Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 17, 2015, 10:23:16 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1080
1  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Muslims on refugee boat throw Christians overboard for being non-Muslims on: Today at 07:47:29 pm
I don’t believe that the problems of Mexico are the problems of America, and therefore, we as a nation have no stake in his problems.
Genesis 4:9b:  “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: US uninsured rate continues to plummet, youth signing up most on: Today at 07:24:01 pm
On balance, I've seen far more tax penalties and bad news than happy 1095-A recipients.

Yeah, the people who chose to forgo insurance (or somehow despite all the hype, weren't aware of it) were certainly unhappy come tax time.  (I did some part time work at a tax prep place a friend of mine runs this year, so my knowledge here is first hand.)  On the other hand, of those who did get insurance thru an exchange, how happy they were was due primarily to how good their insurance company was.  Those who picked the absolutely cheapest option tended to be unhappy, but that had nothing to do with the subsidies they got but rather getting screwed over out of network considerations, especially when providers treating them at an in-network facility were out of network.  That's something that definitely needs fixing in insurance, and not just for Obamacare insurance.
3  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Muslims on refugee boat throw Christians overboard for being non-Muslims on: Today at 01:50:04 pm
Is there not?  Well, I guess, there is some difference between desperate people in tiny boats fighting and premediated policies thought up in comfy offices by clean-shaved white men. The latter are also substantially more murderous.

No, there isn't. These people threw people overboard based on their religious beliefs. Stop deflecting and making excuses.

At a distance, it looks like the overloaded boat ran into problems and a majority tried to save itself by throwing a minority under the bus boat.  While not an excuse for their behavior, it does explain it without trying to cast blame upon a particular group irrespective of the circumstances.  It wasn't that Islam calls for drowning Christians and unfortunately I wouldn't be surprised if the situation had been the reverse if there had been only a few Muslims on a distressed boat mainly stuffed with Christians for this modern day version of the Middle Passage.
4  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev be put to death for the Boston Massacre? on: Today at 12:00:35 am
If anyone should receive the death penalty, he should. That said, I don't care much which sentence he receives.

Well, a case could be made that a terrorist who kills 100 people should be put to death, but a terrorist who kills "only" 3 people is little different than a non-terrorist who shoots 3 people.
Agreed.  Indeed, the number who died is relevant to me. Killing one with calculated premeditation would be sufficient grounds in my view if we have the death penalty as an option.
5  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of threesomes on: April 16, 2015, 05:35:58 pm
If it were somehow possible to duplicate either myself or my girlfriend, FP.  Otherwise, neutral.

So when people tell you to go [inks] yourself, do you answer "I wish"? Tongue

A threesome need not be one in which all three possible pairings are indulged.  But I'd love to give my girlfriend a four handed massage or to receive one in return.
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / MOVED: How much backlash would this Republican comment get? on: April 16, 2015, 05:19:02 pm
This topic has been moved to Election What-ifs?.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=211165.0
7  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of threesomes on: April 16, 2015, 05:04:05 pm
If it were somehow possible to duplicate either myself or my girlfriend, FP.  Otherwise, neutral.
8  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? on: April 16, 2015, 04:45:38 pm
If anything, Brest-Litovsk was too ambitious as it tied down Central Powers troops in occupations that could have been more profitably used on the Western front.
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Harry Reid now gives zero f[inks], starts talking mad smack about everybody on: April 16, 2015, 04:33:30 pm
I have it on good authority that Harry Reid beats his wife. Glad he's leaving the Senate. No place for a Hezbollah donor like Reid.

I have it on good authority that Harry Reid has adopted 30 orphans, personally volunteered for the last 30 years at a DC homeless shelter, and punched John Boehner in the face.



Judging by what happened to his face, it looks Reid took the worst of that exchange with Boehner.
10  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gay-rights Republicans slam Western Conservative Summit over disinvite on: April 16, 2015, 04:31:47 pm
While it should be no surprise that there are LGBT people who align with the Republicans on non-LGBT issues, it should be blindingly obvious that for the social conservatives, working with gays on other issues will always be a civil union of convenience.
11  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal? on: April 15, 2015, 02:46:39 pm
It's "an establishment of religion" not "the establishment of religion".  The clause is using establishment in the sense of a particular organisation. In 18th century English the reference to a particular established church would've been more obvious.
12  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev be put to death for the Boston Massacre? on: April 14, 2015, 11:35:03 pm
If anyone should receive the death penalty, he should. That said, I don't care much which sentence he receives.
13  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal? on: April 14, 2015, 11:31:31 pm
The national motto has long been void of any religious meaning or significance, so to say that it amounts to a state endorsement of religion is quite laughable IMO.   

Its the same reason that I'm perfectly okay with prayer at public events (such as high school football games) because, in contexts like that, there's nothing even remotely religious about what's going on. 
I'm not comfortable about such prayers, but because I consider them irreverent nonsense rather than because they are unconstitutional.
14  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal? on: April 14, 2015, 07:08:37 pm
Antonio, I hear what you're saying, but this is America we're talking about, not France.  Tongue

Thank God! Wink
15  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Is Biblical Eschatological Prophecy Fractal By Design? on: April 13, 2015, 11:47:02 pm
Daniel 8-12 fit too well as Maccabean propaganda wrapped around the original Aramaic core of Daniel 2-7 to discount that was the reason it was written. Could there be hidden prophecy in the propaganda? Yes, but that could be true of many other writings as well.

Incidentally, in the traditional interpretation, Persia is North, not South, with Egypt being the South.
16  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal? on: April 13, 2015, 08:14:24 pm
Surely it doesn't break the establishment clause; because it just refers to a generic 'God' which could be interpreted through many theologal or spiritual lenses rather than the Christian God?

So what? "God" is an inherently religious concept. Asserting that the nation as a whole "trusts in God" means endorsing this concept, and therefore establishing, if only in a vague sense, a form of religion.

But not a specific religion, let alone a denomination, which was the entire point of the Establishment Clause.  Talking about God is in no way specific to a religion and isn't much different from using the word "fate."  It might have connotations, and I have no doubt it makes some uncomfortable, but it's simply not unConstitutional.

That's nonsensical. So all it takes not to violate the Establishment Clause is to use religious vocabulary that can be applied to more than one religion? Vagueness shouldn't be an excuse to impose blatantly religious beliefs on the entire country.
The Bill of Rights never was intended to impose the religion of Secularism on the entire country.
17  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Is Biblical Eschatological Prophecy Fractal By Design? on: April 13, 2015, 07:05:05 am
Daniel 11 is Maccabean propaganda  dressed up as prophecy. It's wonderfully accurate until the time of the revolt and then utterly inaccurate afterward. I don't consider anything outside the Aramaic portions of Daniel as having genuine prophetic value, and my interpretation of those is not nearly so western-centric as is usual.
18  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Israel-Palestine Conflict on: April 13, 2015, 01:41:29 am
I don't think it is solvable, at least not without another major war between Israel and its neighbors that forces Israel to consider changing its current course.  I just don't see such a war happening anytime soon.  Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all have bigger worries than preparing for a potential war with the Zionist Crusaders Estreladers. It's not that anyone on any side is happy with the current situation, but no one has any incentive to do anything different than what they are doing now unilaterally, and no side trusts the other enough to try something jointly, even if potentially it would be acceptable to all.
19  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Was entering WWII a mistake? on: April 13, 2015, 01:08:52 am
The intriguing thing is what might have happened had Germany not declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor.  While I don't think we'd have cut off the supplies we were sending Winnie and Iosef, it's doubtful we'd have declared war ourselves.  Rather than fight a two-front war, we'd have concentrated on the Pacific, for all the good that would have done us.  Logistics and the construction of new carriers would have kept us to roughly the same pace of advance. Maybe we'd have sent more troops to the Burma theatre, but that's about it.
20  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Would you have volunteered to fight in the American Civil War? on: April 13, 2015, 12:56:25 am
I had two great grandfather's who fought in that war, one on each side (the one who fought on the Union side taking two bullets, which he carried to his grave some 70 years later). Obviously where I lived would have a big impact, but I would like to believe that if I lived in the South, I would have had enough good conscience, and character, to have fled and taken up arms against it. Its enterprise and objects were truly evil in every respect.
If you truly had felt that strongly about slavery, you probably would have left the South well before the war.
21  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Would you have volunteered to fight in the American Civil War? on: April 13, 2015, 12:54:41 am
1....preferably artillery or intelligence.

Grant turned a number of the heavy artillery regiments defending Washington into infantry because he needed the latter more than the former.  It proved quite a shock to those who thought they'd found a relatively safe berth to serve in.
22  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What should the previous poster change their username to? on: April 12, 2015, 10:40:48 pm
Agent 86
23  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal? on: April 12, 2015, 06:33:36 am
Teddy's concern wasn't that the phrase was unconstitutional, but that using it on money was sacrilegious.

The Wikipedia article on the phrase pretty well describes the Constitutional controversy and it's treatment by the courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas approves textbooks with Moses as Founding Father on: April 11, 2015, 04:05:29 pm
I'm not opposed to discussing America's Judeo-Christian roots, but it means nothing if you ignore the effect of the Enlightenment as well. 

Judeo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

First became common as a PC term in the 1940s to explicitly include Judaism as part of the tapestry of American faiths.  Since the 1990s has tended to be used as a dog whistle to exclude other faiths, especially Islam. In a historical context, I have no problem with that term as while there were some Jewish congregations in the US from the beginning.
25  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Opinion of this quote on: April 11, 2015, 11:52:10 am
Literal Freedom Quote. In America, it is much easier to switch religions or convert than it is close to anywhere else in the world (maybe anywhere else); it's a much freer religious atmosphere. It's true that most few people outside the US have the attitude of the person in the original quote, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Ostracism, bullying, threats, pressure to conform with family, friends, and your community, it's not real! This is America! People sometimes wake up Catholic, fall asleep Buddhist, and still raise their kids to be Jewish. There are also no cats, and the streets are filled with cheese.

Swiss cheese judging by the potholes.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1080


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines