Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#190938 Dec 9, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. she's playing the game RR. Because she has no skills, her only option is to work at McDonald's or WalMart for $7.25 @ hour without benefits ..
.. has the welfare system created this monster? Yes, I think so ..
.. do I applaud my lawnmower lady? Yes, to a degree, I do, she's found a way to provide a satisfactory life for herself and her two children ..
.. is it right? Of course not. She's as morally bankrupt as Big Biz or government. One hand washes the other ..
She has skills, she maintains your lawn and sprinklers. And she probably has dozens of clients, no?

It is her fault that that's her only skills.

What has she done to progress her life and learn new skills?

I guarantee you if there weren't gub'ment handouts, her skill set would be much higher.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#190939 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You're sounding like a lefty now, Dave. That was the original October surprise. Here are a few more bits of the Reagan legacy, which I suspect will outrage Buck to see rehashed:
• "Voodoo (supply side) Economics"
• ketchup-is-a-vegetable
• demonization of "liberals"
• demonization of "welfare mothers"
• IRAN-CONTRA
• Giving sanctuary to Ferdinand Marcos
• The infamous School of the Americas and death squads in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua
• Tax cuts for the rich
• Budget cuts for education, the arts, and welfare
• Selling WMD to Iraq and Iran and Propping up and financing Saddam Hussein
• Propping up and financing the Afghan Mujahadeen, which later evolved into the Taliban and Al Qaeda
• Support to the apartheid in S.Africa
• allowing AIDS to become an epidemic by avoiding the issue
• Saving & Loans scandals
• Squashing unions
• Highest number of officials charged of crimes of any administration in the history of the US.(By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.)
• James Watt, Oliver North, Elliott Abrams and Manuel Noriega
Buck Crick wrote:
That's hilarious. The list is not worth addressing one by one, but let's examine a couple of the funnier ones. Casper Weinberger was indicted on phony charges TWO DAYS BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, an indictment that had been ready and waiting for a year. Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh was investigating Iran/Contra. Walsh wanted Weinberger to discredit President Reagan’s account and testify against him. When Weinberger refused, Walsh indicted him. Walsh's indictment was immediately dismissed by the court.
Walsh indicted him again, just a couple of days before the 1992 election.
Tha court dismissed that indictment, but not before it helped Clinton win the election. What was Weinberger's crime? He was charged with withholding from Walsh notes he had taken. But those notes had been given to the Library of Congress, and Weinberger had told Walsh where he could find them. Walsh had failed to hunt them down.
That was the item from my list that you wanted to rebut? It wasn't on the list.

And was your comment a defense of Reagan? If so, you'll have to explain to me how.
Buck Crick wrote:
But the funniest one is blaming Reagan for AIDS.
AIDS is on the list, but ignoring it for so long was not very funny. Who do you blame for that?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190940 Dec 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
HOLY F****** s***!!!!
It is cold out there!!!
I may not recover from this. I might have to go to Hell just to warm up.
Reagan was evil wrapped in the flag, Buck. Sorry.
Those things you think were truths were not.
I didn't know that.

So the USSR is still expanding, the Berlin Wall stands, the economy didn't rebound in the eighties, and there was no resurgence of American exceptionalism?

If you say so, Dave. Sorry for being so wrong about that.

Also sorry for reducing your argument to nonsense statements like "evil wrapped in the flag".

Doesn't cost much energy to say things like that, huh?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#190941 Dec 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I sometimes wonder about you, Tammy.
You are exceptionally astute and aware of American culture and society on a level way beyond being a one legged 20 year old violin playing half-Chinese lesbian girl whose parents were missionaries. I mean way, way past the expected level of such. Your emotional and intellectual maturity is very remarkable for one so young.
Unions got hijacked for profit and politics a long time ago. I learned that the hard way at age 18. We did the striking and pay loss, the union settled the day before they had to pay benefits. Union management, company management, and some scabs had very good pay days.
One should always be careful of those exhorting them to seek justice and equity.
I pay attention, Dave.

As Dean Wormer said, "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son".

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#190942 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Is that any way to talk to the second smartest poster on the thread?
Buck Crick wrote:
Hated to do it. The disparity between first and second is apparently sizable.
LOL. We're all very fortunate to have the benefit of your neurons.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#190943 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think that we should expect the CEOs and boards of directors to look after the interests of anybody but themselves and the stock holders. Those businesses exist to make profits, not to take care of America. They should be expected to find cheap labor overseas if it is profitable to do so.
Taking care of the people is the job of the government, which needs to regulate business in a way that guarantees that everybody lives well in a nation as wealthy as America.
But that ship has sailed. The corporations now control the government, which is currently being retasked to serving their interests at the expense of the general population. The outcome is predictable and inevitable: the rich will get much richer, and the affluent middle class will melt down to a nation of struggling families. In my opinion, nobody is in a position to stop that.
Nor does there even seem to be the will to do so. Our conservatives posting here are typical for about half of the nation. They want exactly what ownership wants, including government deregulation, suppression of minimum wage and collective bargaining, and the ability to accumulate kings' fortunes without taxation.
Sorry to be a downer, but where is the hope there? If the government and both parties are in the hands of the corporations meaning that it is free to ignore public opinion, and if the corporations have sufficient control of the media to condition much of the public to support their agenda anyway, how can you get it back?
That is a shortsighted view, IANS.

The corporations don't make money unless there are people wealthy enough to buy things.

The world is corporate now. It is a system they have to maintain to keep the wealth. They will just keep shuffling the numbers to keep the books straight.

Christianity won as the ethics, capitalism won as the economics. There is some tweaking to do getting rid of the robber barons the Reagan crowd let lose, but it will get there because the world is pretty much headed to one village now. You just have the fighting to see who the elders will be. You will wind up with a system much like Chinese communism of today, but forced to be a bit more honest.

There is pain to come in the shufflings, but nothing like the days of old.

God works through economics. Man is uniting under that banner.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#190944 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's reasonable.
There's is no argument that the owners deserve more than the workers. The owners bring the ideas, the financing, and the organizational skills to the table, plus assume the risks, whereas the worker generally just shows up and collects a check.
The question, though, is what is the relative worth of these two, and whether a government should intervene to reapportion the natural apportioning, which always ends up with ownership keeping everything but whatever minimum is necessary to keep the worker coming back, meaning poverty wages. That's how it was in the Middle Ages, in Victorian England, the Appalachian coal mines, and the cotton plantations in the American South.
If you want a safe and happy middle class, you have to build it with progressivism. You have to compel the owners to give their employees safe working conditions, reasonable hours, vacations, weekends, and more pay and benefits than they could acquire without help. I agree that the unions are a problem, and that means that the help must come from the government.
If you remove these safeguards - deregulation - and others such as disability insurance and unemployment insurance, you will see your middle class quickly return to a peasant class. It cannot sustain itself without progressive policies.
And of course the owners don't give a crap about any of that, which is why they spend money conditioning much of the public to defend their interests, to despise government intervention, to worry about the owner's profits (RR doesn't want them to be taxed at all), and to see the lowest wage workers as despicable people with their hands out that deserve no more than what the owners would toss them.
How do you feel about raising the minimum wage?
Why would you say I don't want business owners taxed? I've never said that.

Are used to be a small business owner back when the minimum wage was $4.25. I paid my starting employees $6.

I made anywhere from 5 to 10 times what they were making, As well I should. Like you said, I took all the risk. I paid for the truck, the gas, the insurance, the tools, maintenance and repair of the tools, etc. Most of the time, I even picked up the guys from their house.

I had absolutely no desire to redistribute my wealth, except to a few that strived to be better and took a little risk for themselves.

The rest were just lazy asses they did as little as they could, so long as they got that paycheck.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#190945 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Jobs get sent overseas because of government liberalism.
You should set it to music.

Once the conservatives are done with America, there won't be any need to go overseas for cheap labor.
Me Myself and I

Wyncote, PA

#190946 Dec 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
She has skills, she maintains your lawn and sprinklers. And she probably has dozens of clients, no?
It is her fault that that's her only skills.
What has she done to progress her life and learn new skills?
I guarantee you if there weren't gub'ment handouts, her skill set would be much higher.
Says the man who said he couldn't handle community college.
Must be because RR is a lazy freeloader living off us tax payers.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#190947 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think that we should expect the CEOs and boards of directors to look after the interests of anybody but themselves and the stock holders. Those businesses exist to make profits, not to take care of America. They should be expected to find cheap labor overseas if it is profitable to do so.
Taking care of the people is the job of the government, which needs to regulate business in a way that guarantees that everybody lives well in a nation as wealthy as America.
But that ship has sailed. The corporations now control the government, which is currently being retasked to serving their interests at the expense of the general population. The outcome is predictable and inevitable: the rich will get much richer, and the affluent middle class will melt down to a nation of struggling families. In my opinion, nobody is in a position to stop that.
Nor does there even seem to be the will to do so. Our conservatives posting here are typical for about half of the nation. They want exactly what ownership wants, including government deregulation, suppression of minimum wage and collective bargaining, and the ability to accumulate kings' fortunes without taxation.
Sorry to be a downer, but where is the hope there? If the government and both parties are in the hands of the corporations meaning that it is free to ignore public opinion, and if the corporations have sufficient control of the media to condition much of the public to support their agenda anyway, how can you get it back?
"Taking care of the people is the job of the government"

I want to discuss that. Can you elaborate on your meaning?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190948 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. They are good, kind, just people looking out for the well-being of their nation and their employees.
<quoted text>
I would say that it you who has been co-opted to serve a master. You say exactly what they would want you to say - things like "class-envy" and "fake compassion."
I don't know who "they" is, but I say what I think.

I think individual liberty is superior to central government control.

I'm weird that way.

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

-Thomas Jefferson

"Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another."

-Milton Friedman

"The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm, capitalism is that kind of a system."

-Milton Friedman

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#190949 Dec 9, 2013
Me Myself and I wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the man who said he couldn't handle community college.
Must be because RR is a lazy freeloader living off us tax payers.
Must be because I never said anything about community college.

Must be.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#190950 Dec 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
I'm not a lefty or a rightie. That is for those who are directed by others, such as yourself. But I can slap or strike with either hand.
That and offer sci-fi as fact are about all you do.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Life is a sequence of action/reaction. If you are smart you stand on the sidelines and watch the others slap each other instead of getting in the middle of it. Or something like that.
No wonder Buck admires your mind. We're all quite proud of you.

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#190951 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think that we should expect the CEOs and boards of directors to look after the interests of anybody but themselves and the stock holders. Those businesses exist to make profits, not to take care of America. They should be expected to find cheap labor overseas if it is profitable to do so.
Taking care of the people is the job of the government, which needs to regulate business in a way that guarantees that everybody lives well in a nation as wealthy as America.
But that ship has sailed. The corporations now control the government, which is currently being retasked to serving their interests at the expense of the general population. The outcome is predictable and inevitable: the rich will get much richer, and the affluent middle class will melt down to a nation of struggling families. In my opinion, nobody is in a position to stop that.
Nor does there even seem to be the will to do so. Our conservatives posting here are typical for about half of the nation. They want exactly what ownership wants, including government deregulation, suppression of minimum wage and collective bargaining, and the ability to accumulate kings' fortunes without taxation.
Sorry to be a downer, but where is the hope there? If the government and both parties are in the hands of the corporations meaning that it is free to ignore public opinion, and if the corporations have sufficient control of the media to condition much of the public to support their agenda anyway, how can you get it back?
.. there it is ..

.. why do people need silly laws to regulate industry? Surely we can trust Pfizer, McDonald's and Halliburton to do the right thing. I mean, we've got their word that they won't shaft the public, right? Isn't that good enough? After all, they're providing jobs ..

.. most everyone knows financial advisers, insurance companies, banks and mortgage brokers totally screwed the market with derivatives and swaps after the crash of 2008. But, Big Biz learnt their lesson, right? And, they'll never ever do it again so there's no need for regulation ..

.. I need to go shopping for some scarves made in China by kids ..

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190953 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's reasonable.
There's is no argument that the owners deserve more than the workers. The owners bring the ideas, the financing, and the organizational skills to the table, plus assume the risks, whereas the worker generally just shows up and collects a check.
The question, though, is what is the relative worth of these two, and whether a government should intervene to reapportion the natural apportioning, which always ends up with ownership keeping everything but whatever minimum is necessary to keep the worker coming back, meaning poverty wages. That's how it was in the Middle Ages, in Victorian England, the Appalachian coal mines, and the cotton plantations in the American South.
If you want a safe and happy middle class, you have to build it with progressivism. You have to compel the owners to give their employees safe working conditions, reasonable hours, vacations, weekends, and more pay and benefits than they could acquire without help. I agree that the unions are a problem, and that means that the help must come from the government.
If you remove these safeguards - deregulation - and others such as disability insurance and unemployment insurance, you will see your middle class quickly return to a peasant class. It cannot sustain itself without progressive policies.
And of course the owners don't give a crap about any of that, which is why they spend money conditioning much of the public to defend their interests, to despise government intervention, to worry about the owner's profits (RR doesn't want them to be taxed at all), and to see the lowest wage workers as despicable people with their hands out that deserve no more than what the owners would toss them.
How do you feel about raising the minimum wage?
The government is without any moral or constitutional basis for determining wages.

You and I have no right to say how much money someone "deserves".

A person's labor, brains, and industriousness is worth EXACTLY what he can convince someone to pay for it.

No more, no less.

A free market based on each person's self-interest is the best and only method of achieving prosperity.

There are too few people remaining who understand this, and the results are openly observed. And it's getting worse.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#190954 Dec 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Whoever Tammy really is, I have to say they are one of the better creations I have run across on the internet. Masterful. Appeals to everyone.
Forget it, Dave.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190955 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That and offer sci-fi as fact are about all you do.
<quoted text>
No wonder Buck admires your mind. We're all quite proud of you.
I'm re-thinking it.

I might conclude he has a high aptitude for the transcendent.

Analytically, no so much.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#190956 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't know that.
So the USSR is still expanding, the Berlin Wall stands, the economy didn't rebound in the eighties, and there was no resurgence of American exceptionalism?
If you say so, Dave. Sorry for being so wrong about that.
Also sorry for reducing your argument to nonsense statements like "evil wrapped in the flag".
Doesn't cost much energy to say things like that, huh?
"Personal income tax revenues declined from 9.4% GDP in 1981 to 8.3% GDP in 1989, while payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP during the same period.[4] This represented a more regressive tax regime, with more revenue derived from the flat payroll tax versus the progressive income tax."

"The nominal national debt rose from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion during Reagan's tenure, an average national budget deficit per year of $237.5 billion, as compared to an average national budget deficit per year of $56.9 billion during Carter's tenure. The federal deficit as percentage of GDP rose from 2.65% of GDP in 1980, Carter's final budget year, to 3.04% of GDP in 1988, Reagan's final budget year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Fede...

Smoke, mirrors, bullshit, and creative accounting.

There was a lot of that in government and with the mergers of large corporations and fleecing of investors. A house of cards was created that is still being propped up with smoke, mirrors, bullshit, and creative accounting.

There was no manufacturing growth, Buck. That was moved overseas. That is the real wealth. It was replaced by parasitic industries and suckering in foreign investors with those artificial numbers. Hence the propping up of the house of cards still going on.

I was a poor working class schmuck struggling to make a living while those players were running wild. I saw what was going on even then.

Greed, selfishness, and ambition to get rich quick was the order of the day. Ethics, morality, and the long term were set aside.

REAGAN AND HIS HANDLERS WERE ASSHOLES. PERIOD.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#190957 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
No, Carter was an incompetent, petty, spiteful man who had no clue how to do anything in leadership except follow his leftist instincts.
Have you noticed how you portray people in the extreme? To you, Reagan was a saint and Carter was a demon.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#190958 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That and offer sci-fi as fact are about all you do.
<quoted text>
No wonder Buck admires your mind. We're all quite proud of you.
Poor IANS. His vision trapped in the smoke that arose from his bong.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 8 min Kaitlin the Wolf ... 809,727
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 12 min Sherlayne 574,075
jawan bhanji ki chudai kaise karu (Apr '13) 37 min aasif 66
angka toto malaysia di jamin tembus (Aug '14) 55 min ersin 5
sex (May '13) 1 hr raju 85
Body To body massage sex 69 call on 00971527721611 1 hr nick 23
No one should blaspheme Prophet Mohammad, peace... 1 hr Just Me 10
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr mike 608,198
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 hr RADEKT 268,883
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 14 hr Coco 203
More from around the web