Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 29, 2015, 03:35:52 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 536
76  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Which of these kinds of Republican do you prefer? on: May 18, 2015, 08:01:25 am
someone piss you off?

It's not any individuals, I'm talking about these people as a collective group, every individual have their own story for why they vote as they do, and there exist Jews who have their (good) reasons to vote for Front National, but if you ask me what I think about Jews who vote Front National, I won't say that I have a positive view of them, and while the Republican Party aren't the anti-gay Nazi, neither are they a party who to any degree treat gay people like they're human beings.

But that doesn't mean that there doesn't exist gay Republicans, who aren't self hating or delusional, some have likely some very good reasons to vote as they do (they think democrats are too soft on crime as example) or they're simply stuck in a party, which was much less bad on gay issues years ago, and too much of their identity build on being Republicans (just as other people who are stuck in a party which no longer fit them). But as a group I can't really say anything positive about them.

I don't know why you would say anything about them as a group.  I don't know why just because you are a member of a group, that gives you an obligation to vote based on a set of positions which are, or are supposed to be, relevant to this group and disregard everything else, which obligation to vote a certain way, a person outside that group does not have - and if you don't you are some awful person.   If you consider something a matter of civil rights and equality, shouldn't you be holding everyone to this standard equally when it comes to supporting it?

(btw, my first post was responding to the maker of this strange thread - I hit reply before your post even showed up.)
77  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Which of these kinds of Republican do you prefer? on: May 18, 2015, 07:15:37 am
someone piss you off?
78  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Graham's "very important update" on 2016: this morning at 8am on: May 18, 2015, 07:02:46 am
he's endorsing Rubio  (I'm guessing)
79  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Institute of Funny Partial Thread Titles You've Seen on Atlas on: May 18, 2015, 12:11:33 am
 Today at 12:01:24 am
in Hillary Clinton is clear...
by bedstuy


I was thinking maybe L Ron Hubbard had gotten to her.
80  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Say something nice about the preceding poster. on: May 18, 2015, 12:05:50 am
It's easy to judge someone for views they admit they used to have, it's harder to admit having had awful views and to do the work of changing.   I respect that.
81  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Christian school principal makes racist comments at graduation, blames Satan on: May 17, 2015, 03:55:17 pm
This isn't a Christian school?

The woman had taught at a Christian school before, but browsing the school's website, I can't find anything that would indicate that this was a religious institution of any sort. Browsing the course list, which is available online, the only course with any religious content is a "world's religions" class.

The title of the thread should be changed, it's false and inflammatory.

Forgive me for assuming it was a Christian school when she chose to hold the graduation ceremony in a frickin' church.

If they held it in a stadium would you assume they were a sports team?

Most reasonable people would agree that a religious place of worship is not an appropriate venue for an event if the organization holding the event is not affiliated with that religion.

Whether or not it is appropriate, it is extremely common.
82  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Most underrated Presidents? Most overrated? on: May 17, 2015, 03:47:36 pm
FDR is the most overrated President, long with JFK, Reagan, Wilson, and H.W. Bush.

Harding is seriously underrated. Sure, he was a corrupt SOB, but he also took a firm stance against lynching, pardoned Eugene Debs, and negotiated an end to World War I.

FDR is not overrated, he saved Amercia from Facism, Communist Revoultion, and Turned America into and Economic  superpower
TIL FDR was president in the 1880s
?

Learn how to infer. And also how to spell/use grammar/etc.

Maybe tell that to the person beginning a sentence with "TIL"?
83  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 2008; Clinton/Biden vs McCain/Huntsman on: May 17, 2015, 03:13:45 pm


337-201

Clinton does better than Obama in NC and MO, worse in IN and NE-02.  Huntsman instead of Palin helps McCain carry FL.
84  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Christian school principal makes racist comments at graduation, blames Satan on: May 17, 2015, 02:31:53 pm
This isn't a Christian school?

The woman had taught at a Christian school before, but browsing the school's website, I can't find anything that would indicate that this was a religious institution of any sort. Browsing the course list, which is available online, the only course with any religious content is a "world's religions" class.

The title of the thread should be changed, it's false and inflammatory.

Forgive me for assuming it was a Christian school when she chose to hold the graduation ceremony in a frickin' church.

If they held it in a stadium would you assume they were a sports team?
85  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Christian school principal makes racist comments at graduation, blames Satan on: May 17, 2015, 11:59:48 am
This isn't a Christian school?

The woman had taught at a Christian school before, but browsing the school's website, I can't find anything that would indicate that this was a religious institution of any sort. Browsing the course list, which is available online, the only course with any religious content is a "world's religions" class.

The title of the thread should be changed, it's false and inflammatory.

If you read it 'Christian School' then it would be, but it's clearly supposed to read; 'School Principal, who is Christian'

because atheists blame Satan for things all the time so it needed to be clarified?
86  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama's approval ratings are higher among wealthier voters. on: May 17, 2015, 07:48:56 am
On the economy there's not a huge difference,  but the distribution isn't that surprising - the more financially secure would have a bias to approval of whoever is president when it comes to the economy.  Same with taxes: you have people in the middle group who are wealthy enough that they have a tax burden but still be in a position to worry about basic expenses.  People draw from their own situation in their opinion of whoever is president.
87  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 1968 on: May 17, 2015, 12:23:57 am
I think the Vietnam War would have ended pretty much the same way, only sooner. Democrats would not have been as free to abdicate responsibility for the mess they created in Vietnam as easily under a Democratic president as they did under a Republican president.

We would not have had the bold foreign policy moves that Nixon made. A Democrat would never had been able to open relations with China the way Nixon did, so that would have been a detriment.

Other than that, I'm not sure there would have been a huge difference. Humphrey would have continued to pursue liberal policies that had failed, but Nixon didn't do much to turn these back anyway.

It's very hard to say.

You forgot one big thing; no Watergate. Surely that would have been a major plus?

The long term effects that has had on the national psyche continue to be very important to this day (distrust of organizations and institutions, political and non-political alike).
Not only that, but union membership would be stronger today and the income gap would not be as great.

How so?

One thing that happens if Humphrey wins, in 72 he gets serious primary challenges from McCarthy or McGovern on the one hand, and George Wallace on the other.  With a President Humphrey, segregation and busing would have been even more contentious than with Nixon.  Humphrey's war policies would have been different, no Operation Menu, but I don't know enough about it to say if the US would have gotten out any sooner.  Humphrey would not be eager for an unconditional retreat.
88  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Joe Republic Bureau of Funny Post Archival on: May 17, 2015, 12:05:58 am
Also I just can't imagine a metal band ever including an insert like this in one of their records:



or any metal lyricist willing to call out himself for sexist behavior like in this song. Because this is EXACTLY the type of stuff that I saw people on metal forums make fun of in their "haha let's all laugh at those PC idiots in hardcore" threads that I saw reported on some of my forums all the time...

5. That kind of direct, painfully earnest disclaimer for one's own irony generally functions as ass-covering for doing the irony poorly. Honestly, I'd be with the metalheads in making fun of this, only in my case it'd be for its form rather than its content.
6. It also reads like an excerpt from a Dr Bronner's soap bottle.
[...]
89  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the phrase "Taxation is theft"? on: May 16, 2015, 02:29:39 pm
States generally don't say to anyone who wants to that if they want to be left alone by them, not pay any tax and not receive any services that's ok.  The state lays a claim over all activity within its territory, and wherever on earth there are vacuums in state authority, a state and/or an aspirational state will try to take over through force.

Yes, I fail to see the problem, we all control property through force, the state are just better at it, because it's able to pool resources. But I promise you if you decides to dwell far from and without contact with other people the state will ignore you (like USSR ignored the old believers in the link above, until they interacted with other people). But if you interact with other people, who do have fealty to a state, the state will protect its citizens/subjects against external actors, which in this case will be you.

Quote
  If someone takes your money without permission and says it is the price to pay for being protected by them, is that not theft?  All societies require some pooling of resources, but taxation is something more than that.  It is the arbitrary nature of the taxation and the imbalance of power which gives taxation a character of theft. 

No taxation are nothing more than the pooling of resources, there's nothing arbitary about it. It's a effient way to get rid of the free rider problem. It's no more arbitary than the state punish rapist, thieves and murderers, it's the state extending force to ensure that all people pay the price it cost to live in a modern society, whether it's follow a code or conduct (like not raping or murdering people) or paying the money the state need to run the system.

Just because a individual are too weak to force the state to back down, doesn't make the state arbitary or wrong, it just make the state better at push it will through with force. Of course you can say that's unfair, but I also think it's unfair that Paris Hilton have a lot of money and I don't, but few libertarians support my right to take her money from her.

The Soviets only ignored these people because they didn't know they existed, because they were in hiding. They were in hiding because the state was not leaving them alone.  In an era when the state has so much information in its reach, it would be a remarkable feat.  Being in contact with someone should not in itself make the state treat you as an aggressor giving them authority to act against you.

Taxation is arbitrary because it is a decision about how much someone else will pay. The decision to spend a certain amount is arbitrary, the decision to tax people or activities at a certain rate are arbitrary. They are not objective measures of what is, in anything close to an absolute sense, necessary.  And it is far different from a pooling of resources which may be freely entered into, or left.  If taxation were based always on a true consensus of all individuals, it would be something very different.  But states enforce the ability to make people pay not just against their will, but often beyond their ability to pay.
However unfair you may find it that Paris Hilton has more money than you, it is different from Paris Hilton coming and taking something you own - and that is not merely a difference about the math involved.
90  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1968 General Election - Austrian Election Series on: May 16, 2015, 01:46:55 pm
Lol a plurality of the forum oppose female emancipation.

what is "female emancipation" anyway?
91  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the phrase "Taxation is theft"? on: May 16, 2015, 01:26:48 pm
States generally don't say to anyone who wants to that if they want to be left alone by them, not pay any tax and not receive any services that's ok.  The state lays a claim over all activity within its territory, and wherever on earth there are vacuums in state authority, a state and/or an aspirational state will try to take over through force.  If someone takes your money without permission and says it is the price to pay for being protected by them, is that not theft?  All societies require some pooling of resources, but taxation is something more than that.  It is the arbitrary nature of the taxation and the imbalance of power which gives taxation a character of theft. 
92  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Regional Governments / Re: MA: Simplify Abortion Laws Act (Final vote) on: May 16, 2015, 12:56:01 pm
Nay
93  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Regional Governments / Re: MA: Fix the Constitution Act on: May 16, 2015, 12:54:50 pm
A good point made about the fund being better as a matter of statute, and the "appropriate measures" so I will modify this again:

Quote
Section 6: The Assembly shall be responsible for passing an annual budget enumerating the expenditures of the Mideast government for the coming year.

The budget will go into effect on the first day of July in the year in which it is passed and will cease to be operative on the first day of July the following year unless otherwise provided for by law.

The Assembly may approve a budget greater than 100% of annual revenue received only upon a vote to do so by 2/3rds or greater of the voting members of the Assembly.

If the Mideast Assembly fails to pass an annual budget, the Assembly shall be required to suspend all other legislation in debate until the budget has been addressed.

We can vote on this whatever.   I  will just say that, it being somewhat controversial, it may make it harder to get the Constitution ratified if we remove this part of the Constitution.
94  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this image on: May 16, 2015, 12:40:16 pm
no idea what this is supposed to be.
95  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the phrase "Taxation is theft"? on: May 16, 2015, 12:36:41 pm
But if you want a argument, you can use in your mission as a modern Sisyphus, there's a very simple one. He can stop paying tax if he moves out of USA or if he decides to live completely of the grid. He choose to pay tax by using the services the state deliver like roads, internet, electricity grid. If you stopped using all these things, the state would no longer be able to find him.
The ability to hide from a thief hardly legitimates his thievery.

Well that's not hiding, it's not eating at the buffet.

Quote
Quote
He may not have made any written contract, but  when I eat at a buffet, I can't say afterward, that I haven't made any contract with to pay for the items I have eaten. I have used the service they deliver, and now they not only expect me to pay, they will force to make me pay (in this case the force the state delivers to them; the police).
A better analogy would be a buffet that you would charged for regardless of how much you ate, or whether you ate at all. In that case, you might as well eat from it, but that wouldn't mean you voluntarily agreed to pay for the buffet.

Well I don't pay tax to the American state, because I don't and haven't used the services it delivers. You on the other hand have used from it for years until you became adult. Yes you didn't have any choise, but your guardians did.

So you have already eaten from the buffet, and now you're calling it theft because you have to pay.
But even if I'd never eaten...I'd still have to pay. If I wanted to stop eating now, I'd still have to pay in the future.

I have never eaten at that buffet and I don't pay, you have eaten at it from the day you were born, and so have every native born American who pay tax.

Quote
It's as if I walked into a restaurant, and then head a gun pointed at me by a waiter who said, "You will have to pay for meals here for the rest of your life. You're free to eat elsewhere, but you'll still have to pay us regardless. If you ever bring your kids to eat here, it's the same deal for them for the rest of their lives."

Except you're free to leave the restaurant anytime you want, and stop paying. But you insist on keep eating at the restaurant, while saying you have no choice to keep eating.

Right now you use a pierce a infrastructure, which the American government have given you, and I don't talk the internet, but the grids which it use and the protection against theft (of the copper as example) the American state provide, while you complain that paying for both is theft.




In this example, even if you manage - perhaps through a lot of struggle - to get out of the restaurant you are in, you have to go to another restaurant.  You are actively prevented by the restaurants from just setting off on your own or with a group of others to start up your own buffet or pot luck.
96  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Do you have a landline phone? on: May 16, 2015, 12:39:31 am
Are there posters here already who did not grow up with one in the home?
97  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rubio: As president, I wouldn't pursue a 2-state solution for Israel/Palestine on: May 16, 2015, 12:32:21 am
He seems to be right that the conditions are not there for it. If we knew how to accomplish it, we should pursue it, but it's not clear to me what we could do that we haven't tried already.  He still says it is the ideal outcome, which distinguishes him from Huckabee and I think others as well.

The position of his on Israel that is really nuts is the amendment he tried to push through demanding that any nuclear deal must include Iran's full recognition of Israel. 
98  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Irresponsible, mooching Tea Partier insists he is not irresponsible or a moocher on: May 16, 2015, 12:20:05 am
You can't deny it's a confusing system. 

There was all this talk about the individual mandate as a way to get rid of the free rider problem.  Justice Roberts informed us this is a tax, and lots of people just pay it up or don't make enough to worry about it.  The real limit on free riders is the limited open enrollment period, which this fellow got caught by.  I hope he finds a program to help him. Maybe people can realize from this story if they haven't already that the rule that says you can't be denied coverage for a preexisting condition only applies at the beginning of the calendar year, so you need to be prepared.
99  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Boston Bomber sentenced to death on: May 16, 2015, 12:07:54 am
Also, one last thing Turk:  Jesus never condemned the Romans for their justice system which instituted the death penalty for common criminals.  Jesus said "Give unto Caesar that which is his"; he never criticized the Romans for executing robbers, thieves, etc., and they used the death penalty far more extensively than we do now.

I respect your viewpoint, but  I frankly do not see eye-to-eye with you on this.

Maybe he did criticize it directly - the Gospels were not written as an exhaustive account of everything Jesus ever said, but for things that would have relevance to their particular audiences.

The biggest way in which Jesus critiqued the death penalty was by being subjected to it, which should lead us to question systems of violence meeting out human ideas of justice.
100  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Any boll weevil/Bourbon Democrats here? on: May 15, 2015, 11:57:26 pm
I am a Bourbon Democrat for historical election series purposes.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 536


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines