Okay here is my take on this interesting thread.
1. Marriage: Between a man and woman only, no exceptions, no domestic partnerships allowed.
No, unworkable, I think the time has come to recognize that some people have alternative sexuality and loving long-term relationships at the same time, also the point of recognizing domestic partnerships is to ensure the legal protection of children, so I completely disagree.
2. Military/Diplomacy: Kill every terrorists in every country regardless of international law.
Ridiculous, wicked, and completely impractical in any case (unless you start using Nuclear weapons on countries you find disagreeable), based on an arbitrary definition of a terrorist or terrorism that you have invented for yourself. The American colonials were regarded as insurrectionists by the British in the 1760s and 70s, your reaction as General Cornwallis would have been to execute most of the population, I think that should make the point. As a more recent example, the US Army would also need to execute a large number of the population that support the insurgency in Iraq at present if your policy was to be adopted. Have you really thought through what you are saying? I think not.
3. Total and open free trade based on product desire and let the consumer drive the economy.
Sure, but who gets to make up the rules of the market? Is it to be the people of a nation through their elected representatives, or is it to be the leaders of big business by buying the political process to suit their own ends. Thats the crux of that issue. I am certainly in support of market economies, but not unfettered ones, as they result in oligarchies before too long. The economic governance of a republic through its laws should be in the interest of all its citizens and not just the holders of capital and property.
4. Total balanced budget, no borrowing ever.
Again ridiculous. You cannot have economic growth based on capitalism without some provision to be made for long term borrowing and investment, whether by private companies or if needs be the government. It is better if governments have budgetary rules that enforce fiscal responsibility for certain, but to have no provision to allow the government to raise funds through borrowing when necessary (and sometimes it is necessary) is foolish. I suggest again you think harder about that.
5. No government entitlements. (no social security, no healthcare, no welfare).
I think that there is a strong argument in Europe for reform of certainly aspects of social welfare systems in particular, but I completely disagree about healthcare, and education as maintaining universal access to a high standard of both of these services helps to build the long-term health of a society. I would have thought that in America these wouldn't be much of an issue as you have no healthcare system anyway, and your provision to the poor (who make up 40 million of your fellow citizens) is laughable (unless you are poor of course)
6. Legalize all substances, make laws regarding the negligent use of any product.
Do I presume that you will include anthrax, semtex, pollonoium 210, strontium 90, heroin, cocaine, PCP, MDMA, Crack, dynamite, arsenic? That libertarian argument sounds appealing, but its not workable, access to dangerous substance is a factor in their misuse as is societies attitude toward them, so I disagree.
7. Penelties for lawbreakers are severe, and swift punishment is carried out but when your are done paying you are done, no more system to track you or stigmatize you.
Yes justice always appears best when seen to be done swiftly, however, cleverer men than you and I realized that such sentiments often lead to arbritary systems of law and punishment based on the feelings of the moment, and not on objective evidence, which involve a large amount of injustice. This is why we have due process. The reason why we have a statute of limitations that extends for quite a long period after a crime is that evidence may come to light that will allow for a conviction to be sought. I am all for tougher sentencing, and a generally less tolerant social attitude to criminals and people who indulge in anti-social behaviour, but for serious crimes, trial by a jury of your peers, is about the best system available. And conducting the proper applciation of law takes a little time, which is why we have remand prisons, and the system of bail for less serious offences.
8. Inact the death penelty by public hanging.
I am against the death penalty in peacetime, and under normal social conditions. Also I detect a strong christian moral bias in your post, but murdering murderers (even if done collectively) is still murder, which of course Jesus Christ said was wrong. But if you do have the death penalty in normal civil law,I agree in that I dont think you should try and make the killing of criminals more tasteful by euphemizing it, as you are still killing them, burn them, shoot them, crucify them, feed them to bears in a pit live on children's television. That will teach them not to misbehave when they grow up. But should it turn out that someone has been murdered by the state for a crime they did not commit, all of the law officers and government officials who efficated their murder must also be killed, that will teach them not to make so many mistakes.
9. Outlaw all forms of abortion, its murder and is punishable by the death penalty.
Yes abortion is considered murder under the Catholic doctrine, (and other christian churches), but then so is capital punishment, so ethically that argument is all a bit jewish to me. Again, I think more Christians need to read the New testament a bit more, particularly the Sermon on the Mount.
10. Parents can legally spank thier children.
Yes, I agree completely on that one, the state shouldn't be telling people how to discipline their children, who sometimes need to experience physical coertion so they can understand the idea of limits. To be honest a fair few adults could do with a good smack as well.
11. Flat Tax, no more than 4%. With 2% of your total tax payment going to the agencies of your choice.
Totally unworkable, you cannot have effective government by allowing citizens to choose which aspects of it to fund. The tax thing is too inflexible, tax should be as low as possible, as essentially it is the money of citizens, but at the same time, society cannot exist without governance, which has to be funded.
12. Public education is driven by testing to move to the next level, private education is optional. Parents are responsible either way.
People should have a right to have their children educated privately if they wish, and parents should be responsible for the actions and welfare of their children until the age of consent (except in exceptional circumstances), as long as you ensure that you have a properly resourced public education system with high academic, and disciplinary standards I am all in agreement.
13. Seperation of Church and State shall be claryfied and defined to mean that no one denomination or sect shall at any time assume a role of lawmaking power in the government, but that the traditions and symbols of our founding influencial religions (Judeo-Christian) shall be permissable in public areas. The use of the generic term 'God' attributes to tradition of long helf belief and does not constitute a government recommndation to follow 'God'.
There should be no link between Church and State in as practical a way as possible. You either practice general religious toleration or you do not, that toleration should end once any religion try's to invade the civil space, or try to overthrow the teaching of the scientific method and rationalism by subverting the public school system. Obviously what has been happening recently with Islam has made western people concious that their civilization is based on a specific religion (as well as the classical heritage of Greece and Rome), but that does not require re-inventing some sort of zealous and distinctly medeival Christian/Jewish theocracy. We would do far better to getting the schools and universities to teach Latin and Greek history and culture, Virgil, Livy, Tacitus, Sophocles, Aritstotle, Plotinus, and of course Homer. As a scientist also I have to say I am dismayed by the rise of an intolerant, mystical, religiosity in the states, which after all is the model secular democratic republic based on the ideas of the enlightenment (you know Washington and Jefferson) and not the spanish inquisition. If you keep going the way you are going, you will be burning witches again before too long. The state's function in the western system is to govern through the law in this life, its not there to save people's souls or to re-invent their culture for them, there are other estates for those purposes.
Although I understand the position you are coming from, your ideas are too blanket to be applicable, even if they were justified, legal codes and laws are complicated because the world is complicated and so are people, and although we have rule of the majority in our societies, that is with the tacit consent of the minorities within them. If you make no provision for difference or special cases, you will fairly quickly run aground. Also, in terms of just leaving everything up to market forces in that libertarian idea, its fine right up until the point when you actually remove all of the barriers you are talking about removing. Then you will eventually have anarchy and the totalitarian rule of the rich over the poor and the Strong over the weak based on the laws of the jungle.
Line up left or right of me:
Line up left or right of me:
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Line up left or right of me:
jimbo;810939 wrote: hey hoff a fantastic post :-6:-6
your not a bad guy for a villian
up the spurs
:D
Go Villa!
I think I will speak in bold from now on, its give me more gravitas! :wah:
your not a bad guy for a villian
up the spurs
:DGo Villa!
I think I will speak in bold from now on, its give me more gravitas! :wah:
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Line up left or right of me:
Jester;810856 wrote:
[QUOTE=Accountable]Use the moral church to influence morality, and the legalistic government for the rest.
Ah but there in is the rub. The government uses the public schools to teach immoral practices such as same sex relationships. What chance does religion have when the government has the kids 5 days a week for 2/3 of the day and relgion has only a few of them for 2 hours a week?
What chance? This isn't a competition between gov't and religion. One doesn't win while the other loses. As you stated, parents are responsible for their kids' education. If they don't agree with the public school curriculum, they need to fight politically to change it and put their kid in an alternative place until it does change. To use legislation to impose one's brand of morality on others is wrong, no matter what that morality may be. Some religions believe premarital sex should be outlawed. Some others believe the same about public display of the female face. Good for the goose, good for the gander, Jes. Are you willing to let the others have their moral laws as well?
I gathered what you posted on this subject in this thread. Your frustration is clear, but it is not the job of legislation to impose moral behavior, no matter how much sense you think it makes. People do - and ought to - have a right to be stupid, to do things that are harmful to themselves, and yes, to perform immoral acts on themselves and other consenting adults. They do - and ought to - have the freedom to condemn themselves to hell.
Your job, Christian warrior, is not to prohibit the behavior, but to get people to stop. Prohibition stops nothing, as any 1930's gangster movie will show. Influence your family and friends and urge them to do the same. Influence your kids and those that other parents entrust to your tutelage (tutalege? teaching!). But keep all that separate from law, so that man's law can be kept separate from the Church.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jester, throughout this thread wrote:
Interesting I have heard you say this before, and with my flat tax idea all incentives for family building are out, I may be inclined to agree then, but. I'm against same sex unions period I think they are a blight on human society, so I wont cave on this one. I'll add that folks who get married and stay married to opposite gender poeple pay 3% tax. That will help with the strong family incentive.
Ah because sanctioning same sex unions by giving them similar tax incentives as married opposite sex couples gives it the same credibility in the eyes of the country, it tells out kids that it is OK and It is not. It is immoral and unhealthy and wrong. And the ultimate end will be the HIV crisis going pneumonic and it will begin to kill the innocent. Same sex activity must be stopped. Sanctioning in any form same sex unions will destroy life.
I'm totally against normalizing same sex unions in any way shape or form. Its unfair for them to destroy the meaning of marriage by wanting the same thing or a similance of it.
I understand that point and for the most part I agree, but that exact thought has led us to openly accept homosexual acitivty as protrayed in the sitcoms on TV, but if the reality of the life was laid out in real time most would abhor it.
[QUOTE=Accountable]Use the moral church to influence morality, and the legalistic government for the rest.
Ah but there in is the rub. The government uses the public schools to teach immoral practices such as same sex relationships. What chance does religion have when the government has the kids 5 days a week for 2/3 of the day and relgion has only a few of them for 2 hours a week?
What chance? This isn't a competition between gov't and religion. One doesn't win while the other loses. As you stated, parents are responsible for their kids' education. If they don't agree with the public school curriculum, they need to fight politically to change it and put their kid in an alternative place until it does change. To use legislation to impose one's brand of morality on others is wrong, no matter what that morality may be. Some religions believe premarital sex should be outlawed. Some others believe the same about public display of the female face. Good for the goose, good for the gander, Jes. Are you willing to let the others have their moral laws as well?
I gathered what you posted on this subject in this thread. Your frustration is clear, but it is not the job of legislation to impose moral behavior, no matter how much sense you think it makes. People do - and ought to - have a right to be stupid, to do things that are harmful to themselves, and yes, to perform immoral acts on themselves and other consenting adults. They do - and ought to - have the freedom to condemn themselves to hell.
Your job, Christian warrior, is not to prohibit the behavior, but to get people to stop. Prohibition stops nothing, as any 1930's gangster movie will show. Influence your family and friends and urge them to do the same. Influence your kids and those that other parents entrust to your tutelage (tutalege? teaching!). But keep all that separate from law, so that man's law can be kept separate from the Church.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jester, throughout this thread wrote:
Interesting I have heard you say this before, and with my flat tax idea all incentives for family building are out, I may be inclined to agree then, but. I'm against same sex unions period I think they are a blight on human society, so I wont cave on this one. I'll add that folks who get married and stay married to opposite gender poeple pay 3% tax. That will help with the strong family incentive.
Ah because sanctioning same sex unions by giving them similar tax incentives as married opposite sex couples gives it the same credibility in the eyes of the country, it tells out kids that it is OK and It is not. It is immoral and unhealthy and wrong. And the ultimate end will be the HIV crisis going pneumonic and it will begin to kill the innocent. Same sex activity must be stopped. Sanctioning in any form same sex unions will destroy life.
I'm totally against normalizing same sex unions in any way shape or form. Its unfair for them to destroy the meaning of marriage by wanting the same thing or a similance of it.
I understand that point and for the most part I agree, but that exact thought has led us to openly accept homosexual acitivty as protrayed in the sitcoms on TV, but if the reality of the life was laid out in real time most would abhor it.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Line up left or right of me:
Galbally: Excellent post. Thank you.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Line up left or right of me:
jimbo;810967 wrote: damn you know i'll have to look that up now dont you spock :-5
are they like tortillas :wah::wah:
I thought it meant "with gravy"
I'll have the potatoes gravitas, please.
are they like tortillas :wah::wah:
I thought it meant "with gravy"
I'll have the potatoes gravitas, please.
Line up left or right of me:
I can't make sense of the left and right relationship.
I agree with some of what you said. I'm far more "right" on some issues, far more "left" on other issues. Basically, I believe that tribal government worked best. I believe that societies need to be governed by familiar people not some bloke who looks good in a suit and has good speech writers.
I think I'm libertarian but I just don't fit into a single mould, politically.
I agree with some of what you said. I'm far more "right" on some issues, far more "left" on other issues. Basically, I believe that tribal government worked best. I believe that societies need to be governed by familiar people not some bloke who looks good in a suit and has good speech writers.
I think I'm libertarian but I just don't fit into a single mould, politically.
Line up left or right of me:
koan;811444 wrote: I can't make sense of the left and right relationship.
I agree with some of what you said. I'm far more "right" on some issues, far more "left" on other issues. Basically, I believe that tribal government worked best. I believe that societies need to be governed by familiar people not some bloke who looks good in a suit and has good speech writers.
I think I'm libertarian but I just don't fit into a single mould, politically.
Yes tribal government works great, for tribes, but for technological, continent-wide nation states of 300 million people, not so useful.
I agree with some of what you said. I'm far more "right" on some issues, far more "left" on other issues. Basically, I believe that tribal government worked best. I believe that societies need to be governed by familiar people not some bloke who looks good in a suit and has good speech writers.
I think I'm libertarian but I just don't fit into a single mould, politically.
Yes tribal government works great, for tribes, but for technological, continent-wide nation states of 300 million people, not so useful.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Line up left or right of me:
Yeah, well, the current system doesn't work so well for small, oil rich countries or poor people.
Line up left or right of me:
koan;811565 wrote: Yeah, well, the current system doesn't work so well for small, oil rich countries or poor people.
I live in a country of 4.2 Million people and we get on just fine. Though if we founf oil, I wouldn't mention it to anyone, well not in America anyway.
I am not trying to be funny, I am just saying that once human groups go over a certain size unfortunately new larger forms of governance become inevitable. Particularly once argiculture gets going and population densities increase, the old clan and tribal structures break down under the strain of too many people, then you get into little kingdoms, city states, republics, then empires, then nation states off all hues from Republic to Absolute Monarchy and everything inbetween, then you had the really big federal nation states like the US etc. Now we have the EU which is a super-national state, without a precendent that I am aware of.
I live in a country of 4.2 Million people and we get on just fine. Though if we founf oil, I wouldn't mention it to anyone, well not in America anyway.
I am not trying to be funny, I am just saying that once human groups go over a certain size unfortunately new larger forms of governance become inevitable. Particularly once argiculture gets going and population densities increase, the old clan and tribal structures break down under the strain of too many people, then you get into little kingdoms, city states, republics, then empires, then nation states off all hues from Republic to Absolute Monarchy and everything inbetween, then you had the really big federal nation states like the US etc. Now we have the EU which is a super-national state, without a precendent that I am aware of."We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Line up left or right of me:
jimbo;810967 wrote: damn you know i'll have to look that up now dont you spock :-5
are they like tortillas :wah::wah:
I though spot was spock and I am the hoff? Good god man! :wah:
are they like tortillas :wah::wah:
I though spot was spock and I am the hoff? Good god man! :wah:
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Line up left or right of me:
jimbo;811777 wrote: spock is spot you are hoff , but you had a spock moment :wah::wah::-3
"I'm talking bout freedom" It was down to me you know, that whole reunification of Germany thing, me and my wonderful songs. :wah:
"I'm talking bout freedom" It was down to me you know, that whole reunification of Germany thing, me and my wonderful songs. :wah:
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Line up left or right of me:
Jester;809441 wrote: Using my opinons in life in the following catagories please tell me if you fall to my left (more liberal) or my right (more conservative)
1. Marriage: Between a man and woman only, no exceptions, no domestic partnerships allowed. Disagree, nobody should be denied the right to marry
2. Military/Diplomacy: Kill every terrorists in every country regardless of international law. No unless you can prove beyond a doubt they are a terrorist then I think No.
3. Total and open free trade based on product desire and let the consumer drive the economy. In a perfect world yes, however in the real world prolly not because... for the preservation of the "American worker" you can't have all those polyester wind breakers coming into the country at a penny a piece. You will kill your own economy.
4. Total balanced budget sure , no borrowing ever. Who America or other countries, I say NO, I think it would be wrong to not help out other countries. One day who knows America could be in need of a few loans here and there.
5. No government entitlements. (no social security, no healthcare, no welfare). No way, what of those who just can't make it, your seniors, your infirm, your children. I say tougher laws or scrutiny (sorry spelling) when it comes to applying for said entitlements.
6. Legalize all substances, make laws regarding the negligent use of any product. Hell no. You can't hire enough law enforcement as it is to keep watch over the "users" what would happen if this stuff was legal egads mate are ya on crack here ahahahaha I had to do it hehehehe
7. Penelties for lawbreakers are severe, and swift punishment is carried out but when your are done paying you are done, no more system to track you or stigmatize you. Um 7 and 8 ya can't have both unless you are saying the death penalty for specific crimes, and swift and severe action to the others... ok still for 7 no, what of repeaters, lets face it repeat once repeat twice... what of drunk drivers hmmmm you don't want them on record... sorry mate can't agree here with this
8. Inact the death penelty by public hanging. hmmm have we not advanced beyond that.... far to sensational and glorified.... yes yes bring back the death penalty but let's not sensationalize it... let's see... dying in glory is what some people strive for... I say lethal injection in a tiny room is all a proven child molester deserves.
9. Outlaw all forms of abortion, its murder and is punishable by the death penalty. No can't agree. Would you rather see a father murder his severely handicapped daughter at age 12??? I wonder what one Robert Latimer says when he hears "if I knew then what I know now" http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/latimer/
10. Parents can legally spank thier children. No here is the definition of spank from dictionary.com....spank1 –verb (used with object) 1. to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., esp. on the buttocks, as in punishment. Sorry hitting is hitting in my eyes
11. Flat Tax, no more than 4%. With 2% of your total tax payment going to the agencies of your choice.:-5 Taxes... yes it would be nice wouldn't it. But I say no, what happens when your city grows and you need a new road and a new swiming pool, which one do you think people are going to choose, exactly we do not know and therefore our city can't grow effectively.
12. Public education is driven by testing to move to the next level, private education is optional. Parents are responsible either way. No again, you take a look at how long a child is in school per day, I wonder if a single parent can offer up that same amount of time to their child. I wonder if a parent can be as educated as a teacher to teach all subjects, what of children of illiterate parents they do not have the equal opportunity in education as does the child of mister and mrs albert einstein
13. Seperation of Church and State shall be claryfied and defined to mean that no one denomination or sect shall at any time assume a role of lawmaking power in the government, but that the traditions and symbols of our founding influencial religions (Judeo-Christian) shall be permissable in public areas. The use of the generic term 'God' attributes to tradition of long helf belief and does not constitute a government recommndation to follow 'God'. Sorry no opinion here
1. Marriage: Between a man and woman only, no exceptions, no domestic partnerships allowed. Disagree, nobody should be denied the right to marry
2. Military/Diplomacy: Kill every terrorists in every country regardless of international law. No unless you can prove beyond a doubt they are a terrorist then I think No.
3. Total and open free trade based on product desire and let the consumer drive the economy. In a perfect world yes, however in the real world prolly not because... for the preservation of the "American worker" you can't have all those polyester wind breakers coming into the country at a penny a piece. You will kill your own economy.
4. Total balanced budget sure , no borrowing ever. Who America or other countries, I say NO, I think it would be wrong to not help out other countries. One day who knows America could be in need of a few loans here and there.
5. No government entitlements. (no social security, no healthcare, no welfare). No way, what of those who just can't make it, your seniors, your infirm, your children. I say tougher laws or scrutiny (sorry spelling) when it comes to applying for said entitlements.
6. Legalize all substances, make laws regarding the negligent use of any product. Hell no. You can't hire enough law enforcement as it is to keep watch over the "users" what would happen if this stuff was legal egads mate are ya on crack here ahahahaha I had to do it hehehehe
7. Penelties for lawbreakers are severe, and swift punishment is carried out but when your are done paying you are done, no more system to track you or stigmatize you. Um 7 and 8 ya can't have both unless you are saying the death penalty for specific crimes, and swift and severe action to the others... ok still for 7 no, what of repeaters, lets face it repeat once repeat twice... what of drunk drivers hmmmm you don't want them on record... sorry mate can't agree here with this
8. Inact the death penelty by public hanging. hmmm have we not advanced beyond that.... far to sensational and glorified.... yes yes bring back the death penalty but let's not sensationalize it... let's see... dying in glory is what some people strive for... I say lethal injection in a tiny room is all a proven child molester deserves.
9. Outlaw all forms of abortion, its murder and is punishable by the death penalty. No can't agree. Would you rather see a father murder his severely handicapped daughter at age 12??? I wonder what one Robert Latimer says when he hears "if I knew then what I know now" http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/latimer/
10. Parents can legally spank thier children. No here is the definition of spank from dictionary.com....spank1 –verb (used with object) 1. to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., esp. on the buttocks, as in punishment. Sorry hitting is hitting in my eyes
11. Flat Tax, no more than 4%. With 2% of your total tax payment going to the agencies of your choice.:-5 Taxes... yes it would be nice wouldn't it. But I say no, what happens when your city grows and you need a new road and a new swiming pool, which one do you think people are going to choose, exactly we do not know and therefore our city can't grow effectively.
12. Public education is driven by testing to move to the next level, private education is optional. Parents are responsible either way. No again, you take a look at how long a child is in school per day, I wonder if a single parent can offer up that same amount of time to their child. I wonder if a parent can be as educated as a teacher to teach all subjects, what of children of illiterate parents they do not have the equal opportunity in education as does the child of mister and mrs albert einstein
13. Seperation of Church and State shall be claryfied and defined to mean that no one denomination or sect shall at any time assume a role of lawmaking power in the government, but that the traditions and symbols of our founding influencial religions (Judeo-Christian) shall be permissable in public areas. The use of the generic term 'God' attributes to tradition of long helf belief and does not constitute a government recommndation to follow 'God'. Sorry no opinion here
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�
• Mae West
• Mae West
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Line up left or right of me:
[quote=Jester;812312]
Yes its a competition but its not between the government and religion its between the religious and aint-religious and the anti-religious control the public schools through the misreprenetation of the seperation of church and state clause whichi really not in the contitution at all. The anit-religious are sytematically destroying all the religious traditions. Unfortunalty there are too few of us left willing to fight it, we are an extrememly small minority and it far easier for us to just private school or home school. We can vote our conscience and hope and pray but thats about it.
They will whether we sanction that or not, but giving it to them condones it and makes it a more nomral part of society and I dont want that in any way. There are certain behaviors that I am not willing to allow whether they be religious or moral alone.
Absolutely, but I can only influnce so many, the law influences far more. And it does set the tone for the majority. Sodomy used to be illegal, its still on the books in most states, but it is only inforced if it is done by force (rape). I can't see how a state can legalize same sex partnerships and have a law against sodomy at the same time. It boggles my mind.
The government does speak to morality, it has to, we are a people that govern ourselves if we are moral or immoral it is reflected in our laws and in our society.
As I read it, you not only don't support separation of church & state (religion and government), you support a weighted citizenry with religious people (so long as they are Jewish or Christian) more equal than the rest.
Don't abandon Christian principles trying to make moral that which never was. These things come in cycles. The '30s gave way to the '50s. This era will give way as well.
Yes its a competition but its not between the government and religion its between the religious and aint-religious and the anti-religious control the public schools through the misreprenetation of the seperation of church and state clause whichi really not in the contitution at all. The anit-religious are sytematically destroying all the religious traditions. Unfortunalty there are too few of us left willing to fight it, we are an extrememly small minority and it far easier for us to just private school or home school. We can vote our conscience and hope and pray but thats about it.
They will whether we sanction that or not, but giving it to them condones it and makes it a more nomral part of society and I dont want that in any way. There are certain behaviors that I am not willing to allow whether they be religious or moral alone.
Absolutely, but I can only influnce so many, the law influences far more. And it does set the tone for the majority. Sodomy used to be illegal, its still on the books in most states, but it is only inforced if it is done by force (rape). I can't see how a state can legalize same sex partnerships and have a law against sodomy at the same time. It boggles my mind.
The government does speak to morality, it has to, we are a people that govern ourselves if we are moral or immoral it is reflected in our laws and in our society.
As I read it, you not only don't support separation of church & state (religion and government), you support a weighted citizenry with religious people (so long as they are Jewish or Christian) more equal than the rest.
Don't abandon Christian principles trying to make moral that which never was. These things come in cycles. The '30s gave way to the '50s. This era will give way as well.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Line up left or right of me:
????
Looking at the poll results, and assuming that the five who claim to be to the right of Jester aren't doing so as a tease, can any of those five explain in what way(s) they are to the right of Jester, do they wear sinister black uniforms and are they planning to invade Poland any time soon?
Looking at the poll results, and assuming that the five who claim to be to the right of Jester aren't doing so as a tease, can any of those five explain in what way(s) they are to the right of Jester, do they wear sinister black uniforms and are they planning to invade Poland any time soon?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Line up left or right of me:
Its immoral, devviant, and I dont agree.
Its immoral based on what? Homosexuality is part of the human condition, its existed as long as people have, unlike the President of Iran, I think that homosexuality exists wherever humans do, I am not saying its something we should all celebrate or promote as most of us are heterosexuals, but basic tolerance of the equality of the human rights and dignity of homosexuals would seem to be fair to me, so I disagree. As for the second part about regularizing common law marraige or domestic partnerships, are you saying they are immoral? On what grounds?
No you do not get my meaning here. I'm not talkign about killing innocent civilians in the process of hunting down and killing terrorists. When we find them we kill them. Cornwallis did what I would have done for the most part, which is go after the men who took up arms agaisnt the King. It would have to be based on clear rules of engagement and done by uniformed US military (for my country).
Jester, Cornwallis lost. You cannot fight ideas with soliders alone, ultimately you have to fight the ideas with better ideas. Also you do not have the right or ability to just go into anyone else's country and arbitraily start killing people, would you have liked the British Army to have gone over to New York and Boston in the 1970s and start targeting and killing American citizens giving money to the IRA over there to buy bombs that were being set off in London, Belfast, and elsewhere and guns that were used to kill many people in my country and in Britain? They were directly supporting terrorism after all, and quite a few of them were considered terrorists by the British. Also, there are over 200 nations in the world, with 6.4 billion people, are you suggesting that the US Army should invade the majority of them and police them like the Gestapo? An astoundingly mad idea.
There are no rules of the market, if the US wants a product then someone can import it, if it sells then whoopeee that a good'un! The only issues I can think of that may come into play here woudl the the safe importation of goods, in terms of drugs and food. My basic issue here is to make it as least restrained as possible, and consumer driven.
What are you talking about, there are lots of rules to every market, where is the market held, who is allowed to participate, how are prices set, who ensures that buyers and sellers agree to the conditions of trade, rules to prevent dishonest and sharp practice, cartels, what type of currency do you use? Do you use the barter system, how do you measure and quantify the quality, origin, and quantity of goods in question, most of the laws in both our countries relate to property, enforcement of economic rules, Jester, you are not thinking this through.
Listen Gal Im not an economist, but in the past when I borrowed it cost me a heck of a lot, when I go on cash it costs me way less. We have to learn to be happy with what we have until we can earm enough to buy what we'd rather have, or need. When we do ti as a country it just snowballs and it ticks me off everytime we throw out a bond issue in CA.
Yes, it is expensive to borrow money, but what is the alternative? Capitalism is based on the idea of borrowing money from someone, investing it in a profitable enterprise and then repaying the loan with part of the profits of your work, thats the basis of all buisness and industry. Governments often need to raise money quickly and they pay back over the long term, its not just the US government, all countries do it from time to time, I am not saying its good to be a debtor nation, its obviously better to be a creditor nation, but you need to have the provision to be able to borrow if its required. In the US what you need is to have much more strict rules on borrowing, sure, but not a complete moratorium on it forever, maybe just for the next couple of decades.
I just entered a deal to buy aprox 400 acres of land in CA. I contracted to purchase it over a years time, with 1/4ly payments for the full price. If By the end of each 1/4 I dont have the full sum required then I get all my money back and he keeps the land, in the meantime I'm the steward of the land and can use it at my will. Im 3 months into my deal and I have it half paid for. I have the next 1/4 payment almost totaled so by the end of April I'll have 3/4 of it paid.
Thats great Jester, but you obviously have the income to achieve it, most people take a lot longer to clear such large loans, are you suggesting that only 4 month mortgages should be approved?
I hate borrowing, its sucks to owe someone and the fact that Cchina has bought large portions of US debt doesnt make me to happy either. We need to learn to be creative and smarter about money before someone like China calls out marker.
Sure, its been very foolish what the US has been engaged on for a long time, and the policy of hocking the future to pay for an unsustainable present should end.
Thats what charities are for. With the amount of money the US (private citizens) sent to Katrina victims and Tidal wave victims over the past few years believe me we can afford to help the destitue/poor, and if we dont have to pay more than 4% taexes well then yeehaw we can afford to give to others.
No that's not what charities are for, charity is a voluntary private exercise, protecting cities and their people from natural disasters, and helping them to recover is the business of government, the people who live in New Orleans also pay taxes, a lot of which goes to pay for military forces that are supposed to protect them from various threats, but when a hurricane hits and destroys the city (largely because the state refused to pay for proper levee protection, despite the pleading of local engineers and scientists that something like Katrina was only a matter of time) they can sort themselves out, how does that work? I don't think that was the attitude when the twin towers were destroyed in a terrorist attack was it? Why should indivdual citizens be made to feel guilty for the suffering of other citizens, and be made to made to pay for the consequences (partly due to inadequate protection) for those that have encountered natural disasters when the government won't help them?
I was refering mostly to drugs. But there has to be controled subtances such as dynamite as you mentioned. Its more workable when we have an effective penal system and folks get punished swiftly and know they will get into trouble if they misuse it.
There are arguments for legalizing drugs, and I used to think that if you decriminalized the taking of all drugs, but put in much harsher penalties for crimes committed for instance to pay for Heroin that would be better. Now I realize that although philosophically its tidier, practically it would simply facilitate the spread of hard drugs across society, which is already awash with Alcohol abuse and illegal drugs. What we need is a profound change in the social attitudes to drinking and drug use, at least in the states you don't have the drinking culture we have here, if we legalzed cocaine and heroin, our police would spend most of their time simply dealing with the consequences of that. They already spend most of the resources in dealing with alcohol fueled violence and crime, and trying to keep public order after the pub.
I wasnt saying that we should stop the justice system we currently have, just make the punishments more severe and faster. And actually I clarified more in other posts saying thet all violent crimes are punishable by death.
I have no problem with making the punishments harsher, such as bringing back the idea of making certain prisoners work as part of their punishment, allowing communities and victims to have an input into the punishment and correction of criminals, and generally getting rid of the inbuilt tolerance our system seems to have for criminal behaviour these days. Criminal acts should result in harsh consequences for the criminal, not a paid holiday from the world, I think we can all agree on that. Though on the death penalty, not in my society at present. I can see circumstances in which it might become inevitable, but we haven't reached them yet, and I would be against it on principal.
Leap and bounds in your assumptions.
When the state executes a criminal it is an execution it is not murder. Its defined as killing. Im glad we agree on the method that is less sanitized. hangin is good enough for me. If an error is made then the Jury must be hanged, they passed the judgement and examined the evidence. The Jury is the one who decides and is therefore responsible. That ought to ensure less errors.
I am basing my assumptions on the ten commandments (no 1. Thou shalt not kill) and the sermon on the mount, you know "Judge not lest you be judged, condemn not lest you be condemned". I am not particularly religious, but for Christian people that are, (particularly the ones who take it all literally and think that the world is 6,000 years old) you would think that the very clear christian message should give them a little pause for thought, but apparently not.
I do not recal any part of the NT that woudl not support stopping abortion. And you need to define murder and killing better.
Murder is the willful taking of life with intent, when the state kills it is still murder, whether through the criminal justice system or war, its just euphemized to make it acceptable to Christians when the Governments of their countries (which all claim to a higher moral purpose) take life. For instance Tony Blair and George Bush both claim to be deeply christian men, yet they personally have ordered the fighting of a war in which many hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings have died, do you see where there may be a slight whiff of self-righteous hypocrisy here? If they are really Christians and not just people who say they believe in Jesus, but actually live by old testament rules, should have no business facilitating the death of anyone. Of course practically its not very easy to live up to those standards, and also in reality the state is not a religious organization, but a real world entity, but its just interesting that those who often consider themselves the most righteous and pious type of Christians are usually the most bloodthirsty.
One out of thirteen aint bad, move oto the left my good man.
2% to the general fund... lets say my issue is defense... so my extra 2% goes to the military. All we have to do is say that when one are of the budget has all the money they petitoned for in the budget the over flow goes to the general fund. This way folks get a say in what is important to them... next year my issue might be roads and infrastructure three years form now it might be to fund the public mental hospital sytem... Im not advocating a sytem where folks say their tax dollars CANT go to, I'm advocating that they get some say in which funds they want to support. I think it will work quite nicely.
Sure, but how would you fund unpopular but necessary things like sewage systems, or prisons, or studies into mosquitoes, or speed cameras, and how could you budget and plan over the long term, if you are depending on the results of a yearly fiscal referrendum by the population to get any funding year on year, completely impractical, a non starter. Imagine the newspapers and what a field day they would have getting the public to be outraged about one thing or another and withdraw funding from this and that, government would soon cease to function in any practical way
wow that 2 out of 13... a bit better, come back to the right a bit.
I cant figure this out... from what you wrote you seem to think that the US political sytem has been taken over by chirstian fanatics and thats just not reality. The US political sytem is no more religious that its always been, and I think its way less religious if you ask me. I see a slow withdrawel from biblical ideology in government.
To be honest from the outside that what it looks like sometimes, you seem to have this fundamentalist christian ethic creeping into everyday life over there. Many people seem to be unaware of basic scientific explanations for things, and credit completely barmy things like creationism with having validity, even in high government. In Europe to be honest we think quite a lot of you are going a bit crackers, but its also quite alarming, in that if the trend continues you will end up with a right wing fundamentalist christian theocracy, that is anti-science, anti-humanist, and anti-rationalist. Thats worrying as the US has been for many years a becaon of light and rationality in a credulous and superstitious world. I know of course that not all Americans are bible-bashing creationists, but they are powerful and getting more powerful all the time it seems.
What I'm advocating is that we leave our traditions alone and not remove the symbols that have been placed there by previous generations. Prayers have traditonally been part od our everyday public life, and theres a movement to stop it saying that the act of praying to God indicates that religion is taking over. Its just gotten silly is all, and I'd like it clarified, and defines once and for all. I'm think science shoudl be taught plainly in schools, if it broaches evolution just make it clearly taught as a theory, or present the evidence and allow the students to form thier own opinons. But if some kid walks in with a model hydrualagists theory that the grand canyon was formed quickly by tons of rushing water and he has good evidence and some teacher who belives the canyon was formed very slowly over millions of years poo-poos him off thats wrong, close minded and stupid of the teacher. Evolustion is but one theory, there are others and they should be explored.
I understand what you are saying, of course Christianity has a huge place in American culture and tradition as it does here in Europe, and there is nothing wrong with aknowlegeding that. The thing with science is that you either teach it honestly, or you don't, you start equivocating, and once you start everything is then up for grabs. Evolution is not a theory about religion, it is a theory about how nature organizes itself. Also its more than a theory, as a scientist I can tell you that as much as we can be sure than gravity is not illusion, evolution is the way in which complicated structures of life organize themselves, if we try and equivocate on that, then we might as well teach that the world is flat, and that Santa lives in the north pole.
It has no impact on the existence of god, or the divinity of Jesus or anything else, they are broader questions, but life evolves, it wasn't just popped into existence one fine day in 4,500 BC, telling children that is what happened, or that religiously inspired versions of the truth have equal validity with all the evidence before their eyes is the worst kind of abandonment of truth, and twisting of rationality, I can think of. The fact that many Americans cannot seem to understand that, is frankly, worrying. I am a Catholic (of sorts, well I feel guilty about a lot of things anyway) but if the pope came out and tried to insist that the world is 6,000 years old, I would not allow my children to be taught in a Catholic school, because I want my children to think for themselves and to search for the truth of things, not just become receptacles for dogma.
I whoely disagree, I think we reduce mankinds creativity when we over rule and enforce too many codes, the least amount is the better amount. And thats the directions Id move towards, less government, more personal accountability.
I agree, that in general, the more control people have over their own lives, the happier they are. So in that, I share the right-wing philosophy of life, and as small a government as possible, but also I know that there is no freedom without organization, there is no organization without rules, and no rules without enforcement, which is why as in all things there is a balance to be struck.
I just pulled out these things to discuss, I wanted to see which way folks 'generally' leaned using me as middle ground. I assumed it would be very lopsided and Id be way to the right of most folks. After argueing with so many here I assumed this whole board was severly left leaning. The 13 things I culled out are but a small sampling of issues I think about form time to time.
Sure, its an interesting thread, I am glad you started it, and you are perfectly entitled to your opinions, and I would defend your right to express them, as I hope you would mine, which is what makes us people of the Western world.
One more point... I do recognize speacial circumstances exist from time to time, thats why general rules are best rather than exact and specific rules, my above musings (1-13) are the general direction I tend to think and I would make exceptions along the way for senarios that I had not considered. I think this thread turned into a discussion abotu the individual items and not about the genearl reason I started this thread which was to more assess the how liberal this board has become. Which is fine BTW I liek threads that morph into good discussions.
Again, agreed.
Its immoral based on what? Homosexuality is part of the human condition, its existed as long as people have, unlike the President of Iran, I think that homosexuality exists wherever humans do, I am not saying its something we should all celebrate or promote as most of us are heterosexuals, but basic tolerance of the equality of the human rights and dignity of homosexuals would seem to be fair to me, so I disagree. As for the second part about regularizing common law marraige or domestic partnerships, are you saying they are immoral? On what grounds?
No you do not get my meaning here. I'm not talkign about killing innocent civilians in the process of hunting down and killing terrorists. When we find them we kill them. Cornwallis did what I would have done for the most part, which is go after the men who took up arms agaisnt the King. It would have to be based on clear rules of engagement and done by uniformed US military (for my country).
Jester, Cornwallis lost. You cannot fight ideas with soliders alone, ultimately you have to fight the ideas with better ideas. Also you do not have the right or ability to just go into anyone else's country and arbitraily start killing people, would you have liked the British Army to have gone over to New York and Boston in the 1970s and start targeting and killing American citizens giving money to the IRA over there to buy bombs that were being set off in London, Belfast, and elsewhere and guns that were used to kill many people in my country and in Britain? They were directly supporting terrorism after all, and quite a few of them were considered terrorists by the British. Also, there are over 200 nations in the world, with 6.4 billion people, are you suggesting that the US Army should invade the majority of them and police them like the Gestapo? An astoundingly mad idea.
There are no rules of the market, if the US wants a product then someone can import it, if it sells then whoopeee that a good'un! The only issues I can think of that may come into play here woudl the the safe importation of goods, in terms of drugs and food. My basic issue here is to make it as least restrained as possible, and consumer driven.
What are you talking about, there are lots of rules to every market, where is the market held, who is allowed to participate, how are prices set, who ensures that buyers and sellers agree to the conditions of trade, rules to prevent dishonest and sharp practice, cartels, what type of currency do you use? Do you use the barter system, how do you measure and quantify the quality, origin, and quantity of goods in question, most of the laws in both our countries relate to property, enforcement of economic rules, Jester, you are not thinking this through.
Listen Gal Im not an economist, but in the past when I borrowed it cost me a heck of a lot, when I go on cash it costs me way less. We have to learn to be happy with what we have until we can earm enough to buy what we'd rather have, or need. When we do ti as a country it just snowballs and it ticks me off everytime we throw out a bond issue in CA.
Yes, it is expensive to borrow money, but what is the alternative? Capitalism is based on the idea of borrowing money from someone, investing it in a profitable enterprise and then repaying the loan with part of the profits of your work, thats the basis of all buisness and industry. Governments often need to raise money quickly and they pay back over the long term, its not just the US government, all countries do it from time to time, I am not saying its good to be a debtor nation, its obviously better to be a creditor nation, but you need to have the provision to be able to borrow if its required. In the US what you need is to have much more strict rules on borrowing, sure, but not a complete moratorium on it forever, maybe just for the next couple of decades.
I just entered a deal to buy aprox 400 acres of land in CA. I contracted to purchase it over a years time, with 1/4ly payments for the full price. If By the end of each 1/4 I dont have the full sum required then I get all my money back and he keeps the land, in the meantime I'm the steward of the land and can use it at my will. Im 3 months into my deal and I have it half paid for. I have the next 1/4 payment almost totaled so by the end of April I'll have 3/4 of it paid.
Thats great Jester, but you obviously have the income to achieve it, most people take a lot longer to clear such large loans, are you suggesting that only 4 month mortgages should be approved?
I hate borrowing, its sucks to owe someone and the fact that Cchina has bought large portions of US debt doesnt make me to happy either. We need to learn to be creative and smarter about money before someone like China calls out marker.
Sure, its been very foolish what the US has been engaged on for a long time, and the policy of hocking the future to pay for an unsustainable present should end.
Thats what charities are for. With the amount of money the US (private citizens) sent to Katrina victims and Tidal wave victims over the past few years believe me we can afford to help the destitue/poor, and if we dont have to pay more than 4% taexes well then yeehaw we can afford to give to others.
No that's not what charities are for, charity is a voluntary private exercise, protecting cities and their people from natural disasters, and helping them to recover is the business of government, the people who live in New Orleans also pay taxes, a lot of which goes to pay for military forces that are supposed to protect them from various threats, but when a hurricane hits and destroys the city (largely because the state refused to pay for proper levee protection, despite the pleading of local engineers and scientists that something like Katrina was only a matter of time) they can sort themselves out, how does that work? I don't think that was the attitude when the twin towers were destroyed in a terrorist attack was it? Why should indivdual citizens be made to feel guilty for the suffering of other citizens, and be made to made to pay for the consequences (partly due to inadequate protection) for those that have encountered natural disasters when the government won't help them?
I was refering mostly to drugs. But there has to be controled subtances such as dynamite as you mentioned. Its more workable when we have an effective penal system and folks get punished swiftly and know they will get into trouble if they misuse it.
There are arguments for legalizing drugs, and I used to think that if you decriminalized the taking of all drugs, but put in much harsher penalties for crimes committed for instance to pay for Heroin that would be better. Now I realize that although philosophically its tidier, practically it would simply facilitate the spread of hard drugs across society, which is already awash with Alcohol abuse and illegal drugs. What we need is a profound change in the social attitudes to drinking and drug use, at least in the states you don't have the drinking culture we have here, if we legalzed cocaine and heroin, our police would spend most of their time simply dealing with the consequences of that. They already spend most of the resources in dealing with alcohol fueled violence and crime, and trying to keep public order after the pub.
I wasnt saying that we should stop the justice system we currently have, just make the punishments more severe and faster. And actually I clarified more in other posts saying thet all violent crimes are punishable by death.
I have no problem with making the punishments harsher, such as bringing back the idea of making certain prisoners work as part of their punishment, allowing communities and victims to have an input into the punishment and correction of criminals, and generally getting rid of the inbuilt tolerance our system seems to have for criminal behaviour these days. Criminal acts should result in harsh consequences for the criminal, not a paid holiday from the world, I think we can all agree on that. Though on the death penalty, not in my society at present. I can see circumstances in which it might become inevitable, but we haven't reached them yet, and I would be against it on principal.
Leap and bounds in your assumptions.
When the state executes a criminal it is an execution it is not murder. Its defined as killing. Im glad we agree on the method that is less sanitized. hangin is good enough for me. If an error is made then the Jury must be hanged, they passed the judgement and examined the evidence. The Jury is the one who decides and is therefore responsible. That ought to ensure less errors.
I am basing my assumptions on the ten commandments (no 1. Thou shalt not kill) and the sermon on the mount, you know "Judge not lest you be judged, condemn not lest you be condemned". I am not particularly religious, but for Christian people that are, (particularly the ones who take it all literally and think that the world is 6,000 years old) you would think that the very clear christian message should give them a little pause for thought, but apparently not.
I do not recal any part of the NT that woudl not support stopping abortion. And you need to define murder and killing better.
Murder is the willful taking of life with intent, when the state kills it is still murder, whether through the criminal justice system or war, its just euphemized to make it acceptable to Christians when the Governments of their countries (which all claim to a higher moral purpose) take life. For instance Tony Blair and George Bush both claim to be deeply christian men, yet they personally have ordered the fighting of a war in which many hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings have died, do you see where there may be a slight whiff of self-righteous hypocrisy here? If they are really Christians and not just people who say they believe in Jesus, but actually live by old testament rules, should have no business facilitating the death of anyone. Of course practically its not very easy to live up to those standards, and also in reality the state is not a religious organization, but a real world entity, but its just interesting that those who often consider themselves the most righteous and pious type of Christians are usually the most bloodthirsty.
One out of thirteen aint bad, move oto the left my good man.
2% to the general fund... lets say my issue is defense... so my extra 2% goes to the military. All we have to do is say that when one are of the budget has all the money they petitoned for in the budget the over flow goes to the general fund. This way folks get a say in what is important to them... next year my issue might be roads and infrastructure three years form now it might be to fund the public mental hospital sytem... Im not advocating a sytem where folks say their tax dollars CANT go to, I'm advocating that they get some say in which funds they want to support. I think it will work quite nicely.
Sure, but how would you fund unpopular but necessary things like sewage systems, or prisons, or studies into mosquitoes, or speed cameras, and how could you budget and plan over the long term, if you are depending on the results of a yearly fiscal referrendum by the population to get any funding year on year, completely impractical, a non starter. Imagine the newspapers and what a field day they would have getting the public to be outraged about one thing or another and withdraw funding from this and that, government would soon cease to function in any practical way
wow that 2 out of 13... a bit better, come back to the right a bit.
I cant figure this out... from what you wrote you seem to think that the US political sytem has been taken over by chirstian fanatics and thats just not reality. The US political sytem is no more religious that its always been, and I think its way less religious if you ask me. I see a slow withdrawel from biblical ideology in government.
To be honest from the outside that what it looks like sometimes, you seem to have this fundamentalist christian ethic creeping into everyday life over there. Many people seem to be unaware of basic scientific explanations for things, and credit completely barmy things like creationism with having validity, even in high government. In Europe to be honest we think quite a lot of you are going a bit crackers, but its also quite alarming, in that if the trend continues you will end up with a right wing fundamentalist christian theocracy, that is anti-science, anti-humanist, and anti-rationalist. Thats worrying as the US has been for many years a becaon of light and rationality in a credulous and superstitious world. I know of course that not all Americans are bible-bashing creationists, but they are powerful and getting more powerful all the time it seems.
What I'm advocating is that we leave our traditions alone and not remove the symbols that have been placed there by previous generations. Prayers have traditonally been part od our everyday public life, and theres a movement to stop it saying that the act of praying to God indicates that religion is taking over. Its just gotten silly is all, and I'd like it clarified, and defines once and for all. I'm think science shoudl be taught plainly in schools, if it broaches evolution just make it clearly taught as a theory, or present the evidence and allow the students to form thier own opinons. But if some kid walks in with a model hydrualagists theory that the grand canyon was formed quickly by tons of rushing water and he has good evidence and some teacher who belives the canyon was formed very slowly over millions of years poo-poos him off thats wrong, close minded and stupid of the teacher. Evolustion is but one theory, there are others and they should be explored.
I understand what you are saying, of course Christianity has a huge place in American culture and tradition as it does here in Europe, and there is nothing wrong with aknowlegeding that. The thing with science is that you either teach it honestly, or you don't, you start equivocating, and once you start everything is then up for grabs. Evolution is not a theory about religion, it is a theory about how nature organizes itself. Also its more than a theory, as a scientist I can tell you that as much as we can be sure than gravity is not illusion, evolution is the way in which complicated structures of life organize themselves, if we try and equivocate on that, then we might as well teach that the world is flat, and that Santa lives in the north pole.
It has no impact on the existence of god, or the divinity of Jesus or anything else, they are broader questions, but life evolves, it wasn't just popped into existence one fine day in 4,500 BC, telling children that is what happened, or that religiously inspired versions of the truth have equal validity with all the evidence before their eyes is the worst kind of abandonment of truth, and twisting of rationality, I can think of. The fact that many Americans cannot seem to understand that, is frankly, worrying. I am a Catholic (of sorts, well I feel guilty about a lot of things anyway) but if the pope came out and tried to insist that the world is 6,000 years old, I would not allow my children to be taught in a Catholic school, because I want my children to think for themselves and to search for the truth of things, not just become receptacles for dogma.
I whoely disagree, I think we reduce mankinds creativity when we over rule and enforce too many codes, the least amount is the better amount. And thats the directions Id move towards, less government, more personal accountability.
I agree, that in general, the more control people have over their own lives, the happier they are. So in that, I share the right-wing philosophy of life, and as small a government as possible, but also I know that there is no freedom without organization, there is no organization without rules, and no rules without enforcement, which is why as in all things there is a balance to be struck.
I just pulled out these things to discuss, I wanted to see which way folks 'generally' leaned using me as middle ground. I assumed it would be very lopsided and Id be way to the right of most folks. After argueing with so many here I assumed this whole board was severly left leaning. The 13 things I culled out are but a small sampling of issues I think about form time to time.
Sure, its an interesting thread, I am glad you started it, and you are perfectly entitled to your opinions, and I would defend your right to express them, as I hope you would mine, which is what makes us people of the Western world.
One more point... I do recognize speacial circumstances exist from time to time, thats why general rules are best rather than exact and specific rules, my above musings (1-13) are the general direction I tend to think and I would make exceptions along the way for senarios that I had not considered. I think this thread turned into a discussion abotu the individual items and not about the genearl reason I started this thread which was to more assess the how liberal this board has become. Which is fine BTW I liek threads that morph into good discussions.
Again, agreed.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Line up left or right of me:
If an error is made then the Jury must be hanged, they passed the judgement and examined the evidence. The Jury is the one who decides and is therefore responsible. That ought to ensure less errors.
If it subsequently turned out the original conviction was correct, do you then kill the jury who convicted the jury? ad infinitum?
No jury with any sense would ever risk convicting for a capital crime!
Homosexuality is not deviant, it's been with us since the dawn of time and our civilisation is based to a large extent on a civilisation that regarded homosexual love as a purer and higher love than hetero. And I'd still like to know if/ where Jesus condemns homosexuality.
Aah. What's the point.
If it subsequently turned out the original conviction was correct, do you then kill the jury who convicted the jury? ad infinitum?
No jury with any sense would ever risk convicting for a capital crime!
Homosexuality is not deviant, it's been with us since the dawn of time and our civilisation is based to a large extent on a civilisation that regarded homosexual love as a purer and higher love than hetero. And I'd still like to know if/ where Jesus condemns homosexuality.
Aah. What's the point.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Line up left or right of me:
Clodhopper;812466 wrote: ????
Looking at the poll results, and assuming that the five who claim to be to the right of Jester aren't doing so as a tease, can any of those five explain in what way(s) they are to the right of Jester, do they wear sinister black uniforms and are they planning to invade Poland any time soon?
Hate to break it to you, but Nazis were on the left.
Looking at the poll results, and assuming that the five who claim to be to the right of Jester aren't doing so as a tease, can any of those five explain in what way(s) they are to the right of Jester, do they wear sinister black uniforms and are they planning to invade Poland any time soon?
Hate to break it to you, but Nazis were on the left.
Line up left or right of me:
Accountable;812473 wrote: Hate to break it to you, but Nazis were on the left.
Not on law and order or the "treatment" of sedition or terrorism they weren't.
Not on law and order or the "treatment" of sedition or terrorism they weren't.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Line up left or right of me:
Galbally;812469 wrote: Why should indivdual citizens be made to feel guilty for the suffering of other citizens, and be made to made to pay for the consequences (partly due to inadequate protection) for those that have encountered natural disasters when the government won't help them?
[gravitas removed by Acc]
The government helping them means that individual citizens are being made to pay for those consequences, whether they want to or not. Charities ask for money or help; no one is compelled with threat of imprisonment for not supporting a charity. Willing people give more and give more freely.
[gravitas removed by Acc
]The government helping them means that individual citizens are being made to pay for those consequences, whether they want to or not. Charities ask for money or help; no one is compelled with threat of imprisonment for not supporting a charity. Willing people give more and give more freely.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Line up left or right of me:
Clodhopper;812466 wrote: ????
Looking at the poll results, and assuming that the five who claim to be to the right of Jester aren't doing so as a tease, can any of those five explain in what way(s) they are to the right of Jester, do they wear sinister black uniforms and are they planning to invade Poland any time soon?
I am one who chose that option. I think I differ with Jester on the death penalty.
I only invade Poland when I walk into my Polish granny's house, and raid the cookie jar. :wah:
Looking at the poll results, and assuming that the five who claim to be to the right of Jester aren't doing so as a tease, can any of those five explain in what way(s) they are to the right of Jester, do they wear sinister black uniforms and are they planning to invade Poland any time soon?
I am one who chose that option. I think I differ with Jester on the death penalty.
I only invade Poland when I walk into my Polish granny's house, and raid the cookie jar. :wah:
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Line up left or right of me:
Galbally;812474 wrote: Not on law and order or the "treatment" of sedition or terrorism they weren't.
I knew I should'nt have gotten involved in a discussion of left and right. It took me forever to get them right in elementary school.
I knew I should'nt have gotten involved in a discussion of left and right. It took me forever to get them right in elementary school.
Line up left or right of me:
Accountable;812476 wrote: [gravitas removed by Acc ]
The government helping them means that individual citizens are being made to pay for those consequences, whether they want to or not. Charities ask for money or help; no one is compelled with threat of imprisonment for not supporting a charity. Willing people give more and give more freely.
Well then why don't you fund your military on charity then, seeing as so many people over there disagree with having such a large military, but still have to pay a large amount of tax money to pay for your enormous standing Army, Navy, and Airforce and strategic bases and nuclear forces? In fact why not fund the whole government on charity, as that will allow people to only pay into government if they agree with the policy of the day. Its a ridiculous argument.
]The government helping them means that individual citizens are being made to pay for those consequences, whether they want to or not. Charities ask for money or help; no one is compelled with threat of imprisonment for not supporting a charity. Willing people give more and give more freely.
Well then why don't you fund your military on charity then, seeing as so many people over there disagree with having such a large military, but still have to pay a large amount of tax money to pay for your enormous standing Army, Navy, and Airforce and strategic bases and nuclear forces? In fact why not fund the whole government on charity, as that will allow people to only pay into government if they agree with the policy of the day. Its a ridiculous argument.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Line up left or right of me:
Accountable: chuckle. They way I think of the political spectrum is to imagine a ring with a cut through it at one point. Opposite the cut is what I would call moderate liberalism. On one side of the cut is Fascism, on the other side is Communism. Fascism and Communism are so close together they are virtually indistinguishable, but they are separated by the whole length of the ring.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Line up left or right of me:
Chonsigirl: Thankyou. I assume if you disagree with Jester about the death penalty you are NOT in favour of it, or at least not in favour of public execution? If so, I'd say you were more moderate than, ie left of, Jester...
Seems to be largely a matter of definitions.
Seems to be largely a matter of definitions.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Line up left or right of me:
Galbally;812486 wrote: Well then why don't you fund your military on charity then, seeing as so many people over there disagree with having such a large military, but still have to pay a large amount of tax money to pay for your enormous standing Army, Navy, and Airforce and strategic bases and nuclear forces? In fact why not fund the whole government on charity, as that will allow people to only pay into government if they agree with the policy of the day. Its a ridiculous argument.
Ridiculous? That stings. Actually hadn't looked at it from this angle. My kneejerk reaction is that our constitution calls for a military & not disaster relief. You, of course are free to do what you wish in your country.
I am of the opinion, minority as it might be, that the US government was set up originally to be largely subordinate to the states' governments. It's role was - and ought to be, imo - very limited and small; National defense, interstate infrastructure, international diplomacy, little else. The states are free to tax and spend as they see fit. Now, I know that the USA that I speak of no longer exists, but it's what ought to be ... at least here.
Ridiculous? That stings. Actually hadn't looked at it from this angle. My kneejerk reaction is that our constitution calls for a military & not disaster relief. You, of course are free to do what you wish in your country.
I am of the opinion, minority as it might be, that the US government was set up originally to be largely subordinate to the states' governments. It's role was - and ought to be, imo - very limited and small; National defense, interstate infrastructure, international diplomacy, little else. The states are free to tax and spend as they see fit. Now, I know that the USA that I speak of no longer exists, but it's what ought to be ... at least here.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Line up left or right of me:
Clodhopper;812490 wrote: Accountable: chuckle. They way I think of the political spectrum is to imagine a ring with a cut through it at one point. Opposite the cut is what I would call moderate liberalism. On one side of the cut is Fascism, on the other side is Communism. Fascism and Communism are so close together they are virtually indistinguishable, but they are separated by the whole length of the ring.
Excellent analogy!
There's a book out that links fascism & liberalism, but I haven't read it.
Edited to add:
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
Excellent analogy!
There's a book out that links fascism & liberalism, but I haven't read it.
Edited to add:
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
Line up left or right of me:
Jester;810851 wrote: Now see I figured wed agree on a few of those points.
Let me take a closer look. I didnt actually take most of them seriously. I mean I know that Soldier of Fortune magazine has a target audience but its only like 3 people in Arkansas right ?
1. Marriage: Between a man and woman only, no exceptions, no domestic partnerships allowed.
I have tolerance, acceptance and yes love for mankind. Check this out...I think the worlds diversity is stunningly magical.
2. Military/Diplomacy: Kill every terrorists in every country regardless of international law.
Some of that Soldier of Fortune rhetoric. A statement like this isnt worthy of debate. Lets just say I accept you as you are and wouldnt dream of hemorrhaging my brain trying to convince you otherwise.
3. Total and open free trade based on product desire and let the consumer drive the economy.
I think sanctions are the obvious 1st step in weeding out undesirable dictatorships.
4. Total balanced budget, no borrowing ever.
Since we live within the never ending opposing world of Republicans vs. Democrats this is an idealistic thought that will never ever come to fruition.
5. No government entitlements. (no social security, no healthcare, no welfare).
Are you prepared to construct razor wire fencing around low income neighborhoods when that segment of society gets really hungry ?
6. Legalize all substances, make laws regarding the negligent use of any product.
Theres logic in there somewhere, I know there is. Hang on let me get my magnifying glass.
7. Penelties for lawbreakers are severe, and swift punishment is carried out but when your are done paying you are done, no more system to track you or stigmatize you.
I dont want to hear your version of severe.
8. Inact the death penelty by public hanging.
Beautiful, absolutely brilliant ! :-6Will there be tailgating like at Nascar ?
Beer and pretzel vendors ?
9. Outlaw all forms of abortion, its murder and is punishable by the death penalty.
Lots of death in your imaginitive mind. Vewy scawy !
10. Parents can legally spank thier children.
Well ok we agree on one thing.
11. Flat Tax, no more than 4%. With 2% of your total tax payment going to the agencies of your choice.
Two things. :-3 Uh oh.
12. Public education is driven by testing to move to the next level, private education is optional. Parents are responsible either way.
Now Im really disturbed
13. Seperation of Church and State shall be claryfied and defined to mean that no one denomination or sect shall at any time assume a role of lawmaking power in the government, but that the traditions and symbols of our founding influencial religions (Judeo-Christian) shall be permissable in public areas. The use of the generic term 'God' attributes to tradition of long helf belief and does not constitute a government recommndation to follow 'God'.
Only your God is allowed at City Center ?
Smells like trouble !!!
Let me take a closer look. I didnt actually take most of them seriously. I mean I know that Soldier of Fortune magazine has a target audience but its only like 3 people in Arkansas right ?
1. Marriage: Between a man and woman only, no exceptions, no domestic partnerships allowed.
I have tolerance, acceptance and yes love for mankind. Check this out...I think the worlds diversity is stunningly magical.
2. Military/Diplomacy: Kill every terrorists in every country regardless of international law.
Some of that Soldier of Fortune rhetoric. A statement like this isnt worthy of debate. Lets just say I accept you as you are and wouldnt dream of hemorrhaging my brain trying to convince you otherwise.
3. Total and open free trade based on product desire and let the consumer drive the economy.
I think sanctions are the obvious 1st step in weeding out undesirable dictatorships.
4. Total balanced budget, no borrowing ever.
Since we live within the never ending opposing world of Republicans vs. Democrats this is an idealistic thought that will never ever come to fruition.
5. No government entitlements. (no social security, no healthcare, no welfare).
Are you prepared to construct razor wire fencing around low income neighborhoods when that segment of society gets really hungry ?
6. Legalize all substances, make laws regarding the negligent use of any product.
Theres logic in there somewhere, I know there is. Hang on let me get my magnifying glass.
7. Penelties for lawbreakers are severe, and swift punishment is carried out but when your are done paying you are done, no more system to track you or stigmatize you.
I dont want to hear your version of severe.
8. Inact the death penelty by public hanging.
Beautiful, absolutely brilliant ! :-6Will there be tailgating like at Nascar ?
Beer and pretzel vendors ?
9. Outlaw all forms of abortion, its murder and is punishable by the death penalty.
Lots of death in your imaginitive mind. Vewy scawy !
10. Parents can legally spank thier children.
Well ok we agree on one thing.
11. Flat Tax, no more than 4%. With 2% of your total tax payment going to the agencies of your choice.
Two things. :-3 Uh oh.
12. Public education is driven by testing to move to the next level, private education is optional. Parents are responsible either way.
Now Im really disturbed
13. Seperation of Church and State shall be claryfied and defined to mean that no one denomination or sect shall at any time assume a role of lawmaking power in the government, but that the traditions and symbols of our founding influencial religions (Judeo-Christian) shall be permissable in public areas. The use of the generic term 'God' attributes to tradition of long helf belief and does not constitute a government recommndation to follow 'God'.
Only your God is allowed at City Center ?
Smells like trouble !!!
I AM AWESOME MAN
Line up left or right of me:
Accountable;812499 wrote: Ridiculous? That stings. Actually hadn't looked at it from this angle. My kneejerk reaction is that our constitution calls for a military & not disaster relief. You, of course are free to do what you wish in your country.
I am of the opinion, minority as it might be, that the US government was set up originally to be largely subordinate to the states' governments. It's role was - and ought to be, imo - very limited and small; National defense, interstate infrastructure, international diplomacy, little else. The states are free to tax and spend as they see fit. Now, I know that the USA that I speak of no longer exists, but it's what ought to be ... at least here.
I didn't mean to sound too harsh, I just don't get that kind of argument, anyway, not to worry.
I am of the opinion, minority as it might be, that the US government was set up originally to be largely subordinate to the states' governments. It's role was - and ought to be, imo - very limited and small; National defense, interstate infrastructure, international diplomacy, little else. The states are free to tax and spend as they see fit. Now, I know that the USA that I speak of no longer exists, but it's what ought to be ... at least here.
I didn't mean to sound too harsh, I just don't get that kind of argument, anyway, not to worry.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Line up left or right of me:
Galbally;813081 wrote: I didn't mean to sound too harsh, I just don't get that kind of argument, anyway, not to worry.
I know. I think we've understood each other for quite awhile. :-6
Who claims the lion's share of governing in your opionion, Northern Ireland or UK? A better question might be, how is responsibility divided?
I know. I think we've understood each other for quite awhile. :-6
Who claims the lion's share of governing in your opionion, Northern Ireland or UK? A better question might be, how is responsibility divided?
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Line up left or right of me:
There's a book out that links fascism & liberalism, but I haven't read it.
Accountable: And it's published in an American election year...
Jonah Goldberg isn't a REPUBLICAN by any chance?
He's going to have to do some pretty entertaining mental gymnastics to demonstrate how they are linked. DEEPLY suspicious.
Accountable: And it's published in an American election year...
Jonah Goldberg isn't a REPUBLICAN by any chance?
He's going to have to do some pretty entertaining mental gymnastics to demonstrate how they are linked. DEEPLY suspicious.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Line up left or right of me:
Clodhopper;813124 wrote: Accountable: And it's published in an American election year...
Jonah Goldberg isn't a REPUBLICAN by any chance?
He's going to have to do some pretty entertaining mental gymnastics to demonstrate how they are linked. DEEPLY suspicious.
Oh I'm sure it's so slanted it slides right off the table.
Jonah Goldberg isn't a REPUBLICAN by any chance?
He's going to have to do some pretty entertaining mental gymnastics to demonstrate how they are linked. DEEPLY suspicious.
Oh I'm sure it's so slanted it slides right off the table.