Total posts: 1,499
such hardened hearts
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
well, with those drug addicts who spend two dollars a day on food and the rest on drugs, you might be right about more than i was thinking.
so how would a conservative end homelessness? or, is the idea just to let them be homeless?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
the going rate for food stamps is a fifty percent discount.... 150 dollars for three hundred in food stamps. people aren't staying homeless for 150 dollars. at least, not many. the point remains that you haven't shown a good connection between liberal policies and homelessness. the article you pasted has some good points, i will check it out.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
except you can't buy restaurant food with food stamps. they get three hundred in groceries. if i was in the right situation, i might become homeless for that, but i'm very different than most people.... and i seriously doubt too many would become homeless for an extra hundred in groceries.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
there aren't many rewards to be unemployed and homeless. what are you referring to?
there are food stamps, but they dont choose to stay homeless to get more food. most of them have mental illness and drug problems. i seriously doubt very many stay dirt poor and homeless to get a little extra food. do you seriously believe this?
i dont know how liberals facilitate drug use? what are you referring to? there is the needle program that some places have, but most drug users would just use dirty needles if they can't get clean ones. no one is saying "i wouldn't use drugs, but golly i can get free needles so i can't pass this up!"
your points dont seem very thought out.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
homelessness occurs mostly due to mental illness and drug abuse. not because of democrats, lol. there's not shelters everywhere, and sometimes it's just not possible possible to find affordable living conditions.... so having cheap housing would help.
how exactly do liberals cause homelessness? there might be some effects around the edges, but that's not a big cause.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
boarding houses are illegal in most places. see the article i cited a number of posts above.
Created:
Posted in:
who's milkshake brought more boys to the yard?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
@MisterChris
the democratic platform is to put as many people as possible on section 8. i dont support that, exactly. except, i support section 8 for boarding houses only. we can house everyone for what we pay now.
but at least if we didn't subsidize the homeless, what i'm proposing is a conservative idea. deregulate boarding houses so more people have affordable housing.
also, would you prefer to just let homeless people be homeless, instead of thinking of cheap and practical solutions to fix their problem?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
determine what?
Created:
well thought out and written article on bringing back boarding houses
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
then folks can have a place to stay during their downward spiral. boarding houses also makes having a place to stay more affordable for those who aren't homeless. the idea of deregulating to allow landlords to have boarding houses, is a conservative principle that conservatives should embrace.
Created:
instead of apartment buildings, build large buildings with lots of rooms in it, with shared kitchens and bathrooms. there's no reason with the current billions we spend on housing, that we can't get everyone who is homeless into a room.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
this sounds like someone who doesn't like the idea of the command coming from God, even though he's willing to take it either way.
Another one is his reference to Abraham which I assume to refer to the incident with Isaac.A key factor in these texts is that Abraham believed his son would live. He hung onto a specific promise that would require his young son to remain alive, marry, and have children. This portion of scripture always seems suspiciously absent in his referencing.In addition, there's even a possibility that the instruction didn't even come directly from God, as the Hebrew word for God in this text includes people in authority. Human sacrifice was common practice back then, and the instruction may have come from an authoritarian taken as a word/command from God. This was before an Israelite nation, so God was not yet perceived as the God of the Jews. Truthfully, I don't know if the command came directly from God, or authoritarians (and I'm comfortable either way), but imagine all the wasted hoopla over this subject if the command in this text came from perceived oracle's of God?
Created:
Posted in:
the apologist above is showing the hoops bible literalists are willing to jump through. he says when abraham was asked to sacrifice his son, he'd be happy if it was God's command. but he also says it's possible it wasn't God's command. i think what he's trying to do, is weasle his way out of the verse, at least it's implied in that he seems to rather prefer God not commanding it. but he's so malleable that he's sticking to the verse either way. i think it's implied he's uncomfortable with the verse, despite what he says.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
i like that this person is new with only a few posts yet decides to compliment others anyway, despite everyone involved not knowing much about each other
Created:
Here’s a fact that’s incredibly simple and very easy to prove, but I still find incredible.Take a normal pack of cards—52 in total (not that the exact number matters)—and shuffle it.A very simple process most people will have done at least a few times in their life.Now take that randomly shuffled pack and lay it out in a line so you can see the sequence of cards.Now just look at the cards for a second and the order they’re in.You are the first person in all history to see a pack of cards in that order.Never in the history of humanity has anyone ever held a pack of cards in that order.Okay now to be fair we can’t technically prove this but it’s so overwhelmingly likely it’s ridiculous to deny.How could this possibly be true?A pack of 52 cards has exactly 52! possibilities, that is 52 factorial (52*51*50…*3*2*1)Immediately you can see this is a pretty big number, but exactly how big you likely won’t have registered. That is approximately equal to:80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.That is 8 with 67 zeroes.Thus when you shuffle a deck randomly there is a 1/(8x10^67) chance that it is any specific combination. Again, to give an impression of how unlikely that is it is a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000125% chance.That’s a bit of a mouthful so let’s only consider the first ten decimal places hereafter as if the chance is less than that it can be considered in effect zero.If you shuffle a pack of cards 100 times the chance that any of these 100 are a specific combination is 0.000000000% to 10 decimal places.If you shuffle it 1 million times it increases substantially to 0.000000000% to 10 decimal places… perhaps not substantially enough.Let’s now try 10 billion: that’s if every human alive shuffles it once plus a couple billion more times. Now it’s far far higher at 0.000000000% to 10 decimal places… still not high enough.Okay now let’s say that you shuffle a pack 1 trillion times? That is, dozens more than there have been humans in all history? Still 0.000000000% to 10 decimal places.Now it’s already unlikely that in all history that collectively all packs of cards have been shuffled that many times; let’s go a bit (well actually quite a lot) higher to see if it still stands and shuffle cards 1 decillion times, that would be if every human ever alive shuffled over a trillion times each, now it comes out to *drum roll*… 0.000000000% to 10 decimal places.And to clarify, no, it isn’t yet close.If you consider it to 20 decimal places you still round to 0.0000000000000000000%.So not only is it totally unfeasible that ever in all human history have two decks been randomly shuffled and come out the same, but we could multiply the number of humans by a billion, have them all shuffle a trillion decks each and it would still be a less than one in a billion chance that any would be the same as the one you just shuffled.Wow.I don’t know about you but to me that sounds pretty wrong; I can assure you however that it isn’t.A few people in the comments have made the valid point that this is a misrepresentation of the situation as it takes a shuffle to be a purely random order when in fact it very much isn’t. The reason for this is often when people shuffle they are shuffling from an ordered pack and frankly don’t do a thorough job of it so the order is still not random, furthermore, people often use similar shuffling methods making it again more likely the order will come out the same.This point is entirely true but doesn’t undermine the argument for the simple reason that the numbers are not close enough for it to make a difference. Exactly how much more likely than in the pure mathematical case it is in the practical case is almost impossible to gauge, but it could possibly be quite a great difference. As a result, if you calculated that there would in the pure case be a 1% that in all history the same order has been randomly shuffled to twice then it would be reasonable to reject this as not convincing as the reality could easily be ten times more likely at which point the chance is high enough you can’t say with confidence it hasn’t happened.The issue is that the chance is so much lower than that. To take the last calculation, you could have every human ever alive shuffle a trillion decks each and the chance that any two were the same could still be increased by a factor of a trillion and still be 0.0000% to 5 decimal places.In short, yes in the practical case the chances are more likely than represented enough, but the odds are so ridiculously small that this change is nowhere near enough to be relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
i dont support such wealth disparity, but if everyone lived like those in the usa, all those pollution metrics would get out of hand, and the economy would be unsustainable.
Created:
just another reminder of how great obama was. even if you didn't agree with him, his style was unparalleled
Created:
asians have bigger brains than white people. period. bottom line. they also have the stereotype of being studious and smart , but it's a stereotype for a reason. they have slightly higher IQs. is it racist to simply point out that asians tend to be smarter than white people?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
can you find any reputable sources that state the government will be forced to find revenue to compensate for the shortfall? i showed you one source, but my stance is stated everywhere that i see. i agree there is conflicting legislation, but the outcome is always stated in the way i describe
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
you are still factually incorrect. you must not be able to read the link i provided. just google it. it is common knowledge that social security will be cut twenty five percent ish around the year 2035. it doesn't matter that it's considered mandatory funding. there's no way to fund it, legally.
Created:
i recant my position. as fauxlaw pointed out, general funds are going to replace the payroll tax revenue loss. still not sure trump has the authority to do it, though.
Created:
so you guys should just state explicitly that you are cool with the government not keeping its promise to pay benefits for folks' contributions, and that you prefer that that promise not be kept sooner than later. and ya'll should also state that trump was wrong to initially promise that we shouldn't cut those programs.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
you are factually incorrect that the government must pay full benefits even if the source if funding is inadequate...
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
it looks like ya'll just support trump no matter what he does. if he doesn't attack social security and medicare, you will say good job for sticking to your promise not to. if he does attack them, you will say good job those are government mismanagement and waste at its finest.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
the path benefits are on now, medicare is suppose to be cut within about eight years, and social security by 25% within fifteen years. if these dont have a source of revenue through payroll taxes, the cuts will come much sooner.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
see the questions in the above post
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
so you're cool with the government reneging on their promise to pay beneficiaries, and having the trust fund run out sooner than expected and everyone's benefits getting cut sooner than expected? if that is your position, how do you justify it?
Created:
here is an article describing it
the thing is, if those taxes get cut, that will mean the trust fund for those programs will be depleted sooner than expect. those benefits are already on a path to eventually get cut within the next ten to fifteen years, and if he cuts that funding, the benefits will be on a path to get cut sooner. this includes benefits for those who are disabled. the government made a promise to give benefits back for what has been paid, but if trump does this, the government will sooner than expect renege on that promise.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
what is your response to the argument that assault rifles are no different than other rifles, and so there's no need to ban them?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
i agree. everyone should have grenade launchers. i mean, if everyone has them, no one will want to misbehave, amiright?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
even explosive arms are arms. by the extreme logic of conservatives, grenade launchers should be legal. but, if you accept reasonable infringement on arms, there's no reason we can't have all kinds of gun control laws.
Created:
this link has a lot of people saying they're all the same...
i may have misunderstood it. so do mass shooters just pick an AR cause they look scarier? is that all there is to it?
Created:
i may have misunderstood my quote there, but i think he's saying they shoot more efficiently.
Created:
-->
@thett3
an AR is a semi automatic, like a regular rifle is. i thought an AR had more power or great damage but i could be wrong. here is a point i see someone distinguish...
"Folks who love their toys are anxious to show you that their toy (an AR15) is almost identical in construction and operation to any other sporting semi-automatic. Here’s how they differ. The M-16 was designed to train the maximum number of rounds on a target as possible, with the least muzzle jerk, and spend the minimum time on replacing an empty magazine as possible. It is spectacularly successful in meeting these requirements. The AR15 is modeled on the M16, but will not fire fully automatic unless equipped with a bump-stock. The combination puts a perfectly legal lethal weapon of war in the hands of any 18 year old who can summon up the wind to buy one. People who have noticed the recent mass murders of school children notice that this is the preferred weapon chosen to mow them down. "
Created:
to be sure, ive seen folks post examples where assualt rifles were used in defense. the key, though, is that i dont remember ever seeing an example where they were necessary over other guns. i'm sure there's an example where someone was ganged up on, but it's not common.
Created:
-->
@thett3
there's a benefit cost analysis with assault rifles. it is extremely rare for someone to need one for self defense. with those riots going on, it was plausible, but i haven't heard of any situation where they were needed. but, on the other hand, it is not common but it's a lot more frequent for someone to use one of those guns for mass shootings, with lots of people dead.
perhaps there should be more restrictions on all rifles, if they are all the same. in my uninformed understanding, assault rifles shoot faster and do more damage when there is a shot.
but in the end, i dont think banning assault rifles are all that big of a deal. it's not common for them to be used in murder.
the real debate, is in a whole host of gun control laws that could be passed, that isn't. if reasonable is the standard, as it should be.... there's plenty of room for improvement.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
what's your theory as to why normal people can't have grenade launchers and nuclear arms devices?
Created:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."-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 concluded it did not guarantee 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-the bill of rights and this amendment was originally designed as a safeguard against the federal government. that's why some hard core conservatives say states should be free to regulate as they see fit. others, say the fourteenth amendment incorporated parts of the bills of rights including the second against the states as fundamental "liberty" interests. each amendment can be incorporated on an individual basis depending on the merits of whether the amendment represents a fundamental 'liberty' interest. the issue still exists though, that how can you incorporate something as a fundamental right if it was never there to begin with?-what does "arms" mean? if we want to be originalists and faithful to orginal intent, there is a difference between military grade weopons and the muskets they had when the amendment was passed-you would have to use the word "keep" in the amendment to spin your way into individual rights. this ignores all the historical and amendment itself context, and ignores straighforward reading of the words taken together.
-the following shows that courts have only since recently started applying strict principles for an individual right to a gun since the case Heller. (because that ruling deviates from prior precedent) the line between fundamental rights, non-fundamental rights, and privileges can be blurry in practice. but the rules have meaning.... there will now be a stronger expectation to let people have guns. if the legal system starts treating a gun like the right to water, a lot of bad policies and outcomes are possible even perhaps despite the fact that everyone knows these shouldn't be treated the same way. the legal system may expect things to get bad with a person before we can do anything about it, which again is a standard atypical from history or globally. "reasonable suspicion" someone is violent may not be sufficient, "probable cause" may not be. "beyond a reasonable doubt" probably would be, but it's hard to say someone is like that for their whole life. a good example is the fact that people on 'no fly' lists for airplanes can still buy a guy- there's a different legal standard even though everyone knows the person is too shady to be doing things like fly planes, and buy guns. expanded background check and treating guns like cars would simply weed out the incompetent, undisciplined, and unmotivated, violent, and mentally disturbed.... if promoting the use of guns causes more murder, do we really want these sorts of people having guns? granting fundamental rights for legal purposes instead of a practical right will cause excessive litigation to deprive people from guns on an individual basis when they shouldn't have had them to begin with. thus, because Heller got the law wrong, society is approaching a system where people can be unfit to have guns but still society still be forced or otherwise prone to allowing them to have guns anyway.-the following is a common set of quotes from the founding fathers. if you google each of the stronger looking ones here or that you find around the internet, you will see them taken out of context or misquoted. for example, here is the proper context of washington's first point, where he was simply addressing the need for a militia (see the second link below for even more context)- in other words, the people should be armed and disciplined for a militia if the State has a plan for a militia... so the question remains, if they are not disciplined for a militia, why should we assume they should have a right to otherwise be armed? Washington even went so far as to say it was a condition in having them be armed and disciplined for a militia, that there be some sort of formalized plan, a "requisite" condition:
""Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy.""
Created:
it's not just assault rifles... if we can have limits on guns at all, there's no reason the whole gammet of gun control can't be used, if it's reasonable.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
well stated
Created:
... ask them why they won't allow people to have grenade launchers and nuclear arms devices, or machine guns. (though some of those fools want people to have machine guns, too)
the NRA is being sued for allowing its leaders to use company funds for private use. it's totally corrupt, these days very little substance comes from the NRA
Created:
Posted in:
the thing the opening post and others are forgetting, is that they favor abortion bans, AND no mask responsibility. they too could then be said to be inconsistent, because they want to protect the unborn with restrictions on people, but not protect other people with mask restrictions. so you need to be at least consistent. maybe prochoice people should be quicker to support mask freedoms. but so too should prolife people be quicker to support mask mandates. what's the superior position? we should protect life, whether it's unborn or other people fearing a virus. that's consistent, and the best argument.
Created:
when it comes to the debt, id say the government is dysfunctional.... but on balance, overall, id say it's a functional government
Created:
it does a lot of things that serve society. a great military, lots of safety regulations, a basic safety net. and such. there is a lot of partisanship, but i wouldn't call it dysfunction, just people with different world views. there is surely some dysfunction on the edges, like trump attacking the EPA and not enforcing some rules, but i would say generally there is a coherent EPA except on the edges
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
"oh I totally agree and this claim that the child didn't seem hurt....I mean wtf, apparently emotional and mental abuse doesn't matter to certain people when a 2 YEAR OLD CHILD is involved. what else can you say about someone's character that just ignores that and doesn't condemn it?"
+1
Created:
an article about how the usa and canada were on the same path at the beginning of the pandemic, but then diverged due to the antics of conservatives, led by trump
Created:
-->
@Death23
are you sure about that that polling directly is superior? 25 out of 27 is very high, even if it wasn't all technically predicted. i've heard the argument that most elections are not close, so it's not that big of a feat to do so well in predictions.... but when it comes down to it, which method is most accurate?
Created:
john lennon sang a song called "imagine" that talks about no religion.
Created: