A restatement "A promise to the middle east"

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
A restatement "A promise to the middle east"

This post was inspired by a PM sent to me that I read today. The person who sent it reflected Voiltair's quote "I may vehemently dissagree with what you have to say but will defend to the death your right to say it".

Now while the rest of this admittedly armchair quarterbacking you are about to read, it doesn't just apply to the Middle East, but human history in general.

Why are Sunnis and Shiites at each other's throats? Why are Jews and Palistinians at each other's throats? Why do Christians and Muslims and even Jews fear atheists? Fear stemming from the real evolution of "in group vs out group".

But I would be remiss to claim that the biggest world trouble makers are in the Arab states. It has not been lost on me that there are as well Arabs who DO want to get with the modern world and the pluralistic world NONE OF US can escape.

We as a species CAN get along when we chose. Even outside politics and war, when one spends any time reading enough posts here they will notice differences in that while all atheists may share the same core lack of belief, the truth is outside that issue, we do not always share everything in common as far as politics or economics or class. Yet with all of our infighting, we still obey the same laws and do not get physically violent when we get offended or offend each other.

If we as individuals were allowed to murder others merely for being offended then all of us would commit genocide. But the real world we unfortunately ignore that while we protect our own, our species was around long before our current nations or boarders or religions, and we ignore that evloution will continue and those things to will change.

My promise to the Middle East is simple. The west wants global peace as much as many in the Arab world want. The problem is that it is not based on "peace through consent and cooperation" but peace through forced submission. I promise once a critical mass of the East loses that attitude the fear of the west and the west's fear of the east will errode. But it is not up to the west to bow because we will not. We want the cracks internally in the East to grow. The cracks of more women Muslims stand up for their own rights. We want the East to have it's own Jefferson. I think it is happening but not big enough or quick enough, and even with this we are not sure it will take hold and grow.

But, without a doubt, the west is proof that you can live side by side, and even hate your neighbor and complain about your government, without fear of physical harm. In the west we live by common law, not common politics or common religion. It is what allows people to bitch about Bush and Romney and at the same time allows people to bitch about Obama. It is what allows the poor to bitch about the rich and the rich to bitch about the poor. It is what allows the Christian to bitch about ahtiests and Muslims about Christians, all with the common law that no matter what we say about each other we all have the common expectation to live without fear of physical harm.

 

When the Middle East gets this, if they ever do, and despite some detractors here, if Europe and Christianity moved out of the dark ages, I do not see the East being any less human even if right now it is not capable of it. If one wants to call the possiblity of that kind of change slim, that is not the same as saying it is impossible.

The reason it is possible is because of evolution. Evolution includes both dominance and cooperation and always have. So the west internally has lerned to allow those differences and political competition and diversity. We have found that that works better. It allows differences while making common law the focus.

When that becomes the focus, I promise the Middle East, while no system is ever perfect, it still is not a fear based system, it will not only aleave internal differences, the world WILL see you in a much more positive light in which we will not fear you anymore than you want to fear us.

But the ball is not in our court, it is squarely in yours. Socailly and politically you are 100 years behind the west and your islolation is unfortunately stuck in a very childlike street gang tribalism. Most in the west DONT want to view you like that. But you don't just attack Christians or Jews or the west as a whole. Your standard reaction to dissent even applies to fellow Muslims. It is unreasonable for you to make demands of the rest of the world when you cant even lead by example in your own countries.

The west does not expect you to go away, just grow up. I promise it will get better when you protect differences and dissent. My beefs here with other fellow atheists are mainly and mostely economics. We can blast each other and offend each other and we both know we can go to bed at night without fear of being murdered by each other.

The west promises you that when you get to that point we can and most certainly will welcome you to the global society. My advice to the East is to lose the fear, lose the sumission honor nuts in your bunches. Give rights to women and non Muslims and even Muslims of other sects. The only way a peaceful society can live with differences is by making common law the focus, and not common label. When you do that I promise the peace you say you want can and will be a reality. We want you with us, but it will not be by force on your part.

If one of my detractors who is also a fellow atheist can disagree with me and even hate some of my claims without wanting to murder me, and even offend me, then you can get to that point too. A far better world it will be when more people make common law, not common lable, the issue. My detractors may be right that the Middle East isn't capable of this, and right now it does seem that way. But you can prove them wrong and prove me wrong as well. Your fellow Muslim Malala is hailed worldwide by not just Pakistanies, but the west as well, including Christians, atheists and even Jews. She is not just a hero to Muslims, or because she is a Muslim. She is a hero to the dignity of the self worth of the individual Muslims should want for that region. She is a hero to humanity and she is the kind of hero Islam should want. 

You need more Malalas. You need your own Jeffersons and Martin Luther Kings. You need an Arab Christopher Hitchens. You have people who truely do value human rights and those people, not your childish tribal brats who hold you hostage, but the compassinate among you do exist. We only wish and want to foster that. I promise it will get better the more you do that.

In conclusion, my advice to the East is to stop seaking utopias. My advice is to accept that we only have one planet that all 7 billion have. But to do that, you also have to accept that within your own boarders and your leaders cannot nor should have glass jaws or be insecure dictators. It is up to you how we respond. You don't have to do it for us, you should want to do it for yourselves, and for the future of the entire planet. I promise it can get better if you want it to, but it is up to you.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3189
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is onlineOnline
#1 - Voltaire didn't say

#1 - Voltaire didn't say that...

#2 - That isn't the quote that he supposedly said...

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 "I disapprove of what you

 "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to 

the death your right to say it"- Evelyn Beatrice Hall in a biography on Voltaire talking about his attitude.  http://www.archive.org/stream/friendsofvoltair00hallrich/friendsofvoltair00hallrich_djvu.txt page 199, the actual quote she attributed to Voltaire was "What a fuss about an omelette!" in response to hearing about the public burning of Helvetius' book "On the Mind".  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:In conclusion,

Brian37 wrote:

In conclusion, my advice to the East is to stop seaking utopias. 

I agree with everything except this sentence. I don't see any evidence that there is anyone in those countries seeking a utopia.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Good post

 

 

I was thinking about something similar to the OP - perhaps in a simpler way - wondering why monotheistic religion exists and is so hostile to outlanders.

I think it must be because it serves an aggressive purpose. I don't think religion, from an evolutionary point of view, is gentle, or loving, or peaceful at all. I think it's a meme that expands the in-group, allowing the maximum number of individuals to benefit, and does so expressly to the detriment of outsiders.

I am starting to think of christianity and islam and fundamentalist judaism as hate cults. They are really about hatred of the personification of formless evil encapsulated in opposing world views that could be thought of as form of ideological 'racism', if you know what I mean. Goldstein's face may not be painted on the kaaba but it might as well be. Look at you Americans. The great satan. Raise kids thinking this and pretty much anything goes - forget about hearts and minds. That war was lost in kindergarten.   

We'd all agree there must be a evolutionary point to religion?

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

In conclusion, my advice to the East is to stop seaking utopias. 

I agree with everything except this sentence. I don't see any evidence that there is anyone in those countries seeking a utopia.

What? Must be some good weed your smoking. So now you claim the theocracies that squash religious and political dissent are "realistic" in dealing with the west?

HELLO MCFLY, you suffer from the same tunnel vision they do and the same tunnel vision that has caused humanity in it's evolution to take one label solutions and project it on the rest of humanity. The only diffrence between your monocromatic thinking and theirs is what you advocate and think can work for everyone.

It is the same delusional tunnel vision of projecting oneself on others. If there are minority sects in those contries AND THERE ARE, even of Islam then you still advocate a monopoly. If a monopoly is not an atempt to create a delusional garden of eden by projecting one's own desires on an entire nation, then you have me at a loss.

And the most idiotic denial on your part is that the powers that control those theocrocies do it with MONEY. They are theocratic plutocracies where the religious WEALTHY dictate to the rest of the population.

It still amounts to money equaling power to bully others. The difference between you and me is that I do not treat money by itself as evil, but merely recognize that humans can and do use it to create monopolies of power.

Untill you accept yourself as ONE individual which you do not, you will continue to fail to see that what you advocate is a road to a plutocracy under a different label.

MONEY is one aspect of a diverse society but cannot have special rights or more rights than those who don't have it. No one under their oppressive rule can compete because the wealth that lead to it was not kept in check. Our First Amendment is supposed to prevent things like that, but what you advocate can and will within a couple generations if left unchecked simply create wealth plutocracy with a different label.

For someone who claims to advocate freedom for you to say "they are realistic" is absurd and flat out laughable to even dare imply a utopia is not what they project. I cant wait to work in your sweat shops. 2 dollars a day 16 hour days 6 days a week because the global market and invesment should only care about profit, no utopia in that thinking. None at all.

Pot, allow me to introduce you to the kettle.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Atheistextremist wrote:  I

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

I was thinking about something similar to the OP - perhaps in a simpler way - wondering why monotheistic religion exists and is so hostile to outlanders.

I think it must be because it serves an aggressive purpose. I don't think religion, from an evolutionary point of view, is gentle, or loving, or peaceful at all. I think it's a meme that expands the in-group, allowing the maximum number of individuals to benefit, and does so expressly to the detriment of outsiders.

I am starting to think of christianity and islam and fundamentalist judaism as hate cults. They are really about hatred of the personification of formless evil encapsulated in opposing world views that could be thought of as form of ideological 'racism', if you know what I mean. Goldstein's face may not be painted on the kaaba but it might as well be. Look at you Americans. The great satan. Raise kids thinking this and pretty much anything goes - forget about hearts and minds. That war was lost in kindergarten.   

We'd all agree there must be a evolutionary point to religion?

 

No there is no point to religion anymore than there is is a point to evolution or the universe. Relgion only works like a sugar pill can work. A hurricane cannot exist under no conditions, but it does not conciously think about absorbing the water to gain it's fuel.

Religion is merely a comic book excuse to ignore the reality that evolution produces more oportunity to groups. In that sense delusions can have the real benefit of success, like believing the sun was a god made the Egyptians successful for 3,000 years. It is a flaw, a missfire and Dawkins aptly describes this in the God Delusion as "the moth mistaking the lightbulb for moonlight"

Which is why I don't avdocate the force of the end of religion via law, but a weening away from it being a priority through questioning and reason and checks and balances. Evolution will never reach perfection were all humans think alike or always get facts right. It's only goal is reproduction and it doesn't care if we use a lie to get to that point because evolution is a climate in biology, not an entity.

The best we can do with 7 billion who will never agree is to keep a check on each other and foster a long term attitude of thinking and questioning. If Muslim Keith Elleson can serve in our congress and Muslim Malala can defy her social norms, then that means we must give the growing cracks of questiong that is growing in the East the same fuel that lead to our Age of Enlightenment we defied Christianity with here. When you skip labels and make it about the range of human capability, while you can arge odds, I'd rather try and fail to foster that attitude, than never try at all.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

In conclusion, my advice to the East is to stop seaking utopias. 

I agree with everything except this sentence. I don't see any evidence that there is anyone in those countries seeking a utopia.

What? Must be some good weed your smoking. So now you claim the theocracies that squash religious and political dissent are "realistic" in dealing with the west?

HELLO MCFLY, you suffer from the same tunnel vision they do and the same tunnel vision that has caused humanity in it's evolution to take one label solutions and project it on the rest of humanity. The only diffrence between your monocromatic thinking and theirs is what you advocate and think can work for everyone.

It is the same delusional tunnel vision of projecting oneself on others. If there are minority sects in those contries AND THERE ARE, even of Islam then you still advocate a monopoly. If a monopoly is not an atempt to create a delusional garden of eden by projecting one's own desires on an entire nation, then you have me at a loss.

And the most idiotic denial on your part is that the powers that control those theocrocies do it with MONEY. They are theocratic plutocracies where the religious WEALTHY dictate to the rest of the population.

It still amounts to money equaling power to bully others. The difference between you and me is that I do not treat money by itself as evil, but merely recognize that humans can and do use it to create monopolies of power.

Untill you accept yourself as ONE individual which you do not, you will continue to fail to see that what you advocate is a road to a plutocracy under a different label.

MONEY is one aspect of a diverse society but cannot have special rights or more rights than those who don't have it. No one under their oppressive rule can compete because the wealth that lead to it was not kept in check. Our First Amendment is supposed to prevent things like that, but what you advocate can and will within a couple generations if left unchecked simply create wealth plutocracy with a different label.

For someone who claims to advocate freedom for you to say "they are realistic" is absurd and flat out laughable to even dare imply a utopia is not what they project. I cant wait to work in your sweat shops. 2 dollars a day 16 hour days 6 days a week because the global market and invesment should only care about profit, no utopia in that thinking. None at all.

Pot, allow me to introduce you to the kettle.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Utopia

Quote:

U·to·pi·a   [yoo-toh-pee-uh]  Show IPA

noun

1. an imaginary island described in Sir Thomas More's Utopia  (1516) as enjoying perfection in law, politics, etc.

2. an ideal place or state.

3. any visionary system of political or social perfection.

I don't think the leaders of those countries even pretend to be striving for an ideal place or state or social perfection, therefore, they are not seeking a utopia. They get their power through violent force and shamelessly use it for their personal benefit. That is not a utopia in any sense of the word. Communism is an example of a philosophy seeking a utopia, so is RBE and anarchists. The middle east is far more Machiavellian than Utopian, IOW they practice politics for the purpose of gaining and maintaining power, not out of any kind of idealistic beliefs. 

You continually calling my beliefs Utopian is also absurd. I don't pretend that it is possible to have perfection. My entire philosophy is that shit isn't perfect so get over it and stop wasting your time trying to fix everything. I don't believe government can or should attempt to solve all of our problems. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

In conclusion, my advice to the East is to stop seaking utopias. 

I agree with everything except this sentence. I don't see any evidence that there is anyone in those countries seeking a utopia.

What? Must be some good weed your smoking. So now you claim the theocracies that squash religious and political dissent are "realistic" in dealing with the west?

HELLO MCFLY, you suffer from the same tunnel vision they do and the same tunnel vision that has caused humanity in it's evolution to take one label solutions and project it on the rest of humanity. The only diffrence between your monocromatic thinking and theirs is what you advocate and think can work for everyone.

It is the same delusional tunnel vision of projecting oneself on others. If there are minority sects in those contries AND THERE ARE, even of Islam then you still advocate a monopoly. If a monopoly is not an atempt to create a delusional garden of eden by projecting one's own desires on an entire nation, then you have me at a loss.

And the most idiotic denial on your part is that the powers that control those theocrocies do it with MONEY. They are theocratic plutocracies where the religious WEALTHY dictate to the rest of the population.

It still amounts to money equaling power to bully others. The difference between you and me is that I do not treat money by itself as evil, but merely recognize that humans can and do use it to create monopolies of power.

Untill you accept yourself as ONE individual which you do not, you will continue to fail to see that what you advocate is a road to a plutocracy under a different label.

MONEY is one aspect of a diverse society but cannot have special rights or more rights than those who don't have it. No one under their oppressive rule can compete because the wealth that lead to it was not kept in check. Our First Amendment is supposed to prevent things like that, but what you advocate can and will within a couple generations if left unchecked simply create wealth plutocracy with a different label.

For someone who claims to advocate freedom for you to say "they are realistic" is absurd and flat out laughable to even dare imply a utopia is not what they project. I cant wait to work in your sweat shops. 2 dollars a day 16 hour days 6 days a week because the global market and invesment should only care about profit, no utopia in that thinking. None at all.

Pot, allow me to introduce you to the kettle.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Utopia

 

Quote:

U·to·pi·a   [yoo-toh-pee-uh]  Show IPA

noun

1. an imaginary island described in Sir Thomas More's Utopia  (1516) as enjoying perfection in law, politics, etc.

2. an ideal place or state.

3. any visionary system of political or social perfection.

I don't think the leaders of those countries even pretend to be striving for an ideal place or state or social perfection, therefore, they are not seeking a utopia. They get their power through violent force and shamelessly use it for their personal benefit. That is not a utopia in any sense of the word. Communism is an example of a philosophy seeking a utopia, so is RBE and anarchists. The middle east is far more Machiavellian than Utopian, IOW they practice politics for the purpose of gaining and maintaining power, not out of any kind of idealistic beliefs. 

You continually calling my beliefs Utopian is also absurd. I don't pretend that it is possible to have perfection. My entire philosophy is that shit isn't perfect so get over it and stop wasting your time trying to fix everything. I don't believe government can or should attempt to solve all of our problems. 

 

Goverment cannot nor should fix all our problems, I AGREE. But you are a hypoctrit when Ryan in his own state accepted goverment grants? Would you care to tell everyone here where our tax dollars went to in those "grants".

When we build a miliitary ship complete with weapons and computers, is all that tax going to factories owned by our government? I suppose all the apple and pc computers on those same ships are made in factories owned by our goverment and not private industry, just like Jeep was government owned during WW2? Even today you' have us believe that even the metal to make our ships is made solely by government factories? I know of private factories goverment contracts give our tax dollars too, but I defy you to show me one computer or metal or weapons factory owned by our government.

You'd have us all believe that Bowing and GE are government owned because they provide the military technology?

Dont blow smoke up my ass. This is merely cherry picking tax cuts and grants to the private sector. So to be consistant you should refrain from it yourself along with your corporate buddies the Koch brothers, but to have the nerve to create a dbouble standard and lie and say that is not what you are doing is a Utopian delusion.

When you do it it is ok when the rich do it it is ok, but not when the middle class or poor do it? That is nothing but advocation of a monopoly and a plutocracy. Unfortunately for you, and luckily for our three class system which includes the lower two classes, you are a hypocrite and flat out dead wrong.

So unless you plan on outlawing the bottom two classes from voting or non property owners from voting, and I wish you luck on that, your logic does not pan out.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:We as a

Brian37 wrote:

We as a species CAN get along when we chose.  

How is "getting along" beneficial evolutionarily? Isn't it more successful biologically to dominate women, use them to have high birth rates and then kill those who compete against your tribe for the planets limited resources?

If humans can't cooperate on limiting population size, WTF is the point of cooperating on anything? If we can't to do this, then the winners are just whomever has the highest birth rates and wages war best, since we're competing not cooperating.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Goverment

Brian37 wrote:

Goverment cannot nor should fix all our problems, I AGREE. But you are a hypoctrit when Ryan in his own state accepted goverment grants? Would you care to tell everyone here where our tax dollars went to in those "grants".

How am I a hypocrite for something Ryan did? I don't support the man. In fact, I happen to have met him once when he was a young up and coming congressman and I was working as a political fundraiser I disliked him from the first handshake. Still can't explain exactly why but I had a bad gut reaction to him right away and I trust my gut.

  

Brian37 wrote:

When we build a miliitary ship complete with weapons and computers, is all that tax going to factories owned by our government? I suppose all the apple and pc computers on those same ships are made in factories owned by our goverment and not private industry, just like Jeep was government owned during WW2? Even today you' have us believe that even the metal to make our ships is made solely by government factories? I know of private factories goverment contracts give our tax dollars too, but I defy you to show me one computer or metal or weapons factory owned by our government.

????? Where did I ever make that claim?

 

Brian37 wrote:

You'd have us all believe that Bowing and GE are government owned because they provide the military technology?

?????? Where did I make that claim?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Dont blow smoke up my ass. This is merely cherry picking tax cuts and grants to the private sector. So to be consistant you should refrain from it yourself along with your corporate buddies the Koch brothers, but to have the nerve to create a dbouble standard and lie and say that is not what you are doing is a Utopian delusion.

I support reforming the whole tax code and not having any deductions. But yeah, I take every deduction I can, I don't pay the government a penny more than I have to because I believe I can spend my money better than they can. I also believe that Buffett, Koch, Gates and even you can spend tax money better than the government. And if you don't spend it better than the government I don't care, it is your money you can waste it however you want whether I think it is a good idea or not. I fail to see the double standard or the utopia there, I spend my money the way I want, you spend yours the way you want and if either of us don't like how the other guy spends it, tough shit.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

When you do it it is ok when the rich do it it is ok, but not when the middle class or poor do it? That is nothing but advocation of a monopoly and a plutocracy. Unfortunately for you, and luckily for our three class system which includes the lower two classes, you are a hypocrite and flat out dead wrong.

So unless you plan on outlawing the bottom two classes from voting or non property owners from voting, and I wish you luck on that, your logic does not pan out.

??? ok for me to do what exactly? Exactly what am I trying to stop the poor from doing that I apparently support the rich doing? My reading comprehension must be off and I haven't even started drinking yet. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote:Brian37 wrote:We

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

We as a species CAN get along when we chose.  

How is "getting along" beneficial evolutionarily? Isn't it more successful biologically to dominate women, use them to have high birth rates and then kill those who compete against your tribe for the planets limited resources?

If humans can't cooperate on limiting population size, WTF is the point of cooperating on anything? If we can't to do this, then the winners are just whomever has the highest birth rates and wages war best, since we're competing not cooperating.

 

What the heck is all this tripe? First off no, if evolution favored men always we wouldn't have a consitantly global majority of women. Secondly, where did I say we should not work on slowing down the global birth rate? How do you think that is done? BY EMPOWERING WOMEN to have control over their own bodies and educations and economic destinies.

And I said we are capable of getting along, that does not mean we always should. When I talk about  cooperation I am talking about the same cooperation that causes men to dominate women. The same cooperation that causes totalitarian states, and the same cooperation that frees people from those conditions because EVOLUTION IS BOTH.

And it is the same cooperation that causes you to side with economic policies you like and fail to see while it may be benificial to your mindset it comes at the expense of assuming the same right to dominate that you say AND I agree we shouldnt strive for based on your objections above.

Cooperation can lead to both the dark side of evolution and the compassionate side of evolution and BOTH WORK, what leads people into fascist states is the same thing that leads them out of fascist states because social animals can and have done both.

Evolution like nature is BOTH good and bad. Volcanos can and have killed people, but have also increased the size of islands and provided neutrients for soil. Humans as well, we can dominate each other and we can also cooperate with each other for both good and bad and for our respective tribes and seek alliances with other tribes. Both occur in friend and foe.

So "can" in this instance is to foster a counter to the bullying and an appeal to the nurture side of nature, not a label thing or a denial of the reality that cooperation doesnt always works. The more women in the world and girls especially that learn that they have the right to autonomy and education we can slow down that birth rate without any implication of Hitler type tinkering. Set a trogen horse in the minds of girls and women and see how long men can get away with opressing them without looking like bullies.

 

Saying utimately evolution doesn't care does not negate the fact that humans have evoled with the ability to reason. Now does that make good things always a given? No, but our growing self awarness can and often does improve conditions both on a technological level and a inner tribal level. If it didn't ever work Europe and the Americas never would have combined the collective tribes to defeat their collective fascismwich they built from different tribes. Much less would our species ever had left the caves.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Goverment cannot nor should fix all our problems, I AGREE. But you are a hypoctrit when Ryan in his own state accepted goverment grants? Would you care to tell everyone here where our tax dollars went to in those "grants".

How am I a hypocrite for something Ryan did? I don't support the man. In fact, I happen to have met him once when he was a young up and coming congressman and I was working as a political fundraiser I disliked him from the first handshake. Still can't explain exactly why but I had a bad gut reaction to him right away and I trust my gut.

  

Brian37 wrote:

When we build a miliitary ship complete with weapons and computers, is all that tax going to factories owned by our government? I suppose all the apple and pc computers on those same ships are made in factories owned by our goverment and not private industry, just like Jeep was government owned during WW2? Even today you' have us believe that even the metal to make our ships is made solely by government factories? I know of private factories goverment contracts give our tax dollars too, but I defy you to show me one computer or metal or weapons factory owned by our government.

????? Where did I ever make that claim?

 

Brian37 wrote:

You'd have us all believe that Bowing and GE are government owned because they provide the military technology?

?????? Where did I make that claim?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Dont blow smoke up my ass. This is merely cherry picking tax cuts and grants to the private sector. So to be consistant you should refrain from it yourself along with your corporate buddies the Koch brothers, but to have the nerve to create a dbouble standard and lie and say that is not what you are doing is a Utopian delusion.

I support reforming the whole tax code and not having any deductions. But yeah, I take every deduction I can, I don't pay the government a penny more than I have to because I believe I can spend my money better than they can. I also believe that Buffett, Koch, Gates and even you can spend tax money better than the government. And if you don't spend it better than the government I don't care, it is your money you can waste it however you want whether I think it is a good idea or not. I fail to see the double standard or the utopia there, I spend my money the way I want, you spend yours the way you want and if either of us don't like how the other guy spends it, tough shit.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

When you do it it is ok when the rich do it it is ok, but not when the middle class or poor do it? That is nothing but advocation of a monopoly and a plutocracy. Unfortunately for you, and luckily for our three class system which includes the lower two classes, you are a hypocrite and flat out dead wrong.

So unless you plan on outlawing the bottom two classes from voting or non property owners from voting, and I wish you luck on that, your logic does not pan out.

??? ok for me to do what exactly? Exactly what am I trying to stop the poor from doing that I apparently support the rich doing? My reading comprehension must be off and I haven't even started drinking yet. 

You don't need to drink, your delusion makes you drunk enough.

Your hypocracy says it all and I do not believe for one second that you want to stop the rich and poor evenly, you are flat out lying and your hypocrisy of crying about the other two classes and non property owners shows it.

I have given you a way out but cannot see the difference between cant and dont want to. Now I do agree that government cannot solve all our problems but it has and can, so the only way for you to stop dipping in the till of grants or taxs cuts, which you know you damned well wont do, to stop things like wealfare for the poor or emergency room use for those without health care is to litterally prevent them from voting which you know you cannot do.

So the truth if you say less dependency is like you say you want, DO IT ON YOUR OWN, but you don't mean that at all, if you get a tax break from hiding your profits overseas you will. If you get a tax break for employing less full time people to prevent from paying more payroll tax, you will. If government offers you a grant to open another store, you'd take it.

But in doing that your mindset, even if not you personally, still feed into the climate where competition means for the non business owner more hours, less pay and a lower bottem to our three class system.

Here is what I do not do. I am glad government solves our problems sometimes by giving money to private sector. I am glad it pays private air industry to make the jets that and drones that take out assholes like Bin Ladin. I am for government help IF a business creates more than crappy jobs. I do not expect government never to give money to the private sector, it should when it works and it did in building our highways and electric grid nationwide and it collectively helped defeat the Nazis.

Unlike you I don't claim that the private sector never should get help from government like you imply that non business owners should never get help from government.

If you truely say we shouldn't spend more money than we have to, then do not expect non business owners to simply "get another job" or "get an education" when neither of those work under the conditions we have now.

But what you constantly do is treat poverty as a crime which is nothing but scapegoating.

Bottom line, I do not believe you when you say you care about the poor. I do believe that you think they are trash. I also believe that any limited contact you have is patronizing garbage. I do believe you live in a bubble. I do believe that your idea of competition is to work for a climate of cheaper labor.

I am sure that is great for you and may benifit your business and your workers, but it still feeds into a bigger collective climate that advocates a race to the bottom.

So when you say "Where did I say that", you don't have to, your hypocrisy and double standard gives you away.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You don't need

Brian37 wrote:

You don't need to drink, your delusion makes you drunk enough.

Your hypocracy says it all and I do not believe for one second that you want to stop the rich and poor evenly, you are flat out lying and your hypocrisy of crying about the other two classes and non property owners shows it.

What specific policy have I ever supported that shows my supposed hypocrisy? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I have given you a way out but cannot see the difference between cant and dont want to. Now I do agree that government cannot solve all our problems but it has and can, so the only way for you to stop dipping in the till of grants or taxs cuts, which you know you damned well wont do, to stop things like wealfare for the poor or emergency room use for those without health care is to litterally prevent them from voting which you know you cannot do.

So the truth if you say less dependency is like you say you want, DO IT ON YOUR OWN, but you don't mean that at all, if you get a tax break from hiding your profits overseas you will. If you get a tax break for employing less full time people to prevent from paying more payroll tax, you will. If government offers you a grant to open another store, you'd take it.

I would not take a government grant because I believe it is immoral, however as long as the government offers grants there are those who are more than willing to take them, and waste them. I can't do it on my own because I am not dictator and we have laws and I have to pay my taxes or face some unpleasant consequences. But yes, I will take every tax break I can get because I do not believe that my money is spent wisely by the government. How is that being a hypocrite? Being a hypocrite is Warren Buffett who bemoans his low tax rate while paying the best accountants and attorneys to minimize the amount he pays. Since I believe government is wasting my money and should tax me at a lower amount, taking tax breaks is very consistent with my beliefs.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

But in doing that your mindset, even if not you personally, still feed into the climate where competition means for the non business owner more hours, less pay and a lower bottem to our three class system.

Here is what I do not do. I am glad government solves our problems sometimes by giving money to private sector. I am glad it pays private air industry to make the jets that and drones that take out assholes like Bin Ladin. I am for government help IF a business creates more than crappy jobs. I do not expect government never to give money to the private sector, it should when it works and it did in building our highways and electric grid nationwide and it collectively helped defeat the Nazis.

If the government is purchasing something necessary to fulfill a specific need I don't have a problem with that. Government can and should provide police forces, military and courts. It needs to purchase a few things to fulfill those duties, and I have no problem with that. For a specific list of governments duties I refer you to article 1 section 8 of our Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html if the government needs to purchase something to fill those specific duties I have no issue. The vast majority of government spending today has nothing to do with any of that.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Unlike you I don't claim that the private sector never should get help from government like you imply that non business owners should never get help from government.

I also claim that private businesses should never get help from the government. Government should not be in the business of deciding who to help and who not to help. If the government needs to buy an item it can buy it, if the government decides to hand out money because someone needs money that is not a good thing.

 

Brian37 wrote:

If you truely say we shouldn't spend more money than we have to, then do not expect non business owners to simply "get another job" or "get an education" when neither of those work under the conditions we have now.

Why not? Are you incapable of getting a job? Are you incapable of educating yourself? Why is it my responsibility to create a job for you, you don't create one for me. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

But what you constantly do is treat poverty as a crime which is nothing but scapegoating.

Bottom line, I do not believe you when you say you care about the poor. I do believe that you think they are trash. I also believe that any limited contact you have is patronizing garbage. I do believe you live in a bubble. I do believe that your idea of competition is to work for a climate of cheaper labor.

Believe what you want, no one who knows me would agree with you. Are you capable of addressing my arguments without making assumptions about my personal life that you could not possibly know? Not once have I ever denigrated what you do for a living. At most I have suggested that IF you want more money, that you pursue a different career. IF money is not important to you, then why do you whine so much about not having it? Your income is perfectly predictable from what you chose to do for a living. In most industries, it is very easy to predict what kind of income you will have before you even enter it. If you choose a low wage job it isn't surprising you earn a low wage.

My whole position on life is "you do what you want and I will do what I want". When I say I don't care, I really don't. This attitude has led me to have a wide variety of friends from very different walks of life. One day I can hang out with someone who is popping pills and doing lines of coke in the ghetto and the next throw on a nice suit to meet someone for dinner at Jeff Ruby's. I am equally comfortable in a cockroach infested run down building playing cards as I am walking into a fancy country club. I don't judge anyone for their situation in life because I do not believe it is my place to judge.

All I say is that your situation in life is of your own creation, so if you don't like it, it is up to you to change it. If you tell me you like smoking crack and sleeping in a roach motel fine. Good for you. If you tell me you don't like it I will suggest you stop smoking crack. I don't see how suggesting that someone make changes to their life when that person is apparently unhappy with it is judgmental. You decide for yourself what you want in life and take steps to get there. I may or may not be able to offer suggestions on how to do so, but I don't think it is my responsibility to tell you what to do or to fix your situation for you. And your situation in life is certainly not my fault, no matter what kind of convoluted rant you try to make that makes me responsible for all of your problems.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

I am sure that is great for you and may benifit your business and your workers, but it still feeds into a bigger collective climate that advocates a race to the bottom.

So when you say "Where did I say that", you don't have to, your hypocrisy and double standard gives you away.

IOW you can't address any of my arguments directly so making me out to be a caricature of Mr. Scrooge and attacking me personally is all you have.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

You don't need to drink, your delusion makes you drunk enough.

Your hypocracy says it all and I do not believe for one second that you want to stop the rich and poor evenly, you are flat out lying and your hypocrisy of crying about the other two classes and non property owners shows it.

What specific policy have I ever supported that shows my supposed hypocrisy? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I have given you a way out but cannot see the difference between cant and dont want to. Now I do agree that government cannot solve all our problems but it has and can, so the only way for you to stop dipping in the till of grants or taxs cuts, which you know you damned well wont do, to stop things like wealfare for the poor or emergency room use for those without health care is to litterally prevent them from voting which you know you cannot do.

So the truth if you say less dependency is like you say you want, DO IT ON YOUR OWN, but you don't mean that at all, if you get a tax break from hiding your profits overseas you will. If you get a tax break for employing less full time people to prevent from paying more payroll tax, you will. If government offers you a grant to open another store, you'd take it.

I would not take a government grant because I believe it is immoral, however as long as the government offers grants there are those who are more than willing to take them, and waste them. I can't do it on my own because I am not dictator and we have laws and I have to pay my taxes or face some unpleasant consequences. But yes, I will take every tax break I can get because I do not believe that my money is spent wisely by the government. How is that being a hypocrite? Being a hypocrite is Warren Buffett who bemoans his low tax rate while paying the best accountants and attorneys to minimize the amount he pays. Since I believe government is wasting my money and should tax me at a lower amount, taking tax breaks is very consistent with my beliefs.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

But in doing that your mindset, even if not you personally, still feed into the climate where competition means for the non business owner more hours, less pay and a lower bottem to our three class system.

Here is what I do not do. I am glad government solves our problems sometimes by giving money to private sector. I am glad it pays private air industry to make the jets that and drones that take out assholes like Bin Ladin. I am for government help IF a business creates more than crappy jobs. I do not expect government never to give money to the private sector, it should when it works and it did in building our highways and electric grid nationwide and it collectively helped defeat the Nazis.

If the government is purchasing something necessary to fulfill a specific need I don't have a problem with that. Government can and should provide police forces, military and courts. It needs to purchase a few things to fulfill those duties, and I have no problem with that. For a specific list of governments duties I refer you to article 1 section 8 of our Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html if the government needs to purchase something to fill those specific duties I have no issue. The vast majority of government spending today has nothing to do with any of that.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Unlike you I don't claim that the private sector never should get help from government like you imply that non business owners should never get help from government.

I also claim that private businesses should never get help from the government. Government should not be in the business of deciding who to help and who not to help. If the government needs to buy an item it can buy it, if the government decides to hand out money because someone needs money that is not a good thing.

 

Brian37 wrote:

If you truely say we shouldn't spend more money than we have to, then do not expect non business owners to simply "get another job" or "get an education" when neither of those work under the conditions we have now.

Why not? Are you incapable of getting a job? Are you incapable of educating yourself? Why is it my responsibility to create a job for you, you don't create one for me. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

But what you constantly do is treat poverty as a crime which is nothing but scapegoating.

Bottom line, I do not believe you when you say you care about the poor. I do believe that you think they are trash. I also believe that any limited contact you have is patronizing garbage. I do believe you live in a bubble. I do believe that your idea of competition is to work for a climate of cheaper labor.

Believe what you want, no one who knows me would agree with you. Are you capable of addressing my arguments without making assumptions about my personal life that you could not possibly know? Not once have I ever denigrated what you do for a living. At most I have suggested that IF you want more money, that you pursue a different career. IF money is not important to you, then why do you whine so much about not having it? Your income is perfectly predictable from what you chose to do for a living. In most industries, it is very easy to predict what kind of income you will have before you even enter it. If you choose a low wage job it isn't surprising you earn a low wage.

My whole position on life is "you do what you want and I will do what I want". When I say I don't care, I really don't. This attitude has led me to have a wide variety of friends from very different walks of life. One day I can hang out with someone who is popping pills and doing lines of coke in the ghetto and the next throw on a nice suit to meet someone for dinner at Jeff Ruby's. I am equally comfortable in a cockroach infested run down building playing cards as I am walking into a fancy country club. I don't judge anyone for their situation in life because I do not believe it is my place to judge.

All I say is that your situation in life is of your own creation, so if you don't like it, it is up to you to change it. If you tell me you like smoking crack and sleeping in a roach motel fine. Good for you. If you tell me you don't like it I will suggest you stop smoking crack. I don't see how suggesting that someone make changes to their life when that person is apparently unhappy with it is judgmental. You decide for yourself what you want in life and take steps to get there. I may or may not be able to offer suggestions on how to do so, but I don't think it is my responsibility to tell you what to do or to fix your situation for you. And your situation in life is certainly not my fault, no matter what kind of convoluted rant you try to make that makes me responsible for all of your problems.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

I am sure that is great for you and may benifit your business and your workers, but it still feeds into a bigger collective climate that advocates a race to the bottom.

So when you say "Where did I say that", you don't have to, your hypocrisy and double standard gives you away.

IOW you can't address any of my arguments directly so making me out to be a caricature of Mr. Scrooge and attacking me personally is all you have.

I don't have to make you look like anything, you do a fine job all by yourself. "I don't care" "I don't owe you anything" No you don't. But when you say that it is hard for others to take you seriously when you hypocritically act like you do.

I have consistanly adressed your points. You hide behind the mantra of cooruption pretending to hate both parties but are willing to ask that same big money to fuel your own whims, under the guies of smaller government. I don't think you really care about smaller government, I think you merely use it as an excuse to clammor for the same dollars Republicans clammor for only that if your candidate gets that same money he can bring home the bacon to you or more bacon to you.

What kind of payola could your third party candidate give you? Bigger tax cuts than the republicans give you? Better contracts than the republicans give you? More tax shelters or bigger tax shelters than the republicans give you?

See with less government, if you get it, would free the way for the gass on the fire that you want to throw on it. Like I said, you are nothing but a Republican on steroids.

Yea, I trust you Mr "I am sure the Koch brothers don't care about your wages". Where do I sign up for your party? You make it sound sooooooo appealing. That is like telling the M&M that they are not the snack at the party but really are the guest.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I have

Brian37 wrote:

I have consistanly adressed your points. You hide behind the mantra of cooruption pretending to hate both parties but are willing to ask that same big money to fuel your own whims, under the guies of smaller government. I don't think you really care about smaller government, I think you merely use it as an excuse to clammor for the same dollars Republicans clammor for only that if your candidate gets that same money he can bring home the bacon to you or more bacon to you.

Show me one place where I ever supported government pork. I will agree that many in the republican party fit your description, that is why I left the republican party and am no longer involved because I was disgusted by how they took over and suddenly didn't give a shit about reducing federal power. Their attitude was "we will simply use it better", it is despicable and every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

What kind of payola could your third party candidate give you? Bigger tax cuts than the republicans give you? Better contracts than the republicans give you? More tax shelters or bigger tax shelters than the republicans give you?

With taxes my position has always been no tax shelters, no deductions and the same flat rate for everyone, precisely because tax deductions and credits are one of the chief means politicians use to hand out favors. The rate should be calculated specifically to match the amount being spent. My ideal candidate would cut the federal budget to about 1/3rd or less of what it is now and spend money only on the things listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. They would repeal all laws at the federal level that cannot be directly traced back to that section. They would reduce our military to the size of a protection only force and bring most of our troops home from overseas. 

The result would be that responsibility for economic shit and the social safety net would fall on the state governments where I imagine there would be wide variations. Some states going the leftist route like California until they go bankrupt and others taking a more right wing approach. Our country was designed so that state governments controlled most things and the federal government was highly limited, now it is the other way around, the federal government is involved in almost everything and dictates to the states what they must do. All I really want on the federal level is a return to being a Republic, it is much easier for me to fight for the specific freedoms I want at the state level than at the federal level. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I have consistanly adressed your points. You hide behind the mantra of cooruption pretending to hate both parties but are willing to ask that same big money to fuel your own whims, under the guies of smaller government. I don't think you really care about smaller government, I think you merely use it as an excuse to clammor for the same dollars Republicans clammor for only that if your candidate gets that same money he can bring home the bacon to you or more bacon to you.

Show me one place where I ever supported government pork. I will agree that many in the republican party fit your description, that is why I left the republican party and am no longer involved because I was disgusted by how they took over and suddenly didn't give a shit about reducing federal power. Their attitude was "we will simply use it better", it is despicable and every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

What kind of payola could your third party candidate give you? Bigger tax cuts than the republicans give you? Better contracts than the republicans give you? More tax shelters or bigger tax shelters than the republicans give you?

With taxes my position has always been no tax shelters, no deductions and the same flat rate for everyone, precisely because tax deductions and credits are one of the chief means politicians use to hand out favors. The rate should be calculated specifically to match the amount being spent. My ideal candidate would cut the federal budget to about 1/3rd or less of what it is now and spend money only on the things listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. They would repeal all laws at the federal level that cannot be directly traced back to that section. They would reduce our military to the size of a protection only force and bring most of our troops home from overseas. 

The result would be that responsibility for economic shit and the social safety net would fall on the state governments where I imagine there would be wide variations. Some states going the leftist route like California until they go bankrupt and others taking a more right wing approach. Our country was designed so that state governments controlled most things and the federal government was highly limited, now it is the other way around, the federal government is involved in almost everything and dictates to the states what they must do. All I really want on the federal level is a return to being a Republic, it is much easier for me to fight for the specific freedoms I want at the state level than at the federal level. 

 

 

Once again you are selling a utopia. The Constitution was never always state or always federal, otherwise there would be no supremacy clause. And you stupidly lump tax issues in with social issues and try to make everything a blanket issue. The constitution never favors absolute power and everything is case  by case via legislation and or the check and balance of the supreme court.

I woudl not want issues about minorities like gays being state rights. I don't give one fuck what the majority wants, you cannot lump humans in with tax issues with "states rights". If we did that women could still not vote and blacks would still be using separate bathrooms. "States" rights like "federal" supremacy clause, HAVE NEVER BEEN ABSOLUTE NOR SHOULD BE, it is always a ballance and a battle and case by case.

IN THEORY everything sounds nice on paper. It does have the appeal of ainti monopoly. Here is the problem though with your logic. Big business HAS NOT been behaving itself, you default to all state rights all the time and like I said, it will be handing the chicken coop to the foxes, not that they already are not guarding the hen house, it would be throwing gas on the fire. The only way what you say could work is that introspection and loyalty to the worker, community and environment, none of which is being demonstrated right now. If they already use resources and slash a community and without regard to the worker or environment, like I said, it would be nothing but republicans on steroids.

All I see right now is that if you got what you wanted, would make things worse. The idea itself is not bad, but the CONDITIONS OF CLIMATE are not there to make it work. The ONLY way what you say can work is for big business to care and I see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING right now that shows me that they will change.

Like I said, the Constitution is not a entitlement for one class of people or only there to protect those with power or money. Checks and oversight apply to business as well, the non business citizen is not a resource to be exploited by business. Non business workers of both private sector and gorvernment workers ARE NOT TOOLS, they are humans. Our mess is precisely because big business has a "fuck you I got mine" attitude. Move it to "states rights" in our current climate, and you might as well hand us over to china and build nothing but sweat shops.

 

I told you what you could do to fix that, but you stupidly keep saying "I cant" when the reality is you simply "dont want to". I'd actually consider your plan if your attitude changed, but since you don't seem to want to do anything but care about yourself, you give me no insentive at all to think our current climate will change to make what you say work.

Untill you understand that ANYTHING left to it's own devices, can become abusive, you will not understand why I say you are nothing but a Republican on steroids.  All making it "states rights" will do, is localize abuse and monopolies. Attitude change has to happen for what you say to work. Dont expect me to support an idea that will simply give more power to money. It is a three class system, not a one class system.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Once again you

Brian37 wrote:

Once again you are selling a utopia. The Constitution was never always state or always federal, otherwise there would be no supremacy clause. And you stupidly lump tax issues in with social issues and try to make everything a blanket issue. The constitution never favors absolute power and everything is case  by case via legislation and or the check and balance of the supreme court.

Where is the utopia? Read definition above, you really struggle with the meaning of that word. I didn't say "always state" I said the federal government should stick to the enumerated powers- the ones specifically assigned to it. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I woudl not want issues about minorities like gays being state rights. I don't give one fuck what the majority wants, you cannot lump humans in with tax issues with "states rights". If we did that women could still not vote and blacks would still be using separate bathrooms. "States" rights like "federal" supremacy clause, HAVE NEVER BEEN ABSOLUTE NOR SHOULD BE, it is always a ballance and a battle and case by case.

In case you haven't noticed gay marriage is a state issue right now, although there are many bigots who want to use the federal government to pass a law outlawing it everywhere. They already passed the "Defense of Marriage Act" and I do not think it is impossible that the bigots will win on that issue. If you leave it with the states, at least in a few places the bigots will lose.

Women voting and equal protection do not come from federal law. It comes directly from the Constitution which the state governments have to follow just as much as the federal government. I never suggested that states have the right to ignore the Constitution.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

IN THEORY everything sounds nice on paper. It does have the appeal of ainti monopoly. Here is the problem though with your logic. Big business HAS NOT been behaving itself, you default to all state rights all the time and like I said, it will be handing the chicken coop to the foxes, not that they already are not guarding the hen house, it would be throwing gas on the fire. The only way what you say could work is that introspection and loyalty to the worker, community and environment, none of which is being demonstrated right now. If they already use resources and slash a community and without regard to the worker or environment, like I said, it would be nothing but republicans on steroids.

You think that big business does not hold sway in DC?

 

Brian37 wrote:

All I see right now is that if you got what you wanted, would make things worse. The idea itself is not bad, but the CONDITIONS OF CLIMATE are not there to make it work. The ONLY way what you say can work is for big business to care and I see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING right now that shows me that they will change.

And you think that continually growing the federal government and passing more federal regulations like we have been for the last 100 years is going to change it? You are going to continue voting for the people who have been in power with this climate you love to cry about? Sounds irrational to me. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Like I said, the Constitution is not a entitlement for one class of people or only there to protect those with power or money. Checks and oversight apply to business as well, the non business citizen is not a resource to be exploited by business. Non business workers of both private sector and gorvernment workers ARE NOT TOOLS, they are humans. Our mess is precisely because big business has a "fuck you I got mine" attitude. Move it to "states rights" in our current climate, and you might as well hand us over to china and build nothing but sweat shops.

Nice hyperbole.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

I told you what you could do to fix that, but you stupidly keep saying "I cant" when the reality is you simply "dont want to". I'd actually consider your plan if your attitude changed, but since you don't seem to want to do anything but care about yourself, you give me no insentive at all to think our current climate will change to make what you say work.

Why does my attitude matter? Exactly what do you want me to do to "fix it"? You do realize I am not a dictator right? I don't expect people to change at  all. As I pointed out, some people will be assholes and I am fine with that. The best thing to do is to make sure that no one has the political power to use force to impose their (im)morality. If you have the power to use force to impose your morality, someone else has the power to impose theirs. In case you haven't noticed there are a lot of people using federal laws to benefit themselves personally at the expense of others. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Untill you understand that ANYTHING left to it's own devices, can become abusive, you will not understand why I say you are nothing but a Republican on steroids.  All making it "states rights" will do, is localize abuse and monopolies. Attitude change has to happen for what you say to work. Dont expect me to support an idea that will simply give more power to money. It is a three class system, not a one class system.

Certainly there will be plenty of abuses at the state level, but it is much easier to counteract corruption at the state level than it is at the federal level. I can physically go out and knock on every single door in my district and tell everyone about whatever local corruption I believe is happening. It is impossible to do that at the federal level. Even large cases of corruption like Solyndra are written off as "small" because it is only $500 million. Guess what, $500 million is a shitload of money, it just gets lost in the large scale of everything at the federal level. Here in Ohio the republican party was crucified when a crony stole $13 million in rare coins that the BWS invested in. It was one of the main reasons Ted Strickland (a democrat) won because people were outraged at the cronyism. It is simply easier to hold politicians responsible locally than it is when they are in DC. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 I agree with practically

 I agree with practically everything in the opening thread. Yet there is this bothersome hemmorhoidal fact that even if say the Palestinians became liberal, peaceful, secular people striving for a pluralistic modern democracy, the Israelis would still treat them like shit. Indeed if you are a west loving atheist Palestinian, the Israelis at the checkpoints would still force you to bend over and take it up the ass. I agree that much of the responsibility falls on Arabs to modernize but Israel and the west need to foster that change via the following steps:

1. Stop supporting those fucking fascist Arab dictators

2. Stop supporting radical Islamic groups to combat a "common" foe eg. communists in Afghanistan

3. Stop claiming to honor 1 person 1 vote and deny that right to Palestinians

4. Stop painting false absolute dichotomies eg. Israelis wear white hats and Arabs wear black hats

5. Start supporting the liberal moderate Muslims. Instead of spending billions on unwanted wars, why not use those funds to get the Malalas in high political positions in the Islamic world. Don't see the Israelis lift a finger on this one

And I'm sure there are lots more to add to this list