Total posts: 1,499
-->
@ILikePie5
no. i would like him to have more legislative or executive, leadership, experience. but as long as he stays in the government, i would consider him in maybe another ten years. he's still pretty young, and i dont see him as exceptional enough to overlook that. i've never seen someone who i thought was adequately experienced around the minimum age of 35.
Created:
i like mayor pete, he just needs more experience.
Created:
i think he's going to try to act like he will run, but he wont commit to it for awhile. he wants to be able to size up who the democrats will pick, and then decide. he had a super low approval rating when he left office, so it's not like he's the favorite of all, to win. he stands no chance against decent dems, but these days dems like to pick losers, so it's not like he won't have a chance. he's assured the primary nomination, given how popular he is with his base, so all he needs is for dems to pull another hillary move like they did four years ago, and he's got it made. if he decides not to run, he will try to get his kids or someone he highly favors to run, so he doesn't risk losing again if it doesn't look good for him. it's anathema to him to lose twice in a row, so he's going to be extra cautious.
Created:
you just casually force the point that it's common for people hallucinate afterlife stories when they die. that's the only alternative theory to people seeing the afterlife with NDEs. they did meet the clinical definition of death, so it's accurate to say they died. but even if it's just a technical point that they died or it was just close to death, it's all the same difference. you have no explanation for why people at that of death just happen to hallucinate after life stories so commonly. don't you concede that it's strange? and it's not a dream, because everyone who has the experience says they aren't the same and that the experience is more real than this life and like another dimension. but even if it was like a dream, you have no explanation for why people would just so commonly hallucinate afterlife dreams when they're dying. it's just a stupid argument. maybe, just maybe, since they were technically dead, and they said they saw the afterlife.... that they did die and see the afterlife - that's the most straightforward way of looking at it.
you just ignore the out of body research. when you ask people to describe what they saw out of body, they are almost accurate. this isn't the case when you ask people to guess what happened when they didn't have an out of body experience. you ignore the AWARE study and other studies that have demonstrated examples of things being verified from out of body experiences. you just choose to ignore it all even though it's objective evidence that contradicts your view.
you ignore that people almost always see dead people in their NDE, when if they were hallucinating they should be seeing living people very often too. you have no explanation for why this is the case. i dont know why they rarely see living people... maybe they did hallucainte that, but the fact that the vast majority see someone dead shows that it's strange they aren't seeing living people too. it's objective evidence for the authenticity of the argument for an afterlife experience that directly contradicts your view.
Created:
this thread just shows that atheists like skepticism for the sake of skepticism... and it shows how ignorant and idiotic the atheistic world view really is.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
why are the people in near death experiences almost always dead? what is preventing them from hallucinating their loved ones who are living, a lot more often, if all it is is a hallucination?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
not to mention that you didn't even try engaging in the evidence in the opening post. which is no surprise, because the evidence objectively points to a mystical experience... and it's easier to just wave your hands of it, if your choice is to ignore the evidence and have faith in nothingness when we die.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
so your claim is that it's common for people to hallucinate afterlife stories when they die. that's a pretty wild claim, too. are afterlife stories embedded in our brain, our genes, or or how does that work?
Created:
lolcat
Created:
Posted in:
we KNOW that the bible is true, because the bible SAYS that the bible is true..... and if you remember from earlier in this sentence, every word of the bible is true
Created:
Posted in:
just puttin this out there. i know ya'll can't help but to debate this, lolz
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
i think u should use your trademark, where you 'bible slap him silly'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
there are radical democrats, but they are a minority. on the other hand, there is a name for radical republicans - libertarians. why does anyone want to take pride in calling themselves radicals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
in the last election, the republicans didn't even articulate official policy position, as is customary. they're approach was to rubber stamps everything trump said and did. trump said he wanted to cover everyone at a reasonable cost, and even though he was a compulsive liar, i believed him. someone like him sees the rest of the developed world giving better healthcare at half the cost to everyone, and the usa terrible. someone like trump wants to be best. trump's problem, is that he was s dufus on policy, and even if he wanted to improve things, he favored the party and the rich first. he sold out, and was a imbecile.
Created:
here are the attributes that he says apply to Jesus....
greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, malevolent, an abortionist, and an outright serial killer.
if you look at the old testament, some of these things are actually plausible...
... what do ya think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
it's still a minimal welfare state. what are some examples of welfare that you want to get rid of?
do you think people with severe disabilities shouldn't get seven hundred a month? do you think the very rare small percent of the population shouldn't get housing assistance?
what is it in our meager welfare state that irks you so much?
Created:
Posted in:
how can u justify being an economic libertarian in the usa? for the most part, the only welfare that exists, is food stamps, a one time education benefit, and if you're lucky, healthcare. i suppose there are those tax credits for parents too poor to have kids. we dont have much of a welfare state, but here you are saying what we do have is too much. compared to the rest of the world, even the democratic party is largely conservative, yet here you are claiming a radical version of conservatism.
do you libertarians like being a radical?
Created:
-->
@Vader
how can u justify being an economic libertarian in the usa? for the most part, the only welfare that exists, is food stamps, a one time education benefit, and if you're lucky, healthcare. i suppose there are those tax credits for parents too poor to have kids. we dont have much of a welfare state, but here you are saying what we do have is too much. compared to the rest of the world, even the democratic party is largely conservative, yet here you are claiming a radical version of conservatism.
do you like being a radical?
Created:
economic libertarians are clowns
Created:
Posted in:
by far the biggest reason we spend so much on healthcare, is because the healthcare industry charges too much for services. this is a fact. just google it if you dont know this.
we should strive to be closer to the rest of the developed world, that spends half as much as as do. the problem for us, is that lobbyists are entrenched in the pockets of politicians, such that it would be next to impossible to just start slashing costs by fiat. the public is also weary of change, cause it's hard to say what will happen with change.
so what we could do, is set insurance costs into a uniform price system that is maybe a quarter more expensive than medicare pricing, and then grow healthcare costs at less than inflation, until costs are somewhat more reasonable. this would be beneficial, because it's slowly changing the status quo, instead of just taking an ax to it. it's feasible.
this would reduce the complexity of the current system. such that we wouldn't need so many insurance billers, for instance. as it is now, there's often an insurance biller per hospital bed at some hospitals, even though there's not even that many nurses.
we should also have insurance companies switch to non profit companies, given that's how most of that's how most of the developed world does their supplemental insurance coverage. this would reduce the profit waste and make peopel's health the highest priority.
see, most developed countries are not single payer, so that alone wouldn't solve our problems if we switched to it. they usually have a system like medicare that we have, with co insurance with a non profit company running it. with single payer, we could very easily just end up with healthcare that covers everyone.... while being super expensive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
u r very good at pointing out stupid arguments
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
why do u think chinese workers are being exploited? because they dont get a decent minimum wage?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
you act like companies aren't already maximizing profit. they can't just cut costs elsewhere, cause if they could, they would have already before the wage hike. the only thing that can change, is the profit margin. they make less profit.
i acknowledge that the things you say are at play to some degree, but my argument is what generally is the case.
Created:
Posted in:
even if the price of the big mac varies, in many countries the cost is the same as our cost, even though the other countries pay more. that's because the price is determined by supply and demand, less so because of labor costs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
think of my initial argument. if you can sell a hundred laptops for two hundred each, and that maximizes profit, then that is what you are going to do. just because your labor costs change, doesn't change the fact that a hundred laptops at two hundred each, is still the point where maximum revenue is generated. if you raise the price, you will sell fewer and make less money.
this is just a rule of thumb, but i'd still say it's the general rule of thumb. most of the time, profit would be eaten into. that's just business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
says who? why wouldn't they just eat the costs, generally?
look at all the developed world, a big mac costs about the same everywhere, regardless of how much each countries minimum wage is
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
i partially agree, i'd say some industries can just absorb the hit of a wage hike, while others would adjust their pricing.
i'd still say as a general rule, supply and demand determine prices, so if selling hamburgers is profit maximized at a buck, then they aren't going to raise prices and make less money by selling less.
Created:
Posted in:
economics 101
prices are set by supply and demand. not labor costs.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
solar and windmills are cheaper than nuclear. id support nuclear too, though
alterantive energy is already cheaper than fossil fuels. people just dont like making initial investments. the free market is just taking the path of least resistance, even if it's all around the worst path. just gotta make it worth people's while and speed up the free market.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
i think u r intending to use sarcasm to debate me, but your sarcasm is actually making my point
except, i'm not sure if electric cars should count, cause most of them r powered by fossil fuel power plants. i would be okay if they were included, though... let the free market decide which alternative power should be prioritized.
Created:
this would speed up the free market. it already makes sense for people to switch to alternative energy, but if you sweeten the deal, it will happen faster. everyone wins in this situation, except those who dont want to do what's best for themselves and the world.
there should be a tax exemption for lower income people though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The last four years have been among the least stable and least predictable in US history but no filibuster did anything to prevent that.
evidence?
The heart of democracy is the expression of majority will and filibusters in practice only and always obstruct that free expression by the majority. Therefore, filibusters are inherently anti-democratic.
simple majority will isn't the maximum of democracy. filibuster requires consensus building, so it's even more democratic as it better represents the population and not mob rule
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
the better idea is to keep the filibuster
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
so all you care about is the blame game and you dont care about the actual consequences of abolishing the filibuster? do you really wanna see what happens when the liberals get their way on everything?
Created:
Posted in:
the filibuster keeps our country stable and predictable. it encourages negotiation so that laws can get passed, moderation is a good thing.
liberals are pushing to abolish it... but the real test is, would they want to abolish it if trump and the republicans were in change? the question answers itself... of course they wouldnt wanna abolish it at that point. but that's the nature of politics.... different parties control things at different points, so they will have complete control with a majority vote.
Created:
sorry to break it to you, but it's a fact that the election wasn't rigged. i'll sit with the crickets while everyone waits for you to show a shred of evidence that the election was rigged.
what's actually the case, is that you are so deluded with lies, that you think anyone who believes the truth, are themselves deluded
Created:
-->
@ethang5
trump tried to get states to revoke their ceritified election results, and tried to get pence to decline to certify the election. this is despite the fact that all objective evidence indicates this was a free and fair election. what do you call this, if not rebelling against our democracy?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
i cited the amendment that can bar a politician from office. we all know trump's antics after the election. what more evidence do you need? either you think he rebelled against the country or you dont. it's irrational to think trump had merit to his election conspiracies. so he objectively did rebel against the usa. i mean, a person could plausibly say he didn't 'rebel' *enough* to warrant blocking him from office. but it's indisputible that he tried to overthrow democracy. this isn't opinion... it's fact.
Created:
Posted in:
actually, i didn't see that he has been posting... my bad.
i do await for the return of his fire and brimstone antics
Created:
Posted in:
his ban has been lifted
we need him back, as comic relief
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
it's more than he said she said.
on the one hand, we have all of mainstream media, including the most credible sources of news and even conservative sources like Fox news. we have all of the courts in the country, including the supreme court who is packed with trump appointees. we have the bulk of congress, and all fifty states including republican states.
on the other hand, we have trump, a con man and a pathological liar.
which one should we choose??
if you trust trump, you're just stupid. there's no way around it. you have the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
no, it's a fact. he's been trying to overthrow democracy = fact
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
id have to see the law written out to see if i agreed that he broke it. i always considered things like treason and sedition to be vague and i suppose i thought they were violated when other crimes were committed
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
the reason you can impeach someone is for high crimes and misdemeanors. i'm aware that some people say you can impeach for non crimes, but i dont buy that argument. it's possible to rebel against the country without committing crimes, and that's what id say trump has done.
Created:
-->
@Death23
i didn't change my mind. i still dont think he should be impeached. i do think he committed rebellion against the USA, which violates the constitution.
Created:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says "no person" may "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States," who, "having previously taken an oath as…an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
i dont think trump should have been impeached for the riots. and i dont think he should be barred from office for causing an insurrection. but i do think since the election, he's been committing rebellion against the USA based on patently untrue claims. he's been trying to overthrow our democratic republic, to overturn a proper election.
i say ted cruz and all the other defective congressmen should be removed and barred from office as well. i surmise that these guys know better, as opposed to their ignorant and brainwashed supporters.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
im curious of your opinion
Created: