Then we read differently. The comments about taxes being too high and getting nothing from them (apparently, he doesn't like the police, roads, schools, etc.) are right along party lines, even if he didn't explicitly state a party. That you purposefully choose to ignore that doesn't change that fact.
No, we read the same. The difference is that I don't automagically assume the guy holds a position or takes a stand a certain way because of something he said other then what he said. I do not know where you get this idea that someone has to be a republican or democrat or whatever if they agree or disagree with you on one thing then all the sudden become responsible for entire platforms you have somehow misconstrued but do not like anyways. That's just insane. Don't do it. Take the guy, hell take everyone for what they say, not some imagined party line stance you think they might say if the subject was changed. There really is no need to go off charging windmills here when there isn't any windmills around.
Really? So your argument is "citation needed." You realize that argument is "I'm ignorant on the subject and too lazy to google for myself, so please do all the work so that I can attack your sources as soon as you post them." If not how you meant it, I'd suggest you stay away from such annoying memes.
what in the hell do you mean my "argument is Citations needed"? I asked for them so I can see if it is fucking true or not. I am specifically saying I do not think you know what you are talking about, but show me from an authoritative source in case you do. That is not an argument. Fuck stick with what has been said and not what you want to be said. I spent the better part of the last post telling you that, now I guess this one needs to have it too. For Fucks Sake, don't put words in people's mouth, and then get all pissy. I'm sorry asking you to back up your claim makes you upset but that's how adults have discussions.
That's from the first hit. Now, admittedly, that's not supporting my statement. I took my numbers from the official 2011 budget, not from Wikipedia's report of actual spending for the previous year. But tracking down the parts I did was multiple pages and I don't have the time right now. You can if you like. The sum of "net interest" and "defense department" is essentially the same as "individual income." For 2011, the numbers are such that "net interest" and "defense department" exceed "individual income" in the budget. But that was just the first link off a google search for "US budget" and here you are demanding citations when you can't even be bothered to look at the first hit from the most obvious and basic search.
Well, that certainly did not support your statement. And you argument now is, Well it's out there, you got to find it for me because it's long and complicated where I found it.
I seriously doubt you know what you are talking about. You are probably doing what you have demonstrate several times in this thread, hear part of the thing, assume a bunch of other crap because you assigned the wrong value to what you have heard, and then jump to something not even accurate.
"Citation needed" just means that you are too stupid to know what you are talking about and too lazy to look for yourself before posting "nuh uh." So if I'm a little harsh, it's because I don't like that response. Arguing from the platform of willful ignorance should be left to the talk show hosts.
oh.. so I'm the stupid one who can't find references on my own to support what you said even though you have failed so far too. I'm starting to understand how you think now. Is everyone out to get you too?
-No, if we eliminated everything from the 2011 budget other than military and debt interest, we still wouldn'
Yeah, it's obvious. You make up numbers to prove a point, indicating that your point is unsupportable. A "normal" American family pays less than half your worst-case assertion. And your assertion changes every post. Why not just do what I did, post your gross and federal income tax. $100,000, and $10,000 (well, $9,800-something). There, that was mine. What's yours? And no, not making up something that could be some worst-case.
Two points,
First, those numbers are not necessarily made up in the sense that they aren't factual. If he has locked all his assets up in a trust and incorporated himself to avoid some sort of liability which may be inherent in his job, he would be pretty much on the spot.
A normal American doesn't really count in this. He said he was upset and said some things about himself, not all of America in general. Claiming he is normal would imply that all normal Americans believe they pay too much in taxes and don't get enough in return for it. I don't think that's the case unless you ask the question in a way that prompts that answer.
So you must be Republican. You want to borrow and spend, rather than actually pay for things
This right here is probably the reason why I answered your comment. Nothing he has said indicates any party affiliation not is the republican party strategy to borrow and spend. Plenty of people of all party affiliations or even with no political party affiliation has ideas and concepts about how their money is managed and how their government works. In fact, the largest opposition base to the sitting government in the US typically tends to not vote at all or very few times in their lifetime. And this false dilemma proposition you brought up about inferring borrow and spend based on your probably incorrect political party affiliation shows me that you either do not understand politics, are just taking the easiest way out, and simply aren't qualified to be scolding someone over a different set of beliefs. Yes, beliefs can be wrong in implementation, but you have failed to show he believed something or it's wrongfulness in implementation.
You do realize that just the military and interest on the debt alone exceed the receipts from federal income tax.
Let's see some citations for this. I can believe it seeing how we are borrowing trillions of dollars to half ass fight 2 wars and possibly a third. But given the shacky ground I see you have walked on so far, I want to see the claim made by someone authoritative. Either way, if it's true, it means nothing in this context anyways.
If all welfare, Medicare, SS, education, science, were eliminated today, firing all non-military federal employees, we still couldn't balance the budget.
Wrong, we could balance the budget, we couldn't remove the debt. Those are two separate things and you should know what they are before spouting ill devises political phrases with them.
Since no one is seriously arguing that we should cut the military or default on our debt, that means that you are getting more than your money's worth. Your money may be going to Afghanistan, Iraq and China in wars and interest, weakening the dollar and bankrupting the country. But it's not an issue of a billion here or there for Planned Parenthood or all that. The budget couldn't be balanced if we closed everything but the military.
Oh.. I see. Your problem isn't that he wants to keep his money, it's that he doesn't want to pay the Eugenics corporation to kill innocent babies before then can gain legal status and protection under the law.
Do you see how political one liners and inferring incorrect shit is wrong now? Besides, you still didn't show how he was "getting more than your money's worth". He never indicated that he support any of the wars or anything you have just assumed of
Not completely. the 28% tax rate is graduated and not a real 28% for the entire lot of the income. It will be the first X amount taxed at 10%, the next X amount taxed at 15% or whatever, and so on until after the final X amount of dollars, you are paying 28%
Have you ever heard of a library? How about an encyclopaedia? References existed before the Internet and Wikipedia, you know.
Yawn. I think the words public school should stick a note with you. The public library does not allow you to take the encyclopaedia, and yes, references like the copy of the new york times article talking about the amendments being passed where in use. It just took 3 days to get it because it was 19 fucking 99 and not 2011.
Jesus man, why in the hell don't you use some simple common sense. were you not around in 1999 or something?
The number of constitutional amendments does not change all that often. The fact that there have been only 27 in about 200 years is testament to this, and that's not even counting that the first ten were included with the original. The last amendment was ratified in 1992, so researching the U.S. Constitution in 1999 would not have been that hard.
Yawn.. again. It was not that hard, it just took 3 fucking days to find an answer that was written from an authoritative source. 1992-1999 is what, under 8 years and public schools typically update their books every decade or so? Or at least at that time they did. For fucks sake, this wasn't some hidden piece of knowledge that I couldn't find, I was the one who knew about it. It was a matter of finding something that amounted to more then he said she said because that got us no where that took the time.
I honestly do not know why you are even arguing. things were not the same as today more then a decade ago. This is the third damn time I've said that.
Heck, any encyclopaedia with updated tomes (like the ones kept in public libraries) would have suffice. Even text books would have been updated in the intervening seven years.
Lol.. Schools update their stuff about every five years and the books are typically 3-5 years old when the new curriculum is introduced. This means it is very easy to get something that is 10 years outdated. Encyclopedias are nice, buy they are also expensive and the public libraries which are no at the school, does not loan them out. I seriously do not know what in the hell your problem is outside of you trying to be an ass for the sake of being an ass. Today is a completely different time in the age of access to information then 1999 was. Again, your comments are a major fail. Had you given the slightest bit of thought to it in retrospect to the times if a decade ago, you never would have made the comments.
And in the rare occurrence that you couldn't get any evidence as to the current state of the Constitution, it would have been rather easy to prove your professor's claim wrong; seeing that there haven't been 25 amendments since 1971.
Yawn. proving the "teacher" wrong, (I'm not sure where you got professor at, they don't typically have teaching roles in public schools and I never called her that), did not prove me right either. That is why it took the three days to get the freaking copy of the news paper article with the story on it. That's still good time to get a copy of a print paper when you have to get it shipped to you. Use your damn noggin boy.
The Internet and instant access are not at all part of this argument.
And neither did anything you brought up. The reason I brought it up is because you can get the information instantly now which you seem to insist was the case more then a decade ago. Well, you simply did not have that convenience we enjoy today.
I'm in no way what you would consider rich, I have been poor before. Government cheese and shopping at the good will poor. However, I have never noticed what you claimed to of happened. It's likely that there are asshole cops out there, I certainly know a few working in my own town. But unless you are on drugs or drunk, being violent or whatever or breaking the law when you call them for help, I have not ever seen a situation where you were better off without them then with when comparing dangers to yourself.
Now, I would like to point out a couple things I saw in your story that I think makes it mean a little different then what you portrayed. You are talking about difference of one side of the country to the other in the same ordeal of comparison for something that is controlled typically by the cities. They are so far removed that it's in this respect that it could simply be a regional difference more then anything having to do with money.
One thing I have notices is that the people in general seem to be happier and more polite in general in places that are not busy or rushed and where the weather is nice most of the year. well, at least with the people who would be interested in taking the courses and becoming a public servant for the most part.
This could be the entire reason why in California, it's easy go lucky public servant verses New York, you better have a good reason for taking me away from my donuts and coffee type public servant. IT could be just different people altogether.
I know in Illinois, I slid on some ice and cut a corner short knocking down a stop sign in the process. I saw a cop up the road and notified him of what happened. He looked angry and told me to wait for him. When he finished whatever he was doing, he asked me to show him where the damage to my truck was. I told him there wasn't any, he started yelling and told me to get out of there and to stop bothering him. I told him that I wanted to report it so no one thought they had the right of way and ran the intersection getting into an accident. HE said well you did that, now get before you waste any more of my time. He said he had better things to do then talk to me all day long. I got in the truck and left it at that.
This was 1999, not 2011 after a decade of instant access to whatever you wanted with the internet.
Your entire comment is a fail because you want to think things were like they are today where 2 year old data was already in the text books and the internet was a slow dial up expensive luxury for public schools.
Didn't you read the part where it took finding back issues of the NY times to show the teacher that things have changed since she got her certificate? That's because that was the most handy source, although not instantly available at the time.
ou're basically claiming that it is legal for the government to comply with the Constitution by selectively redefining the meaning of the words used by specific articles
No, I'm not saying anything at all. The courts have said it and the founding fathers who were in the first government of the United State of America who also most likely ratified the US constitution said it. And they didn't redefine anything, Unreasonable means the same thing then as now. Your constitutional protections is from unreasonable search, not all searches.
to the point that said meaning is significantly beyond modern colloquial meaning,
No, modern interpretations is more likely wrong. As I already pointed out, the first congress of the US and the courts already said X means X. You are the one with some new interpretation that says unreasonable means all now.
the original meaning at the time the article in question was written, or even basic common sense -
I think if you would follow what I said already and investigate it in the least, you never would have replied and you certainly would never have made this statement in it.
so as to get the interpretation they want. It certainly is the established modus operandi - first they did it with "militia" to undermine the 2nd Amendment, then they did it to "interstate commerce" to turn the Commerce Clause into a carte blanche.
I do not disagree here except they chanced the interstate commerce clause meaning first then tried to redefine the meaning a militia. However, the issue of rightdfully interpreting the 4th amendment to be against unreasonable searches is something that was done in the second year this country existed and was uphelp by the courts just a little later. I hardly think they started assaulting the constitution and misinterpreted it when the very first government was seated and had that misinterpretation upheld by the courts for 90% or more of this nations existence.
But I'm pretty sure that any of the people who originally wrote or ratified the US Constitution would not imagine it in their wildest dreams, much less consider it lawful.
I think you should pay attention to detail. Those were the very_people_who_created_the_entire_border_exception to the 4th amendment. It was a law created in the second session of the very first congress of the united states that was organized under this constitution. The law was signed by President George Washington, put into force, challenges several years later and upheld by the very first US Supreme Court that was seated.
This border exception is nothing new and has existed almost as long as this country has. Learn your history, or for fucks sake, at least read the opinions when the exceptions get upheld as they point to the specific parts you need to pay attention to.
Should be, but that will eventually turn into a political appointment at some point in time. The best candidate for the job can have a lot of interpretations. As in best at what, best for whom, and so on. But I agree with your sentiment, I just think elected positions serve the best chance as serving the community's wishes, even if it isn't all of the community's wishes because they have to eventually face that community again.
I never said the op wasn't correct. I asked what it was they had to gain for doing it. The op said running the cops like a business ends up with the rich being taken care of and the poor being neglected. I want to know where and what the pay off is. How does it benefit the cops at all in doing that. Your mountain of bullshit for a reply doesn't answer that and attempts to confuse it by misdirecting. Please refrain from that.
Are you drunk, or just unable to read? Scroll back up, and read my comment carefully. Sound it out if you have to. It's ok if your lips move - nobody can tell, online.
So ya got none and you are just trolling instead of trying to make any valid points.
It most certainly was not. It was a collection of English words strung together using a drunken version of Italian, or possibly French grammar. Either way, it was completely incomprehensible.
I told you I could dumb it down for you if ya need it. Just ask.. There is nothing wrong with asking for help when you need it. Here, I will even paraphrase it for you. There is no genetic record you were speaking of. We can leave it at that because it appears you get lost easily.
Wrong again!
Then please, by all means, what were you trying to say then? Because words have meanings and the ones you string together appears to mean that you will not believe God dun it, even if it is true.
Wow. Ok, you're either drunk or epically incompetent. Please, go over to the Miriam-Webster website and look up the word "hypothesis".
I bet your parents would be absolutely fucking thrilled if you were one tenth as smart as you think you are. I think they probably have already gotten over the shame that must be required for raising you. here. read the damn definition yourself and tell me where me asking you a simple what if God did do it was me doing any of that.
You see, definition 1a is a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument. I did neither, I asked you to do it.
definition b is b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action I did neither and did not ask you to.
definition 2 is : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. We aren't testing anything, I just wanted to see what you would say.
Definition 3 is the antecedent clause of a conditional statement which is likely the closest stretch to anything close to it being a hypothesis, but it's still not applicable to this.
So either put up or go troll somewhere else. You are wrong and it's that simple.
I'm signed in and I will say I completely agree with you.
I got severely hassled because a witness for a murder trial said I scared her.
They picked me up from work, took me out handcuffed, sat me in jail over the weekend waiting to talk with a prosecutor, wouldn't let me talk to a lawyer or anything (I couldn't afford one at the time anyways), got me in front of a judge Monday morning and instead of charging me with anything, I was read the riot act by the judge about harassing and threatening others and witnesses. They moved me from cell to cell about 15 times and just had to slam me against the wall or the gates or my favorite, telling me to walk 15 steps forward then talking me because that put me past a line painted on the floor to indicate an escape attempt if the prisoner cross it.
I was then set free on the other side of town. I had to walk back to work to find they impounded my car for some reason, then walk to the impound lot, get a form walk to the court house get it stamped, go to the sheriff's office and have them stamp it, then magically reappear at the impound lot before a certain time (3 pm I think) with $180 and the completed paperwork.
I was 19 freaking years old and even the witness that said I scared her admits I never said or did anything to her, She just got scared as soon as I walked into the room. I couldn't find a lawyer that would do anything about it and was told that was typical at the time. My understanding now is if you yell I'm gonna kill you in the middle of a fist fight, your death can be seen as self defense for the other participant because they take things that serious now.
I think you must have been reading a different set of comments then. Regardless, I can waste a couple minutes on you.
Please explain what screwed up reasoning you have for thinking the commandments apply to the statement I made.
Speak English, please.
I'm sorry, that was English.. Do I need to draw you a picture or something?
Then provide some evidence to support that hypothesis. What if Santa Claus dun it? What if Bigfoot dun it? What if Yo Mama dun it? The time to believe a claim is when it is sufficiently supported by evidence. Until that time it's all bullshit, and what-if scenarios don't make it any more credible. If your "explanation" is indistinguishable from something I just made up, then it's fucking useless.
So you are saying that no matter what the truth is, you are not going to accept it if it involved some supernatural being that did it. And no, it's not a hypothesis, I am not making a statement of fact, I asked you a short and simple question, what if God or a god actually did do it.
What if God appeared to you, said he "dun it" and left. There is not evidence you can show me.. But what if he dun it. The answer is, nothing. He could have dun it, he could have used the process that science will figure out to explain it, he could have created the process as a side effect of when he dun it. The problem here is that you do not know. The best you can say is you haven't been convinced or you have found no proof of it. Instead, you are rambling on about some genetic record that doesn't exist and claiming it's proof that God dun it is wrong when even if the genetic record was there, it still doesn't mean god didn't do it.
Yes, I do. But if you want to keep believing that lightning happens because god is angry, and that lightning-rods are the tool of the devil, you go right ahead.
Strange, I have never heard religions claim that lightning is a god being angry. I have heard old wives tails used to trick kids into being extra good while stuck in doors instead of outside being occupied with chores say that. But if that's what you are talking about, then I bet you believe the boogerman is a religious doctrine too.
What exactly is the cop gaining or losing by not taking care of the poor verses the rich?
I really cannot fathom a thing that would make your statement remotely true. Perhaps if you said more serious threats get more attention or something else. I don't know, please explain.
Are you saying the founding fathers were scared or something? I mean because they passed the first warrant-less search law for the borders back in the second session of the first congress of the US as a country.
The courts have chimed in saying it was within their rights to do so too.
If you want to call something a problem and attack it, at least have the decency or understanding what it is and how it got there first.
I don't know. in 1999, I had to argue with a teacher that there was 27 amendment to the US constitution and not 25. This teacher was the government and civics teacher in the high school my neighbor went to and was the only question missed out of 100 on a test I helped him study for.
It took 3 days of arguing and a back issue of the New York times to get his score corrected.
It could be any teach in any course. They seem to have to be so diverse nowadays that I'm not sure any of them are truly able to specialize in one area.
I suspect you were going for the dramatic effect of interpretation and not following any logic put forth by the amendment or courts in the rulings.
This matter has been settled fact in the courts for years before your father's father was even a gleam in hit's father's father's eye. The constitution protects you from unreasonable searches, not all searches. It does prescribe a way to get searched, but does not forbid reasonable searches.
The Very first congress of this nation passed a law allowing the unwarranted searches at borders. This was challenged in court some years later and the courts said that the right of sovereignty made it reasonable to search people and their things at the borders. This meant that the 4th amendment was not violated in these border searches. The only thing that has changed since then is the placement of the border and how wide it seems to be when concerning these searches.
A new amendment disallowing all searches or defining a border search would be followed and would be different. But they are not ignoring the existing constitution in this regard..
No, there is a religion supported by records passed down from generation to generation then there is dogma that attempts to reconcile that with life. The failure is still yours because the transcribed history is very real. It's meaning however, when taken outside what is written the dogma separate from the religion.
The guy you're responding to is wrong, but nowhere near as wrong as you. If you're stupid enough to say things like "evolution is a theory which has yet to be proven", you're probably not worth wasting time on, but what the hell:
I fail to see how he is any more wrong then you. Please point it out to me. And I agree that it isn't worth wasting much time on it, but alas, when I see idiots using religions or anti religious rants to support or deconstruct another, I feel compelled to call out the biggest idiot of the bunch.
First of all, evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive. It's quite possible that some type of "creator" - whether it be a guy with a beard, or a black monolith - created life on earth. However, that in no way contradicts the fact that all life on earth is related, and that both the geological and genetic record prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all present-day species are descended from common ancestors. As long as your idea of "intelligent design" doesn't posit a magic-man who's constantly tweaking things, there's nothing contradictory between intelligent design and evolution.
There is no genetic record that include genetic evidence only that points to this. There is however, a record that included non-genetic evidence to lead people to believe this. But that evidence is far from proof as it could be as accurate at saying two skeletons found were siblings simply because of the location they were found in. You see, outside of looking alike and being skeletons of the same species, there is no genetic proof there of a sibling relationship. It's all inferred from a working theory that seems to be supported by other inferences. This does not prove anything, it leads people to believe with confidence but that's simple not proof.
This is a common mistake with people who want something to be wrong more then they want what they believe in to be right.
Where intelligent design fails is a whole different issue. For starters, it posits no testable hypothesis. It offers no evidence. It attempts to put an end to further discussion and discovery, rather than opening new avenues of exploration. The phrase "god dun it" is not an answer - it's an appeal to ignorance.
Short and simple, what if God or a god dun it? You have completely discounted that to push your own imagination with little evidence outside of, you don't want it to be God dun it.
The same 'answer' has been used for tens of thousands of years to explain anything that we as a species couldn't understand. Why do we have lightning? God dun it. Why does the earth shake? God dun it. Why is there a flood? God dun it. In EVERY SINGLE PAST CASE, it was scientific scrutiny and the curiosity of man which eventually gave us a real answer, while the religious troglodytes continued to pound their holy books and point at their invisible dude in the sky. In every single case, the religious 'answer' was wrong.
You do not know at all if the religious answer was right or wrong. "God dun it" does not explain how he or it "dun it". But I can tell from your disdain of all things religious so far, that logic is only important if you can use it to bash your enemies right? Now if we just knew why anything religious frightens you so much that you have to position them as an enemy. You don't even understand your own position let alone the positions of others you are ranting about. I think the entire world is more dumb after reading your tripe.
What possible combination of neural misfiring could convince you that, in this case, your answer happens to be right? And why would you EVER be satisfied with an answer that doesn't lead you to new questions?
I think you are completely confused. God doing something is not an answer to how it was done, it's an answer to why it was done. I
and he is making the same statement that needs to be made in order to address the idiots who think a scientific theory is fact and because of that, nothing else could be right.
He is correct in his statement because a scientific theory can be shown to be wrong. It is not a fact. It is not proven. But people pretend it is fact and it is proven and make claims that it proves other things to be false. Your little rant I suspect is designed to ignore that and probably even let it stand.
I specifically said that it was 'biblical scholars', those people who profess to know what the Bible actually means, who said this.
And yes, the Church I'm referring to is the generic Christian church and Catholics in particular.
Then you would still be completely wrong. There are plenty of christian churches and Christians for that matter that completely accept the earth is older then the dogma loudly expelled by the catholic church.
You mean like recognizing official 'regret' for the treatment of Galileo...in 1992? Yeah, that's downright admirable of them:) Religions used to be very similar to science. Even Islam was behind some great scientific research once upon a time. A time, when we didn't have explanations for much of the known world and science wasn't yet able to explain it - so religion happily coexisted.
Stop looking for the boogerman because you fear or do not want to understand something. At the time Galileo was around, defying the authority usually ended with your death. The church in control at that time was about control more then anything else and saw attacks on what they said as attacks on their control and power. 90% or better of all Christians and churches had excepted the work of Galileo as being accurate or more accurate then a geocentric earth well before 1992.
Right up until science started disproving much of the religious foundations. Then they parted company and religion had to be against 'science' because it offers up a method by which things can be proven. And religion fails that method categorically.
Science has never disproved any religious foundations- not Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. What in the hell are you talking about. Science has disproved religious dogma spouted by man, but never has science disproved any religion. In fact, if you think it has, then you are probably confused and using science as your religion. This is because the foundations of religion are not testable and therefore not part of science.
The problem with the ""but the bible says"" issue is that the bible is both religious and historical in nature. What you end up with is a lot of things in the bible that science supports that has meaning attached to that is more philosophical then anything. So in the end, you have a lot of the same in spirit and complexity.
Do religious people attend church or theology classes to learn about physics?
I don't think anyone can speak for everyone, but I do not see any reason why not. Furthermore, there is no technical reason why a creationist cannot be a evolutionary biologist studying anthropology. I'm not entirely sure why some people do not understand that we have the mental capacity which is shown quite often by children playing simple game, to compartmentalize things into proper categories and bring that information to the front when needed. For instance, I can play games on both the Xbox, and my computer and have little difficulty knowing what controls do the same things on either. Similarly, there is no reason why someone can't say in their faith, Its X, and in their job its Y when they are completely opposite of each other. In fact, I primarily use Linux at home and windows at work with little difficulty. You cannot really get much different and opposite then that.
The 'Church' explicitly argued the earth was only a few thousand years old for centuries until science proved them wrong.
You do understand that there isn't just one church, there are many and they often do not agree with each other.
I would hope that you also understand that no where in the religious documents does it say the earth is X years old. What you have is man attempting to understand and interpreting the documents and information available making a claim that the earth is X years old. The "church" as you put it, has had no problem in the past with recognizing the man has been wrong. In fact, what you call science is largely the same process used to make that determination in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
No, we read the same. The difference is that I don't automagically assume the guy holds a position or takes a stand a certain way because of something he said other then what he said. I do not know where you get this idea that someone has to be a republican or democrat or whatever if they agree or disagree with you on one thing then all the sudden become responsible for entire platforms you have somehow misconstrued but do not like anyways. That's just insane. Don't do it. Take the guy, hell take everyone for what they say, not some imagined party line stance you think they might say if the subject was changed. There really is no need to go off charging windmills here when there isn't any windmills around.
what in the hell do you mean my "argument is Citations needed"? I asked for them so I can see if it is fucking true or not. I am specifically saying I do not think you know what you are talking about, but show me from an authoritative source in case you do. That is not an argument. Fuck stick with what has been said and not what you want to be said. I spent the better part of the last post telling you that, now I guess this one needs to have it too. For Fucks Sake, don't put words in people's mouth, and then get all pissy. I'm sorry asking you to back up your claim makes you upset but that's how adults have discussions.
Well, that certainly did not support your statement. And you argument now is, Well it's out there, you got to find it for me because it's long and complicated where I found it.
I seriously doubt you know what you are talking about. You are probably doing what you have demonstrate several times in this thread, hear part of the thing, assume a bunch of other crap because you assigned the wrong value to what you have heard, and then jump to something not even accurate.
oh.. so I'm the stupid one who can't find references on my own to support what you said even though you have failed so far too. I'm starting to understand how you think now. Is everyone out to get you too?
Two points,
First, those numbers are not necessarily made up in the sense that they aren't factual. If he has locked all his assets up in a trust and incorporated himself to avoid some sort of liability which may be inherent in his job, he would be pretty much on the spot.
A normal American doesn't really count in this. He said he was upset and said some things about himself, not all of America in general. Claiming he is normal would imply that all normal Americans believe they pay too much in taxes and don't get enough in return for it. I don't think that's the case unless you ask the question in a way that prompts that answer.
This right here is probably the reason why I answered your comment. Nothing he has said indicates any party affiliation not is the republican party strategy to borrow and spend. Plenty of people of all party affiliations or even with no political party affiliation has ideas and concepts about how their money is managed and how their government works. In fact, the largest opposition base to the sitting government in the US typically tends to not vote at all or very few times in their lifetime. And this false dilemma proposition you brought up about inferring borrow and spend based on your probably incorrect political party affiliation shows me that you either do not understand politics, are just taking the easiest way out, and simply aren't qualified to be scolding someone over a different set of beliefs. Yes, beliefs can be wrong in implementation, but you have failed to show he believed something or it's wrongfulness in implementation.
Let's see some citations for this. I can believe it seeing how we are borrowing trillions of dollars to half ass fight 2 wars and possibly a third. But given the shacky ground I see you have walked on so far, I want to see the claim made by someone authoritative. Either way, if it's true, it means nothing in this context anyways.
Wrong, we could balance the budget, we couldn't remove the debt. Those are two separate things and you should know what they are before spouting ill devises political phrases with them.
Oh.. I see. Your problem isn't that he wants to keep his money, it's that he doesn't want to pay the Eugenics corporation to kill innocent babies before then can gain legal status and protection under the law.
Do you see how political one liners and inferring incorrect shit is wrong now? Besides, you still didn't show how he was "getting more than your money's worth". He never indicated that he support any of the wars or anything you have just assumed of
Not completely. the 28% tax rate is graduated and not a real 28% for the entire lot of the income. It will be the first X amount taxed at 10%, the next X amount taxed at 15% or whatever, and so on until after the final X amount of dollars, you are paying 28%
It's probably a little closer to 40-45% total.
I'm betting 40% isn't a bracket at all. That's probably the sum total of all the taxes he pays most likely.
Yawn. I think the words public school should stick a note with you. The public library does not allow you to take the encyclopaedia, and yes, references like the copy of the new york times article talking about the amendments being passed where in use. It just took 3 days to get it because it was 19 fucking 99 and not 2011.
Jesus man, why in the hell don't you use some simple common sense. were you not around in 1999 or something?
Yawn.. again. It was not that hard, it just took 3 fucking days to find an answer that was written from an authoritative source. 1992-1999 is what, under 8 years and public schools typically update their books every decade or so? Or at least at that time they did. For fucks sake, this wasn't some hidden piece of knowledge that I couldn't find, I was the one who knew about it. It was a matter of finding something that amounted to more then he said she said because that got us no where that took the time.
I honestly do not know why you are even arguing. things were not the same as today more then a decade ago. This is the third damn time I've said that.
Lol.. Schools update their stuff about every five years and the books are typically 3-5 years old when the new curriculum is introduced. This means it is very easy to get something that is 10 years outdated. Encyclopedias are nice, buy they are also expensive and the public libraries which are no at the school, does not loan them out. I seriously do not know what in the hell your problem is outside of you trying to be an ass for the sake of being an ass. Today is a completely different time in the age of access to information then 1999 was. Again, your comments are a major fail. Had you given the slightest bit of thought to it in retrospect to the times if a decade ago, you never would have made the comments.
Yawn. proving the "teacher" wrong, (I'm not sure where you got professor at, they don't typically have teaching roles in public schools and I never called her that), did not prove me right either. That is why it took the three days to get the freaking copy of the news paper article with the story on it. That's still good time to get a copy of a print paper when you have to get it shipped to you. Use your damn noggin boy.
And neither did anything you brought up. The reason I brought it up is because you can get the information instantly now which you seem to insist was the case more then a decade ago. Well, you simply did not have that convenience we enjoy today.
I'm in no way what you would consider rich, I have been poor before. Government cheese and shopping at the good will poor. However, I have never noticed what you claimed to of happened. It's likely that there are asshole cops out there, I certainly know a few working in my own town. But unless you are on drugs or drunk, being violent or whatever or breaking the law when you call them for help, I have not ever seen a situation where you were better off without them then with when comparing dangers to yourself.
Now, I would like to point out a couple things I saw in your story that I think makes it mean a little different then what you portrayed. You are talking about difference of one side of the country to the other in the same ordeal of comparison for something that is controlled typically by the cities. They are so far removed that it's in this respect that it could simply be a regional difference more then anything having to do with money.
One thing I have notices is that the people in general seem to be happier and more polite in general in places that are not busy or rushed and where the weather is nice most of the year. well, at least with the people who would be interested in taking the courses and becoming a public servant for the most part.
This could be the entire reason why in California, it's easy go lucky public servant verses New York, you better have a good reason for taking me away from my donuts and coffee type public servant. IT could be just different people altogether.
I know in Illinois, I slid on some ice and cut a corner short knocking down a stop sign in the process. I saw a cop up the road and notified him of what happened. He looked angry and told me to wait for him. When he finished whatever he was doing, he asked me to show him where the damage to my truck was. I told him there wasn't any, he started yelling and told me to get out of there and to stop bothering him. I told him that I wanted to report it so no one thought they had the right of way and ran the intersection getting into an accident. HE said well you did that, now get before you waste any more of my time. He said he had better things to do then talk to me all day long. I got in the truck and left it at that.
This was 1999, not 2011 after a decade of instant access to whatever you wanted with the internet.
Your entire comment is a fail because you want to think things were like they are today where 2 year old data was already in the text books and the internet was a slow dial up expensive luxury for public schools.
Didn't you read the part where it took finding back issues of the NY times to show the teacher that things have changed since she got her certificate? That's because that was the most handy source, although not instantly available at the time.
No, I'm not saying anything at all. The courts have said it and the founding fathers who were in the first government of the United State of America who also most likely ratified the US constitution said it. And they didn't redefine anything, Unreasonable means the same thing then as now. Your constitutional protections is from unreasonable search, not all searches.
No, modern interpretations is more likely wrong. As I already pointed out, the first congress of the US and the courts already said X means X. You are the one with some new interpretation that says unreasonable means all now.
I think if you would follow what I said already and investigate it in the least, you never would have replied and you certainly would never have made this statement in it.
I do not disagree here except they chanced the interstate commerce clause meaning first then tried to redefine the meaning a militia. However, the issue of rightdfully interpreting the 4th amendment to be against unreasonable searches is something that was done in the second year this country existed and was uphelp by the courts just a little later. I hardly think they started assaulting the constitution and misinterpreted it when the very first government was seated and had that misinterpretation upheld by the courts for 90% or more of this nations existence.
I think you should pay attention to detail. Those were the very_people_who_created_the_entire_border_exception to the 4th amendment. It was a law created in the second session of the very first congress of the united states that was organized under this constitution. The law was signed by President George Washington, put into force, challenges several years later and upheld by the very first US Supreme Court that was seated.
This border exception is nothing new and has existed almost as long as this country has. Learn your history, or for fucks sake, at least read the opinions when the exceptions get upheld as they point to the specific parts you need to pay attention to.
Should be, but that will eventually turn into a political appointment at some point in time. The best candidate for the job can have a lot of interpretations. As in best at what, best for whom, and so on. But I agree with your sentiment, I just think elected positions serve the best chance as serving the community's wishes, even if it isn't all of the community's wishes because they have to eventually face that community again.
Wow.. are you seriously saying that with a straight face? Or are you being facetious and I missed the que somewhere?
Maybe you are replying to someone else?
I never said the op wasn't correct. I asked what it was they had to gain for doing it. The op said running the cops like a business ends up with the rich being taken care of and the poor being neglected. I want to know where and what the pay off is. How does it benefit the cops at all in doing that. Your mountain of bullshit for a reply doesn't answer that and attempts to confuse it by misdirecting. Please refrain from that.
So ya got none and you are just trolling instead of trying to make any valid points.
I told you I could dumb it down for you if ya need it. Just ask.. There is nothing wrong with asking for help when you need it. Here, I will even paraphrase it for you. There is no genetic record you were speaking of. We can leave it at that because it appears you get lost easily.
Then please, by all means, what were you trying to say then? Because words have meanings and the ones you string together appears to mean that you will not believe God dun it, even if it is true.
I bet your parents would be absolutely fucking thrilled if you were one tenth as smart as you think you are. I think they probably have already gotten over the shame that must be required for raising you. here. read the damn definition yourself and tell me where me asking you a simple what if God did do it was me doing any of that.
You see, definition 1a is a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument. I did neither, I asked you to do it.
definition b is b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action I did neither and did not ask you to.
definition 2 is : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. We aren't testing anything, I just wanted to see what you would say.
Definition 3 is the antecedent clause of a conditional statement which is likely the closest stretch to anything close to it being a hypothesis, but it's still not applicable to this.
So either put up or go troll somewhere else. You are wrong and it's that simple.
whoever told you that all animals are equal or that protecting people because of the nature of their job made them more equal.
I think someone has lied to you.
I'm signed in and I will say I completely agree with you.
I got severely hassled because a witness for a murder trial said I scared her.
They picked me up from work, took me out handcuffed, sat me in jail over the weekend waiting to talk with a prosecutor, wouldn't let me talk to a lawyer or anything (I couldn't afford one at the time anyways), got me in front of a judge Monday morning and instead of charging me with anything, I was read the riot act by the judge about harassing and threatening others and witnesses. They moved me from cell to cell about 15 times and just had to slam me against the wall or the gates or my favorite, telling me to walk 15 steps forward then talking me because that put me past a line painted on the floor to indicate an escape attempt if the prisoner cross it.
I was then set free on the other side of town. I had to walk back to work to find they impounded my car for some reason, then walk to the impound lot, get a form walk to the court house get it stamped, go to the sheriff's office and have them stamp it, then magically reappear at the impound lot before a certain time (3 pm I think) with $180 and the completed paperwork.
I was 19 freaking years old and even the witness that said I scared her admits I never said or did anything to her, She just got scared as soon as I walked into the room. I couldn't find a lawyer that would do anything about it and was told that was typical at the time. My understanding now is if you yell I'm gonna kill you in the middle of a fist fight, your death can be seen as self defense for the other participant because they take things that serious now.
Please explain what screwed up reasoning you have for thinking the commandments apply to the statement I made.
I'm sorry, that was English.. Do I need to draw you a picture or something?
So you are saying that no matter what the truth is, you are not going to accept it if it involved some supernatural being that did it. And no, it's not a hypothesis, I am not making a statement of fact, I asked you a short and simple question, what if God or a god actually did do it.
What if God appeared to you, said he "dun it" and left. There is not evidence you can show me.. But what if he dun it. The answer is, nothing. He could have dun it, he could have used the process that science will figure out to explain it, he could have created the process as a side effect of when he dun it. The problem here is that you do not know. The best you can say is you haven't been convinced or you have found no proof of it. Instead, you are rambling on about some genetic record that doesn't exist and claiming it's proof that God dun it is wrong when even if the genetic record was there, it still doesn't mean god didn't do it.
Strange, I have never heard religions claim that lightning is a god being angry. I have heard old wives tails used to trick kids into being extra good while stuck in doors instead of outside being occupied with chores say that. But if that's what you are talking about, then I bet you believe the boogerman is a religious doctrine too.
What exactly is the cop gaining or losing by not taking care of the poor verses the rich?
I really cannot fathom a thing that would make your statement remotely true. Perhaps if you said more serious threats get more attention or something else. I don't know, please explain.
Are you saying the founding fathers were scared or something? I mean because they passed the first warrant-less search law for the borders back in the second session of the first congress of the US as a country.
The courts have chimed in saying it was within their rights to do so too.
If you want to call something a problem and attack it, at least have the decency or understanding what it is and how it got there first.
I don't know. in 1999, I had to argue with a teacher that there was 27 amendment to the US constitution and not 25. This teacher was the government and civics teacher in the high school my neighbor went to and was the only question missed out of 100 on a test I helped him study for.
It took 3 days of arguing and a back issue of the New York times to get his score corrected.
It could be any teach in any course. They seem to have to be so diverse nowadays that I'm not sure any of them are truly able to specialize in one area.
I suspect you were going for the dramatic effect of interpretation and not following any logic put forth by the amendment or courts in the rulings.
This matter has been settled fact in the courts for years before your father's father was even a gleam in hit's father's father's eye. The constitution protects you from unreasonable searches, not all searches. It does prescribe a way to get searched, but does not forbid reasonable searches.
The Very first congress of this nation passed a law allowing the unwarranted searches at borders. This was challenged in court some years later and the courts said that the right of sovereignty made it reasonable to search people and their things at the borders. This meant that the 4th amendment was not violated in these border searches. The only thing that has changed since then is the placement of the border and how wide it seems to be when concerning these searches.
A new amendment disallowing all searches or defining a border search would be followed and would be different. But they are not ignoring the existing constitution in this regard..
No, there is a religion supported by records passed down from generation to generation then there is dogma that attempts to reconcile that with life. The failure is still yours because the transcribed history is very real. It's meaning however, when taken outside what is written the dogma separate from the religion.
The failure is still yours.
I fail to see how he is any more wrong then you. Please point it out to me. And I agree that it isn't worth wasting much time on it, but alas, when I see idiots using religions or anti religious rants to support or deconstruct another, I feel compelled to call out the biggest idiot of the bunch.
There is no genetic record that include genetic evidence only that points to this. There is however, a record that included non-genetic evidence to lead people to believe this. But that evidence is far from proof as it could be as accurate at saying two skeletons found were siblings simply because of the location they were found in. You see, outside of looking alike and being skeletons of the same species, there is no genetic proof there of a sibling relationship. It's all inferred from a working theory that seems to be supported by other inferences. This does not prove anything, it leads people to believe with confidence but that's simple not proof.
This is a common mistake with people who want something to be wrong more then they want what they believe in to be right.
Short and simple, what if God or a god dun it? You have completely discounted that to push your own imagination with little evidence outside of, you don't want it to be God dun it.
You do not know at all if the religious answer was right or wrong. "God dun it" does not explain how he or it "dun it". But I can tell from your disdain of all things religious so far, that logic is only important if you can use it to bash your enemies right? Now if we just knew why anything religious frightens you so much that you have to position them as an enemy. You don't even understand your own position let alone the positions of others you are ranting about. I think the entire world is more dumb after reading your tripe.
I think you are completely confused. God doing something is not an answer to how it was done, it's an answer to why it was done. I
and he is making the same statement that needs to be made in order to address the idiots who think a scientific theory is fact and because of that, nothing else could be right.
He is correct in his statement because a scientific theory can be shown to be wrong. It is not a fact. It is not proven. But people pretend it is fact and it is proven and make claims that it proves other things to be false. Your little rant I suspect is designed to ignore that and probably even let it stand.
Then you would still be completely wrong. There are plenty of christian churches and Christians for that matter that completely accept the earth is older then the dogma loudly expelled by the catholic church.
Stop looking for the boogerman because you fear or do not want to understand something. At the time Galileo was around, defying the authority usually ended with your death. The church in control at that time was about control more then anything else and saw attacks on what they said as attacks on their control and power. 90% or better of all Christians and churches had excepted the work of Galileo as being accurate or more accurate then a geocentric earth well before 1992.
Science has never disproved any religious foundations- not Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. What in the hell are you talking about. Science has disproved religious dogma spouted by man, but never has science disproved any religion. In fact, if you think it has, then you are probably confused and using science as your religion. This is because the foundations of religion are not testable and therefore not part of science.
You failed seriously there.
The problem with the ""but the bible says"" issue is that the bible is both religious and historical in nature. What you end up with is a lot of things in the bible that science supports that has meaning attached to that is more philosophical then anything. So in the end, you have a lot of the same in spirit and complexity.
I don't think anyone can speak for everyone, but I do not see any reason why not. Furthermore, there is no technical reason why a creationist cannot be a evolutionary biologist studying anthropology. I'm not entirely sure why some people do not understand that we have the mental capacity which is shown quite often by children playing simple game, to compartmentalize things into proper categories and bring that information to the front when needed. For instance, I can play games on both the Xbox, and my computer and have little difficulty knowing what controls do the same things on either. Similarly, there is no reason why someone can't say in their faith, Its X, and in their job its Y when they are completely opposite of each other. In fact, I primarily use Linux at home and windows at work with little difficulty. You cannot really get much different and opposite then that.
You do understand that there isn't just one church, there are many and they often do not agree with each other.
I would hope that you also understand that no where in the religious documents does it say the earth is X years old. What you have is man attempting to understand and interpreting the documents and information available making a claim that the earth is X years old. The "church" as you put it, has had no problem in the past with recognizing the man has been wrong. In fact, what you call science is largely the same process used to make that determination in the first place.