n8nrgmi

i would give biden more credit on healthcare. he wants a public option. one that reimburses medical providers at medicare rates or thereabouts. that means universal coverage and inching us closer to spending what other countries spend on healthcare. (which on average is half of what we spend)

do you honestly think bernie sanders would be polling better than biden is now? i can't see that. bernie does have the enthusiasm thing going for him though, as does trump with his base. 

shake ya ass. but watch yaself

maybe schools dont deserve full funding if they aren't in full school mode. but that's not the point. the point is that trump is trying to coerce them against their will into opening, despite the fact that some schools obviously shouldn't reopen due to spreading the virus concerns. 

i think the only way to explain why trump is insisting on this, is because he actually thinks kids won't cause signficant virus spread. that's clearly a stupid thought, though. shows poor judgment on his part. or maybe like buff said, trump is just hoping things will look 'normal' if people go back to normal life, and if milliions die, well, it's spread over time so maybe it dont look so bad. instead of poor judgment, it's immorality on his part. i see no virtue in what trump is doing here. 

so you think it's okay that kids get the disease and pass it to frail people who will get sick and die? by the tens of thousands, if not be a catalyst to millions dying?

he said if schools dont reopen, they will lose funding. i mean, i'm not one to say let's blame this virus thing on trump, but here he is crossing a line. even if kids aren't as likely to get sick and die, they will still carry the disease to others who will get sick and die. betsy devous was shown that, but she refused to acknowledge it, saying she didn't think it'd be a big deal. obviously, for some states, it is a big deal. besides, this is a state issue, which should be the conservative par for course.

i mean, i'm really at a loss at why trump is doing this. he's smart enough to start wearing a mask in public. why isn't he smart enough to let states decide their own thing? this seems like an obvious self inflicted wound on his part, at least as far as i can see. 

we pay less in taxes than most other countries anyway. i dont think it's too much to expect a tax system that is similar to the rest of the developed world. if you notice other countries are not overburdened by our debt load like we are. so of course not only should taxes not go down, they should go up. there's room for spending cuts, but our welfare system is far from run amok. it's mostly bare bones aid. 

it's stupid to push for lower taxes unless there's first lower spending. it just adds to the debt. i saw  poll that economists are unanimous that overall government revenue goes down if there's tax cuts in this environment. there's not some magic voodoo that will pay for the tax cuts. 

you misread... i agree with you that a governor cannot require masks from his own authority. 

you keep ignoring the fact that i am citing and showing through google that you the legal establishment agrees with me, that states have the power to require masks. i keep asking, but you keep ignoring to show one respectable authority that says you have the right to wear not wear a mask no matter what. 

it's a fact that some masks effectively slow the spread of the virus. it's a fact that all masks help slow the spread at least to some degree. you just choose to ignore these things. in fact, i think you use pretext in your arguments. instead of just stating that you dont want to wear a mask, period, you argue that some masks might not be effective so you wont wear one. what you should be doing, if that is your position, is to find the masks that are effective, and wear them. but, i know that wouldn't change your argument because you're just arguing just to argue and have no good point there. 

you're anti science, anti legal establishment, stupid, and a bad person to think you have no obligation to anyone else. 

also, i would think you would have by now, but google whether masks are effective.  i'm sure not all masks are created equal, but they just came out with a study that said places  that required them saw a lower infection rate. this is also basic accepted understanding, that masks are generally effective

the quote i gave above had a statement by the american bar association that was pretty much on point. it also included links to established legal understandings on this issue exactly on point. also, try googling it yourself. "do i have a right to not wear a mask". you will find that my ideas are the established legal understanding. again, you cite no one but yourself. i cite current legal understanding.  so, who should we listen to? prove me wrong

i can agree that a govenor doesn't have authority to declare everyone must wear a mask, but it's possible for the states to declare it. i notice you haven't shown any respectable legal scholar who thinks you have a right to not wear a mask. i cited the american bar association, and noted the lack of anyone who says otherwise. you cited yourself. who should we listen to, the legal establishment, or some lunatic on the internet who thinks he knows better than all those lawyers and judges? 

here is an FYI excerpt that conventional law is on my side....

"Do you have a constitutional right not to wear a mask?

can you find one serious legal scholar who thinks you have a fundamental right not to wear a mask? if legal scholars actually thought this way, this would be an actual issue, and there would be respectable people arguing this. but no legal scholar is arguing this. this idea of a right not to wear a mask is only mentioned by lunatics and ignorant people

no serious legal scholar would think the way sadolite does. the state has the presumption that it can make laws and bans. that's the way it's always been. so the state can only outlaw actual negligence it can't outlaw high risk acts that lead to negligence? so if you want to demolish your house with explosives, you have the right to given that you might not hurt anyone? this kind of thinking is retarded, and like i said, no serious legal scholar would think this way. they might question whether a governor alone has the power to make these dictates, but no one seriously thinks the legislative branch doesn't have the power. 

so where does it say you have a right not to wear a mask?

you assume the use of the phrase 'due process' means you don't have to wear a mask? due process just means you get process rights, if you violate the law you get to be seen by a court to plead your case that you didn't violate the law. due process doesn't mean you do whatever you want or the state can't make said laws. if we were to assume that due process goes that far as to give you unstated rights, where does it end? you are giving unelected beaurocrats a lot of power, the judiciary, and basically allowing that branch to make whatever laws it sees fit, judicial law making. how can they say you need a fishing license? almost any ban you can think of could be said to be unlawful. i guess the law is whatever sadolite sees fitting and right? 

sadolite like to make up constitutional rights, out of thin air

it's a forum topic, whether you like it or not

......

people have a misguided idea of what the government has the power to do. in the founding days, they outlawed all kinds of stuff. gay sex, banned. if they wanted to say you can't wear the color orange, that flew too. they had laws for all kinds of stuff. i can sympathize with the idea that a govenor himself might not have the authority, but the states do have the authority. it was considered liberals run amok when the court said you can't ban gay sex. the presumption is that the state can do whatever the hell it wants. you get due process, but all that means is you get your day in court if you violate said law. due process doesn't mean they can't make the law. 

there's some quibbles with 'substantive due process', but again this is considered liberal ideas here. 

MYTH The South seceded over states’ rights.

so where's all the stupid trump supporters who wanna argue that the statues should remain cause it's about heritage? i wouldn't think the opening post here is so compelling that it's got folks convinced or changed their minds. trump supporters are immune to fact and logic. so where are you all?

mutation is the driving force for evolution, but historically that has always been determined by natural selection, where some species dies and doesn't live to reproduce. if there's no on dying to focus on the mutations humans have, there's no reason to think the mutations will prevail in the population. what reason do you have to think it will?  a mutation with no survival of the fittest, is just background noise. 

evolution from species to species occurs when the environment causes some animals to die out, and only the survirors with the right genes live on to pass on their genes. the thing is, with humans, humans have adapted their environment to themselves. so, there won't be major evolution occurring. maybe things like lactose intolerance will continue to evolve, and other micro evolutions. but, nothing major should be in our future unless there are drastic changes to our environment. 

this thread is relevant right now

so do you usually support libertarians? cause that's what u sound like. i thought you were a big trump supporter, so do you just follow the herd there but are libertarian? if you support some safety net, what's your basis? 

so if everyone was farmers, and there were the rich farmer who own ninety percent of the land and have vast surplus, and then everyone else that owns just enough to get by, and then some people who can't labor to own enough land to get by, you dont think the rich folks here have any obligation to the poor people here? what right do these guys have to the trees and land? a piece of paper gives them that right? says who? the government? who are they but mere men? i'm sorry your system is corrupt and stupid. if the masses of poor in that system broke out into civil unrest or war, i'd join them and blow your fuckin brains out. you, a mere man, claiming to 'own' land. you're so far detached from reality, that you dont realize no cave man or hunter gatherer or indian or any of the original inhabitants of earth would believe that made any sense. we have to have laws to compensate for a lack of proper distribution of resources yet ensure stability and order. aka the social safety net. 

it sounds like you dont believe in miracles (your statement is unclear if you believe in them but find them rare, of if you think that which is called 'miracle' are just rare things) if that's true, why don't things that look like miracles happen to atheists the same as they do to believers who say a prayer? if your claim is that they do happen to atheists, where are the examples? i've looked and challenged atheists, and none of them can show something that looks like a miracle, such that happens to theists. 

the rich pay most of the social safety net. that's the way it should be. here's an example. let's say humans were transplanted onto a new planet. naturally, you would divvy up the land for them to farm with and such. over time, a select few will have much more land than others. so what should be done about the new kids? if it's feasible for them to work and earn enough land, that would be fine. but if there's effectively an infinite pool of people, the masses will have to fight for beans. it's not feasible to work your way up, for a typical couple who decide to have kids young. likewise, maybe in the fifties letting people earn their way was okay, but the cost of everything has skyrocketed and wages have barely kept up, and for poor people, they've gone down. so in these situations, who does it make most sense should pay for a social safety net? the rich, cause they have the excess. everyone else is just getting by and living their life. the richer you are, the more you should be focused on in redistribution. and in the usa, it's not even like it's socialism. for folks who are poor, you can get food stamps, and an education, and that's it, unless you live in an obamacare state or you are lucky enough to get the lottery of section 8. but you'd have to be really poor for that to make sense. 

progressive taxation just makes sense. 

only developing countries are purely capitalistic. most of the developed world has some social safety nets built in. so there could be unfettered economic systems, but hybrid systems are best. 

do you believe in God or the afterlife? why or why not?

what do you think of near death experiences?  

do you believe in miracles? why or why not? 

what do you think of christianity? 

the civil rights act prohibits discriminating on the basis of sex. so you can't be fired if you are female. the liberals of the court and two conservatives, said that 'sex' is vague enough in the statute to include transexuals too, since they are defined based on 'sex'. and, the text of the law says you can't discriminate "because of sex", so the that wing of the court also said the rest of the LGBTQ gang, including gays, are also protected, i guess cause they have sex with who they choose. with all this said, the rest of the conservatives said that the court should have stuck with 'ordinary meaning' in interpreting the statute, not literal meaning. that's a compelling point, cause ordinary people write and read laws, and perhaps that should be the basis of interpretation. a policy point in favor of the progressives is that the law could have been more specific, and since most people think it's wrong to discriminate against gays, maybe we should afford them some protection too, give them the benefit of the doubt.  i know conservatives are willing to look at original meaning when the text is not clear.... so is the text not clear here? you could argue it is, or it isn't, and your policy preferences will surely color your choice. 

what do you think and why? 

also there are some vitamins that you can only get through meat. at least for b12. i mean there are supplements and such, but given that we're designed to eat meat and it's essential in smaller doses if you eat natural foods, id say it's moral. 

i plan to heed said advice and to strip naked at my next party.  by doing so i will be storing up troves of treasure for myself upon entering paradise after my earthly demise, praise! if it's good enough for the serial killer Jesus, it's good enough for the rest of us TRUE Christians.

i saw a black woman on facebook say she's voting for trump, cause what biden has done for blacks pails in comparison to what trump has done for blacks. what could this lady be talking about exactly? i mean i have a few ideas, but. 

trump said to blacks "vote for me. what the hell do you have to lose?" and i'm thinking. maybe your healthcare? trump tried to repeal obamacare and medicaid for the poor. and you stand to gain better healthcare with biden. this alone is enough to say biden is better. 

thoughts? 

we don't need no education..... 

we dont need no thought control...

school's out for SUMMA...

school's out for EVA...

who said anything about cats?

lolcat

there was no talk or mystical baptisms at florence, and a strict approach was how it was taught and understood by everyone

honestly, you look like you are brainwashed. you are taking a clear situation and trying to weasel your way out of it. you are generally good at apologetics, but that also just solidifies that you are brain washed.

might i suggest you converting to traditional catholicism or sedevacantism? those religions can at least not be stuck with the contradictions i mentioned. i mean, i do acknowledge that for a two thousand year old religion, it's hard to find clear contradictions that fit the criteria for infallibility, and i dont know how to attack those traditional catholiocisms, as far as that goes. 

first you say trump is against mail voting for everyone because of fraud, and then you conclude by saying trump isn't against voting from home....

there's next to no fraud in absentee ballots. i dont see why opening it up to everyone would change anything. 

my resolution is that we should allow for vote by mail. whether trump or conservatives support it or not is irrelevant to my argument that we should allow vote by mail. 

it's not my job to educate you, but feel free to google it and see for yourself

then you aren't looking. trump himself said he would stop funding for many programs in states that try to do mail voting. trump is against it. i've seen conservatives on facebook be against it too. they are all over, if you look. 

people shouldn't have to risk their lives by getting the virus, just to vote. i see republicans who oppose the idea, but as far as i can tell they can never give rational reasons for it. they are just lemmings following trump's desire. to be sure, i dont see any logic coming from trump either. it just boils down to the idea that trump thinks it would hurt his chances of winning if there's vote by mail. i do believe he has even said that he felt that way, at one point. 

you cant pretend that the teaching is that the "only"... florence's words... way to save an infant is to baptize it, and then still hold out hope that they can still be saved without baptism. that's illogical. the only way it could make sense is to jump through a bunch of hoops that no one who isn't catholic should be expected to jump through.

enjoy your gymnastics, though. 

Council of Florence Session 11 (Bull Cantate Domino): "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time..."

The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1442) spoke of baptism as necessary even for children and required that they be baptised soon after birth. ... The Council of Florencealso stated that those who die in original sin alone go to hell, but with pains unequal to those suffered by those who had committed actual mortal sins.

"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. "

i think u need to do a better job of showing me why it's necessary to submit my will to someone else, which is a huge thing to ask. especially when it takes hundreds of years just to establish the idea of inerrant popes on faith and morals. but anyway, i suppose this looks hashed. 

what do you think of those contradictions? 'no salvation outside the catholic church', 'no salvation of unbaptized infants', and the death penalty. if you want me to pick one, i pick the salvation of infants who are unbaptized. im suspecting you will say the traditionalist understanding of these may be true, and then ignore that the modern approach flatly contradicts the old approach. but i'll let you do your own arguing.