Food For Thought. - Politics

Community forum for discussions completely unrelated to MediaMonkey.

Moderator: Gurus

rovingcowboy
Posts: 14163
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:57 am
Location: (Texas)
Contact:

Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by rovingcowboy »

i got this in the email and thought what a great way of saying it

Here is a crude but effective way to look at the debt ceiling ---



Suppose you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your home, and you have sewage up to your ceilings.
What do you think you should do……raise the ceilings, or pump out the shi......t ????? :o

Your choice. Vote: November 6, 2012
:lol:
roving cowboy / keith hall. My skins http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewto ... =9&t=16724 for some help check on Monkey's helpful messages at http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewto ... 4008#44008 MY SYSTEMS.1.Jukebox WinXp pro sp 3 version 3.5 gigabyte mb. 281 GHz amd athlon x2 240 built by me.) 2.WinXP pro sp3, vers 2.5.5 and vers 3.5 backup storage, shuttle 32a mb,734 MHz amd athlon put together by me.) 3.Dell demension, winxp pro sp3, mm3.5 spare jukebox.) 4.WinXp pro sp3, vers 3.5, dad's computer bought from computer store. )5. Samsung Galaxy A51 5G Android ) 6. amd a8-5600 apu 3.60ghz mm version 4 windows 7 pro bought from computer store.
tinana
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:52 pm
Location: new orleans los angeles

Re: Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by tinana »

Yes!!! Omg, I agree, please do pump out the sh*t!!! Vote out the science deniers, the flat-earthers, the birthers, the anti-evolutionists, the christian taliban, the right wing racists who think the president of the u.s. is Kenyan, the climate change deniers, the hate-filled, intolerant, obnoxious...in other words, the Republicans :D :lol:
Image
MM Gold/Lifetime member
rovingcowboy
Posts: 14163
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:57 am
Location: (Texas)
Contact:

Re: Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by rovingcowboy »

i'm on the other way of thinking there.

vote out all the ones that want to tax me more and put the money in their pockets as wealth redistrobution i think they
got enough of my money.
most of them put it in off shore accounts that don't pay tax on it and the us gov. can't get near it. so i say vote out all the democrates. maybe we can do both and start over? :wink:
roving cowboy / keith hall. My skins http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewto ... =9&t=16724 for some help check on Monkey's helpful messages at http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewto ... 4008#44008 MY SYSTEMS.1.Jukebox WinXp pro sp 3 version 3.5 gigabyte mb. 281 GHz amd athlon x2 240 built by me.) 2.WinXP pro sp3, vers 2.5.5 and vers 3.5 backup storage, shuttle 32a mb,734 MHz amd athlon put together by me.) 3.Dell demension, winxp pro sp3, mm3.5 spare jukebox.) 4.WinXp pro sp3, vers 3.5, dad's computer bought from computer store. )5. Samsung Galaxy A51 5G Android ) 6. amd a8-5600 apu 3.60ghz mm version 4 windows 7 pro bought from computer store.
rrfpacker
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by rrfpacker »

tinana wrote:Yes!!! Omg, I agree, please do pump out the sh*t!!! Vote out the science deniers, the flat-earthers, the birthers, the anti-evolutionists, the christian taliban, the right wing racists who think the president of the u.s. is Kenyan, the climate change deniers, the hate-filled, intolerant, obnoxious...in other words, the Republicans :D :lol:

Wow, tinana, you have a lot of anger...typical of a liberal, along with the name calling. Please explain what you mean by everything in your list and let's have a thoughtful, intelligient discussion. Since most of your rant has been proven to be at worst false (a lie) and at best a bending of the truth, I can't wait.
meatlump
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:47 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, US

Re: Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by meatlump »

I normally pass over anything about politics unless I'm on a political site; they're usually just people yelling at each other. However, seeing it was from rovingcowboy I figured I'd take a gander.

Then I see that overused, false analogy about the shit in the basement. The basement is a place where you expect to have no shit at all, so any shit is a serious problem (unless you keep real monkeys there, then it's to be expected but there are better ways to show your devotion to MM). So, it's obvious that you should pump out the shit.

However, the debt ceiling is completely different. Raising the debt ceiling has been a routine matter for decades, it's not some Democratic idea. It's been done without serious argument many, many times. Maybe we SHOULD have a serious discussion about the long term rate of debt growth and how to alter it, but you don't do that by taking a routine matter and politicizing it. Now we've lowered our credit rating with the world, not because we defaulted on any obligations, but because we showed that we care more about political wrangling than about showing our strength and working together on serious matters.

>> Yes!!! Omg, I agree, please do pump out the sh*t!!! Vote out the science deniers, the flat-earthers, the birthers, the anti-evolutionists, the christian taliban, the right
>> wing racists who think the president of the u.s. is Kenyan, the climate change deniers, the hate-filled, intolerant, obnoxious...in other words, the Republicans :D :lol:
>> - tinana

These words made me chuckle, and agree, until I got to the end and saw that tinana was using those words to describe all of the Republicans. There are certainly those who deny science and therefore raise questions about what they do base their decisions on, but it is not the entire party. Even after chasing out pretty much all of the moderates. There is no problem with having faith, in whatever religion one believes in, but that faith is not a sound basis for solving the serious problems of government. Logic and reason must be the guiding principles. We tried this and it worked, lets do it more. We tried this other thing and it didn't work, lets try something else.

>> vote out all the ones that want to tax me more and put the money in their pockets as wealth redistrobution i think they got enough of my money.
>> most of them put it in off shore accounts that don't pay tax on it and the us gov. can't get near it. so i say vote out all the democrates. maybe
>> we can do both and start over? :wink:
>> - rovingcowboy

Maybe you should be paying more in taxes. At this point, I'm happy to still have a job and wouldn't mind paying more in taxes to help those who are less fortunate. I benefited before when I got laid off. We are at a time when taxes are historically low, especially for the top earners. We also have many loopholes allowing some individuals and corporations to pay ridiculously low taxes. This is unfair to other people and companies that don't benefit.

We should also vote out those who are beholden to lobbyists, which I am starting to think is everyone. The problem, where do we find the better people to replace them? Any ideas cowboy?

>> Wow, tinana, you have a lot of anger...typical of a liberal, along with the name calling. Please explain what you mean by everything in your list and
>> let's have a thoughtful, intelligient discussion. Since most of your rant has been proven to be at worst false (a lie) and at best a bending of the truth,
>> I can't wait.
>> - rrfpacker

Wow, rrfpacker, you have a lot of hypocrisy...typical of a troll, along with the name calling (liar).
* "you have a lot of anger" - as hominem, you're angry so you're probably emotional and not reasonable
* "typical of a liberal" - same generalization made by tinana
* "along with the name calling" - do you have a problem with just "christian taliban" and "right wing racists"? If so, I agree with you. they are not proper descriptions for a useful dialog, but more for an opinion piece with space to explain what is meant and exactly who you are painting with that brush, and why.
* "explain ... everything in your list" - Really? you don't understand ANY of it? Try googling a few of the terms, some should be self-explanatory (flat-earthers, anti-evolutionists), others clear to anyone who has been following politics in the past few years (birthers, climate change deniers)
* "lets have a thoughtful, intelligent discussion" - Sounds great! (even if you did have a typo in intelligent)
* "most of" - You cleverly make it difficult to argue against you by not clearly defining your point. Keep it vague and we can't contradict you, we have to argue all parts, not just the most that you mention.
* "your rant" - See, by calling it a rant instead of an argument, I don't have to take it seriously. I know it's a rant because you're angry (see above).
* "has been proven" - When, where? you can't just state that something has been proven, you actually have to prove it. It's one of those science ideas. If you are referring to something being proven elsewhere by others you need to state where and by whom so that we can study their argument and accept it or counter it.
* "at worst false (a lie), and at best a bending of the truth" - You're a liar but I'm not going to say where you lied and where you exaggerated, go ahead and defend yourself on everything.
* "I can't wait" - to see if you actually respond to this simple post calling you an angry liar who is wrong about most of what you say. I know from experience that most people can't respond to this kind of attack because it make no sense. Therefore, I win. You see, it's not actually about thoughtful, intelligent discussions, but about me winning in the thread war. I'll never change any of my opinions and you're too stupid to change yours so there is no point in actually having a thoughtful, intelligent discussion.

rrfpacker - If you change your mind and actually want to engage in thoughtful discussion, I'd welcome it.
tinana - We probably agree on a lot of issues, so if we can back away from the amusing hyperbole, lets go.
rovingcowboy - We probably disagree on many things, and where we do agree, probably disagree on details and degree. So, since you seem different from me and thoughtful and intelligent, please engage further if you are interested. Discussion with you would likely be the most fruitful since we have differences to discuss.

phil g aka meatlump
rovingcowboy
Posts: 14163
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:57 am
Location: (Texas)
Contact:

Re: Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by rovingcowboy »

ha hhaa aah aah :lol: that took awhile to type up there meatlump. :D

yep i just posted it and put politics on it incase people didn't want to open the topic because of what other forums did
in that subject area.

but i really have a hard time finding anyone to replace them except maybe a few independant people i'm still going to vote
for the ones that don't want my tax money as i don't want to make them richer. most of which i have to vote for is republicans because the democrats are too chicken to try and run in my area,( heavy republican area) that is HEAVY area.
i am what i can call one of those independants i vote for the right guy for the job if there is any running,
and if there is a dual political party race, but here there were only 4 or 7 dual races last time out of 60 for the country and state and county. not many and just a few independants the rest was all republicans. but i think a few will be contested this time as some got thrown in jail. :lol: :lol:
roving cowboy / keith hall. My skins http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewto ... =9&t=16724 for some help check on Monkey's helpful messages at http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewto ... 4008#44008 MY SYSTEMS.1.Jukebox WinXp pro sp 3 version 3.5 gigabyte mb. 281 GHz amd athlon x2 240 built by me.) 2.WinXP pro sp3, vers 2.5.5 and vers 3.5 backup storage, shuttle 32a mb,734 MHz amd athlon put together by me.) 3.Dell demension, winxp pro sp3, mm3.5 spare jukebox.) 4.WinXp pro sp3, vers 3.5, dad's computer bought from computer store. )5. Samsung Galaxy A51 5G Android ) 6. amd a8-5600 apu 3.60ghz mm version 4 windows 7 pro bought from computer store.
rrfpacker
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by rrfpacker »

Meatlump,

I'll do my best to respond.

Just because the debt ceiling has been raised for many years without debate and without any political pressure doesn't mean that raising it shouldn't be opposed and at least discussed. The only reason to raise it is to spend more money, which is exactly what happened. Congress and the president spent money this country doesn't have. Finally there is a group of people in Congress who believe spending should be curtailed and even cut and they are vilified. This country does not have the money and the spending needs to be stopped.

Maybe I should pay more taxes? Why? Who are you or anyone else to tell me what to do with MY money. I have taken many risks and worked hard to be successful and the government thinks they know better how to spend my money than I do? They think it's ok to take food out of my children's mouths, clothes off my children's bodies and give it to someone else? That's called stealing. There are plenty of private organizations who collect charity dollars to take care of those in need, we don't need an inefficient government doing it. And if you or others want to pay more in taxes noone is stopping you. I'm sure if you sent the government more it would keep it. By they way, there aren't any loopholes in the tax code, it is the law. It's not unlawful or wrong to use the tax code the way it is written is it? How about those who don't pay any federal taxes and get a refund? Is that a loophole? or is it only a loophole when someone "rich" uses the tax code the way it's written?

Wow, rrfpacker, you have a lot of hypocrisy...typical of a troll, along with the name calling (liar).
I didn't call anyone a liar, I said some of the things written were false, which I believe they are.

* "you have a lot of anger" - as hominem, you're angry so you're probably emotional and not reasonable
Yes I am angry and emotional. I'm angry that people are trying to fundementally change this country.

* "typical of a liberal" - same generalization made by tinana
Yes, I did generalize, in a sense. Typical liberals, at least those that I have met, are exactly how she describes Republicans; racist, intolerant, and name callers and they ARE typical liberals. If the shoe doesn't fit, it doesn't.

* "along with the name calling" - do you have a problem with just "christian taliban" and "right wing racists"? If so, I agree with you. they are not proper descriptions for a useful dialog, but more for an opinion piece with space to explain what is meant and exactly who you are painting with that brush, and why.
Yes, I had a problem with Christian taliban and right wing racists as those are usually fall back phrases for those who don't have a real argument and can't back their statements with facts. I'm not sure how there can be a Christian taliban, can you? It's an oxymoron. Taliban by definition is a Muslim from Afghanistan, therefore cannot be a Christian. And why am I a racist if I oppose this president and think he running the country into the ground? Just because? My goodness the man is more white than he is black. Right wing racists? She needs to look at history a little closer. Without the right wing racists in the 60s the precious Civil Rights act would have never passed. Do you know more Democrats voted against it than Republicans? That Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and Democrats fought a war to keep slavery? Why weren't black people who opposed Reagan or Bush called racist?

* "explain ... everything in your list" - Really? you don't understand ANY of it? Try googling a few of the terms, some should be self-explanatory (flat-earthers, anti-evolutionists), others clear to anyone who has been following politics in the past few years (birthers, climate change deniers)
Yes, I wanted her to explain everything to see if she really could or if it was part of the template. If I don't believe that man has caused global warming (which I don't) then I'm a science denier, flat earther, etc.? How arrogant does someone have to be be believe that we know the exact tempurature the earch should be? Don't forget the greatest scientists in the world use to think the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Why should we think scientists have it right concering the earth's tempurature? Climategate showed that scientists have been inputting false data into models to get a desired result, a result that got them more funding. That isn't really science, that's propaganda. Do you remember that just a short 30 years ago the big issue was global cooling? And when that didn't work out those who want to profit from every "crisis" had to change their story? Are we really to believe that this earth doesn't go through normal cooling and warming (there is this great big fire ball out there) and that even a hundred years of either is that big a deal based on the millions and billions of years the earth has supposedly been here? I just can't make that work. Evolution has not been proven to be true, as hard as liberals try. But that is a discussion unto itself.


* "lets have a thoughtful, intelligent discussion" - Sounds great! (even if you did have a typo in intelligent)
Yikes, Monkey doesn't have spell check.

* "most of" - You cleverly make it difficult to argue against you by not clearly defining your point. Keep it vague and we can't contradict you, we have to argue all parts, not just the most that you mention.
Point taken. I wasn't trying to have a point other than ask her to expand on her post as I thought it was full of generalizations. Have I fixed that?

* "your rant" - See, by calling it a rant instead of an argument, I don't have to take it seriously. I know it's a rant because you're angry (see above).
Can't argue this one.

* "has been proven" - When, where? you can't just state that something has been proven, you actually have to prove it. It's one of those science ideas. If you are referring to something being proven elsewhere by others you need to state where and by whom so that we can study their argument and accept it or counter it.
Since I think she was talking mostly about climate change and the president, I think I answered these.

* "at worst false (a lie), and at best a bending of the truth" - You're a liar but I'm not going to say where you lied and where you exaggerated, go ahead and defend yourself on everything.
You'll have to help me out on this one, I'm not sure where I could have lied.

* "I can't wait" - to see if you actually respond to this simple post calling you an angry liar who is wrong about most of what you say. I know from experience that most people can't respond to this kind of attack because it make no sense. Therefore, I win. You see, it's not actually about thoughtful, intelligent discussions, but about me winning in the thread war. I'll never change any of my opinions and you're too stupid to change yours so there is no point in actually having a thoughtful, intelligent discussion.
The waiting is over. And while this was fun, I believe it will only lead to more "he said, he said" as I will not be swayed and neither will you. I don't believe man has created global warming, I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe that because I oppose the ideas of someone who is partially black (who hasn't proved he was born in America) makes me a racist. I believe America is the greatest country the world has ever seen, founded on Christian principles, I believe success should be rewarded, not punished, and I believe slackers should not be given what they haven't earned. I believe in the individual and I believe government should be minimal and it should stop intruding.

I'll leave you with these quotes from Thomas Jefferson;
I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776


rrfpacker - If you change your mind and actually want to engage in thoughtful discussion, I'd welcome it.
You're welcome.
Dreadlau
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:49 am

Re: Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by Dreadlau »

rrfpacker wrote:If I don't believe that man has caused global warming (which I don't) then I'm a science denier, flat earther, etc.? How arrogant does someone have to be be believe that we know the exact tempurature the earch should be? Don't forget the greatest scientists in the world use to think the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Why should we think scientists have it right concering the earth's tempurature? Climategate showed that scientists have been inputting false data into models to get a desired result, a result that got them more funding. That isn't really science, that's propaganda. Do you remember that just a short 30 years ago the big issue was global cooling? And when that didn't work out those who want to profit from every "crisis" had to change their story? Are we really to believe that this earth doesn't go through normal cooling and warming (there is this great big fire ball out there) and that even a hundred years of either is that big a deal based on the millions and billions of years the earth has supposedly been here? I just can't make that work. Evolution has not been proven to be true, as hard as liberals try. But that is a discussion unto itself.
Wow. Just... wow. Are you for real?
Seven Ultimate X64 SP1 / Sansa Clip 2go (with RockBox)
meatlump
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:47 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, US

Re: Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by meatlump »

rovingcowboy wrote:ha hhaa aah aah :lol: that took awhile to type up there meatlump. :D
Yeah, but it was fun.

It is hard finding good people to vote for. Is it even possible for people to remain good while advancing through our political system to the point where they can run for office? (above local, entry-level positions)

I'm mostly an independent moderate who's upset with both parties but not in agreement with the deregulation ideas of the libertarians.

Wonder if we'd do better with a multitude of parties forming coalitions. Don't really understand how those systems work though so no idea if one could ever work here. Anybody know where I could learn more about them?
meatlump

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count and those who can't.
meatlump
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:47 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, US

Re: Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by meatlump »

Before I jump in, let me tie this in to MM (something that we can all agree on) by stating that for composing this evening's diatribe I've chose a playlist of Southern rock, categorized as "Rock; Southern Rock; Whatever else applies".

Wow! this is FUN!
I do apologize for the confusing nature of my responses. I saw in my final read that I had jumped between speaking in my own voice and in rrfpacker's. Had I had any idea of how much effort rrfpacker was going to put into replying I would have spent the time to clear it up. I am sorry for the confusion, but wasn't sure if anyone would even read it so forwent the effort.

Rrfpacker,

>> I'll do my best to respond.
Good job; made me laugh, made me cry, made me listen to great music and type. :D

>> >> rrfpacker - If you change your mind and actually want to engage in thoughtful discussion, I'd welcome it.
>> You're welcome.
Had to put this up at the top. Scanned the reply before reading it and saw this after seeing how much you'd written. Made me really look forward to reading and had me LUIMCFSM (laughing uproariously in my chair for several minutes).


The debt ceiling had to be raised. There should be discussion about our financial situation. However, when you have no money in the bank, the mortgage is due, the car insurance is due, and the kids have no lunch money you don't discuss cutting spending, you ask to raise the limit on the credit cards. Then you can discuss getting out of the mess. But that is more extreme than the routine raising of the debt ceiling is. And Democrats have also held up raises when they were the minority party, but instead of the 11th hour this year we seemed to go to 11:47pm, a little too close in my eyes.
More info: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/de ... -the-ages/


>> what to do with MY money. I have taken many risks and worked hard to be successful and the government thinks
>> they know better how to spend my money than I do? They think it's ok to take food out of my children's mouths,
>> clothes off my children's bodies and give it to someone else? That's called stealing.
You seem to be saying that ANY tax is stealing. Perhaps this isn't what you meant. I suspect we both agree that the federal government is necessary and must have tax income to operate and that what we disagree on is what it should do and not do, and what that should cost. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

>> By they way, there aren't any loopholes in the tax code, it is the law.
No one said that loopholes are illegal, then they'd just be illegal acts. Merriam-webster.com says a loophole is "an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded". After reading that definition I must say that many of the loopholes I've read about are not in fact loopholes, many are not evading the intent, but fulfilling the intent. Loopholes are unintended ways of getting around something. There are plenty of both being utilized to lower taxes, both by corporations and individuals. They are a problem.

GE made $5.1 billion profit in US, paid $0 taxes, claimed $3.2 billion benefit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/busin ... wanted=all


>> I didn't call anyone a liar, I said some of the things written were false, which I believe they are.
>> >> "most of your rant has been proven to be at worst false (a lie)"
While you did not say "you are a liar" you said that some of what he/she said was a lie. The logical inference is that he/she is a liar.


>> >> * "you have a lot of anger" - as hominem, you're angry so you're probably emotional and not reasonable
>> Yes I am angry and emotional. I'm angry that people are trying to fundementally change this country.
TYPO: as hominem --> ad hominem
Sorry, this was one of those times I was writing in rrfpacker's voice, saying what I thought the first thing meant. I'm saying that rrfpacker says tinana is angry (diminishing his/her argument), not that rrfpacker is angry.


>> Typical liberals, at least those that I have met ... and they ARE typical liberals.
Can we please try to avoid over-generalizing? That's what got us into this, your response to tinana's generalization.
How do you know that they are typical liberals. What is your sample size? ;)


>> Yes, I had a problem with Christian taliban and right wing racists.
Yup, we agree there. Using pejoratives like "christian taliban" to refer to extreme christian fundamentalists is just trolling.


>> * "lets have a thoughtful, intelligent discussion" - Sounds great! (even if you did have a typo in intelligent)
>> Yikes, Monkey doesn't have spell check.
Strange, must be a browser function then because most of my errors get underlined in red. Although I do most of the editing in a text editor (saving frequently) then paste into the text area on the page in firefox.


>> Point taken. I wasn't trying to have a point other than ask her to expand on her post as I thought it was full
>> of generalizations. Have I fixed that?
Absolutely!


>> >> * "at worst false (a lie), and at best a bending of the truth" - You're a liar but I'm not going to say where you lied
>> >> and where you exaggerated, go ahead and defend yourself on everything.
>> You'll have to help me out on this one, I'm not sure where I could have lied.
Sorry, another case where I was using rrtpacker's voice. You said some were lies and some were bent truth, but didn't say which are which.


>> The waiting is over. And while this was fun, I believe it will only lead to more "he said, he said" as I will
>> not be swayed and neither will you.
Actually I can be swayed, by a compelling argument. Your comments on loopholes made me go study the definition to present my argument and from that I modified my position a bit. I do take heart that you said you will not be swayed rather than you can not be swayed. Leaves hope that you are open to being swayed by a good argument.


I'll leave you with these quotes from Thomas Jefferson;
"I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
I think in some areas we have too much, and in others too little (regulation of finance).

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Agree! This is a line from the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" which abolished the requirement that all Virginians pay taxes to support the Church of England. A very important document supporting the separation of church and state.
--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_S ... us_Freedom
--> http://www.virginiamemory.com/online_cl ... us_freedom

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Unproven, not found in any writings of Thomas Jefferson.
--> http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/j/ ... quotes.htm
--> http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferso ... -quotation

"... ,all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty."
[Corrected slightly, part of larger quote.]
--> http://www.monticello.org/site/research ... lip-mazzei

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
Unproven, not found in any writings of Thomas Jefferson. First sentence probably said by Gerald Ford in 1974. Second sentence may be misquote of Jefferson's "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
--> http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferso ... tquotation

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
Is it time for a new revolution?

I've left out two parts. I'll reply to them in a separate post.
Good night all!
meatlump

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count and those who can't.
rrfpacker
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by rrfpacker »

Meatlump,

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I'll leave a quick note and hopefully get back to you in a couple of days as it is crazy here.

Fascinating information on the Jefferson quotes. I have seen those that I used in numerous places and assumed (yep, I'm the ass, not you) they were correct. I will go through your links a bit later. Thank you.

Yes, the government has the right to tax, I disagree with how much and the purpose for which it is used.

I'm glad you were able to listen to some great music. I plan on doing the same when I respond.

I should have said I won't be swayed on most of the issues we are talking about. You are correct, a compelling, fact-based argument can indeed sway me. However, I am old and have thought this way for a while so the arguments have to be great. :D

Have a great day.

Dreadlau,

What part wows you the most? Global warming or evolution? For every argument you supply in favor of either, I can give one that disputes it and we can go on and on all day (I was going to attach a link, but knew you would send me one to dispute it and we both know how that ends). My only concern about the IDEAS of global warming and evolution is how their proponents abhor any real discussion on them and how they want to SPEND MY MONEY to promote them. The government has no business in the business of either. That's what private corporations are for. Research "UN Agenda 21".
rrfpacker
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by rrfpacker »

Meatlump,

"The debt ceiling had to be raised. There should be discussion about our financial situation. However, when you have no money in the bank, the mortgage is due, the car insurance is due, and the kids have no lunch money you don't discuss cutting spending, you ask to raise the limit on the credit cards. Then you can discuss getting out of the mess. But that is more extreme than the routine raising of the debt ceiling is. And Democrats have also held up raises when they were the minority party, but instead of the 11th hour this year we seemed to go to 11:47pm, a little too close in my eyes."
>>In my mind the debt ceiling did not have to be raised and I don't agree with your premise "when you have no money in the bank". There is money in the bank, lots of it, being spent foolishly. I can't continue to spend my money on manicures, pedicures, Rolex watches, and Ferrari's, and then say I don't have enough money for food, mortgage, and insurance. And in the case of the government (and your example) it isn't as though the debt ceiling snuck up on them, they had months to figure it out and the "figure it out" is to stop spending money on frivolous items. I like the scene in the movie Dave, where a regular guy and his accountant go through the governments' spending and cut items not needed and use the money on a different program. There is more than enough money.

"You seem to be saying that ANY tax is stealing. Perhaps this isn't what you meant. I suspect we both agree that the federal government is necessary and must have tax income to operate and that what we disagree on is what it should do and not do, and what that should cost. Please tell me if I'm wrong."
>>Answered this one earlier.

"No one said that loopholes are illegal, then they'd just be illegal acts. Merriam-webster.com says a loophole is "an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded". After reading that definition I must say that many of the loopholes I've read about are not in fact loopholes, many are not evading the intent, but fulfilling the intent. Loopholes are unintended ways of getting around something. There are plenty of both being utilized to lower taxes, both by corporations and individuals. They are a problem."
>> I think loophole might be the wrong word for this particular subject as I think a loophole is a way to get around an intended purpose. I believe the tax code is written exactly how Congress wanted it to be written and there are no unintended results. Congress is full of lawyers and I'm sure they get the input of many tax consultants. The fact that large campaign contributors receive huge tax breaks and reap huge profits is not a mistake. The hypocrites in Congress then cry "foul" to their constituents in order to get reelected.

"Can we please try to avoid over-generalizing? That's what got us into this, your response to tinana's generalization.
How do you know that they are typical liberals. What is your sample size?"
>>I can avoid over-generalizing. My sample size is very small, to be honest, as I tend to not spend much time around liberals. They are not in my workplace (very small work group) and away from work I stay to myself or spend time with those who think like me. Does this mean I'm sheltered? Maybe. "Typical" liberal to me is how I define someone who believes government is the answer, believes that individuals are not responsible for themselves, abhors individual liberty, they want to control every facet of our lives, and believes they know better how my life should be lived. I could go on but you get the drift. This link sums up the differences...and while it generalizes, it states right up front it does.
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/ideology.htm

The Thomas Jefferson quote issue still bothers me, but I'll deal and learn to research a bit more. Thank you again for the links. I only have one thing to comment on..."A very important document supporting the separation of church and state."
>>There is no separation of church and state in the first amendment. It says Congress will not make a law establishing a religion. It does not say that a state/city/county can't do it (the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was trying to abolish such an establishement by the state of Virginia, as you noted) and it doesn't say that government should be free from religion. This separation of church and state quote, taken out of context, of course, is a purposeful ploy by liberals to eliminate God from America. So far they've done a good job.

Well, I think we've spiced up this topic quite well for this week. Looking forward to the weekend and some football. MIght even Monkey around a bit.
Dreadlau
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:49 am

Re: Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by Dreadlau »

rrfpacker wrote: Dreadlau,

What part wows you the most? Global warming or evolution? For every argument you supply in favor of either, I can give one that disputes it and we can go on and on all day (I was going to attach a link, but knew you would send me one to dispute it and we both know how that ends). My only concern about the IDEAS of global warming and evolution is how their proponents abhor any real discussion on them and how they want to SPEND MY MONEY to promote them. The government has no business in the business of either. That's what private corporations are for. Research "UN Agenda 21".
Both wows me. But especially evolution. The fact that your political opinions make you question scientific evidences makes me uneasy.
I'll leave it at that.
I don't feel comfortable debating on USA politics.
Seven Ultimate X64 SP1 / Sansa Clip 2go (with RockBox)
rrfpacker
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by rrfpacker »

Dreadlau,

Let me clarify something for you; my political opinions do not define what I believe, what I believe defines my political actions. I don't do anything for the sake of being political.

I will give a brief explanation as to why I don’t believe in evolution, just so you don’t think I’m an unschooled crackpot, religious fanatic, or ignoring you. I know that whatever I say will probably not sway you, or anyone else, and you undoubtedly have sources that will dispute my sources and on and on we go. It all comes down to faith, doesn’t it?

I have never believed in evolution, even when it was first introduced to me in 10th grade biology. I could not logically process that somehow, someway from non-life came life, let alone that all the plants, all the animals, all the trees, bacteria, flowers, etc. could come from that single organism. It just does not compute for me. You know what else doesn’t compute with me? Emotion. Thinking. Reasoning.

Thirty some years later, as I study the human body and its complexity, I truly cannot fathom the creation of something as complex as a brain, nervous system, digestive system, etc. happening by chance. Can you understand how complex even a single celled animal is? Remember, it has to happen intact all at once and also, remember, that Darwin himself said that if the creation of an eye couldn’t be explained by evolution which it hasn’t, then evolution can’t be a viable idea (“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree”).

An example I like concerning order not coming from disorder is this; if all the parts to a house were put in a pile in your back yard, can you see any possibility that those parts will somehow become a house? The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is an outside intelligence to organize it.

Contrary to what you hear in the media, a media hungry to explain the origin of man other than a creator, there is no evidence showing a progression from the first “life form” to one we know today. There is nothing showing how a "frog became a dog". It isn’t there. The missing links are missing.

Let’s talk about dating. Carbon 14 is a radioactive form of Carbon and all living organisms have a small amount of C14 within them. However, the level is not constant as the ground level activity is still rising. i.e. the amount of C14 is not yet in equilibrium. This makes the true age shorter than apparent age. This method is quite unreliable for ages over 3,000 years despite dates up to 40,000 years being quoted.
Radiometric dating is also unreliable as it depends on several unprovable assumptions, e.g.
(A) Radioactive conditions are the same today as they were millions of years ago.
(B) The 'half life' of the elements is constant.
(C) No products of the radioactive decay were originally present nor have been added since the formation of the rock.
These are all very large suppositions that cannot be easily checked in the field for every sample.
When the same stratum is tested by different methods or even by the same method, it frequently gives an enormous range of ages. For example, one rock gave 14, 30, 95 and 750 million years by different methods. In another case, dating of the same rock for Leakey's 1470 'Man' gave 220 million years and 2.6 million years using the Potassium-Argon method. It is sometimes said that, despite discrepancies, radiometric dating shows that rocks are millions of years old, not thousands. One answer is that the 'daughter' elements found in some rocks are naturally occurring along with many other elements. To infer vast ages from the ratios of the elements found in rocks is unwarranted. The only reason why the results of Radiometric Dating tests are quoted is that they give ages in terms of millions of years. Other methods giving only thousands are completely ignored.

Now let’s talk the probability. The probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in the protein chain). Even if the whole universe was packed with amino acids combining frantically for billions of years, it would not produce even one such protein molecule let alone produce a living cell.

Now let’s get technical and talk about proteins. Proteins are 'made' by genes in the cell.
* The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.
* The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.
* The human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome!
* The constellation of all proteins in a cell is called its proteome. Unlike the relatively unchanging genome, the dynamic proteome changes from minute to minute in response to tens of thousands of intra- and extracellular environmental signals. A protein’s chemistry and behavior are specified by the gene sequence and by the number and identities of other proteins made in the same cell at the same time and with which it associates and reacts.
* Finally, It is estimated that the human body may contain over two million different proteins, each with a unique function.

For an in-depth and technical study please see http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html and its associated links.

I hope this didn’t make you fall asleep. Even if we don’t agree on this, at least we can agree that Media Monkey is the best.
Randy
nohitter151
Posts: 23640
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:20 am
Location: NJ, USA
Contact:

Re: Food For Thought. - Politics

Post by nohitter151 »

To say you don't believe in evolution is extremely short-sighted. We have proof of it right in front of us every day, and it can be proven by a simple scientific experiment that even a grade schooler could carry out.

Just take a petri dish full of bacteria and subject them to an antibiotic that kills 99.9% of them. Keep applying the the antibiotic. Pretty soon you'll have a whole population of bacteria that can live in the antibiotic. You have selectively "Bred" antibiotic living bacteria. These new Bacteria will differ from the population you started with (probably smaller and more robust).

The same experiment as above occurs in real life in hospitals around the world, overused antibiotics end up breeding "superbugs" that are resistant even to our best medications.

That is not the only real-life example that you can observe within your lifetime. Look at weed and bug populations that grow resistant to pesticides. Look at the flu and rhinovirus (common cold) which evolves so continually that our immune systems can be infected by them over and over, when our immune systems are usually so robust that they can be affected by a particular infection only once.

Whether you believe men came from apes is irrelevant when you consider evolution as we see it in our lives every day.
MediaMonkey user since 2006
Need help? Got a suggestion? Can't find something?

Please no PMs in reply to a post. Just reply in the thread.
Post Reply