This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Republican? Just scream and lie.

17071737576315

Comments

  • Ah, but is it worthwhile compared to the other things we could spend that money on?
    Yea, that's why I said "in a perfect world" I'm ok with shooting for less.... (but not shooting prisoners :-p)
  • Ah, but is it worthwhile compared to the other things we could spend that money on?
    Yea, that's why I said "in a perfect world" I'm ok with shooting for less.... (but not shooting prisoners :-p)
    You edited that in after I quoted it.
  • And thus, my overall point. Intelligent people can disagree on issues yet respect the debate. They can make logical arguments for their positions. Someone who "voted for McCain" but could articulate why succinctly and defend their position logically is fine. The problematic people are those who can not defend their positions.
  • Where's the disagreement here?
  • edited April 2011
    Rational people should not agree to disagree, by Aumann's agreement theorem.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • RymRym
    edited April 2011
    Rational people should not disagree.
    So someone can not be both rational and fully self-interested (or outright evil)? A dictator can easily provide wonderful and intelligent rational reasons for supporting a military state for his own personal comfort.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Rational people should not disagree.
    So someone can not be both rational and fully self-interested? A dictator can easily provide wonderful and intelligent rational reasons for supporting a military state for his own personal comfort.
    Yes, and any rational person should agree with the dictator that that military state is a great way to furnish the dictator's personal comfort.
  • Yes, and any rational person should agree with the dictator that that military state is a great way to furnish the dictator's personal comfort.
    So, the dictator intelligently looks out for his own self-interest. The rest of the world disagrees with his actions for humanitarian reasons (it is a brutal regime, but unlikely to fall). Both come from positions of unassailable logic. Intelligent people are thus disagreeing about whether or not a military dictatorship should be dismantled.
  • Yes, and any rational person should agree with the dictator that that military state is a great way to furnish the dictator's personal comfort.
    So, the dictator intelligently looks out for his own self-interest. The rest of the world disagrees with his actions for humanitarian reasons (it is a brutal regime, but unlikely to fall). Both come from positions of unassailable logic. Intelligent people are thus disagreeing about whether or not a military dictatorship should be dismantled.
    They're not disagreeing per se, because they're using different meanings for the word "should".
  • They're not disagreeing per se, because they're using different meanings for the word "should".
    Thus disagreeing on the meaning to be used.

    You're really grasping at straws with this.
  • They're not disagreeing per se, because they're using different meanings for the word "should".
    Thus disagreeing on the meaning to be used.
    Not really. Given any specific meaning for the word, they would agree.
    They should both agree that leaving the state alone is best for the dictator, and they should both agree that dismantling the state is best for the dictator's people.
  • edited April 2011
    I think that we should put most criminals on an island commune and give them farm and craft jobs, like in Norway.
    As for the death penalty, I cannot condone it, because our system is way too messed up now. There are too many instances where an innocent has been killed by this faulty system. I also think that there is always the possibility of redemption. Even if the murdering bomber is in a little room forever and can never get out, it gives them the opportunity to think and write and perhaps get better as a human being.
    Post edited by gomidog on
  • edited April 2011
    I would also note that you (Rym) at no point stated a position in the discussion you just asked questions and in fact when I challenged you to make a statement you ignored the question :-p

    You could say I could infer what your position was by the questions asked but we both know we are horrid devil's advocates for things.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • Florida wants to get rid of seperation of church and state. Guess which party is responsible?
    Actually, this is kinda vague. If it's just a voucher system to allow parents the option of sending kids to private schools that happen to be religious among a choice that includes secular private schools, then this is 50/50 IMHO. That said, the federal Constitution trumps all state Constitutions anyway, so this amendment would be shot down once it gets appealed to the federal level.
  • edited April 2011
    Florida wants to get rid of seperation of church and state. Guess which party is responsible?
    The Rent is too damn high Party?

    Also, bonus for A majority claiming it will end discrimination, though, even if they only mean against themselves.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • Florida wants to get rid of seperation of church and state. Guess which party is responsible?
    The Rent is too damn high Party?

    Also, bonus for A majority claiming it will end discrimination, though, even if they only mean against themselves.
    Assuming this does go through and go into effect, I'd love to see the reaction when someone requests a voucher to send their kid to an Islamic school.
  • edited April 2011
    Florida wants to get rid of seperation of church and state. Guess which party is responsible?
    Actually, this is kinda vague. If it's just a voucher system to allow parents the option of sending kids to private schools that happen to be religious among a choice that includes secular private schools, then this is 50/50 IMHO. That said, the federal Constitution trumps all state Constitutions anyway, so this amendment would be shot down once it gets appealed to the federal level.
    RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS SHOULD NOT GET STATE OR FEDERAL MONEY, PERIOD. Vouchers or otherwise. That is, of course, unless they want to start paying taxes.
    Post edited by GreatTeacherMacRoss on
  • edited April 2011
    That is, of course, unless they want to start paying taxes.
    Ah, that's kind of a bad idea. Tax free status comes with a number of conditions, and if you remove it, you essentially turn the catholic church(For just one example) into the most powerful lobby group in the US, and allow them to use their meeting halls to do whatever the fuck they like, including run political rallies. They would no longer have to publically disclose how they spend their money, nor would they have any restraints regarding how they spent it. They would be able to field, campaign for, support, and likely have elected their own chosen candidates. Essentially, you turn them into corporations, and much like corporations, they'll game the tax laws to pay as little tax as possible. In doing so, basically, you take away a little of their cash, but hand them a massive amount of power.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • RymRym
    edited April 2011
    Tax free status comes with a number of conditions, and if you remove it, you essentially turn the catholic church(For just one example) into the most powerful lobby group in the US, and allow them to use their meeting halls to do whatever the fuck they like, including run political rallies.
    Yes. They also now have to pay taxes just like any other organization, and no longer receive special consideration or protection as they do now. They might be too big to get away with not reporting: recall that Google went public partly because it was going to be forced to report regardless.

    I think it would be a net gain for society. The Catholic church's base is increasingly poor Hispanic and African communities rather than the rich old white people they're used to milking. As an organization, they're already a lame duck in the West.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • That is, of course, unless they want to start paying taxes.
    Ah, that's kind of a bad idea. Tax free status comes with a number of conditions, and if you remove it, you essentially turn the catholic church(For just one example) into the most powerful lobby group in the US, and allow them to use their meeting halls to do whatever the fuck they like, including run political rallies. Essentially, you turn them into corporations, and much like corporations, they'll game the tax laws to pay as little tax as possible. In doing so, basically, you take away a little of their cash, but hand them a massive amount of power.
    So because the Churches would abuse these mechanisms we shouldn't allow them access to them. Would this work with Corporations? "Look we'll give you what you want, you don't have to pay taxes at all any more. In exchange you lose the ability to lobby the government for anything."

    I guess we'd also lose the ability regulate them as well however.

    Hmmmm, is there an idea here somewhere?
  • Florida wants to get rid of seperation of church and state. Guess which party is responsible?
    Actually, this is kinda vague. If it's just a voucher system to allow parents the option of sending kids to private schools that happen to be religious among a choice that includes secular private schools, then this is 50/50 IMHO. That said, the federal Constitution trumps all state Constitutions anyway, so this amendment would be shot down once it gets appealed to the federal level.
    RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS SHOULD NOT GET STATE OR FEDERAL MONEY, PERIOD. Vouchers or otherwise. That is, of course, unless they want to start paying taxes.
    First, religious organizations are registered non-profits, so they should be treated just like any other non-profit. I'm not sure if they get special treatment relative to other non-profits though -- if so, they shouldn't and be treated like everyone else.

    Second, I'm not advocating giving government money directly to religious organizations. It's more along the lines of an individual gets government money, they should be allowed to use that money as they see fit with reasonable limitations. For example, a voucher that goes towards your kid attending any accredited private school of your choice should allow you to use that voucher to send your kid to a religious private school, provided it has suitable accreditation. Given how many Catholic schools, for example, are also academically excellent outside of whatever religious instruction they provide, I don't see a problem with this. Neither do many non-Catholics who send their kids to Catholic schools for better educations. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't any difference between this scenario and a retiree donating a few bucks from his/her social security check every week into a church's offering plate.

    I do agree that money probably should not directly go from the government to a religious organization unless that money comes with serious stipulations on its use. For example, if a soup kitchen at St. Joe's Church is to be allowed to get government money to help fund its operations, then there must be no religious proselytizing going on in said soup kitchen. Granted, these stipulations may be difficult to enforce -- in which case it may be better to continue with a ban on directly giving money to religious organizations.
  • Hmmmm, is there an idea here somewhere?
    No. It would be a good idea if everything were funded solely from the federal level. But making businesses tax-exempt would destroy every town in America. City governments get their operating money from businesses, not residents. In fact, adding residents costs cities more than it provides in revenue. Residential neighborhoods are sink-holes buoyed by corporations.

  • I think it would be a net gain for society. The Catholic church's base is increasingly poor Hispanic and African communities rather than the rich old white people they're used to milking. As an organization, they're already a lame duck in the West.
    Last I checked, the Kennedys were still rich and white and not necessarily old.
  • I tell you, every so often O'Reilly will surprise me. It sucks that Glen Beck and other Fox News people have conditioned me to look almost fondly on him at times. I have to check myself and remember all the bad things he has said, but it's like they say, "any good done is good." If a bully does something nice, it is still niceness that got done. If a Fox news talking head says something rational and truthful, it is "fair and balanced" for once.
  • If it turns out Obama isn't a US citizen and has been fooling us all this time, that would be hilarious.
  • If it turns out Obama isn't a US citizen and has been fooling us all this time, that would be hilarious.
    That would set a bad president.
  • Double points for the pun.
Sign In or Register to comment.