Total posts: 2,799
-->
@HistoryBuff
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Lol, it was a joke. Saying all of those millions came from new sexist voters.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I heard from news that Bernie raised a few million from supporters after this incident.
Gained the sexist vote from that one!
Created:
-->
@Alec
Jailing a few new immigrant prisoners is pretty cheap compared to the massive tax revenue the new immigrants would supply if we abolish the income tax and replace it with a sales tax and a capital gains tax. This way, you don't have to be legal to pay taxes.
So, you are under the false presumption that immigrants should be let in without restraint and the resulting non-unified culture and their voting preferences will make any of this feasible or beneficial? Except for Cubans, no immigrant group is conservative...like at all. Not economically or socially, but you think we can make some sort of ridiculous libertarian utopia with open borders? How has letting in the third world worked for us the past 50 years? Not too well, and you're going to make it a whole lot worse. Yay!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
You want to talk about cruel and unusual punishment? I remember not too long ago you asking to have piranhas eat people alive.
it would really depend on what “curse” means in that context. You took out a random half of a verse and pasted it in
Created:
-->
@Vader
I am not a crook!
Created:
-->
@Vader
Yeah, I’m quite certain communism is a single party system. Can’t really think of a lot of voting going on in “communist” countries...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Don't you think that what a weapon is capable of should be more relevant?
I think this is a very good point. Like I said in a previous post, hammers/blunt objects kill more people than rifles. So, the purpose, despite being to hit nails, is irrelevant when they are hammering in (human) heads.
However, I think it can be a bit counterproductive and borderline-fear mongering to focus mostly on capabilities. For instance, would you say that it would be better if we never discovered nuclear power because it can be used to make weapons that can kill a lot of people? Should hammers not be made because they are capable of killing people? In the same way, it isn't fair to take guns away for being able to be used for a homicide. Tools generally aren't the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If I go to heaven, I'd want to hold God accountable for what he has done
Good luck with that
The bible has lots of genocidal wars in the OT.
The Old Testament for the most part is irrelevant to this discussion between Christianity and Islam due to the similarities. You must focus on the differences, namely Jesus vs Muhammad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Well, I think the main reason for the specific right to guns was for the citizens to defend against both foreign powers and from a domestic tyrannical government. Obviously, pepper spray or batons wouldn't stop a foreign military or dictator.
Hunting is important, but not enough so for an amendment.
Again, I would personally prefer a gun to other forms of defense, anyway. Pepper spray, depending on the wind, can miss or hit you. Tasers, if you miss once, you are screwed. Stun guns, have to get very close and they may get back up. Guns are much more frightening and effective.
There are many reasons we should be able to have guns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Turtles are awesome. Love how they keep the foot clan in check. I actually love Richard Nixon. He was very anti establishment. It is just that when you are anti establishment and you use the same tricks they do (and the game is rigged so you have to to win(, than you will face consequences they don't.I really think the Trump is like Nixon in that he is anti establishment and the people who rugged the game are coming after him, even to the point of twisting things he said or making up lies. Like the fictional dossier on him.
Well then, you are a wonderful person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Well, people are certainly killed by guns, but guns also help deter crimes and defend oneself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Ok, I would be a little more concerned about the book that has a pedophile leader, slaves, and multiple wives than one random verse saying something about women not dominating men.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
This is a pathetic argument meant to distract from the issue. People are always going to fight. Sometimes that results in deaths. If those people fighting have a gun it results in many more deaths. If those people who killed with their fists had been holding a handgun, alot more people would be dead.
But if we cut off their hands, they can't hold guns. Problem solved, yes?
A hammer is a tool that's primary purpose is to construct things. It can also be used for violence, but that isn't what it is made to do. An AR15 or a handgun is made for the express purpose of killing humans. It has no other purpose. It is a tool of death and nothing else. To say that they are the same is incredibly disingenuous.
Guns are created for hunting, self-defense, and sport. Any tool can be misused. That doesn't mean you should ban it, especially when the bad guys can get guns. Shotguns are used for hunting, but it was misused for a church shooting not too long ago. A man with a handgun took him out swiftly. Women are smaller than men and cannot defend themselves as well. They should have a weapon to even the odds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
The right to self-preservation. The cops usually get to the scene after the crime has taken place. There are other means of self defense, but I would much prefer a firearm. Criminals will illegally obtain firearms and get an advantage if citizens such as myself can not acquire them.I have yet to hear anyone articulate why such a right is reasonable and should be preserved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I don’t believe in a federal minimum wage, personally. I think they should be as localized as possible to accurately reflect the cost of living in that area. California will need a higher one than Nebraska, for example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Would you be in favor of banning hammers/blunt objects? They kill more people than rifles https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls
What about banning fists and feet? They kill above 50% more people than rifles do. Are you in favor of cutting off feet and hands to prevent those deaths?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
The bible in the NT says that women can't assume authority over men (1 Timothy 2:12)
What does that have to do with peace and violence?
So what does that verse have to do with anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
What is your opinion of turtles and Richard Nixon?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Just because A girl is a spitter, it doesn't mean she doesn't love you.
It certainly does make her a quitter, though
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Additionally, you are going to make it much harder to keep money out of politics based on the incentive structure. You are fine with giving the government the power to subsidize, regulate(selectively), and make crony deductions very lucrative with higher taxes. When you add so much opportunity to exploit the government, you add a large incentive to do so. If, on the other hand, a company cannot lobby for subsidies, they will not try as hard to buy the government out. The only way they can make money then is to appeal to the consumer. If they fail to do so, they will go out of business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It is unreasonable to suggest taking that government power away would give then give rich people the power to tax and subsidize themselves.
Lol. Elementary, my dear Watson.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Companies are already abusing workers and poor people with the laws we have right now. Any crack in the law, any loophole they can get around is exploited to the greatest extent they can. Any relaxing of labor laws, environmental laws etc would be a terrible idea. If anything these need strengthening.
Which laws do you think need strengthening? I saw GM lose about $100 million every day during that strike. Seems like they don't have a whole lot of power, now does it?
Why? Do I get a vote on what the drug prices are for medication I need? of course not. Companies decide how they can make a profit and only reign it in if it catches headlines for being particularly egregious. Without government regulation they would be free to gouge as hard as they can.
Well, if you would actually allow for competition, you would get your choice of medical provider who would actually work to get you a good deal. Would you get a vote for drug prices? Let me rephrase that- would you get the right to coerce a company to sell a drug for whatever you want, essentially saying you have the right to someone else's property? No, and I don't think you should, either.
I would need to see the details of such a plan. But i'm pretty sure it would work out terribly.
What would be wrong with giving parents a voucher that will allow them to choose which school their child can attend instead of sending them to whatever the closest public school is. I know it is cliche, but.... WHY SHOULD A ZIP CODE DETERMINE A CHILD'S FUTURE?!
This argument is bullshit. Drug research is a small fraction of drug company's expenditures. most drug research is heavily subsidized by the government. Drug companies spend like 3 or 4 times as much on marketing their drugs than they do trying to make or improve them.
I already provided an article showing that your marketing claim isn't the case in another thread, which you never responded to. If what you say about the government doing most of the work/subsidizing MOST of the work is true, then please provide a link. I might begin to find some agreement, then, but you have never proven to me that this was the case.
companies and executives are trustworthy and/or can be controlled by "market forces".
Not necessarily trustworthy inherently. Their main objective is to make money. Competition, if present, has the power to be a "market force", however. If a company engages in false advertisement, but their competitor doesn't, naturally the "untrustworthy" company will most likely fail. That is a market force that keeps them somewhat trustworthy because they need to maintain a positive brand image.
Governments on the other hand are beholden to their people. If the government treats people in a way they don't like, the people can get rid of them. I would MUCH rather power be in the hands of devil I have some level of control over than the devil I have no control over at all.
Not from what I have seen. People have an illusion of power. They certainly vote for people, but nothing ever changes. Regardless of who is elected, the government grows in size.
On the other hand, you see companies like General Electric with a plan called "ecomagination" in which they are planning to invest in more renewable options for their product line. Are they doing this because they were forced to by the government? Nope. They are doing it because consumers are becoming more concerned about the environment and consumers want to support a brand that will help them meet their needs without polluting as much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
For my part, I find that the ones who read it the most are the least violent
I would think you would have the opposite reactions between Christianity and Islam. The more people that read about the war lord pedophile, the more violence you'll probably get. The more people that read about the nice, peaceful carpenter man are probably going to be more peaceful.
Created:
Posted in:
<br>No, they can just crush unions, pay slave labor wages, treat employees as disposable commodities to be used up and discarded. That is how it used to work before employment laws were passed. If you take that power away from the government, we will just slide back into that world of rampant abuse by the rich and powerful.
I think it is a bit of a strawman to say that I am advocating for a total absence of labor laws. Do I think a $15 minimum wage is a terrible idea? Yes, I would certainly be against that. Do I think unions like United Auto Workers need to be scaled back and regulated more? Yes. I don't want an absence of unions, though. I don't think an absence of workplace regulations is a good idea, either.
I will gladly pay taxes to get roads, health care, schools etc. At least I get a say in what services we get and what the rules will be. If you take away the power of the government, you are giving up your say in what the rules will be and handing that power exclusively to the rich. And they will promptly use it to make themselves richer and you poorer.
You would get more of a say in your school and healthcare if you were a consumer instead. Are you in favor of school vouchers so there is school choice, or do you think public schools should expect money and students without having an incentive to improve?
Do you mean economic central planning? No one has suggested doing that. But there is always going to need to be a balance. If there is no laws controlling companies, they will abuse their workers and the poor. That is just a fact. One only has to look at the 100,000% markup drug companies put on drugs people need to live. They are already making record profits, they don't need to do that. but they can, so they will. If they can get away with it and get more money, they will do it. Even if it kills people.
Not entire economic central planning. Medicare for all is centrally-planned healthcare. The government is deciding quantities provided, prices, etc.
So companies should just have to wait 50 years to make their money back (by which time their drug is generic)? ~10 years and millions of dollars go into developing drugs.
On the other hand, if there are too many rules and too much control by the government you crush innovation and stifle growth. That is why we need a mixture. We need capitalism to fuel growth and innovation, and we need strong rules to keep that avarice in check so it doesn't hurt people and society in general.
We agree there need to be rules. I just think there should be less than you. That is generally how this discussion works, as we aren't communists or anarcho-capitalists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well when you give power to corrupt politicians, you give the power of writing laws to the very people those billionaires bought. With a small government, rich people get some indirect power, but they cannot write crony laws and regulations on the books. They can’t force us to pay billions in tax dollars to subsidize their businesses and bail them out.
I agree that we should get money out of politics regardless. It makes your position more sustainable. But then that brings up the separate issues caused by central planning.
Created:
-->
@Alec
So, you think the national debt is an issue, but you want us to pay for jailing thousands of more criminals than we would otherwise have to. Interesting.....deportation is too good for them. They need imprisonment.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think you forgot:
g0v3rNm3nT c0rRuPt1on
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Yeah, I see the light bulb going off above your head. Welcome to the rational, logical common sense club. Very few of us on board Spaceship Earth.
I am generally in the non-interventionist club.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Absolutely. Back in 2016 I believe, there was a debate between Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz. Cruz said something along the lines of "Bernie, we both agree that Washington is corrupt. I can't think why you'd advocate for giving them more power."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I am 100% against the War in Iraq. However, I don't fault people too much for being in favor of it back in the day. From what I understand, there was a huge propaganda campaign saying Saddam helped plan 9/11, was build WMDs to use(possibly against us), and other related things. Looking back and knowing it was all false, it is easy for me to say it was a bad idea. Back then it probably seemed smart. There was bi-partisan support, I believe.War in Iraq was idiots-on-board.
That is why I am very skeptical about any info about supposed Iran activity and don't believe it would be a particularly bright idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Iraq doesn’t want us there. Most Americans don’t want us there. The only people that DO want us there are neo cons/bought liberals and military contractor executives. Don’t you find it weird that supposed scandals occur whenever we try to leave? Like the pixelated video of “Iranians” planting a “bomb” on a ship?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I don’t understand the point of your paradox. Does he have the power to make himself not all powerful?
you still haven addressed the most important point: souls go to hell, not people. So I have absolutely no clue as to how you expect to get workers out of digging to a place that obviously wouldn’t exist on earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If God had absolute power, wouldn’t that include being all-knowing? That is a power
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Why do you believe that hell is located in the crust of the earth? There are logical issues with this idea, but also religious ones.
First off, the SOULS of people go to hell according to the Bible. Second, they are sent there for an ETERNITY based on God’s judgement. Are you saying that an omniscient being wouldn’t have the foresight to know that people could one day free them? Additionally, are you okay with directly defying the will of the Lord, which was to send them to hell forever?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
“War is the terrorism of the rich and terrorism is the war of the poor”
Created:
-->
@Vader
Maybe some day you can get terrible test scores and still get into Ivy League schools instead of more qualified chocolate pretzel lovers, but that day is not today.
#NoReparations4ChocolatePretzelHaters
Created:
-->
@Vader
I guess I am a minority for this
How does it feel, you white man?!?!? Soon you chocolate-pretzel-hating fascists will lose the right to vote and be forced to make chocolate pretzels without pay.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Hmmmm.... nah, I’ll stick with the tastebud story.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Personally, I like chocolate-covered potato chips more. I’m guessing you’d dislike those for the same reason you don’t like chocolate pretzels: you have no taste buds
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I don’t know about them funding 9/11, but I do know that (this could be slightly off) 11 out of the 15 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I have heard weed is the only cure for TDS.... or at least I think that’s why they all smoke it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Wait a minute..... Iran will attack an Israeli and Indian city if we retaliate? That sounds really dumb to incur the wrath of three nations instead of one. That would essentially grant the international go-ahead for war against them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I am asking why the draft is relevant at all. The fact is, there is a large possibility of going to war, whether or not it is WWIII doesn't matter.
Created: