious slave states. YOu really need to read more. You seem to have no understanding of opposing views, or the history of your own views. The United states has been in some ways a slave to religion. In God we Trust is indeed a way to enslave people to a religion. What else did you think it's for? Decoration? It's an attempt to push religion onto society. Indeed, many countries in Europe are still enslaved to religion in certain ways. Even my country, a country well known for liberal views, have only recently started to move away from religious enslavement, at the same time the amount of religious believers is also reducing. every attempt, every vote, every law that restricts a person what they can do because of religious belief is an attempt at religious enslavery. |
|
|
8/02/09 4:10:23 PM#143
Originally posted by Impacatus
Yup, as is anyone who tries to impose his will over others. That's kinda my point here. Which includes you, up until such time as your anarchist paradise arrives. It includes every Republican politician and almost every single voter in the country.
Oh well, you WERE being logical until you moved into the old appeal to ridicule zone...pity, you were doing so well, too. |
|
|
8/02/09 4:11:33 PM#144
Originally posted by Gameloading
If you are calling it an improvement, you are saying it is GOOD -- therefore you are making a moral judgment. There is nothing desparate here, simply taking your own statements in context and showing how you are no different than a fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim) in wanting to shove YOUR morality down everyone's throats. Plus if you do not understand the difference between ends and means you have proven my point for me. The whole point of Goverment is to make decision that improve society, not to enslave society to a religion. You need to understand the difference first if you have any hope of having an objective and realistic view.
Yes and that is a MORAL endeavor, and one that God endorses, according to the men who wrote the constitution. Our constitution is a MORAL document. I believe in the morals behind that document. You don't. On the presidential seal it says Annuit Coeptis, which means "Our favored undertaking." This means God is on our side. Our founders thought our entire national undertaking was ordained by God. Our country, and all political thought, is the expression of morality in human action.
Even if you consider it a moral, it doesn't support your argument in any way or form because they are not on the same level.
Then a governments job is to do moral things. You still have not proven anyone wants to enlave anyone to any religion. You are simply making things up and then arguing from your imagination. Governments ARE morals in action.
Oh you're going to try to deny that it's not an attempt at enslavement of religion? Now, why would he oppose, say, gay marriage? let's do multiple choice geez, i wonder which one of those is true?
what could the possibilities be? A - He has found scientific evidence that gays adopting children is harmful and disproves the many scientific studies that show gay couples are very capable parents B - He is a christian and believes homosexuality is evil and becaus he thinks its evil everybody else must follow his religious laws. mmhm, i wonder which of these is true. I mean, it's not like christians in power have a history of enforcing their belief onto every body else, it's not like "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance years after it was first written, it's not like "In god we trust" was added to the dollar bill and..oh, wait..
Gay Marriage has always been illegal in the United States, and in the rest of the world for that matter. It is a recent thing taht people like you and I are trying to convince people that gay marriage is as much a right as straight marriage. Has America always been a religious slave state? Hardly. Adding "In God We Trust" to our money (I'm against that just as much as you are by the way) is an attempt to enslave people? You do realize how nutty this sounds right? Nuttier than anything I have ever said here, that's for darn sure. I guess every country in Europe that has a state religion (that's most of them) are religious slave states. YOu really need to read more. You seem to have no understanding of opposing views, or the history of your own views. The United states has been in some ways a slave to religion. In God we Trust is indeed a way to enslave people to a religion. What else did you think it's for? Decoration? It's an attempt to push religion onto society. Indeed, many countries in Europe are still enslaved to religion in certain ways. Even my country, a country well known for liberal views, have only recently started to move away from religious enslavement, at the same time the amount of religious believers is also reducing. every attempt, every vote, every law that restricts a person what they can do because of religious belief is an attempt at religious enslavery.
We'll talk more after you read some more. Yes yes the opiate of the people and all that. Man you are so living in 1917. Edit: It is very ironic that a young man who would actually enslave others -- that is, force one man to labor for another, claims that the religion which actually ENDED slavery, got women the right to vote, and started the civil rights movement is attempting to enslave people. Sorry, I find walking backwards boring. I want to go forward. Nothing stranger than reactionary lefties. Peace man. Good luck with your intolerant religion (neo-Marxism). You really need to take some time and read some opposing views. Break free from your programming and step into a wider, deeper world.
|
|
|
8/02/09 4:31:59 PM#145
Originally posted by Fishermage Which includes you, up until such time as your anarchist paradise arrives. It includes every Republican politician and almost every single voter in the country.
Oh well, you WERE being logical until you moved into the old appeal to ridicule zone...pity, you were doing so well, too. Are you in favor of using taxes to pay for the military or not? If yes, how much of your money do you donate to national defense? You might say that it's constitutional, but that's a red herring. That doesn't change what it is. |
|
|
8/02/09 4:41:50 PM#146
Originally posted by Impacatus Which includes you, up until such time as your anarchist paradise arrives. It includes every Republican politician and almost every single voter in the country.
Oh well, you WERE being logical until you moved into the old appeal to ridicule zone...pity, you were doing so well, too. Are you in favor of using taxes to pay for the military or not? If yes, how much of your money do you donate to national defense? You might say that it's constitutional, but that's a red herring. That doesn't change what it is.
No I am not in favor of it, but I accept it. I already said this. That means I a consistent advocate for liberty. One who doesn't want socialism to increase. In fact, I do not believe in forced taxation at all. Again I accept it, but do not favor it or believe in it. I am completely consistent, today, tomorrow, or any other time. |
|
|
8/02/09 4:53:39 PM#147
Originally posted by Fishermage
Oh well, you WERE being logical until you moved into the old appeal to ridicule zone...pity, you were doing so well, too. Are you in favor of using taxes to pay for the military or not? If yes, how much of your money do you donate to national defense? You might say that it's constitutional, but that's a red herring. That doesn't change what it is.
No I am not in favor of it, but I accept it. I already said this. That means I a consistent advocate for liberty. One who doesn't want socialism to increase. In fact, I do not believe in forced taxation at all. Again I accept it, but do not favor it or believe in it. I am completely consistent, today, tomorrow, or any other time. What difference does that make in practice? How do you know those politicians don't merely "accept" the need for taxes as well? It's not just liberal politicians that expect you to pay your taxes. It's just a question of how much and what it gets spent on. Call it hypocrisy if you want, but it's not exclusive to the left. It's a hypocrisy that comes from living in the real world rather than a hypothetical. |
|
|
8/02/09 5:14:00 PM#148
Originally posted by Impacatus
Oh well, you WERE being logical until you moved into the old appeal to ridicule zone...pity, you were doing so well, too. Are you in favor of using taxes to pay for the military or not? If yes, how much of your money do you donate to national defense? You might say that it's constitutional, but that's a red herring. That doesn't change what it is.
No I am not in favor of it, but I accept it. I already said this. That means I a consistent advocate for liberty. One who doesn't want socialism to increase. In fact, I do not believe in forced taxation at all. Again I accept it, but do not favor it or believe in it. I am completely consistent, today, tomorrow, or any other time. What difference does that make in practice? How do you know those politicians don't merely "accept" the need for taxes as well? It's not just liberal politicians that expect you to pay your taxes. It's just a question of how much and what it gets spent on. Call it hypocrisy if you want, but it's not exclusive to the left. It's a hypocrisy that comes from living in the real world rather than a hypothetical.
How do we know? because of what the SAY and what they DO. Hypocrisy is about what you advocate, not what you accept. I never said it is exclusive to the left -- have you even been reading what I am writing. I have quite clearly said BOTH sides are hypocrites. Noit sure what you are getting at here. And no, the hypocrisy that wants to force others to pay for charity yet refuses to give of itself is hypocrisy that comes from being a hypocrite and advocating something that you will not live by yourself. that the left and the right are equally guilty of, whether they are advocating a Marxist morality or a Christian one. However, if you want to make the case that in some ways everyone is a hypocrite, OF COURSE WE ARE. We all have rules in our head and we break them every day. That is why we need forgiveness and redemption. Again, that invalidates the OP. Anyway I know how your deconstructionsim works. It is easy to destroy all reason with the misuse of logic. Been there, done that and it is not very productive; because your way of thinking leads us with nothing in the end. deconstructionism is a useful tool, but used the way you are using it -- gets us nowhere fast. |
|
|
8/02/09 5:49:00 PM#149
However, I will admit there is an area where the left is less hypocritcal than the right. The right claims to believe in freedom, yet they are not consistent advocates. The left is pretty open about being against freedom, and they are pretty consistently against it. They used to be very in favor of civil liberties, but that's dying out as well, so the areas where they used to advocate freedom, they no longer do (like freedom of speech). there's a few areas they are still good here, but even in those they advocate them in an anti-liberty way, like wanting to force people who don't believe in abortion to pay for them and so on. So yes the right are inconsistent and hypocritical advocates of liberty, and the left are pretty consistent destroyers of liberty. In that sense, I'll take the hypocrite any day. |
|
|
Narug
 Novice Member
Joined: 2/04/08
Not everything that is more difficult is more meritorious. - Saint Thomas Aquinas |
8/02/09 8:10:15 PM#150
Originally posted by Impacatus
I believe recognition of rights by people is and was beneficial. The Civil Rights Movement, note movement, where once again the people provided instructions to the government through the recognition of these rights endowed by the Creator. "However, by 1955, private citizens became frustrated by gradual approaches to implement desegregation by federal and state governments and the "massive resistance" by proponents of racial segregation and voter suppression. In defiance, these citizens adopted a combined strategy of direct action with nonviolent resistance known as civil disobedience." Government later expanded that into the mess of political correctness that Fishermage is mentioning interfering with freedom of speech. (Read that wikipedia link mentioning how the communists of China used it so effectively) I don't think having to bring up the overturning of the verdict against firefighters recently should be necessary. Who is the benefit, USPS or competitors, during this situation? "These services also deliver packages which are larger and heavier than what the USPS will accept, and unlike the USPS assign tracking numbers to every package." Even if I was to entertain the answer of a complete "yes" to the consistent question posed, may I ask the consequences? Are we to let a backdoor in letting the government in because only it would offer the ultimate benefit? Or just flat out be the beneficiary? The answer is not to destroy one coming forward after breaking a standard. (like the OP wants) At least one came forward, demonstrated accountability, and responsibility which are keys in keeping freedom alive and government at bay. (Hopefully the last line satisfies Gazenthia's condition of being on topic) "The eternal difference between right and wrong does not fluctuate, it is immutable." — Patrick Henry |
|
8/02/09 9:47:36 PM#151
Originally posted by Fishermage
If you are calling it an improvement, you are saying it is GOOD -- therefore you are making a moral judgment. There is nothing desparate here, simply taking your own statements in context and showing how you are no different than a fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim) in wanting to shove YOUR morality down everyone's throats. Plus if you do not understand the difference between ends and means you have proven my point for me. The whole point of Goverment is to make decision that improve society, not to enslave society to a religion. You need to understand the difference first if you have any hope of having an objective and realistic view.
Yes and that is a MORAL endeavor, and one that God endorses, according to the men who wrote the constitution. Our constitution is a MORAL document. I believe in the morals behind that document. You don't. On the presidential seal it says Annuit Coeptis, which means "Our favored undertaking." This means God is on our side. Our founders thought our entire national undertaking was ordained by God. Our country, and all political thought, is the expression of morality in human action.
Even if you consider it a moral, it doesn't support your argument in any way or form because they are not on the same level.
Then a governments job is to do moral things. You still have not proven anyone wants to enlave anyone to any religion. You are simply making things up and then arguing from your imagination. Governments ARE morals in action.
Oh you're going to try to deny that it's not an attempt at enslavement of religion? Now, why would he oppose, say, gay marriage? let's do multiple choice geez, i wonder which one of those is true?
what could the possibilities be? A - He has found scientific evidence that gays adopting children is harmful and disproves the many scientific studies that show gay couples are very capable parents B - He is a christian and believes homosexuality is evil and becaus he thinks its evil everybody else must follow his religious laws. mmhm, i wonder which of these is true. I mean, it's not like christians in power have a history of enforcing their belief onto every body else, it's not like "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance years after it was first written, it's not like "In god we trust" was added to the dollar bill and..oh, wait..
Gay Marriage has always been illegal in the United States, and in the rest of the world for that matter. It is a recent thing taht people like you and I are trying to convince people that gay marriage is as much a right as straight marriage. Has America always been a religious slave state? Hardly. Adding "In God We Trust" to our money (I'm against that just as much as you are by the way) is an attempt to enslave people? You do realize how nutty this sounds right? Nuttier than anything I have ever said here, that's for darn sure. I guess every country in Europe that has a state religion (that's most of them) are religious slave states. YOu really need to read more. You seem to have no understanding of opposing views, or the history of your own views. The United states has been in some ways a slave to religion. In God we Trust is indeed a way to enslave people to a religion. What else did you think it's for? Decoration? It's an attempt to push religion onto society. Indeed, many countries in Europe are still enslaved to religion in certain ways. Even my country, a country well known for liberal views, have only recently started to move away from religious enslavement, at the same time the amount of religious believers is also reducing. every attempt, every vote, every law that restricts a person what they can do because of religious belief is an attempt at religious enslavery.
We'll talk more after you read some more. Yes yes the opiate of the people and all that. Man you are so living in 1917. Edit: It is very ironic that a young man who would actually enslave others -- that is, force one man to labor for another, claims that the religion which actually ENDED slavery, got women the right to vote, and started the civil rights movement is attempting to enslave people. Sorry, I find walking backwards boring. I want to go forward. Nothing stranger than reactionary lefties. Peace man. Good luck with your intolerant religion (neo-Marxism). You really need to take some time and read some opposing views. Break free from your programming and step into a wider, deeper world.
You need to start looking at reality and see what modern Christians in power are up to, perhaps you might also even find out that the anarchy you suggest is also nothing more than a flawed ideal that no well thinking modern society would ever adapt. I live in 1917? That's strange, last time I checked, Christians are still trying to get gay marriage banned, get prostitution banned, gay adoption banned, abortion banned, euthanasia banned and many other crap is still being fought over to this day. This isn't walking backwards, this is the reality we live in today. If your view of christian population is one of tolerance, think again. I can't even do my grocery shopping on Sunday.
|
|
|
8/02/09 10:16:51 PM#152
Originally posted by Gameloading The whole point of Goverment is to make decision that improve society, not to enslave society to a religion. You need to understand the difference first if you have any hope of having an objective and realistic view.
Yes and that is a MORAL endeavor, and one that God endorses, according to the men who wrote the constitution. Our constitution is a MORAL document. I believe in the morals behind that document. You don't. On the presidential seal it says Annuit Coeptis, which means "Our favored undertaking." This means God is on our side. Our founders thought our entire national undertaking was ordained by God. Our country, and all political thought, is the expression of morality in human action.
Even if you consider it a moral, it doesn't support your argument in any way or form because they are not on the same level.
Then a governments job is to do moral things. You still have not proven anyone wants to enlave anyone to any religion. You are simply making things up and then arguing from your imagination. Governments ARE morals in action.
Oh you're going to try to deny that it's not an attempt at enslavement of religion? Now, why would he oppose, say, gay marriage? let's do multiple choice geez, i wonder which one of those is true?
what could the possibilities be? A - He has found scientific evidence that gays adopting children is harmful and disproves the many scientific studies that show gay couples are very capable parents B - He is a christian and believes homosexuality is evil and becaus he thinks its evil everybody else must follow his religious laws. mmhm, i wonder which of these is true. I mean, it's not like christians in power have a history of enforcing their belief onto every body else, it's not like "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance years after it was first written, it's not like "In god we trust" was added to the dollar bill and..oh, wait..
Gay Marriage has always been illegal in the United States, and in the rest of the world for that matter. It is a recent thing taht people like you and I are trying to convince people that gay marriage is as much a right as straight marriage. Has America always been a religious slave state? Hardly. Adding "In God We Trust" to our money (I'm against that just as much as you are by the way) is an attempt to enslave people? You do realize how nutty this sounds right? Nuttier than anything I have ever said here, that's for darn sure. I guess every country in Europe that has a state religion (that's most of them) are religious slave states. YOu really need to read more. You seem to have no understanding of opposing views, or the history of your own views. The United states has been in some ways a slave to religion. In God we Trust is indeed a way to enslave people to a religion. What else did you think it's for? Decoration? It's an attempt to push religion onto society. Indeed, many countries in Europe are still enslaved to religion in certain ways. Even my country, a country well known for liberal views, have only recently started to move away from religious enslavement, at the same time the amount of religious believers is also reducing. every attempt, every vote, every law that restricts a person what they can do because of religious belief is an attempt at religious enslavery.
We'll talk more after you read some more. Yes yes the opiate of the people and all that. Man you are so living in 1917. Edit: It is very ironic that a young man who would actually enslave others -- that is, force one man to labor for another, claims that the religion which actually ENDED slavery, got women the right to vote, and started the civil rights movement is attempting to enslave people. Sorry, I find walking backwards boring. I want to go forward. Nothing stranger than reactionary lefties. Peace man. Good luck with your intolerant religion (neo-Marxism). You really need to take some time and read some opposing views. Break free from your programming and step into a wider, deeper world.
You need to start looking at reality and see what modern Christians in power are up to, perhaps you might also even find out that the anarchy you suggest is also nothing more than a flawed ideal that no well thinking modern society would ever adapt.. I live in 1917? That's strange, last time I checked, Christians are still trying to get gay marriage banned, get prostitution banned, gay adoption banned, abortion banned, euthanasia banned and many other crap is still being fought over to this day. This isn't walking backwards, this is the reality we live in today. If your view of christian population is one of tolerance, think again. I can't even do my grocery shopping on Sunday.
How many books or how many anarchist theories have you read? what challenges to those theories have you read? Please, read some more about the things you disagree with. I have read dozens of books and taken courses and written papers on what YOU believe in -- most of that while you were still in diapers. When you read more about the history of anarchism, and more about the history of the Marxism you follow, we'll discuss anarchocapitalism and the road there. Gay marriage are is already not allowed. We are trying to enact change and grant people those rights in the name of equality, and some Christians, Obama included, disagree. It is a debate within society right now, with some Christians, jews and Muslims on one side and us on the other. gay adoption as well. It is a change We are trying to bring about and like Gay marriage there are Christians on both sides. VERY few people anywhere believe in Euthanasia. Abortion is another debate, but YOU are intolerant of the opposing view. It is YOU who wants to shut down debate with hate. Nobody is trying to enslave anyone in these areas -- no, it is YOU who believes in slavery, which is forced labor. Slavery is a part of YOUR intolerant religion. My view of Christians is as varied as Christians are. I am a Christian, and I am a libertarian -- and I agree with you on all of the things you bring up, only I'm not hateful and intolerant as you are about these things. Obama is a Christian, and he is a liberal (but he is as against gay marriage as must Republicans are). Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton. All the Bushes, John McCain, almost everyone in my government is a Christian and they all have VERY different views on things -- all of which come from their interpretation of their faith. YOUR intolerance comes from YOUR religion, which is some strange form of neo-Marxism that you have never challenged, just sucked up by osmosis from your socialist education. Please, Just read. Stop with the hate, It will not serve you in your life. Please also, it doesn't serve you when you speak about a country you seem to know very little about. EDIT: also since the 1917 reference flew right over your head proves beyond any doubt that you really need to read a heck of a lot more before you are capable of even discussing these things.
|
|
|
8/03/09 2:50:26 AM#153
Originally posted by Fishermage Are you in favor of using taxes to pay for the military or not? If yes, how much of your money do you donate to national defense? You might say that it's constitutional, but that's a red herring. That doesn't change what it is.
No I am not in favor of it, but I accept it. I already said this. That means I a consistent advocate for liberty. One who doesn't want socialism to increase. In fact, I do not believe in forced taxation at all. Again I accept it, but do not favor it or believe in it. I am completely consistent, today, tomorrow, or any other time. What difference does that make in practice? How do you know those politicians don't merely "accept" the need for taxes as well? It's not just liberal politicians that expect you to pay your taxes. It's just a question of how much and what it gets spent on. Call it hypocrisy if you want, but it's not exclusive to the left. It's a hypocrisy that comes from living in the real world rather than a hypothetical.
How do we know? because of what the SAY and what they DO. Hypocrisy is about what you advocate, not what you accept. I never said it is exclusive to the left -- have you even been reading what I am writing. I have quite clearly said BOTH sides are hypocrites. Noit sure what you are getting at here. And no, the hypocrisy that wants to force others to pay for charity yet refuses to give of itself is hypocrisy that comes from being a hypocrite and advocating something that you will not live by yourself. that the left and the right are equally guilty of, whether they are advocating a Marxist morality or a Christian one. However, if you want to make the case that in some ways everyone is a hypocrite, OF COURSE WE ARE. We all have rules in our head and we break them every day. That is why we need forgiveness and redemption. Again, that invalidates the OP. Anyway I know how your deconstructionsim works. It is easy to destroy all reason with the misuse of logic. Been there, done that and it is not very productive; because your way of thinking leads us with nothing in the end. deconstructionism is a useful tool, but used the way you are using it -- gets us nowhere fast.
|
|
|
8/03/09 2:55:46 AM#154
Originally posted by Narug
I believe recognition of rights by people is and was beneficial. The Civil Rights Movement, note movement, where once again the people provided instructions to the government through the recognition of these rights endowed by the Creator. "However, by 1955, private citizens became frustrated by gradual approaches to implement desegregation by federal and state governments and the "massive resistance" by proponents of racial segregation and voter suppression. In defiance, these citizens adopted a combined strategy of direct action with nonviolent resistance known as civil disobedience." Government later expanded that into the mess of political correctness that Fishermage is mentioning interfering with freedom of speech. (Read that wikipedia link mentioning how the communists of China used it so effectively) I don't think having to bring up the overturning of the verdict against firefighters recently should be necessary. Who is the benefit, USPS or competitors, during this situation? "These services also deliver packages which are larger and heavier than what the USPS will accept, and unlike the USPS assign tracking numbers to every package." Even if I was to entertain the answer of a complete "yes" to the consistent question posed, may I ask the consequences? Are we to let a backdoor in letting the government in because only it would offer the ultimate benefit? Or just flat out be the beneficiary? The answer is not to destroy one coming forward after breaking a standard. (like the OP wants) At least one came forward, demonstrated accountability, and responsibility which are keys in keeping freedom alive and government at bay. (Hopefully the last line satisfies Gazenthia's condition of being on topic) That's nice. Also completely irrelevant to the points I was making. Why don't you open another thread if you want to start a discussion about this topic? As it is, it seems like you're mostly just talking to yourself. |
|
|
8/03/09 3:28:54 AM#155
Republican morals only apply to you. They can assassin thousands of families and fuck everyone they like and still in God they trust!
But they don't know God don't trust them anymore. |
|
|
Narug
Novice Member
Joined: 2/04/08
Not everything that is more difficult is more meritorious. - Saint Thomas Aquinas |
8/03/09 4:51:32 AM#156
Originally posted by Impacatus It was started, not by me, that the point of government was to improve the people. I've listed reasons/examples of people actually improving people. I then provided examples of government actually getting in the way. Then you asked me whether I was trying to say the government didn't exist. "government of the people, by the people, for the people" The people are the bosses over the government. Government is at the people's request. (Supposed to be and I use the game Civilization as an example with the last above sentence) It was supposed to be kind of fused. Today government is continuing towards separating itself and trying to reverse the boss role. (especially with Obamadom) There are accountable folks still though and that's important to holding on to what freedom we have. Trying to say I was promoting complete anarchy/the government didn't exist scenario just didn't make sense to me and I've tried to explain that. "The eternal difference between right and wrong does not fluctuate, it is immutable." — Patrick Henry |
|
8/03/09 6:50:42 AM#157
Originally posted by popinjay
What is the matter with you? Posting the pic of the senator and not the 22 year old intern?
Also, even if you are in some party other than Republican, I don't think the hatred of the Republicans is helpful. I feel that way about Republicans that hate all Democrats as well. We have different opinions on different issues, but I don't have a blanket hatred of all Republicans. Some of the Republican proposals are good, most are bad, but I don't throw out the good ones just because I hate all Republicans. Same goes for the Dems.
|
|
|
8/03/09 1:14:13 PM#158
Originally posted by Fishermage The whole point of Goverment is to make decision that improve society, not to enslave society to a religion. You need to understand the difference first if you have any hope of having an objective and realistic view.
Yes and that is a MORAL endeavor, and one that God endorses, according to the men who wrote the constitution. Our constitution is a MORAL document. I believe in the morals behind that document. You don't. On the presidential seal it says Annuit Coeptis, which means "Our favored undertaking." This means God is on our side. Our founders thought our entire national undertaking was ordained by God. Our country, and all political thought, is the expression of morality in human action.
Even if you consider it a moral, it doesn't support your argument in any way or form because they are not on the same level.
Then a governments job is to do moral things. You still have not proven anyone wants to enlave anyone to any religion. You are simply making things up and then arguing from your imagination. Governments ARE morals in action.
Oh you're going to try to deny that it's not an attempt at enslavement of religion? Now, why would he oppose, say, gay marriage? let's do multiple choice geez, i wonder which one of those is true?
what could the possibilities be? A - He has found scientific evidence that gays adopting children is harmful and disproves the many scientific studies that show gay couples are very capable parents B - He is a christian and believes homosexuality is evil and becaus he thinks its evil everybody else must follow his religious laws. mmhm, i wonder which of these is true. I mean, it's not like christians in power have a history of enforcing their belief onto every body else, it's not like "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance years after it was first written, it's not like "In god we trust" was added to the dollar bill and..oh, wait..
Gay Marriage has always been illegal in the United States, and in the rest of the world for that matter. It is a recent thing taht people like you and I are trying to convince people that gay marriage is as much a right as straight marriage. Has America always been a religious slave state? Hardly. Adding "In God We Trust" to our money (I'm against that just as much as you are by the way) is an attempt to enslave people? You do realize how nutty this sounds right? Nuttier than anything I have ever said here, that's for darn sure. I guess every country in Europe that has a state religion (that's most of them) are religious slave states. YOu really need to read more. You seem to have no understanding of opposing views, or the history of your own views. The United states has been in some ways a slave to religion. In God we Trust is indeed a way to enslave people to a religion. What else did you think it's for? Decoration? It's an attempt to push religion onto society. Indeed, many countries in Europe are still enslaved to religion in certain ways. Even my country, a country well known for liberal views, have only recently started to move away from religious enslavement, at the same time the amount of religious believers is also reducing. every attempt, every vote, every law that restricts a person what they can do because of religious belief is an attempt at religious enslavery.
We'll talk more after you read some more. Yes yes the opiate of the people and all that. Man you are so living in 1917. Edit: It is very ironic that a young man who would actually enslave others -- that is, force one man to labor for another, claims that the religion which actually ENDED slavery, got women the right to vote, and started the civil rights movement is attempting to enslave people. Sorry, I find walking backwards boring. I want to go forward. Nothing stranger than reactionary lefties. Peace man. Good luck with your intolerant religion (neo-Marxism). You really need to take some time and read some opposing views. Break free from your programming and step into a wider, deeper world.
You need to start looking at reality and see what modern Christians in power are up to, perhaps you might also even find out that the anarchy you suggest is also nothing more than a flawed ideal that no well thinking modern society would ever adapt.. I live in 1917? That's strange, last time I checked, Christians are still trying to get gay marriage banned, get prostitution banned, gay adoption banned, abortion banned, euthanasia banned and many other crap is still being fought over to this day. This isn't walking backwards, this is the reality we live in today. If your view of christian population is one of tolerance, think again. I can't even do my grocery shopping on Sunday.
How many books or how many anarchist theories have you read? what challenges to those theories have you read? Please, read some more about the things you disagree with. I have read dozens of books and taken courses and written papers on what YOU believe in -- most of that while you were still in diapers. When you read more about the history of anarchism, and more about the history of the Marxism you follow, we'll discuss anarchocapitalism and the road there. Gay marriage are is already not allowed. We are trying to enact change and grant people those rights in the name of equality, and some Christians, Obama included, disagree. It is a debate within society right now, with some Christians, jews and Muslims on one side and us on the other. gay adoption as well. It is a change We are trying to bring about and like Gay marriage there are Christians on both sides. VERY few people anywhere believe in Euthanasia. Abortion is another debate, but YOU are intolerant of the opposing view. It is YOU who wants to shut down debate with hate. Nobody is trying to enslave anyone in these areas -- no, it is YOU who believes in slavery, which is forced labor. Slavery is a part of YOUR intolerant religion. My view of Christians is as varied as Christians are. I am a Christian, and I am a libertarian -- and I agree with you on all of the things you bring up, only I'm not hateful and intolerant as you are about these things. Obama is a Christian, and he is a liberal (but he is as against gay marriage as must Republicans are). Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton. All the Bushes, John McCain, almost everyone in my government is a Christian and they all have VERY different views on things -- all of which come from their interpretation of their faith. YOUR intolerance comes from YOUR religion, which is some strange form of neo-Marxism that you have never challenged, just sucked up by osmosis from your socialist education. Please, Just read. Stop with the hate, It will not serve you in your life. Please also, it doesn't serve you when you speak about a country you seem to know very little about. EDIT: also since the 1917 reference flew right over your head proves beyond any doubt that you really need to read a heck of a lot more before you are capable of even discussing these things.
Your libertarian propaganda of "Paying taxes = slavery" is not going to convince anybody here. Liberatianism has no modern example. Well there is the Libertarian paradise of Somalia, but I won't go there. Also, Obama doesn't think gay marriage should be banned, he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but does not believe it should be banned.
|
|
|
8/03/09 1:17:17 PM#159
Gameloading, We'll talk more after you have educated yourself about the actual history and current affairs in the US. Now you are just repeating things you don't know much about, over and over. |
|
|
8/03/09 1:30:07 PM#160
Originally posted by Fishermage
Your idea of "educate yourself" is "agreeing with me". |
|
