Total posts: 1,331
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
you're not even making sense any more. i'm actually kind of worried about your mental health. you talk like someone who damaged his brain from years of drug abuse. i'm not even trying to be mean spirited... just being probably overly blunt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
do you ever actually look at the national budget? you always bring up these small fry cost problems.
we have a meager welfare state compared to other countries, and our defense spending as a percent of GDP is relatively stable. healthcare is the only big one and the only real wild card.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
it probably won't happen due to what you state... but that doesn't mean my idea is bad, or that it can't be done
Created:
Posted in:
it's just a matter of spreading awareness and having the political will to do it
both the government and our citizens can be saved economically
healthcare is the only issue that could potentially bankrupt the country, and this thread tackles that issue too
affordable housing solution - bring back boarding houses with a drug search waiver
affordable healthcare solution - grow healthcare costs at or less than inflation and make insurance companies non-profit
affordable education solution - stop giving out loans and instead require limited percent of income plans
Created:
-->
@oromagi
what do you think of my amended proposal? what about specifically the drug search aspect?
Created:
the solution, is boarding houses, that require a waiver of privacy rights when it comes to drug searches.
a person gets a room. they share kitchens and living areas and bathrooms. the government lends money to non-profit organizations to build and maintain these boarding houses. that takes out the profit motive and corruption. residents pay a third of their income for costs... if they dont have much income, or no income, they dont pay much. this means the only ones who are homeless... is drug addicts who refuse to submit, and dangerous criminals, and dangerous mentally ill people. maybe these people can be taken care of on a case by case basis, but these guys are their own category which i acknowledge my solutions dont solve.
instead of flat out paying people's rent like the government does now, and doing nothing about affordability, boarding houses bring back economical structures. we probably already spend enough money on housing, to instead lend out money that's going to be repaid to the government eventually anyway.
the highest ranked debater here pointed out that when you put a bunch of poor people together, it causes social ills and stuff like drug problems and destroys the whole cost savings paradigm. that killed my idea for a solution before... but now my solution to, is for residents to waive their rights to not be searched. drug searches can happen at will, and randomly, and arbitrarily.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"The short answer is that a "might makes right" democracy allows for no diversity of thought."
that is a well stated argument.
Created:
Posted in:
i can understand giving minorities representation, but i think the senate is adequate for that. something as powerful as the presidency should be based on majority vote... every vote should be equal.
Created:
Posted in:
every vote should be equal. everyone intuitively knows this. yet, when you point out to a pro electoral college person that the college makes votes not equal, you can then watch them contort themselves into all kinds of shapes. most of these people have never really truly grappled with the fact that the college makes vote unequal, and pointing it out is a good way to catch them off guard. of course, humans are too prone to stick to their guns even if it dont make sense, so they force the issue.
bottom line. someone in california should have as much voting power as someone in north dakota. the electoral college makes this not the case. that's why it should be abolished.
Created:
Posted in:
some people say truth is relative. well, relative is a relative word. but truth is not arbitrary.
maybe there are exceptions to rules, but the rules and the exceptions are clear. killing others for no reason is bad. maybe there are situations where killing others is justifiable, but that doesn't mean killing isn't clearly wrong, in general. whether killing is justifiable isn't subject to just some duede's whims, it's not arbitrary.
maybe i'm saying truth is objective, i dont know. i dont know what the basis for truth is, other than maybe a higher power or God. well, maybe an objective reality beyond God could exist, that is the basis for objective truth. i dont know if we mere humans can know what all the truths are, but that truth exists shouldn't be the issue.
just some ramblings i had that i thought id see what folks thought.
Created:
Posted in:
i think anything after Jesus is more important than anything before jesus. id read to the new testament from beginning to end. there might be a better overall strategy, but that one seems pretty solid, beginning to end.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
if the government isn't throwing money at the problem by just paying what colleges charge, and is keeping them in check by forcing them a limited amount, then tuition won't grow out of hand.
i dont know where you came with that 'insurance is killing everything' point. way out of left field. it's one of those conservative talking points that only come up whenever conservatives want to panacea cover everything issue that is supposedly the root of all evil. you should read up on this issue.... the government throwing money at this issue is 90 percent of the problem. i dont know where your insurance issue ranks but i can't wrap my mind around how it would rank very high on costs. when our parents went to school, it was super cheap. then the government got involved and started writing checks with no regulation about it.... it's an obvious cause and effect situation.
are you very young? your 'insurance is the problem' sounds like something someone would say who has no perspective on this problem, like a young person.
Created:
this link has the good doctor addressing the stupid arguments he's heard....
i'm not trying to avoid addressing stupid arguments myself, but that should take care of a lot of it.
Created:
just because smart people dont believe in the afterlife doesn't mean much. most of them are ignorant of the information in this thread. i acknowledge that it's common for skeptics to remain skeptics after learning of the evidence... but the far and away most who hear this evidence are convinced it's evidence, at the very least. i would guess most skeptics at least come around to acknowleding the evidence. read reviews online and you will see that for yourself. the skeptics who can't be convinced this stuff is even evidence, just lack critical thinking. saying it's irrational is putting it nicely. it's actually wildly idiotic to deny this evidence, and the folks who do so need to go back to elementary school for basic logic and critical thinking. skepticism on this topic is mostly about ignorance, but there's a hefty amount of stupidity too.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
the only reason it costs so much is because the government stuck its nose in. when the government has an open check book to pay tuition, it causes costs to sky rocket. without government involvement, few would take on the risk of loaning money to students, because it's a bad credit risk. half of students shouldn't be there and wouldn't be able to afford paying tuitition creditors back anyway.
making college tuition free by paying the costs, is just throwing gas on the fire.
taking away loans and forcing colleges to accept a fixed percent changes everything. now, everyone can go, and the schools and students will adapt to the most efficient outcome they can muster.
you got your economic theories all mixed up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
because you say a lot of things that sound catholic, or generally orthodox instead of protestant. plus i know a lot about the catholic church, and used to be a catholic, so i would enjoy debating about Catholicism.
Created:
i would think five to ten percent of their income would be sufficient, per year, for ten years. no loans, just payments in the future. the government can give schools a net present value of estimated future payments, and collect the payments on income taxes.
this would incentavize colleges to make their students economically viable grads, which is what the end goal is anyway. they would focus more on practical skills. they might decide that four years and excessive unneeded classes aren't necessary, making it more efficient again. (though the government can require some very basic courses, like generic psychology and generic sociology and generic science etc etc and basic math and reading and writing) this also requires that students dont just get a free ride, but that they chip in on their own education, which would appeal to conservatives. students with not much intelligence or potential would be saw for who they are, and they would be found to be maximized to their potential by the school. majors that are worthless wont get as much money, and that would cause the system to adapt... maybe only the cream of the crop students should be doing humanities, and their would be a punishment of less money to both the student and school for allowing low skill students to go into the humanities. maybe a philosophy major will end up at mcdonalds, and neither he nor the school will benefit much. maybe the school wont accept stupid kids in the humanities.
the well off grads would pay more, who are the most economically viable ones. and the less economically viable ones would pay less. there's a certain justice to that, if that happens to fit your political ideology.
this proposal is an example of the kind of concrete solutions that politicitians should be working on. the beurocrats in washington have lost the policy in politics.
Created:
do you think it'd be beneficial to let people know how much the expenses are? that might, or might not, help people raise their contribution. i know another website and forum only costs 800 dollars a year, though of course that's a lot to someone who is struggling.
Created:
Posted in:
what is a hefa low? a hifa hefa low. i do oo nah ot a know. but i'm down with the clowns, and i'm out the window.... FUCK
Created:
Another line of evidence... almost all communication during ndes is telepathic. If these were just hallucinations, communication would be much more variable and include a lot more verbal styles.
It baffles the mind that folks don't consider this thread as evidence of the afterlife. Obviously it's due to a lack of critical thinking, and hardened hearts and darkened minds.
Created:
This thread needs rexamined simply because of how utterly pathetic the skeptic's arguments have been
Created:
Burn, baby, burn!
He puts the RAT in RATzinger!
That's a rat zinger!
Created:
Bah humbug
Created:
I'm a solid christian in my beliefs. I believe in the afterlife and that God is love. I have concluded that the best way reconcile all this is to say God loves everyone but there r consequences to our actions.
I grew up catholic so that catholic guilt colors my psyche. But beyond that, even focusing on the words of Jesus instead of the rest of the new testament can be disheartening. He said we r judged by how we act, we can't know we r saved, some sins r unforgivable. What do those of us think who know we r wretched sinners? Modern protestantism gives a different spin on all these issues, but if we take the gospels as they r, it can be very upsetting. No wonder there's so much depression and sorrow in the world.
Created:
Posted in:
every other country covers everyone at half the cost, with better wait times. so it can be done here too. the thing is, they started from scratch and built their healthcare systems from the ground up... not trying to redo a country like ours with a third of a billion people in it. what could happen if we tried to make it universal? the most obvious problem would be that the democrats dont do anything to get costs down first, or they cave when costs are contained with a medicare like pricing system. (which sets limits on how much can be spent) and speicial interests complain about it. the republicans could repeal any taxes that are used to pay for a new system. so it's definitely possible to bankrupt us based on health care... is what i'm getting at.
how do other countries spend half as much as we do? they mostly get it down to that level by regulating how much the government is willing to pay for each procedure, they regulate costs. they also minimize the role of insurance, which helps given insurance is a middle man that pays a third just in adminstrative costs instead of the two percent that medicare pays. (some hospitals have more staff to take care of billing than they do nurses, for instance)
if we're not doing more of these cost containing things, we're headed in the wrong direction.
if we dont do anything about costs, we could end up bankrupt switching to something universal. we only have ten percent of folks who are uninsured... which means it's not earth shattering if we didn't cover those few extra people. it would be earth shattering to borrow money to pay for it. that's why the emphasis shouldn't be on universal care, it should be on getting costs contained.
sometimes it is wise to be skeptical if a public option or universal plan could work... we're trying to redo an embedded system, and politicians are good at fucking things up. it's rational to only focus on getting costs contained...that's the biggest problem.
Created:
i think a lot of trump's tax returns have already been leaked by the new york times. i think what trump is trying to hide is how poor he is and the fact that the's gone so many years of paying no taxes.
Created:
-->
@Avery
I always liked the definition of racism to mean unjustifiable prejudice. Hate makes sense too but might not be broad enough
Created:
If the victims are black it's racist. If the shooter is black it's racist. If the shooter and victim is black it's racist. If neither is black it's racist (for leavin them out)
Created:
Posted in:
What about today’s gun-rights debates? Surprisingly, there is not a single word about an individual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Constitutional Convention; nor with scattered exceptions in the transcripts of the ratification debates in the states; nor on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as it marked up the Second Amendment, where every single speaker talked about the militia. James Madison’s original proposal even included a conscientious objector clause: “No person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
and more
Created:
Posted in:
James Madison's original proposal even included a conscientious objector clause: “No person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
the link shows a study, that almost every time the phrase "bear arms" was used in the founding days, it meant to use a gun in a militia.
it doesn't say we can wear clothes in the founding fathers days, but also, no one is trying to make the argument there's an amendment that says people have a right to wear clothes. if there was such an amendment, you can be sure there would be outside evidence for the purpose outside the amendment, of being able to wear clothes.
if the second amendment is talking about a right to a gun, there would be evidence that the founding fathers supported that right. there is no such evidence. the amendment wouldn't just magically get written with that intent, without there being outside evidence for it.
they specified a purpose for a militia, but they didn't specify a purpose for everyone having a right to a gun even, especially if they aren't in a militia.
at the very least, you seem to be admitting that your argument about the right to a gun, can only be implied historically, given there's no evidence outside of one possible interpretation of the amendment. the way gun nuts express it, there's nothing clearer than the right to a gun, when all evidence is the opposite of that.
your argument is ridiculous.
you guys simply lack critical thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
i accept your sub point, that maybe we can't read a lot into why states did or didn't protect gun points in the state constitutions.
but i do think u were trying to say states did protect gun rights? when there's little evidence for that. maybe i misunderstood your point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
it looks like u r just ignoring everything i said.
-the phrase "bear arms" historically meant to use a gun in a militia. the preface of the amendment says the purpose regards militias.
also, it is very weak to argue that right to a gun was so well established that no one talked about it. what, they slipped, fell, and accidentally wrote the second amendment with the intent to give everyone a right to a gun, but never talked about it? every right in the constitution they talked about the purpose. they wouldn't have not did the same with the right to a gun. it's too far fetched. you can't just ignore this point and reiterate your point, if you want your argument to be coherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
u must not have read my replies
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
if you actually had evidence that states protected gun rights in their constitution that's persuasive evidence. but i doubt you can provide that evidence.
i dont know how you can read this entire thread and think you guys actually still have a coherent point.
Created:
Posted in:
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
also, the bill of rights was ratified long before this. i think this must be referring to a state specific event. there are plenty of states the considered gun rights in their state constitutions and rejected the idea. doesn't really make as much sense if they thought gun rights were already protected.
Created:
Posted in:
well, maybe i'm confusing the quotes.. the 'arms on land' quote i was thinking about was from Jefferson
Created:
Posted in:
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
"your first quote is usually taken out of context. the full quote ends with "keeping their own arms on their own land". "
also, no one argues the constitution should prevent people from owning guns. that's not to say that it says they should be able to own guns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
i dont think heller even considered the fact that "bear arms" almost always meant to use a gun in a militia. especially when you consider that and the rest of the amendment like the "well regulated militia" part, there's at the very least more than one way to interpret the amendment. thus, they should have looked at the history, but they obviously didn't do it without an agenda. probably a bunch of leaps that implied it, as everyone else does with it. i maintain the originalist conservative chief justice burger got it right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
your first quote is usually taken out of context. the full quote ends with "keeping their own arms on their own land".
the third quote basically is just saying keeping and bearing arms is essential. it doesn't define what that means. i never saw that "self defense" point, so that's interesting point in your favor i guess.
i never saw the second quote. that's somewhat persuasive to your point. except, he's talking about the right to a gun in the context of their duty, which means militia membership.
also even if i grant the somewhat persuasiveness of these points, there by far is still a deafening silence on people having a right to a gun, in the founding era.
Created:
Posted in:
here is some more legislative history that the founders didn't create a right to a gun in the second amendment...
-the phrase "bear arms" historically meant to use a gun in a militia. the preface of the amendment says the purpose regards militias.-“The people”: The founders used this phrase to mean not individual persons, but rather the body politic, the people as a whole. During the ratification debate in Virginia, speakers used the phrase “the people” 50 times when discussing the militia. Every single mention referred to Virginians as a group, not as individuals.-when the constitutional convention occurred, they didn't talk about the need for people to have guns or self defense, all the emphasis was on the need for a militia and the militia langauge in the constitution. the following links are for both this factoid and the next one too.-From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment did not conclude that it guaranteed an individual right to a gun-when the amendment was passed they had all kinds of laws regarding who could have guns for all kinds of reasons, along with gun control-here are some highlights about gun laws during the founding era:
-stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible.
-public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned
-anyone who didn't swear loyalty to the state couldn't have a gun. it's far fetched to say as today's conservatives do that guns were protected to protect against the state when back then the state was disarming people they thought were disloyal
-the state disarmed people for the purposes of furthering the government. one of washington's first acts was to disarm the people of queens new york.
-all guns had to be registered and inspected
-some states regulated the use of gun powder
-some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit
-some cities prohibited loaded firearms in houses
-only one state protected gun rights outside of the militia
-several states rejected the idea of gun rights for self defense or hunting, even though conservatives today claim it was already protected by the second amendmnet
-indians and blacks were barred from having guns-the supreme court historically didn't touch the amendment much, but when they did treated it as pertaining to militias. as recently as the reagan administration, the conservatives said the same thing. it was called a quote unquote "fraud" on the public, to say otherwise, by the conservative chief justice Burger.-drafts of the amendment included a conscioustious objector clause, if you objected to militia duty for religious reasons you can be exempt from a militia. this reinforces that the amendment pertained to militia stuff.-half the population from postal workers to priests were exempt from the militia. this reinforces that it wasn't generally understood that the people informally make up an informal militia. a militia is what a state defines it as.-all the amendments have limits on them. including the first amendment. you can always read into the amendment what exactly it means to infringe on someone's rights, and find other reasonable exceptions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
i disagree that whether there was gun control matters that much. if they didn't regulate it, that doesn't suddenly mean they passed a constitutiuonal amendment protecting their use. that's a big leap. but regardless, they did regulate it....
-when the amendment was passed they had all kinds of laws regarding who could have guns for all kinds of reasons, along with gun control
-here are some highlights about gun laws during the founding era:
-stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible.
-public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned
-anyone who didn't swear loyalty to the state couldn't have a gun. it's far fetched to say as today's conservatives do that guns were protected to protect against the state when back then the state was disarming people they thought were disloyal
-the state disarmed people for the purposes of furthering the government. one of washington's first acts was to disarm the people of queens new york.
-all guns had to be registered and inspected
-some states regulated the use of gun powder
-some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit
-some cities prohibited loaded firearms in houses
-only one state protected gun rights outside of the militia
-several states rejected the idea of gun rights for self defense or hunting, even though conservatives today claim it was already protected by the second amendmnet
-indians and blacks were barred from having guns
-stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible.
-public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned
-anyone who didn't swear loyalty to the state couldn't have a gun. it's far fetched to say as today's conservatives do that guns were protected to protect against the state when back then the state was disarming people they thought were disloyal
-the state disarmed people for the purposes of furthering the government. one of washington's first acts was to disarm the people of queens new york.
-all guns had to be registered and inspected
-some states regulated the use of gun powder
-some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit
-some cities prohibited loaded firearms in houses
-only one state protected gun rights outside of the militia
-several states rejected the idea of gun rights for self defense or hunting, even though conservatives today claim it was already protected by the second amendmnet
-indians and blacks were barred from having guns
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
so you are saying that the purpose for a constitutional amendment was so obvious that nobody talked about it? riiiiight. they talked about the purpose for all the other amendments, but for some reason everyone is so quick to just imply it for the second amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
i also dont know why you brought up the gun control point. that's only tangent related.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
there's no express evidence that the founding fathers thought that everyone had a right to a gun. there's only evidence that they thought militias were necessary. every argument i've seen that the second amendment protects an individual right to a gun, is always based on implication, implying it through history. though i dont think hardly any of the people making that argument realize they are actually implying it, and how weak that sort of argument is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
yes there are some recent judicial decisions that thought people have a right to a gun, through the second amendment. but this thread is about legislative history during the founding days, so i dont know what point you are trying to make. scalia is an originalist, but for some reason he decided to make a big leap of logic by implying the right based on what evidence is available. originalists should be like conservative chief justice Burger from the Reagan era, who called what scalia thought a "fraud" on the american people... it has no real historical basis to it.
Created:
Posted in:
i have no express legislative evidence of my constitutional right, but it's implied = super weak
Created:
Posted in:
i have a cockamamie idea that the right to a gun is implied in the ninth amendment, an implied right. but since there's no explicit right to a gun as how it's supposedly laid out in the second amendment, the legislature should have more power to regulate it as they see fit. that's how how the legislative history of our country has always been regarding guns, lots of regulation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
see above
Created: