We're not talking about 99% vs 100% consistency; the entire Bible is full of contradictions; large parts of it are clearly fabricated by people with a political agenda. And despite all that, it's still absolutely clear even from the Bible that who Jesus was and what he preached had little to do with the tenets of current Christianity.
there's not nearly as many contradictions as you make it seem. I'm betting most of the things you consider a contradiction comes from your lack of basic understanding of the bible.
But from a purely biological evolution standpoint, Darwin needed but not God, it's not natural at all. It's natural to reproduce and if you didn't know homosexual relations wouldn't lead to reproduction, I could see how you would think it's natural. But it's not. And yes, there are a lot of unnatural sexual acts out there that isn't limited to just homosexuality.
How's if Darwin had intended us to fly he would have evolved us wings? Yea.. something still doesn't sound quite right.
Settle down now.. IF they don't get their religion bashing in, they will turn into a frog or something. Let them vent a little before injecting reality into their life.
It's not really the "knock it off or we're taking away your internet privileges" approach. It's more like, it will be harder for you or organize and you won't be getting as much outside encouragement and perhaps manipulation without the internet approach.
That's all it was in Egypt too. It was to destabilize the protester's command and control metrics while cutting them off from outside influences encouraging them. IF Egypt would have cut the internet a little sooner, it might have worked there too.
Others will compare the standard of living and all and try to make assumptions about that to why it might or might not work. But the reality is that the protests are sort of like a boulder sitting on the side of a hill. If you catch it rolling soon enough, you "might" be able to stop it. But the longer rolls, the longer it takes to get ahead of it, the faster it rolls, and the more momentum it carries until eventually, you need to get out of it's way or risk being flattened by it.
Taking the internet away might piss some people off. But it would make it more difficult for them to know when where what and why there was a protest in the first place. It will hamper communications where some might join because the others seem to be getting away with it. And it will hamper the ability for the protests to be encourage from outside influences.
Not as I read it, he is saying Mormons are polytheistic, right? That wasn't the post I responded to, though, that was the one you responded to.
No, I responded to your comment or response on that post.
Perhaps it's a problem buried within the new UI and all the flaws within it. Perhaps the auto hide things made it appear otherwise. But you can definitely use the parent button from our branch of the thread and trace it back to the op saying Mormons are one way and Christians are another which is why you can't call one the other and that he didn't understand why they co mingled. Then you responding with "Right, because a *single* imaginary omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent friend makes sense - but *several* is just crazy!".
I don't understand what you think was settled by presumption
I figured as much with all the twists and turns you attempted to take us on. the presumtpion was X believes one way, Y believe another. X thinks Y is crazy. How they got to X and Y are a completely different question.
All I know is that we were talking about the difference between polytheism and monotheism, and you think the first is crazy if you already believe in the second.
No, you were talking about the differences in another thread shoot maybe, but not here. I made a comment to why one could think the other is crazy based empirical observations in the real world. And yes, people who believe in a god believe that god exists in the real world so there is no real distinguishable context for them.
But hey.. It appears that the entire thread was a misunderstanding or something so whatever..
I guess I mistakenly thought it was an implied understood seeing how that's pretty much how the thread developed.
You did intend your comment to originally be in reply to a post saying this right: You are correct. But although he is definitely a religious fanatic, he's not a Christian fanatic, because he's Mormon. Christians are monotheists, but Mormons are polytheistic. It's strange to me that some Christians still agree to quorum with Mormons.
And please tell me if I am mistaken in assuming that the entire polytheistic/monotheists was already settled by that comment's presumption? It looks to me that it was.
lol.. Well, again you missed the entire statement and only got part of it..
but yes, all I am saying is that people who believe in one god, find the concept of many gods as crazy as the concept of you having unlimited money in your pockets compared to you having only 1 dollar on your pocket.
I didn't say that it was 'sustainable', I have no idea why you hallucinated I said that. I didn't even say they did it.
I said they came close.
You attempted to say they were connected as if the democrats were behind it. They weren't and it wasn't intentional. Giving them credit is like giving you credit as the only person to ever find a four leaf clover because of your keen eye sight when the reality was you forgot to tie your shoes, tripped and saw it while brushing the grass and gunk off of yourself. Sustainable has nothing to do with it. Purposely attempting to do it by taking actions to cause it does. They did not do that. it fell into their laps by happenstance.
What about Medicare part D? What about Ronald Reagan's expansion of the government?
Do I really need to sit here and list all the ways that Republicans have made the government larger?
What about it? I don't see why it has anything to do with the conversation as I never said the republicans or Reagan conservatives were better or worse then the democrats. Also, if you know the least about US politics, you will know that congress makes the laws and the president signs them. Even when the president presents a bill to congress, it's still congress that makes the laws and the president signs them. Blaming something like a law on any single president, especially when congress is controlled by the opposing party is a bit misconstrued and silly.
What the hell are you talking about? He said he was a conservative, I suggested he'd probably be better off being a conservative Democrat, because the Republicans actually sucked more at following conservative ideals than Democrats. (Although I also pointed out that 'conservative' was almost meaningless at this point, so he probably just wants to explicitly state what he thinks as a prefix instead saying 'conservative'.)
I think it's you who doesn't understand that conservative != republican. conservative != republican is the entire point I'm trying to make.
Actually you just said Democrat.. you omitted any reference to conservative. And yes, conservative != republican just as conservative != democrat and we can go on and on. The op is between two parties with leanings towards the stated platforms of both which the parties tend to never follow anyways. And because the op said he was a conservative in some things, he most certainly has a meaning for it. You might not be smart enough to understand that meaning, I might not either, but I'm guessing it is somewhere along the lines of a tradition meaning in which we don't have to guess at all.
Oh, i forgot you were one of the idiots who think that 'all parties are bad, so I'm going to stand over here and pretend I'm talking about something else'.
Are you arguing just to hear your own voice? At best, you can find where I said his ideals didn't match a particular party and more likely where I said this isn't about one party over another. Nowhere did I say all parties are bad nor is there anywhere in which I said one or any party is better. Go ahead, check.. All you have to do is hit the button that says parent and then apply your reading comprehension skills a little.
Why do you interject yourself into political debate if your solution is 'Call yourself a conservative, and vote for no one.'? Leave us alone, you nihilism.
What makes you think that the guy has to join or support any party in the first place? Why can he not look at the politicians position on matters that concern him and choose based on his own ideals. Why can't he vote for the politician no matter what party they are in, based around how they stand on issues that are important to him? Why must he join a party or call himself something related to a party that doesn't meet all his criteria?
Perhaps you should have paid a little more attention to the "This is all history you should at least be aware of." that came directly after the move on portion of the comment. The back half of the post was about getting things right and not making crap up to demonize Bush.
I would say that people are more conditioned to accept that things are infinite. Have you ever run out of new things to experience? I haven't. Every day, I experience something new. If the number of things were finite, I would expect that I would experience repetition far more than I do. Given that the number of new things I experience is unending, I can easily imagine a God that oversees each thing, and therefore, an unlimited number of Gods seems plausible. In fact, the idea of only one God seems far less plausible.
New things does not equal more of the same thing. Especially when that same thing is somehow special. If it was common, then it wouldn't be special.
The substance of your analogy is what I disagree with. You think that most people would find one God more plausible than many Gods. That is patently untrue, or monotheism would have been invented first. It wasn't, polytheism and pantheism were around for far longer than monotheism. So which is more plausible to the uninitiated human? Obviously, polytheism and pantheism are, as they are older concepts.
Why is it every time you converse with me, you attempt to mold the conversation into something other then what it is, just to impose some argument that was never made? Ok here is the correction you need to focus on "You think that most people would find one God more plausible than many Gods." should read, "I think people who already believe in one god find one god more plausible then many gods."
Now, look at that really_really_close. It has a lot of the same words in it but has an entirely different meaning. God and gods, believe, many, people, are almost identical but the sentence structures are different to convey a specific line of thought that is not the same. We are talking about people who already believe in one god and why they have problems believing in many copies of that god. Your argument about polytheism and pantheism are completely lost because this is after anything of that sort is already decided. the people who can believe in one god but not many gods have already taken the path to believing in one god. That is why Christians think Mormon's idea of a god for every planet is crazy.
Now I know you never, ever admit that you are wrong, mistaken, or less than perfect in any way, but maybe just this once you can stop beating this greasy horse shaped patch on the ground and admit that maybe your idea was sub-par. I will respect you far more if you can admit that you were wrong than if you continue to abuse logic and common sense in tilting at windmills.
I admit when I am wrong all the time. It just seems to never happen that I am wrong when dealing with you. The analogy might be wrong, but you keep diverting it to another question. The question isn't why anyone would believe in a god or many gods, it's why someone who believes in one god thinks the belief in many gods is crazy. You did mean to post your comment in reply to someone's post about how Mormonism is different then Christianity right?
If you do want to continue the argument, please address the fact that polytheism and pantheism existed prior to monotheism.
There is no argument for or against it within the context of the post. You are trying to drive a thread into something it isn't. The reason why people who believe in one god find those that believe in many ridiculous is completely after the fact of anything to do with polytheism, pantheism. or monotheism.
I will not. These people committed serious crimes. They need to be tried for them. I want Bush prosecuted like any other suspected criminal. Then I'll move on. Deal?
What serious crimes? Further more, if you would have read my comment instead of letting your knee jerk so hard that you had to post in order to avoid hitting yourself in the head, you would see that I was talking about the untrue and blatantly false accusations that show completely no intellectual honesty at all like the op stated when he claimed Libbey's sentence was commuted instead of pardoned because he could take the fifth. That was nothing but a false accusation in an attempt to revert the discussion to bashing bush under false premises.
Why are you defending Bush? We are all still paying for his errors, and we will probably *still* be paying for his errors for another 20 years.
Who's defending bush.. I'm saying let go of the purposeful ignorance that's only some attempt at slandering and bashing Bush. It would be different if the AC was actually factual and right in his statement, but he wasn't.
He did more damage to this nation than any other president in history. His name should be spoken in the same way we speak of other leaders who committed atrocities.
Even if you believe that, it's still no reason to spout falsehoods in some vein attempt of bashing him. And if the arguments against him were actually based on what is real instead of what is floating in someone's imagination, you might not believe the statement you just said.
I will continue to bash Bush, thank you. I mean, unless you're trying to make the argument that Bush was a patsy and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney did all the damage. But it doesn't matter. Bush called himself the Decider, and now he has to live with the consequences of destroying the USA "because God told him to do it".
Then you will continue to be a complete fucking idiot if you continue to support, spout and defend falsehoods and lies about him. There is plenty of stuff to bash him for legitimately. There is no reason to lie and make stuff up, or even repeat the tired old false crap that anyone with half a mind has already found out to be incorrect.
And no, this isn't a defense of Bush, this is a defense of the Truth. I'm sorry that wasn't the argument you were trolling for, but hey, it the argument I made.
Actually it's been declared unconstitutional by two courts now, and declared constitutional by two. It'll end up going to the USSC.
What courts declared it constitutional? as far as I know, unless they were reviewing the unconstitutional rulings, it doesn't matter. BTW, a court doesn't declare something constitutional, the declare it unconstitutional. You can't declare something constitutional in court, the doesn't have the ability to do that. They can only hear arguments where someone was put at a disadvantage or somehow impacted by a law where they claim a constitutional right in some way that is counter to the law. All the court can do in this case, it rule to where either the government has a right pertaining to that argument, or the argument shows the government doesn't have a right. However, that doesn't make a blanket allowance if the argument fails.
It's only bastardization if the courts decide that it is. Otherwise it's just the accepted interpretation. Funny how both sides yell at the other for this, but turn a blind eye to their own bills.
No, it doesn't work that way. You can't change the meaning and interpretation of something just because it suits your purpose and wait for it to somehow be ruled on otherwise. Historically, the general welfare clause has not meant what people are attempting to make it out to be, even FDR never made that claim and specifically made the alternative case in many speeches before he became president.
But if you think it is ok to do that, then get ready for indefinite detention, get ready for the suspension of habias corpus or ignoring the 4th 5th 6th or even first amendments. Why, because when the constitution doesn't mean what it always has meant, then anyone, including those you disagree with, can change it simply by interpreting something different without any amendment process or public input. Is that what you want?
So what you really saying is, "is it easier the believe that there may be one entity the defies the laws of nature as you know it, or lots of entities that defy the laws of nature as you know it."
Think about that before answering. If lots of people speed down the road, you would think everyone speeds. If only one person speeds down the road, you would think no one speeds except maybe that one person if you saw them do it. And if you didn't see them do it, you might not think anyone speeds at all, but are you more willing to except that a lot of people do it without ever seeing anyone speed because they only speed when you aren't watching, or that one or two people do it and you weren't watching at the time they did it?
It doesn't take a degree in rocket science to understand this. And I'm not arguing why it's right or wrong, I'm arguing that it's why people have a hard time believing more then one god exists. Instead of saying you are wrong, why don't you explain why people who believe one god exists find it ludicrous that many gods would exist.
lol.. do you really think they care about what the constitution says?
Seriously, they just pulled stunts and tricks to get a health care bill passed that was declared unconstitutional by a court of law. They are still trying to fund that law. People are reinterpreting the constitution to create whatever authority they want whenever they want it. Look at the bastardization of the general welfare clause in the attempts to justify social spending.
I always told people, if you don't like what it says, amend it. but if you continue to ignore or reinterpret it, eventually it will be ignored or reinterpreted. It's really a shame all those people who started this country spent so much time for a process to amend the constitution as our country's needs changes when all that seems to be needed is reworking the definition of a clause and lingual gymnastics.
Well, there is a ton of material supposedly not released yet. So if it were passed today, it would likely prevent that future release, it apply when it is released.
From the summery, this focuses a lot on printing/disclosure.. It's likely means to deal with future situations like you said, but if all of the leaks wasn't released already, it could cause it to matter with Assange.
What are you talking about? A pardon wouldn't have been any different then the sentencing commute concerning the fifth amendment. He had already been tried and convicted for everything a pardon would have covered.
Further more, he was only convicted on making false statements, nothing in depth or detail of the Plame leak case. The investigation pretty well showed that the leak was because of Richard Armatage which is supported by Armatage himself and the reporter who broke the story that originally outed Plame when Armatage was drunk at a state diner or something and someone asked who in the hell Joe Wilson was and he replied, his wife's a spy or something to that effect.
Shit.. move on guys.. This is all history you should at least be aware of. Here's something else you probably aren't aware of, Bush is out of office, he isn't running for any other office. You can stop bashing him, you can stop misrepresenting the truth in order to bash him. It serves no purpose.. unless you think someone in office still has to run against Bush to remain in power.
This isn't about whether you believe in any gods or not. It's about people who accept one god already but not many. Your counter argument failed from the start because it's pertaining to the details and not the point. The point is, it's easier to believe one thing defies your own personal logic no matter how tainted it might be by the belief in a god, then it is to believe many of those things exist.
No, that is very poor logic. Of course everything is finite if you take a finite subset of it. I reiterate, we do not know if the universe is bounded or not. If it is not, you could travel infinitely far in any direction, encountering infinitely many planets. It is not a matter of probabilities or "many universes." It is a matter of the curvature of the universe and the cosmological constant. If the universe is open, there are infinitely many planets we can access from Earth. It would of course take an infinite amount of time to reach an infinite number of planets, but this does not negate the fact that, if the universe is open, there are infinitely many planets.
Sounds like you should be working on a ship with an infinite improbability drive.
I did not miss your point, I understood it perfectly. You are missing MY point, which is very simple: you are extrapolating from known qualities of real objects to the nature of God. You are comparing apples and oranges, saying in essence "Apples are fruit, apples are red, oranges are fruit, therefore, oranges are red." But we have no way of knowing if God (an unknown thing, of unknown type) must have the same characteristics as natural objects. Most religions claim God does not have the same qualities as natural objects do.
No, I don't think you get it.. and your point is nothing but skipping around the point. You see, you cannot separate disallow the extrapolating from known qualities of real objects to the nature of God when attempting to figure out how someone can believe in one god and not millions of more. It's that very reason which I attempted to show before you started arguing around the point, that allows them to do it. They know of two things that are real to them. Physycal objects they come into contact with on a day to day basis that behave well within the laws of physics and spiritual objects like God in which they are told to believe and confirm their beliefs from various observations. They cannot, or do not, dissect them into distinguishable compartments for the purpose of believing something and not something else when from outside, they both appear as outlandish.
Putting your argument in the form of a syllogism, we get the following
All natural objects are finite in number All Gods are natural objects. Therefore, Gods are finite in number.
Well, only if you want to ignore that the arguments are separate in nature and pertaining to separate concepts. What you can do is claim I said that people are used to natural object and led to believe in a God and believing there is one god over lots of Gods is easier for them because it's easier to believe you have only one dollar in your pocket then it is an astronomical amount of dollars in your pocket.
First, we have no proof that God is anything like a natural object, in fact, all religions say God is not like that. Second, nobody is talking about an infinite number of Gods. Polytheism does not imply an infinite number of Gods. Pantheism implies one God indistinguishable from Nature, i.e. God is literally everything. I am unaware of any real religion that postulates an infinite number of Gods.
Again, you are either purposely confused or trying to ague for the sake of arguing. What I said was clear enough a child could have understood. Yet here you are arguing the details of an analogy over the substance.
If one God is illogical, infinite numbers of Gods are not necessarily less logical. We do not know enough about God or Gods to know if they follow the same numbering rules as natural objects.
And here is where you turn into trolling. Whether one god is logical or not doesn't rest with you outside of your own beliefs. Obviously, others think it's logical enough to entertain the idea and nothing prevents that idea from being true. for those who believe it's true, most likely because their religious teachings told them it is, then it's completely logical to understand that there is only one god and claims of multiple gods are ridiculous based around both, that teaching and what they find in ordinary life.
The number of planets cannot be infinite. If anything, the volume is outside out ability to count them, but we are talking about real life things and not probabilities so it has to be finite at any point in time.
But your point entirely skips my point, however conceptual your beliefs are or not (we are talking about something that can't be proven btw), the possibility of one is much more believable then unlimited numbers or numbers outside the scope of a known reality. It's simple to put away logic for one instance, but very difficult to put it away for hundred or millions of instances or more.
Um, yes, they have. The Democrats actually came pretty close to balancing the budget, and didn't, for example, preside over the largest expansion in the federal government in decades, the Department of Homeland Security.
No they didn't. Gimmicks in the tax code (roth IRA, capitol gains) and fears of Y2K, along with technological efficiencies spurred an increase in revenue at a time when increasing expenditures wasn't as necessary gave you that illusion. But make no mistake, it was not sustainable at all and the very next budget showed that.
Your also off with the largest expansion of the federal government in decades. The democrats did not oppose that except when they thought it was politically advantageous to them. You cannot say they are against something when they sit by silently allowing it to happen. They might not have been driving it, but it in no way makes the opposite statement that they are against it. Both the democrats and republicans have been at the helm of most of the expansion of federal government. To claim either is a blanket federalist is nothing but an outright lie.
You can argue they aren't very "fiscal conservative" or "limited Federal government", which is true, but they are, by any actual objective measurement, moreso than the Republicans. It's only in crazy stupid 'common knowledge' that the Republicans are somehow more those things.
They are neither. And don't turn this into a democrat verses republican. It's not and never was.. If you are confused, I suggest you sort that out.. here is a hint though, liberal != democrat as well as conservative != republican. In case you don't understand that, here is some plain English, liberal or conservative does not equal democrat or republican.
In the exact same post you claim the Republicans are "fiscal conservative", you offhandedly mention the tax cut for income over $250,000 that Republicans forced, which cost $20 billion this year and can't conceivable have any positive benefit. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes about the Republican POV.
I did no such thing. Stop confusing your misinformed idiocy with something I said. And now it is obvious as my suggestion implied that you do see giving everyone a tax cut as giving handouts to the rich. So that argument failed from the start.
Or until you learn what the fuck the 'general welfare' means.
The general welfare does not mean anythign close to what you think it does. Furthermore, the entire argument of it meaning handouts to the poor is a recent argument in an attempt to change the entirte meaning of the constitution without an amendment. The founding fathers have spoke on this numerous times, so have many statesmen and presidents. FDR even said the federal government wasn't allowed to be involved in that.
FDR said in a speech pertaining to the Volstead Act.
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere."
And this speech is transcribed in the New York Times, March 3, 1930 if you care to look into what he was exactly talking about. It was also two years before he became president and started the new deal legislation that was ruled unconstitutional then constitutional based around the expansion of the interstate commerce clause, not anything to do with the general welfare clauses.
Before you throw shit out like you know what your talking about, at least know what the fuck you are talking about.
That's not exactly news. I expect that no one shares 100% of my views on every subject. I would be somewhat alarmed if anyone did.
It's great to know you have a healthy outlook on your political and mental leanings. However, with a little more time, you probably would have answered your own question/statement then too.
This is disturbing, though. Trying to "do something about" diversity of opinion sounds like a step toward totalitarianism to me. Toward what China, or many of the theocratic dictatorships in the middle east attempt.
I don't think you understand. In a healthy democracy, expressing your opinion and doing something about it is a core mechanism of it's functioning. Even in quasi democracies, getting heard is more important then voting in some situations. The chance to influence and impact another person, perhaps even persuading them to supporting your side is at the heart of concept of free speech. Even if that turns into just another rant about what you don't like.
Yes, you are mistaken. Cause the opposite of these people having an outlet is totalitarianism. The opposite of this is, only allowing the approved opinion. The tactics that China and other theocratic dictatorships in the middle east attempt.
And those places are considered enemies by these same right wing talk show hosts and their adherents. I still don't get it.
Keep working at it.. I suggest you drop the My way is the right way attitude, ignore all the talking heads around you saying X is bad, and watch what they are really saying and not what you think will offend you.
OK.. grains of sand then.. Your trying way to hard to look past the point and argue over nothing concerning it. Slow down a bit.
BTW, unlimited credit cards do exist. so while it wouldn't be unlimited dollars sitting in the pocket, it would be access to unlimited dollars. Also, since this was started over a god for every planet, you do realize that there actually is a limit to planets right? So in keeping this within the scope of the original comment, limited is actually limited.. to the number of planets.
The democrats have never been "fiscal conservative" or "limited Federal government" in recent time unless there has been some political advantage to making the statement. They are really no different then the republicans either. And your interpretation skips entirely past the definitions of the words you speak about while you mix your own bias into it in the first place. I'm willing to bet that you are likely calling a tax cut that the rich enjoy also a handout.
Oh and BTW, it's not counter intuitive to believe in a safety net along with limited federal government. You see, that sort of thing (safety net) belongs at the state and local levels where the people have much more control over it. At least is does until there is an actual constitutional amendment giving the federal government the authority to deal with it.
You think things are meaningless and will continue to evolve into meaningless things, I think it's because you don't remotely understand them.
Slashdot Mirror
We're not talking about 99% vs 100% consistency; the entire Bible is full of contradictions; large parts of it are clearly fabricated by people with a political agenda. And despite all that, it's still absolutely clear even from the Bible that who Jesus was and what he preached had little to do with the tenets of current Christianity.
Wow.. aren't you smart..
But from a purely biological evolution standpoint, Darwin needed but not God, it's not natural at all. It's natural to reproduce and if you didn't know homosexual relations wouldn't lead to reproduction, I could see how you would think it's natural. But it's not. And yes, there are a lot of unnatural sexual acts out there that isn't limited to just homosexuality.
How's if Darwin had intended us to fly he would have evolved us wings? Yea.. something still doesn't sound quite right.
Settle down now.. IF they don't get their religion bashing in, they will turn into a frog or something. Let them vent a little before injecting reality into their life.
Not really. they saw how Egypt didn't get it done soon enough and the protests gained too much momentum and couldn't be controlled.
They are learning from Egypt's mistakes and doing it sooner.. before the protests are at a level they need to be really concerned about.
It's not really the "knock it off or we're taking away your internet privileges" approach. It's more like, it will be harder for you or organize and you won't be getting as much outside encouragement and perhaps manipulation without the internet approach.
That's all it was in Egypt too. It was to destabilize the protester's command and control metrics while cutting them off from outside influences encouraging them. IF Egypt would have cut the internet a little sooner, it might have worked there too.
Others will compare the standard of living and all and try to make assumptions about that to why it might or might not work. But the reality is that the protests are sort of like a boulder sitting on the side of a hill. If you catch it rolling soon enough, you "might" be able to stop it. But the longer rolls, the longer it takes to get ahead of it, the faster it rolls, and the more momentum it carries until eventually, you need to get out of it's way or risk being flattened by it.
Taking the internet away might piss some people off. But it would make it more difficult for them to know when where what and why there was a protest in the first place. It will hamper communications where some might join because the others seem to be getting away with it. And it will hamper the ability for the protests to be encourage from outside influences.
No, I responded to your comment or response on that post.
Perhaps it's a problem buried within the new UI and all the flaws within it. Perhaps the auto hide things made it appear otherwise. But you can definitely use the parent button from our branch of the thread and trace it back to the op saying Mormons are one way and Christians are another which is why you can't call one the other and that he didn't understand why they co mingled. Then you responding with "Right, because a *single* imaginary omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent friend makes sense - but *several* is just crazy!".
I figured as much with all the twists and turns you attempted to take us on. the presumtpion was X believes one way, Y believe another. X thinks Y is crazy. How they got to X and Y are a completely different question.
No, you were talking about the differences in another thread shoot maybe, but not here. I made a comment to why one could think the other is crazy based empirical observations in the real world. And yes, people who believe in a god believe that god exists in the real world so there is no real distinguishable context for them.
But hey.. It appears that the entire thread was a misunderstanding or something so whatever..
I guess I mistakenly thought it was an implied understood seeing how that's pretty much how the thread developed.
You did intend your comment to originally be in reply to a post saying this right: You are correct. But although he is definitely a religious fanatic, he's not a Christian fanatic, because he's Mormon. Christians are monotheists, but Mormons are polytheistic. It's strange to me that some Christians still agree to quorum with Mormons.
And please tell me if I am mistaken in assuming that the entire polytheistic/monotheists was already settled by that comment's presumption? It looks to me that it was.
lol.. Well, again you missed the entire statement and only got part of it..
but yes, all I am saying is that people who believe in one god, find the concept of many gods as crazy as the concept of you having unlimited money in your pockets compared to you having only 1 dollar on your pocket.
You attempted to say they were connected as if the democrats were behind it. They weren't and it wasn't intentional. Giving them credit is like giving you credit as the only person to ever find a four leaf clover because of your keen eye sight when the reality was you forgot to tie your shoes, tripped and saw it while brushing the grass and gunk off of yourself. Sustainable has nothing to do with it. Purposely attempting to do it by taking actions to cause it does. They did not do that. it fell into their laps by happenstance.
What about it? I don't see why it has anything to do with the conversation as I never said the republicans or Reagan conservatives were better or worse then the democrats. Also, if you know the least about US politics, you will know that congress makes the laws and the president signs them. Even when the president presents a bill to congress, it's still congress that makes the laws and the president signs them. Blaming something like a law on any single president, especially when congress is controlled by the opposing party is a bit misconstrued and silly.
Actually you just said Democrat.. you omitted any reference to conservative. And yes, conservative != republican just as conservative != democrat and we can go on and on. The op is between two parties with leanings towards the stated platforms of both which the parties tend to never follow anyways. And because the op said he was a conservative in some things, he most certainly has a meaning for it. You might not be smart enough to understand that meaning, I might not either, but I'm guessing it is somewhere along the lines of a tradition meaning in which we don't have to guess at all.
Are you arguing just to hear your own voice? At best, you can find where I said his ideals didn't match a particular party and more likely where I said this isn't about one party over another. Nowhere did I say all parties are bad nor is there anywhere in which I said one or any party is better. Go ahead, check.. All you have to do is hit the button that says parent and then apply your reading comprehension skills a little.
What makes you think that the guy has to join or support any party in the first place? Why can he not look at the politicians position on matters that concern him and choose based on his own ideals. Why can't he vote for the politician no matter what party they are in, based around how they stand on issues that are important to him? Why must he join a party or call himself something related to a party that doesn't meet all his criteria?
I mea
Perhaps you should have paid a little more attention to the "This is all history you should at least be aware of." that came directly after the move on portion of the comment. The back half of the post was about getting things right and not making crap up to demonize Bush.
New things does not equal more of the same thing. Especially when that same thing is somehow special. If it was common, then it wouldn't be special.
Why is it every time you converse with me, you attempt to mold the conversation into something other then what it is, just to impose some argument that was never made? Ok here is the correction you need to focus on "You think that most people would find one God more plausible than many Gods." should read, "I think people who already believe in one god find one god more plausible then many gods."
Now, look at that really_really_close. It has a lot of the same words in it but has an entirely different meaning. God and gods, believe, many, people, are almost identical but the sentence structures are different to convey a specific line of thought that is not the same. We are talking about people who already believe in one god and why they have problems believing in many copies of that god. Your argument about polytheism and pantheism are completely lost because this is after anything of that sort is already decided. the people who can believe in one god but not many gods have already taken the path to believing in one god. That is why Christians think Mormon's idea of a god for every planet is crazy.
I admit when I am wrong all the time. It just seems to never happen that I am wrong when dealing with you. The analogy might be wrong, but you keep diverting it to another question. The question isn't why anyone would believe in a god or many gods, it's why someone who believes in one god thinks the belief in many gods is crazy. You did mean to post your comment in reply to someone's post about how Mormonism is different then Christianity right?
There is no argument for or against it within the context of the post. You are trying to drive a thread into something it isn't. The reason why people who believe in one god find those that believe in many ridiculous is completely after the fact of anything to do with polytheism, pantheism. or monotheism.
What serious crimes? Further more, if you would have read my comment instead of letting your knee jerk so hard that you had to post in order to avoid hitting yourself in the head, you would see that I was talking about the untrue and blatantly false accusations that show completely no intellectual honesty at all like the op stated when he claimed Libbey's sentence was commuted instead of pardoned because he could take the fifth. That was nothing but a false accusation in an attempt to revert the discussion to bashing bush under false premises.
Who's defending bush.. I'm saying let go of the purposeful ignorance that's only some attempt at slandering and bashing Bush. It would be different if the AC was actually factual and right in his statement, but he wasn't.
Even if you believe that, it's still no reason to spout falsehoods in some vein attempt of bashing him. And if the arguments against him were actually based on what is real instead of what is floating in someone's imagination, you might not believe the statement you just said.
Then you will continue to be a complete fucking idiot if you continue to support, spout and defend falsehoods and lies about him. There is plenty of stuff to bash him for legitimately. There is no reason to lie and make stuff up, or even repeat the tired old false crap that anyone with half a mind has already found out to be incorrect.
And no, this isn't a defense of Bush, this is a defense of the Truth. I'm sorry that wasn't the argument you were trolling for, but hey, it the argument I made.
What courts declared it constitutional? as far as I know, unless they were reviewing the unconstitutional rulings, it doesn't matter. BTW, a court doesn't declare something constitutional, the declare it unconstitutional. You can't declare something constitutional in court, the doesn't have the ability to do that. They can only hear arguments where someone was put at a disadvantage or somehow impacted by a law where they claim a constitutional right in some way that is counter to the law. All the court can do in this case, it rule to where either the government has a right pertaining to that argument, or the argument shows the government doesn't have a right. However, that doesn't make a blanket allowance if the argument fails.
No, it doesn't work that way. You can't change the meaning and interpretation of something just because it suits your purpose and wait for it to somehow be ruled on otherwise. Historically, the general welfare clause has not meant what people are attempting to make it out to be, even FDR never made that claim and specifically made the alternative case in many speeches before he became president.
But if you think it is ok to do that, then get ready for indefinite detention, get ready for the suspension of habias corpus or ignoring the 4th 5th 6th or even first amendments. Why, because when the constitution doesn't mean what it always has meant, then anyone, including those you disagree with, can change it simply by interpreting something different without any amendment process or public input. Is that what you want?
So what you really saying is, "is it easier the believe that there may be one entity the defies the laws of nature as you know it, or lots of entities that defy the laws of nature as you know it."
Think about that before answering. If lots of people speed down the road, you would think everyone speeds. If only one person speeds down the road, you would think no one speeds except maybe that one person if you saw them do it. And if you didn't see them do it, you might not think anyone speeds at all, but are you more willing to except that a lot of people do it without ever seeing anyone speed because they only speed when you aren't watching, or that one or two people do it and you weren't watching at the time they did it?
It doesn't take a degree in rocket science to understand this. And I'm not arguing why it's right or wrong, I'm arguing that it's why people have a hard time believing more then one god exists. Instead of saying you are wrong, why don't you explain why people who believe one god exists find it ludicrous that many gods would exist.
lol.. do you really think they care about what the constitution says?
Seriously, they just pulled stunts and tricks to get a health care bill passed that was declared unconstitutional by a court of law. They are still trying to fund that law. People are reinterpreting the constitution to create whatever authority they want whenever they want it. Look at the bastardization of the general welfare clause in the attempts to justify social spending.
I always told people, if you don't like what it says, amend it. but if you continue to ignore or reinterpret it, eventually it will be ignored or reinterpreted. It's really a shame all those people who started this country spent so much time for a process to amend the constitution as our country's needs changes when all that seems to be needed is reworking the definition of a clause and lingual gymnastics.
Well, there is a ton of material supposedly not released yet. So if it were passed today, it would likely prevent that future release, it apply when it is released.
From the summery, this focuses a lot on printing/disclosure.. It's likely means to deal with future situations like you said, but if all of the leaks wasn't released already, it could cause it to matter with Assange.
What are you talking about? A pardon wouldn't have been any different then the sentencing commute concerning the fifth amendment. He had already been tried and convicted for everything a pardon would have covered.
Further more, he was only convicted on making false statements, nothing in depth or detail of the Plame leak case. The investigation pretty well showed that the leak was because of Richard Armatage which is supported by Armatage himself and the reporter who broke the story that originally outed Plame when Armatage was drunk at a state diner or something and someone asked who in the hell Joe Wilson was and he replied, his wife's a spy or something to that effect.
Shit.. move on guys.. This is all history you should at least be aware of. Here's something else you probably aren't aware of, Bush is out of office, he isn't running for any other office. You can stop bashing him, you can stop misrepresenting the truth in order to bash him. It serves no purpose.. unless you think someone in office still has to run against Bush to remain in power.
This isn't about whether you believe in any gods or not. It's about people who accept one god already but not many. Your counter argument failed from the start because it's pertaining to the details and not the point. The point is, it's easier to believe one thing defies your own personal logic no matter how tainted it might be by the belief in a god, then it is to believe many of those things exist.
Sounds like you should be working on a ship with an infinite improbability drive.
No, I don't think you get it.. and your point is nothing but skipping around the point. You see, you cannot separate disallow the extrapolating from known qualities of real objects to the nature of God when attempting to figure out how someone can believe in one god and not millions of more. It's that very reason which I attempted to show before you started arguing around the point, that allows them to do it. They know of two things that are real to them. Physycal objects they come into contact with on a day to day basis that behave well within the laws of physics and spiritual objects like God in which they are told to believe and confirm their beliefs from various observations. They cannot, or do not, dissect them into distinguishable compartments for the purpose of believing something and not something else when from outside, they both appear as outlandish.
Putting your argument in the form of a syllogism, we get the following
All natural objects are finite in number
All Gods are natural objects.
Therefore, Gods are finite in number.
Well, only if you want to ignore that the arguments are separate in nature and pertaining to separate concepts. What you can do is claim I said that people are used to natural object and led to believe in a God and believing there is one god over lots of Gods is easier for them because it's easier to believe you have only one dollar in your pocket then it is an astronomical amount of dollars in your pocket.
Again, you are either purposely confused or trying to ague for the sake of arguing. What I said was clear enough a child could have understood. Yet here you are arguing the details of an analogy over the substance.
And here is where you turn into trolling. Whether one god is logical or not doesn't rest with you outside of your own beliefs. Obviously, others think it's logical enough to entertain the idea and nothing prevents that idea from being true. for those who believe it's true, most likely because their religious teachings told them it is, then it's completely logical to understand that there is only one god and claims of multiple gods are ridiculous based around both, that teaching and what they find in ordinary life.
The number of planets cannot be infinite. If anything, the volume is outside out ability to count them, but we are talking about real life things and not probabilities so it has to be finite at any point in time.
But your point entirely skips my point, however conceptual your beliefs are or not (we are talking about something that can't be proven btw), the possibility of one is much more believable then unlimited numbers or numbers outside the scope of a known reality. It's simple to put away logic for one instance, but very difficult to put it away for hundred or millions of instances or more.
No they didn't. Gimmicks in the tax code (roth IRA, capitol gains) and fears of Y2K, along with technological efficiencies spurred an increase in revenue at a time when increasing expenditures wasn't as necessary gave you that illusion. But make no mistake, it was not sustainable at all and the very next budget showed that.
Your also off with the largest expansion of the federal government in decades. The democrats did not oppose that except when they thought it was politically advantageous to them. You cannot say they are against something when they sit by silently allowing it to happen. They might not have been driving it, but it in no way makes the opposite statement that they are against it. Both the democrats and republicans have been at the helm of most of the expansion of federal government. To claim either is a blanket federalist is nothing but an outright lie.
They are neither. And don't turn this into a democrat verses republican. It's not and never was.. If you are confused, I suggest you sort that out.. here is a hint though, liberal != democrat as well as conservative != republican. In case you don't understand that, here is some plain English, liberal or conservative does not equal democrat or republican.
I did no such thing. Stop confusing your misinformed idiocy with something I said. And now it is obvious as my suggestion implied that you do see giving everyone a tax cut as giving handouts to the rich. So that argument failed from the start.
The general welfare does not mean anythign close to what you think it does. Furthermore, the entire argument of it meaning handouts to the poor is a recent argument in an attempt to change the entirte meaning of the constitution without an amendment. The founding fathers have spoke on this numerous times, so have many statesmen and presidents. FDR even said the federal government wasn't allowed to be involved in that.
FDR said in a speech pertaining to the Volstead Act.
And this speech is transcribed in the New York Times, March 3, 1930 if you care to look into what he was exactly talking about. It was also two years before he became president and started the new deal legislation that was ruled unconstitutional then constitutional based around the expansion of the interstate commerce clause, not anything to do with the general welfare clauses.
Before you throw shit out like you know what your talking about, at least know what the fuck you are talking about.
It's great to know you have a healthy outlook on your political and mental leanings. However, with a little more time, you probably would have answered your own question/statement then too.
I don't think you understand. In a healthy democracy, expressing your opinion and doing something about it is a core mechanism of it's functioning. Even in quasi democracies, getting heard is more important then voting in some situations. The chance to influence and impact another person, perhaps even persuading them to supporting your side is at the heart of concept of free speech. Even if that turns into just another rant about what you don't like.
Yes, you are mistaken. Cause the opposite of these people having an outlet is totalitarianism. The opposite of this is, only allowing the approved opinion. The tactics that China and other theocratic dictatorships in the middle east attempt.
Keep working at it.. I suggest you drop the My way is the right way attitude, ignore all the talking heads around you saying X is bad, and watch what they are really saying and not what you think will offend you.
OK.. grains of sand then.. Your trying way to hard to look past the point and argue over nothing concerning it. Slow down a bit.
BTW, unlimited credit cards do exist. so while it wouldn't be unlimited dollars sitting in the pocket, it would be access to unlimited dollars. Also, since this was started over a god for every planet, you do realize that there actually is a limit to planets right? So in keeping this within the scope of the original comment, limited is actually limited.. to the number of planets.
What, your wanting him to just lie?
The democrats have never been "fiscal conservative" or "limited Federal government" in recent time unless there has been some political advantage to making the statement. They are really no different then the republicans either. And your interpretation skips entirely past the definitions of the words you speak about while you mix your own bias into it in the first place. I'm willing to bet that you are likely calling a tax cut that the rich enjoy also a handout.
Oh and BTW, it's not counter intuitive to believe in a safety net along with limited federal government. You see, that sort of thing (safety net) belongs at the state and local levels where the people have much more control over it. At least is does until there is an actual constitutional amendment giving the federal government the authority to deal with it.
You think things are meaningless and will continue to evolve into meaningless things, I think it's because you don't remotely understand them.