Here we go - SCOTUS ignores separation of church and state

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Here we go - SCOTUS ignores separation of church and state

Well - We are in for a long ride.

SCOTUS has allowed a Lutheran school and church, who applied for Federal aid to resurface their playground, but was denied by the State of Missouri, now has won a landmark case with SCOTUS saying they are allowed the funds.

What is really fucked up about this?

Trinity Lutheran went to court, claiming that the grant denial interfered with its free exercise of religion and unconstitutionally discriminated against the school based on religion.

WHAT THE FUCK?

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15494
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 The GOP has been attacking

 The GOP has been attacking every secular institution since Reagan. The fundies hijacked that party and have been slowly turning back the clock ever since.

"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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Absolute proof

that praying don't work. Hell sakes, just take it to the supreme court.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 Those of you who hate this

 Those of you who hate this decision:

Do you want to ban all schools that mix religion with secular instruction? Should a church  be allowed to run a school?

Should all private institutions not be allowed to receive these funds? A commercial mall for instance?

Should people that want to send their kids to religious schools be exempt from paying taxes for public schools?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
you've just turned into a

you've just turned into a pure contrarian here lately.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Those of you who hate this

Those of you who hate this decision

I don't hate, but I find the decision to be illogical.

 

Do you want to ban all schools that mix religion with secular instruction?

That's a private decision on their part and a fallcy on your part.

Secular instruction is any thing non religious.

 

Should a church  be allowed to run a school?

That is a private decision on their party and a fallacy on your part.

Churches are allowed to run schools and has nothing to do with use of money for improving a playground with federal funds.

 

Should all private institutions not be allowed to receive these funds?

Private institutions who are non-secular yes. Private institutions who are secular no.

 

A commercial mall for instance?

Commercial properties receive funds from the Federal, State and Local governments for a variety of purposes or improvements. This is another fallacy on your part.

A commercial mall is for public use. The playground is not a public area. I can't walk up and bring my kid over to play on the playground.

 

Should people that want to send their kids to religious schools be exempt from paying taxes for public schools?

Yet another fallacy on your part.

It is a personal decision to send your child to a private school. Taxes are not paid directly to a school tax. It is applied to a specific tax associated with stuff like a property tax or a sales tax.

It is the decision of the board, committee or trustees to apply taxes as needed to the public. Almost all taxes applied to a public school are from a property tax.

There are rare occasions where a sales tax might go up a 1/2 penny for school improvements but I know of no "school tax" specifically.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
This is a tuffy for me

In this case the separation of religion and state has to be done by the entity recieving the funds. That is---the school wouldn't be able to teach religion in the school. If it does then--the school violates the separation, not the state. Under this idea a private school can recieve the funds insolongas--it doesn't teach religion. So, that means that the school would have to be secular (as is understooid) and the church is held separate. IF, a school teaches religion while recieving public funds it looses it's funding. A religious school could be setup aside from the secular. Would this work--NO---becasue money is God. The question becomes not whether this would work or not, but rather, how long would it take to catch the school useing the funds for religious purposes.

I detect an attempt of government to control religions through the use of money. If they accept the money they've been had by the gov. Becasue, money is loved on planet Earth more then people or what they believe. It is no different with religions. Religions would rather get the money and pretend to obey the Gov. Considering that religion and government are the same thing and exist for the same ideas (controling people) the money takes precident. The Supreme court know this---or they are awful stipid.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15494
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: Those of you who

EXC wrote:

 Those of you who hate this decision:

Do you want to ban all schools that mix religion with secular instruction? Should a church  be allowed to run a school?

Should all private institutions not be allowed to receive these funds? A commercial mall for instance?

Should people that want to send their kids to religious schools be exempt from paying taxes for public schools?

 

You are one dense idiot! The purpose of the tax code ISN'T to prevent ANYONE from using the same laws. If you take tax payer funding you cannot discriminate. This bullshit allows a backslide idiot.

You watch this shit backfire when the first American Muslim school files a lawsuit claiming they have the right to discriminate against Christians.

 

Morons like you must not understand what it was like 50 years ago for miniorities, much less 100 years ago or at the founding. 

This is a horrible decision and fuckfaces like you are advocating going back in time. 

"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: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Secular instruction is any thing non religious.

What is the legal standard for what is religious and what is secular? Many people believe environmentalism, climate change and psychology are religious.

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:


Private institutions who are non-secular yes. Private institutions who are secular no.


So the Italian-Americans club yes? The Moose club yes. Even though they are not open to the general public?

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

A commercial mall is for public use. The playground is not a public area. I can't walk up and bring my kid over to play on the playground.

So a church must let the playground be open to the public, then they can have funds? Also, I think a lot of playgrounds at public schools are reserved for the students, you can't take your kid their without permission.

 

What about funds to earthquake retrofit a church building?

Should 911 calls from churches be answerd since this is receiving a public benefit?

If injured kids at church playgrounds end up having their medical bills paid by the government, why shouldn't the government do this if it saves money in the long run?

To me, to not allow this is discrimination against religion. Churches should be treated like private clubs. If you're going to judge the speech that goes on in the club, this is a restriction upon free speech.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The Court seems

EXC wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Secular instruction is any thing non religious.

What is the legal standard for what is religious and what is secular? Many people believe environmentalism, climate change and psychology are religious.

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:


Private institutions who are non-secular yes. Private institutions who are secular no.


So the Italian-Americans club yes? The Moose club yes. Even though they are not open to the general public?

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

A commercial mall is for public use. The playground is not a public area. I can't walk up and bring my kid over to play on the playground.

So a church must let the playground be open to the public, then they can have funds? Also, I think a lot of playgrounds at public schools are reserved for the students, you can't take your kid their without permission.

 

What about funds to earthquake retrofit a church building?

Should 911 calls from churches be answerd since this is receiving a public benefit?

If injured kids at church playgrounds end up having their medical bills paid by the government, why shouldn't the government do this if it saves money in the long run?

To me, to not allow this is discrimination against religion. Churches should be treated like private clubs. If you're going to judge the speech that goes on in the club, this is a restriction upon free speech.

 

to have lost the meaning of "private property". The constitution has become skewed to mean anything they want it to.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
wrote: So the

wrote:

So the Italian-Americans club yes? The Moose club yes. Even though they are not open to the general public?

So a church must let the playground be open to the public, then they can have funds? Also, I think a lot of playgrounds at public schools are reserved for the students, you can't take your kid their without permission.

What about funds to earthquake retrofit a church building?

Should 911 calls from churches be answerd since this is receiving a public benefit?

If injured kids at church playgrounds end up having their medical bills paid by the government, why shouldn't the government do this if it saves money in the long run?

To me, to not allow this is discrimination against religion. Churches should be treated like private clubs. If you're going to judge the speech that goes on in the club, this is a restriction upon free speech.

All fallacies.

Stick with the subject.

The Federal government is now taking sides on religious grounds. They wouldn't give federal funding to a Mosque asking for funding for their playground.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I think 9 1 1

would be a matter of citizenship and not attached to religion. And, according to the Supreme Court, the police don't have to show up if they don't want to.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The Federal government is now taking sides on religious grounds. They wouldn't give federal funding to a Mosque asking for funding for their playground.

Who says the a Mosque couldn't get funding for their playground? There was nothing in the ruling that only Christian churches could get funding. If the court rules the other way, the government would be favoring non-religious groups over religious ones. This would about to regulating what speech could be said inside.

The fact is that all taxtation ends up being financial support for a special group or interest. Taxation is a  totally irrational concept for a society that purports to be for equality, justice and fairness. You are only mad about these welfare queens because it is a group you despise, quite hypocritical.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:would be a

Old Seer wrote:

would be a matter of citizenship and not attached to religion. And, according to the Supreme Court, the police don't have to show up if they don't want to.

Never heard of fire dept. checking inmmigration status before putting out the fire.

So if a group of atheists met, they would need to provide them with service. But anyone metions Jesus,  let 'em die?

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:The court

Old Seer wrote:
The court seems to have lost the meaning of "private property". The constitution has become skewed to mean anything they want it to.

Government has become religion. Whatever is convenient. Whatever justifies theft(aka taxation).

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
We understand that

EXC wrote:

Old Seer wrote:
The court seems to have lost the meaning of "private property". The constitution has become skewed to mean anything they want it to.

Government has become religion. Whatever is convenient. Whatever justifies theft(aka taxation).

government has always been a religion. Instead of believing in an invisible type God people believe in a few that rule--with the permission of a God of some type, mostly the common thought of what God is. The common thought is---governments exist to take the place of God. Way back in time "people" replaced the invisible God and rule by permission of god. To us, that puts government in the context of religion. We don't accept the idea that there ever was an invisible God character ruleing the universe. This is why we don't fit well in the Atheist or Theist catagoies. Atheists are still under the rule of religion through government, which is operated by entities of religious beliefs. Religion and government are inseperable. Disbelief in and invisible entity doesn't change the process, or , seperstion of church and stae cahnges nothing also. The basics of rule have been set by religion in past times and remains today. The idea of "secular" is a mental trick. Changing the concept of relitgion changes nothing. The few that rule do so no differently then the the invisible concept---the result is the same.

On another note- Tax by anyother name is still tax. A fee is still a tax.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I think EXC is close to

I think EXC is close to jumping into the deep end forever.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: digitalbeachbum

EXC wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The Federal government is now taking sides on religious grounds. They wouldn't give federal funding to a Mosque asking for funding for their playground.

Who says the a Mosque couldn't get funding for their playground? There was nothing in the ruling that only Christian churches could get funding. If the court rules the other way, the government would be favoring non-religious groups over religious ones. This would about to regulating what speech could be said inside.

The fact is that all taxtation ends up being financial support for a special group or interest. Taxation is a  totally irrational concept for a society that purports to be for equality, justice and fairness. You are only mad about these welfare queens because it is a group you despise, quite hypocritical.

LMAO - with the anti Muslim rhetoric these days?

Actually I don't belive any religious group should get funding from the government. None.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:On another

Old Seer wrote:

On another note- Tax by anyother name is still tax. A fee is still a tax.

So you would consider a postage stamp a tax?

There are some charges where there is some correlation with service, charges like income tax have little to none. It is a amounts to a penalty for working. An insane thing for a society that proports to encourage a strong work ethic.

We actually live in a socity of the elites, by the elites and for the elites.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:EXC

Brian37 wrote:

EXC wrote:

 Those of you who hate this decision:

Do you want to ban all schools that mix religion with secular instruction? Should a church  be allowed to run a school?

Should all private institutions not be allowed to receive these funds? A commercial mall for instance?

Should people that want to send their kids to religious schools be exempt from paying taxes for public schools?

 

You are one dense idiot! The purpose of the tax code ISN'T to prevent ANYONE from using the same laws. If you take tax payer funding you cannot discriminate. This bullshit allows a backslide idiot.

You watch this shit backfire when the first American Muslim school files a lawsuit claiming they have the right to discriminate against Christians.

 

Morons like you must not understand what it was like 50 years ago for miniorities, much less 100 years ago or at the founding. 

This is a horrible decision and fuckfaces like you are advocating going back in time. 

Very Trumpian. Now you need to lecture us on how Trump is worse than Hitler because he insults and bullies with his rants. You are exactly like him.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes.

EXC wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

On another note- Tax by anyother name is still tax. A fee is still a tax.

So you would consider a postage stamp a tax?

There are some charges where there is some correlation with service, charges like income tax have little to none. It is a amounts to a penalty for working. An insane thing for a society that proports to encourage a strong work ethic.

We actually live in a socity of the elites, by the elites and for the elites.

postage costs are a tax. I paid 13.00 clams and a crayfish for a copy of my Dad's Death dertificate. According to a US Marine or two that I was on a forum with a while back who were on city and county boards said, governmknet can only collect tax. The fee Idea is only to make it look like we're paying less and calling it a "fee" is to hide the term "Tax". And I suppose it came from their legal guys to inform them of that. The legal designate has to be consulted on practacally evry thein they decide or want to make law. Tax---fee or or other wise can only come from tax. Some middle classers ( according to the constitution there's no such thing in government as a "class" of anybody)The only legal term that government can atribute to a person is - person or citizen. Some floks )refered to as "the middle class" are paying as high as 55% of thier money received as tax, combining all taxes, fees and attachments.

Social Security is not a tax, becasue it is returned at a later date--it's merely a goverment mandated retirement collection. However, it is now placed as a tax becasue it has become included in the general funds whch are derived from "Tax". But it still is not a tax. I think that's because there is an Opt Out clause somewhere in the works that people don't know about or are unaware of.

Don't expect the Supreme Court to go according to the constitution--if it did in all cases---the governmnet would be anulled. So, to skate around the issure they now have to use the "for the greater good clause" which does not apply to hardly anything except the Gov can do good works for the greater cause. Eminent domain is for "the greater cause", but however--it cannot possibly take someone's private property and give it to another private citizen for the greater good---which the Supreme court has rules as constitutional. IT CAN"T BE. As a farmer I can conspire with the county to get someone' elses farm--be casue I can do a gtreater good with his property, as long as I use that property for the greater good--and can profit from it. The reason I bring all this up is to show how things over time get skewed to fit whatever the gov wants. That also has to do with taxes---ant money government collects is "tax". Anything else is skewing the teem tax---or you'll come to the conclusion on your own (which they can't have) that you're being "taxed" to much. The term "fee" hides the tax.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:postage costs

Old Seer wrote:

postage costs are a tax. I paid 13.00 clams and a crayfish for a copy of my Dad's Death dertificate. According to a US Marine or two that I was on a forum with a while back who were on city and county boards said, governmknet can only collect tax. The fee Idea is only to make it look like we're paying less and calling it a "fee" is to hide the term "Tax". And I suppose it came from their legal guys to inform them of that. The legal designate has to be consulted on practacally evry thein they decide or want to make law. Tax---fee or or other wise can only come from tax. Some middle classers ( according to the constitution there's no such thing in government as a "class" of anybody)The only legal term that government can atribute to a person is - person or citizen. Some floks )refered to as "the middle class" are paying as high as 55% of thier money received as tax, combining all taxes, fees and attachments.

Social Security is not a tax, becasue it is returned at a later date--it's merely a goverment mandated retirement collection. However, it is now placed as a tax becasue it has become included in the general funds whch are derived from "Tax". But it still is not a tax. I think that's because there is an Opt Out clause somewhere in the works that people don't know about or are unaware of.

Don't expect the Supreme Court to go according to the constitution--if it did in all cases---the governmnet would be anulled. So, to skate around the issure they now have to use the "for the greater good clause" which does not apply to hardly anything except the Gov can do good works for the greater cause. Eminent domain is for "the greater cause", but however--it cannot possibly take someone's private property and give it to another private citizen for the greater good---which the Supreme court has rules as constitutional. IT CAN"T BE. As a farmer I can conspire with the county to get someone' elses farm--be casue I can do a gtreater good with his property, as long as I use that property for the greater good--and can profit from it. The reason I bring all this up is to show how things over time get skewed to fit whatever the gov wants. That also has to do with taxes---ant money government collects is "tax". Anything else is skewing the teem tax---or you'll come to the conclusion on your own (which they can't have) that you're being "taxed" to much. The term "fee" hides the tax.

 

I'm receiving next to nothing of value from my taxes or any money that goes to govenment. That is why all services they provide need to be privatized.

No one forces you to buy a postage stamp. So how can it be a tax? We're force to pay SS, so it is a tax. A fee is something you pay to receive a product or sevice in return. Of course someone always tries to hijack language for their advantage. Such is life in a competitive world.

How did land become private property in the first place? No one created it with their work. In USA, the 'eminant domain' of white settlers enabled them to claim it as their own from native tribes. So the government decided in the first place who would own the land. So why can't the government take it back? Government should collect money from user fees on land use instead of taxing work and entrepreneurship.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: No one forces you

EXC wrote:

No one forces you to buy a postage stamp. So how can it be a tax? We're force to pay SS, so it is a tax. A fee is something you pay to receive a product or sevice in return. Of course someone always tries to hijack language for their advantage. Such is life in a competitive world.

How did land become private property in the first place? No one created it with their work. In USA, the 'eminant domain' of white settlers enabled them to claim it as their own from native tribes. So the government decided in the first place who would own the land. So why can't the government take it back? Government should collect money from user fees on land use instead of taxing work and entrepreneurship.

You are forced to buy a stamp to use the postal service.

You are forced to pay SS if you work for a law abiding employer.

Land became private because the American Indians were raped, pillages and lied to by the French, the Spanish and the English (to name a few) settlers.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
According to

digitalbeachbum wrote:

EXC wrote:

No one forces you to buy a postage stamp. So how can it be a tax? We're force to pay SS, so it is a tax. A fee is something you pay to receive a product or sevice in return. Of course someone always tries to hijack language for their advantage. Such is life in a competitive world.

How did land become private property in the first place? No one created it with their work. In USA, the 'eminant domain' of white settlers enabled them to claim it as their own from native tribes. So the government decided in the first place who would own the land. So why can't the government take it back? Government should collect money from user fees on land use instead of taxing work and entrepreneurship.

You are forced to buy a stamp to use the postal service.

You are forced to pay SS if you work for a law abiding employer.

Land became private because the American Indians were raped, pillages and lied to by the French, the Spanish and the English (to name a few) settlers.

The Marines I was on line with that were on county and town boards, the lawyers told them that, any funds government recieves by mandate of law is a "tax". Government can only collect monies from the public if it is a tax. A tax by any other label is still a tax. Tax referes to "government collected monies" not private party collections or fees one would pay to a business for sevices or goods. (Hot damn, I should have been a lawyer) EXEC as many other seems to look at government as a service to the piublic. That's false. The constitution says that the gov can collect taxes (and tarriffs) to pay it's bills. It has (by insight) no obligation to be a do-gooder, except gov can (not obligated) to support things for the greater good. But the gov has gone overboard on do gooding to get votes for the electeds to keep them in office of which they conjured into a lucrative and power-playing gang of thieves. Government has become to look like a do gooding corporation of businesslike services. So people have come to expect government to be like a business--such as --I pay taxes so the gov owes me something. It don't. Every thing the gov does is afforded to it by the people, and the gov use the people's money to buy the people's votes by all the do gooding --and in turn has created a government that the people expect to be do dooded by.

 If all the monies paid to government were seen for what it is --a tax--the people would know "how much" they actually pay in tax--then you would really hear them  bitching. The whole of government in the US (and everywhere else for that matter) has become a gross misuse of the people at the expense of their bank accounts and constitutional rights. The intents of the founders are not in play today.

All the whinning about Trump in Washington DC is being done by scumbags no different then Trump himself. The difference is--Trumps things are in the open and their's is hidden. All the secret agencies in the world have all the goods on all the polititians in all the countries. Russia has the goods on American polititians and vice versa. All the bitching about Russia is just show time on a daily basis. Everyone in government knows each other, and the only ones that don't know are the masses, the ones that are paying for the schrade. 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:All the

Old Seer wrote:

All the whinning about Trump in Washington DC is being done by scumbags no different then Trump himself. The difference is--Trumps things are in the open and their's is hidden.

1) You contradicted yourself. Drumpf is either a scumbag, no different than the others OR Drumpf is not a scumbag and he doesn't hide things?

2) HAHAHA. Drumpf is a master at hidding things.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
When discussing

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

All the whinning about Trump in Washington DC is being done by scumbags no different then Trump himself. The difference is--Trumps things are in the open and their's is hidden.

1) You contradicted yourself. Drumpf is either a scumbag, no different than the others OR Drumpf is not a scumbag and he doesn't hide things?

2) HAHAHA. Drumpf is a master at hidding things.

politics it's very hard not to be contradictory, as politics is inheirently in itself contradictory. But I try. I think we went way off the OP.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:You

digitalbeachbum wrote:

You are forced to buy a stamp to use the postal service.

You are forced to pay SS if you work for a law abiding employer.

Land became private because the American Indians were raped, pillages and lied to by the French, the Spanish and the English (to name a few) settlers.

The postage stamp has correlation between payment and service. You have alternatives now day. Of course the Postal Service should be privatized to get rid of its monopoly.

With SS, there is little correlation. Some people receive more than they pay in, most way less or nothing. Youi don't have a choice for alternatives.

When a business charges you for services you don't want/use/need, you are upset. Why not the same with government?

After the genocide/forced evacutaion of the natives, the government came in and granted land deeds to European settlers. This was essentially eminant domain of taknig land from one group and legally giving it to another. Which is why the right wingers are total hypocrites about the taking of their property. The government giveth and taketh. Natural resouses should be considered public resourses.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:You

Old Seer wrote:

politics it's very hard not to be contradictory, as politics is inheirently in itself contradictory.

Politics is the art of making people think you care about them while putting a gun to their heads to rob them blind. Fortunately for politicians, most people are ignorant of this fact.

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
What you have here

EXC wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

politics it's very hard not to be contradictory, as politics is inheirently in itself contradictory.

Politics is the art of making people think you care about them while putting a gun to their heads to rob them blind. Fortunately for politicians, most people are ignorant of this fact.

 

 

is a discription of why long in the past (the original reason for it' development) civilization was created. It was created by individuals to take advantage of the masses just as we have polititions doing today. Civilization will never be able to get away from why it was developed/invented. I understand where you're coming from. What you don't realize (maybe) is that civilization isn't for the masses--it's for the ones who run it and/or become successful by it and within it, and they are the "real" civilized while the rest are used by them to be what they are, as it was designed by them, for them. Civilization was creatd out of the prospect of capitalism--to capilalize on the masses. What hides the concepth is--they let everyone participate in the process knowing full well it won'f work for the greater number, so the minor successes keep the many pursueing to be successful as the most successful. Think about it--if every one suddenly had a million dollars everyone would be poor in short time and you'd have the same result as is of today. It seems no one is aware that evil doing can be financed as well as good doing. Money improves the concept of evil more so then good doing.

Capitalism is more profitable from evil  then from good, as it's systems rely on subjigation of the masses by no choice but to go along with a system of evil. This is why civilizations cannot possibly ever work and end themselves as evil becomes undertaken for more profit and eventually evil destroys it's own system, as evil is injurious to eveything, so in turn it destroys those also who operate civil discourse.

Think gain--- no one needs to love anyone in a monitary system-as all can live through money--caring about one another is not needed by an individual. The operators know this. Being we all have a "Human" side this gets added into the equation and remains within the system but human is dominated by the inhuman--if not, the system fails. So, politians have a continious phony face that they present them selves before the public, but, behind the scenes they are rats  peering through holes in the wall to keep track of the public moods. In turn the masses became like them to a greater or lessor degree keeping the people blind as to who/what the real problem is, because the people became part of it, but not exactly it. Social problems are created by the mental conditons of people, and all those conditions eminate from the top. What's wrong with political thinking becomes what's wrong with the people's thinking.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
If you're thinking

That Capitalism will work--it won't. Socialism--nope-won't work either, communism---nope,  won't work either. consumerism---nope, won't work either,   Monarchy, well hells bells that has for ages been proved not to work, --democracy, nope, that won,t work either, and as can be seen isn't working at present. So, what's one to do.

Heres what "we" know--All these forms of governmnet are derived from the makeup of "person". These are the aspects of how YOU and I and EVERYONE else has been created by nature, YOU are an individual that contains all of these charactheristics and governing factors what rules your behaviour with others. OK, for example, live your life by useing only one of these---it won't work---you need all of them to be a person. Are you getting the idea? Central government exists on using ONE of these when everyone has all of them. Now you may be beginning to understand why central government cannot work. It cannot represent YOUR person. The only one that can use these characteristics when needed is YOU. You cannot yourself be representative of only one of these and no central government can use (or cliam) all of them to exist---if they do--you won't need them.

 Once you understand you (this is info of the Psycho Smurfs) no one else can govern you and would have to be seen as a fool to try. You then at present  are governed by others who don't understand "WHO/WHAT you are and neither do you.  (wink) Are you getting it. Therfore then--when you know you, you will know that the one (s) trying to govern you has to be a deceiver--becaue you'll know them. They can pick only one of the characteristics at a time in order to govern you, and you'll know which one that is--because knowing you also gets you to know everyone else because nature made us all with the same characteristics, right.  The only reason another wants to govern you would have to be for their own reasons, not yours. So, if you know yourself, you can govern yourself. AND, if everyone knows what you know---be damn carefull how you relate to others--because they'll know what your intent is. Central government relies on you not knowing you, ,and they confiscated you at birth to fit the system they govern. That why you went to school--to be made in accordance with government mandates. If all these characteristics pointed out are YOU--- Who/WHATda hell is senator/congress person ----WHO.  Central governments do not rule via democracy or any other of your personal characteristics--that is an impossibility. Governments can only rule by "force". All the government charateristics that you "are" is what rules your relationsips with others. It cannot be any other way.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth