Socialism? Marxism?

[joerockhead]

iivL4c_3pck

Yes, it is his desire to push us that way. Be successful, and unless you are on the good side, you have to share your wealth.

[joerockhead]

And this man tries to justify it, saying he does not intend to "share the Wealth"


President of the Black - yeah, he is really non partisan.

A4hlvwtXSeU

[gemo]

Obama clearly says redistribution of wealth.
Honestly, I would never want help others if I was forced to.
Its my money I do what I want with it, I shouldn't be forced to, even though I already am with paying taxes. But making it even more so fuck that.

I thought we spent the last 50 years fighting agianst socialist ideology?
People should have to work for what they want not sit back waiting for hand outs.

[ddoubleez]

Trickle down theory was a redistribution of wealth.........

Taxation that accompanies economic stimulation is what is being preached now... France, Germany, and the Swiss are doing well with this thinking.....

The demonetization of socialism was to convince you that purchasing nuclear weapons was a good idea...... Nearly every successful society were socialist... This is the first country, EVER, to put corporations before its people...........

If you had any understanding of the current distrabution of wealth, you would be outraged that we have not made the change already......

Look up L-curve:

8VHNXTBwj80&feature=related

In addition, I hope you understand, people that own mulitple homes and private jets, but this economy in a disasterous situation, BECAUSE they were on welfair and still are.... Tax breaks are welfair and the rich pay a smaller percentage if they pay at all...

http://www.lcurve.org/


woIkIph5xcU

[ddoubleez]

iivL4c_3pck

Yes, it is his desire to push us that way. Be successful, and unless you are on the good side, you have to share your wealth.


:graffin: :kornut: :mags: :) :eek3: :tongue: :bowdown: :bowrofl: :coold: :cool: :mstad: :shannon: :ugh: :hay:



WLLf_dkJEXU

Ps The IRS is a statefunded and state run (socialism<<<<<<) corperation, whos only role is to redistribute wealth....... You are only questioning the degree in which it is done and who should handle the largest portion and who should benifit from it........ Not whether or not it should be done..... :kiss:

[shiiboi]

Be successful, and unless you are on the good side, you have to share your wealth.
This is a manufactured controversy. Context is key.

The Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Earl Warren was regarded as a radical court by conservatives during the 1960's because their rulings about civil rights and racial desegregation essentially created new laws-- legislation is supposed to be the province of congress, not the courts.

Obama was challenging the radical label of the Warren Court on the grounds that their rulings did nothing to end the racial discrimination which resulted in economic inequalities. In a truly free market, wealth would be distributed more widely, but because of prejudice against blacks, they were economically disadvantaged. Obama's claim is simply that if more stringent rulings against racism had been made by the Warren Court, the evidence would have been a redistribution of wealth to what would be expected in a free market.

Please pay attention to what's being said and not latching on to the sound bites which can be made to mean something else taken out of context. The reality of what he's saying is a whole lot more boring than you want to believe.

[rjsincs]

what i dont understand is how people are bashing obama over this but all the bs that bush has done with the lying, stealing, and misleading etc for the last 8 years is ok? i agree that it sux to get taxed more but it seems that bush and mccains idea is to tax the poor people more and to let the people with millions of dollars not pay as much taxes. shouldnt we be helping the people who need help not the rich?

its like the bailout they gave the million dollar making people money and left the poor people to keep getting poorer. they should have paid off the mortgages and helped the poor as well as the rich. at least the money wouldnt be given out as junkets and bonuses to the people who caused the mess in the first place.

taking from the rich and giving to the poor isnt a problem if its done right. its taking from the poor and giving to the rich which is wrong and what it seems like you guys are promoting. maybe you have a lot of money to burn and will be hurt by obamas plan but me and prolly 90% of this country will benefit from it.

[Krasch]

what i dont understand is how people are bashing obama over this but all the bs that bush has done with the lying, stealing, and misleading etc for the last 8 years is ok? i agree that it sux to get taxed more but it seems that bush and mccains idea is to tax the poor people more and to let the people with millions of dollars not pay as much taxes. shouldnt we be helping the people who need help not the rich?

its like the bailout they gave the million dollar making people money and left the poor people to keep getting poorer. they should have paid off the mortgages and helped the poor as well as the rich. at least the money wouldnt be given out as junkets and bonuses to the people who caused the mess in the first place.

taking from the rich and giving to the poor isnt a problem if its done right. its taking from the poor and giving to the rich which is wrong and what it seems like you guys are promoting. maybe you have a lot of money to burn and will be hurt by obamas plan but me and prolly 90% of this country will benefit from it.
There's only a few problems with this.

Any confiscatory "tax the rich" scheme fails because it's not the rich who end up geting taxed big time. They already HAVE their money. It's high income earners who are trying to get to the state of being rich who pay the price. These are the same people who start and own companies that hire the poor and middle classes so hurting them tax-wise ends up really hurting their employees who are ostensibly the one's such a tax scheme is supposed to help.

The cother big issue is that it presents a real disincentive for anyone to succeed and make good money because they're just going to get fleeced by the feds anyway. All that does is make the wealthier people out there just as miserable as the poor people. Is it better to bring everbody down to the lowest common demoninatior of misery, or lighten the barriers so everyone has an increased chance to succeed and prosper?

Is America not the land of opportunity? or is it the land of opportunity only as long as you don't do TOO well at it, "too well" being some arbitrary income figure set by politicians that will inevitably be a lot lower than most anyone would expect.

[rjsincs]

There's only a few problems with this.

Any confiscatory "tax the rich" scheme fails because it's not the rich who end up geting taxed big time. They already HAVE their money. It's high income earners who are trying to get to the state of being rich who pay the price. These are the same people who start and own companies that hire the poor and middle classes so hurting them tax-wise ends up really hurting their employees who are ostensibly the one's such a tax scheme is supposed to help.

The cother big issue is that it presents a real disincentive for anyone to succeed and make good money because they're just going to get fleeced by the feds anyway. All that does is make the wealthier people out there just as miserable as the poor people. Is it better to bring everbody down to the lowest common demoninatior of misery, or lighten the barriers so everyone has an increased chance to succeed and prosper?

Is America not the land of opportunity? or is it the land of opportunity only as long as you don't do TOO well at it, "too well" being some arbitrary income figure set by politicians that will inevitably be a lot lower than most anyone would expect.


so your saying its better to take the most money from the people who cant feed their familys or heat their homes? i agree that it may hurt the small percent up and commers a little but is it better to raise the lower class and hurt a few upper middle class who are trying to become high class than to hurt the low and middle and give more money to the higher class?

and i think it should be easier to live than to become a millionair. my point is with obama hes helping 90+% of americans esp the ones who cant aford food or heat where mccain is catering to the 10% of people who dont need any help anyway.

[joerockhead]

.........and i think it should be easier to live than to become a millionair. my point is with obama hes helping 90+% of americans esp the ones who cant aford food or heat where mccain is catering to the 10% of people who dont need any help anyway.

Only people that are not even close to that, and think they should deserve more, think your way. They listen to the TV and commercials. Instead of finding out the truth.

Obama will share the wealth, even more people that are not carrying the load will get something for nothing. And those of us that bust ass (at work and with the books) will pay more.

:shannon: I work hard for my money, I should have full say on where it is distributed. NOT the Government!

[Krasch]

so your saying its better to take the most money from the people who cant feed their familys or heat their homes? i agree that it may hurt the small percent up and commers a little but is it better to raise the lower class and hurt a few upper middle class who are trying to become high class than to hurt the low and middle and give more money to the higher class?

and i think it should be easier to live than to become a millionair. my point is with obama hes helping 90+% of americans esp the ones who cant aford food or heat where mccain is catering to the 10% of people who dont need any help anyway.
Not at all, of course you shouldn't take the most money from the people who can't fed their families.

But that isn't what's happening now in any case... nor would it under the most draconian Republican scheme imaginable.

The progressive tax system in the US (and Canada has a very similar setup FYI) the lowest wage earners pay only 10% tax on their first $8,350 of income (assuming they're single based on 2009 figures). Even people making more than that up to $33,950 pay only 15% on the last dollar of income earned (these are marginal tax rates not average...)

And it only gets worse from there. Someone making as little as $82,251 pays almost twice that (28%) on their last dollar and even under that were [paying only 3% less than that on all income over that $33,950.

The Tax Federation (that non-profit organization that figures out when "Tax Freedom" day is) crunched a lot of numbers and published a report in 2007 that not only did the top 25% of wage earners earned 67.5% on the nation's income but paid about 86% of all federal taxes, that the top 1% paid almost half of that 86% (39.4%) while earning only 21.2% of the income, but that the same 1% of wage earners paid about the same as the bottom 95%.

High income earners are already taking it on the chin, they don't need it made any worse.

Now about you question of "raise the lower class and hurt a few upper middle class who are trying to become high class than to hurt the low and middle and give more money to the higher class", well that's wrong too.

Go after those "upper middle class" and you end up shooting yourself in the foot. Why? Because those people are the ones who create jobs for the middle and lower classes to work at, either directly by starting businesses that employ people like you and me, or indirectly by investing in corporations, providing them with the liquidity they need to employ people and function on a daily basis. Go after those few because hey, they can spare it right? and you end up really hitting the many when jobs get cut left and right and the many making little are now making none. Not what you planned, was it?

Class warfare, which is what you're really suggesting when you get down to it, SOUNDS good on the surface because most of us would rather that if somebody has got to get the shaft, better it be the other guy than ourselves. The reason it doesn't hold up is that most people have no clue just how pervasive an effect the other guy's "excess" income has in their own daily lives, or how quickly any negative impact to that income will trickle down and end up making their lives a lot more difficult.

Better to remove barriers and promote an environment that helps EVERYONE move up, otherwise everyone will surely go down.

Jack Kemp said "A rising tide lifts alll boats." Ben Franklin said "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."

They were both right. And still are.

[zpr]

:shannon: I work hard for my money, I should have full say on where it is distributed. NOT the Government!

:werd: :werd:
I've been working since I was 16. When I was 28 I reached a point that I could breathe. You know what I had to do to get here? After I had to start my life over because of a medical discharge from the Army, I started school again. For 2 years I worked 8 hours a day, went to school 5 hours a day and drove for 2 to 3. Put being a father of 3 and a husband on top of that and remember that I had to eat, sleep, study and shower at some point each day. I got ahead using my own blood, sweat and tears. There were no handouts for an average white guy that was married to the mother of all 3 of his children.
I worked close to 1000 hours of overtime last year and am close to the same this year. That adds up to more than a lot of people make on strait time. Why should I work that hard to get someone else ahead? Nobody ever gave me shit. I shouldn't have to give anyone else shit. You want to get ahead? Work your ass off like I did.
I donate to charities to help people who try. Even when I had nothing I gave to charities because I knew that there were people with less. When I see some douche sitting on the side of the road begging for money with an Obama/Biden sign, I get a pretty good idea of what the next 4 years could be like.

[rjsincs]

Only people that are not even close to that, and think they should deserve more, think your way. They listen to the TV and commercials. Instead of finding out the truth.

Obama will share the wealth, even more people that are not carrying the load will get something for nothing. And those of us that bust ass (at work and with the books) will pay more.

:shannon: I work hard for my money, I should have full say on where it is distributed. NOT the Government!

so should no one pay taxes then? i think your watching a little too much tv also. dont act like you know all about mccain. you know as much about him as i do obama. i know i dont know everything and nor do you. but i do know he will help the us a hell of a lot better than mccain and the republicans. in the end they are just as bad as eachother.

[rjsincs]

i think in the end it doesnt matter. the country is sick of the republicans and the 8 years of lies and backstabbing and even though mccain would be better than bush he wouldnt be better than obama. with any luck people will be smart enough to elect obama and try something different. the country is in the toilet no matter how you look at it. i doubt ultimately it will get any worse if obama takes the helm. even if hes completely ineffective he will still be better than whats there now. if in 4 years the country is worse off and mccain is still alive and running i will vote for him pending theres no better candidate out there. but as it stands i think the general population is better with obama.

[shiiboi]

I worked close to 1000 hours of overtime last year and am close to the same this year. That adds up to more than a lot of people make on strait time. Why should I work that hard to get someone else ahead? Nobody ever gave me shit.Do you own your own company?

If not, then you are working that hard to get someone else ahead-- the owner(s) of your company.

Under our 'system,' company owners automatically own value created by your labor. Yet, you are not paid a wage that reflects that value, nor even a wage that is a percentage of the contribution your labor makes towards the total income of the company.

Instead, your wages are based on the supply and demand of potential employees in the workforce. When unemployment is low, companies with the power to do so find new talent pools to draw from, i.e., offshoring jobs, in order to keep unemployment as high as possible, and thus keep wages as low as possible.

The amount of value created in excess of the amount paid in wages is redistributed to the company owners.

Our entire system is set up to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few by redistributing value from the many to the few.

You object that the indigent are asking for a handout, yet you seem to accept it as some self-evident right of the wealthy that they are entitled to a handout from you.


You want to get ahead? Work your ass off like I did.You will never never become wealthy by working. The only way to become wealthy is by owning the right to value created by others.

[zpr]

Do you own your own company?

If not, then you are working that hard to get someone else ahead-- the owner(s) of your company.

I produced over $350,000 in service revenue last year. I feel that I was compensated very well for that. I didn't get to take that entire amount, but I didn't have to pay for my support team either. I could start my own business and try to make it, but I would not get as much work and I would not have very good support. My company as a whole work just as hard as I do for the money that I earn for them. I do not agree with handouts to people that sit on their ass and pop out kids so the state doesn't cut their benefits.

Under our 'system,' company owners automatically own value created by your labor. Yet, you are not paid a wage that reflects that value, nor even a wage that is a percentage of the contribution your labor makes towards the total income of the company.

Instead, your wages are based on the supply and demand of potential employees in the workforce. When unemployment is low, companies with the power to do so find new talent pools to draw from, i.e., offshoring jobs, in order to keep unemployment as high as possible, and thus keep wages as low as possible.

That depends on the industry. I see this as a non-issue in my industry.

The amount of value created in excess of the amount paid in wages is redistributed to the company owners.

It is also reinvested in the company. My company is family owned and now in the hands of the third generation. Net profit has been redistributed among the owners for 60 years. I did not start the company 60 years ago. I did not spend the last 60 years building a loyal customer base.
My company makes up to $140 per hour from my labor. They provide me with a $130k truck and all the maintenance and fuel I need. They provide me with training to keep me on the leading edge of the industry. I have access to a huge staff help me get my job done. If I were to do this on my own, I could expect about $60 per hour and have no support.
I have no problem making them rich because they put an effort into it.

Our entire system is set up to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few by redistributing value from the many to the few.



You object that the indigent are asking for a handout, yet you seem to accept it as some self-evident right of the wealthy that they are entitled to a handout from you.


You misunderstand me. Every day I see people standing on the corner begging for money. Whenever I see them, I see that I could just as easily be there. I could have made one choice when I was a teenager that would have put me in their place. I made choices that made me have to fight harder to not end up in their shoes. I put an effort into life and made a success out of what should have been failure. I don't think anyone should have to go through what I did. But when people make the choices that put them in that position and never put an effort into life, I have no sympathy. When I see people struggling, I choose to help them. It could be with a cash donation to a charity that would help them or it could be fixing their car so they can get to work or school. Nobody is entitled to handout from me. I simply choose to help people that are willing to put an effort into life.
And for the record, I am not wealthy, I am simply comfortable. I can afford to drive a nice car and live in a nice house for the first time in my life because I worked for it.

You will never never become wealthy by working. The only way to become wealthy is by owning the right to value created by others.

Not true. Besides, I don't want to be wealthy, I'd get to bored. I appreciate what I have because I worked for it.

[lsky5101982]

hate to tell you all we are already socialist..... govt is bailing out the banks and is taking a stake in them. Govt is bailing out auto companies and taking a stake in them. Thats socialism friends. Democracy in this country is long gone. We need a new revolution who wants to join up?

[thecowboy]

Do you own your own company?

If not, then you are working that hard to get someone else ahead-- the owner(s) of your company.

Under our 'system,' company owners automatically own value created by your labor. Yet, you are not paid a wage that reflects that value, nor even a wage that is a percentage of the contribution your labor makes towards the total income of the company.

Instead, your wages are based on the supply and demand of potential employees in the workforce. When unemployment is low, companies with the power to do so find new talent pools to draw from, i.e., offshoring jobs, in order to keep unemployment as high as possible, and thus keep wages as low as possible.

The amount of value created in excess of the amount paid in wages is redistributed to the company owners.

Our entire system is set up to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few by redistributing value from the many to the few.

You object that the indigent are asking for a handout, yet you seem to accept it as some self-evident right of the wealthy that they are entitled to a handout from you.

You will never never become wealthy by working. The only way to become wealthy is by owning the right to value created by others.


I invite anybody on this board to go read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, and compare it to the arguments made by Shiiboi in this post. Then I invite you, Shiiboi, to THINK FOR YOURSELF and come up with an original idea.

[shiiboi]

I invite anybody on this board to go read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, and compare it to the arguments made by Shiiboi in this post. Then I invite you, Shiiboi, to THINK FOR YOURSELF and come up with an original idea.
Please explain where you believe my post was inaccurate-- otherwise I don't see how there was any point at all for you to respond.

[BackdoorJesus]

He was not saying your post was inaccurate, but that you were merely a parroting what Marx said umpteen dozen years or so ago, therefore he was challenging you to come up with an original idea, which, as stated, your post did not present.

[shiiboi]

He was not saying your post was inaccurate, but that you were merely a parroting what Marx said umpteen dozen years or so ago, therefore he was challenging you to come up with an original idea, which, as stated, your post did not present.
Well I was not 'parroting Marx' and I resent the personal 'THINK FOR YOURSELF' attack nature of that post in an EOH thread. And I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to interpret for him, has he broken his typing fingers?

Anyway this is an old thread that died back in October and I'm not really interested in pursuing this discussion, considering how dramatically the economic situation has tanked out in 'the real world.' Socialism in America is a moot point, now.

[ravenshrike]

Obama was challenging the radical label of the Warren Court on the grounds that their rulings did nothing to end the racial discrimination which resulted in economic inequalities. In a truly free market, wealth would be distributed more widely, but because of prejudice against blacks, they were economically disadvantaged. Obama's claim is simply that if more stringent rulings against racism had been made by the Warren Court, the evidence would have been a redistribution of wealth to what would be expected in a free market.
The poverty level, and the percentage of blacks below the poverty level in particular declined rapidly from the early 1900's until the late 1960's. That would be the stabilization of the free market as prejudice was reduced. Then, in the late 1960's it stops declining for all races and almost flatlines but contains the occasional upward tic. The ONLY major economic change that occurred in that period was the introduction of Johnson's Great Society. The only other major event in the time period that affected such a large number of people was Vietnam, however the non-return to the previous trend after the end of the war suggests that it was not the cause of the end of the decline.

[joerockhead]

....... Socialism in America is a moot point, now.


No, it is NOT!!!

We, the people, elected these idiots in office and now our country is headed down the shitter. Deeper today!!!!!

I put as much blame on the Democratic Congress, as I do President Bush and now President Obama (he has really pushed the issue!).

I just do not believe the crap he is talking now. I actually had considered voting for him early in the campaign, as he was a fresh face.

I am glad I did not, I only wish many others had not!

But that retracts from the situation.

We are headed in the wrong direction!

[thecowboy]

Well I was not 'parroting Marx' and I resent the personal 'THINK FOR YOURSELF' attack nature of that post in an EOH thread. And I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to interpret for him, has he broken his typing fingers?

Anyway this is an old thread that died back in October and I'm not really interested in pursuing this discussion, considering how dramatically the economic situation has tanked out in 'the real world.' Socialism in America is a moot point, now.


Typing fingers are not broken, just busy. I fully incorporate BDJ's interpretation.

[Juan.Camaney]

I forget where I read the quote or who said it (I think it was one of our single term presidents and how he didn't need a second term), but they basically said that the US would slowly and seemlessly move into socialism and not one would really notice or make a big deal out of it.

I kind of find it funny how military people, retired, on fixed income from the government, with their med and dental paid for by the government, always seem to bitch about socialism. :bowrofl:

Or how some people have no clue that our government has so much socialism built into it. We go to public schools, we drive on public roads, we rely on public sewers and sanitation...on and on.

[thecowboy]

I kind of find it funny how military people, retired, on fixed income from the government, with their med and dental paid for by the government, always seem to bitch about socialism. :bowrofl:


Why is that funny?


Military people get pensions just like anyone else. They put their service into the government and should therefore get a pension. That's not socialism at all, it's return for service. Socialism would be taking money from them and redistributing it to others who did not perform the service. They have all the right in the world to bitch. They're paying taxes that get re-distributed to those who don't work just like you and I do.

[Juan.Camaney]

That's not socialism at all, it's return for service.
You need to do some research on what socialism is. Socialism is not all about people doing nothing and get welfare. It has a lot to do with everyone sharing the expense of things. Those military people are paid for by my taxes and I have no say so in how the military operates. Also, not everyone gets a pension.

[thecowboy]

I do understand socialism, I was trying to apply the definition to your set of facts. Probably unsuccessfully. I'll try harder this time.

You do have a say in how the military operates. You vote (presumably).

I guess what I don't understand is why the military personnel should lose the right to bitch about socialism by virtue of being in the military. They worked for a living and earned the right to the government pension that they received. The pension may have been an inducement for them to do the job in the first place. Their salaries were paid for by tax dollars, and so are their pensions. I see nothing socialistic about that at all.

I would, however, find it funny that any auto-worker receiving what is now, in effect, a government pension could bitch about socialism. It is not an entitlement, and receiving one from the government based on an assertion of entitlement is much closer to socialism than in your example.

Not everyone gets a pension, I agree Where the government is your employer and by the terms of your employment you are provided a pension, how is it socialistic to receive the pension, which is the benefit of the employment in the first place?

I'll pose the same question with my example: How is it not socialistic to receive a government pension that by the terms of your employment was supposed to come from your private sector employer that now cannot afford to provide their end of the bargain? Shouldn't we be saying "too bad for you?" I think so. And before anyone tells me to jump into their shoes for a day, my old man is getting one of these bailed out pensions. I still think it's b.s. If he wanted a more secure pension, he should have worked for the military ;).

Better this time?

(ftr: No sarcasm here, just discussion)

[fmb]

Either way, down the path we go.
http://www.aww-kittah-aww.com/up/files/1910/Obama_Money_1-vi.jpg

Whether it's socialism, communism, or some other "ism" our standard of government has shifted to the left over the last 45 years.

[Juan.Camaney]

I do understand socialism, I was trying to apply the definition to your set of facts. Probably unsuccessfully. I'll try harder this time.

You do have a say in how the military operates. You vote (presumably).

I guess what I don't understand is why the military personnel should lose the right to bitch about socialism by virtue of being in the military. They worked for a living and earned the right to the government pension that they received. The pension may have been an inducement for them to do the job in the first place. Their salaries were paid for by tax dollars, and so are their pensions. I see nothing socialistic about that at all.

I would, however, find it funny that any auto-worker receiving what is now, in effect, a government pension could bitch about socialism. It is not an entitlement, and receiving one from the government based on an assertion of entitlement is much closer to socialism than in your example.

Not everyone gets a pension, I agree Where the government is your employer and by the terms of your employment you are provided a pension, how is it socialistic to receive the pension, which is the benefit of the employment in the first place?

I'll pose the same question with my example: How is it not socialistic to receive a government pension that by the terms of your employment was supposed to come from your private sector employer that now cannot afford to provide their end of the bargain? Shouldn't we be saying "too bad for you?" I think so. And before anyone tells me to jump into their shoes for a day, my old man is getting one of these bailed out pensions. I still think it's b.s. If he wanted a more secure pension, he should have worked for the military ;).

Better this time?

(ftr: No sarcasm here, just discussion)

I understood it perfectly the first time, and I still think the same way. Its like me, I hate welfare in general, yet my paycheck comes directly from the tax payers in exchange for me doing work for them. It's socialism. I give up having to fight for a job with a higher wage and more exotic than working for the government for a decent wage with benefits and a pension plan. Then they tax me for it :tongue:

[fmb]

I understood it perfectly the first time, and I still think the same way. Its like me, I hate welfare in general, yet my paycheck comes directly from the tax payers in exchange for me doing work for them. It's socialism. I give up having to fight for a job with a higher wage and more exotic than working for the government for a decent wage with benefits and a pension plan. Then they tax me for it :tongue:
Juan, I used to work at a defense nuclear facility where they refined plutonium for weapons. Like you, I was paid with taxpayer dollars and then paid taxes on those earnings. Sometimes, I wished the government would've just paid me a flat amount and factored out the taxes. It seems strange to be paid with tax dollars and then be taxed on those public dollars; maybe the government does this to other government workers so there isn't some feeling of being different than other (private industry, etc) workers? :mags:

[Juan.Camaney]

Juan, I used to work at a defense nuclear facility where they refined plutonium for weapons. Like you, I was paid with taxpayer dollars and then paid taxes on those earnings. Sometimes, I wished the government would've just paid me a flat amount and factored out the taxes. It seems strange to be paid with tax dollars and then be taxed on those public dollars; maybe the government does this to other government workers so there isn't some feeling of being different than other (private industry, etc) workers? :mags:
They do it to double dip.

[fmb]

They do it to double dip.

Double dipping? You're dead on target! Check this out: the orginal contractor operated the nuclear facility for over forty years. When the new contractor took over, the old guys retired and were given their pensions from the old contractor. So many retired, there wasn't enough "brain power" left on the site to help the new contractor get projects moving. The new company rehired the retired workers to help. The retirees worked for the new company for 8-10 years and then RETIRED FROM THE NEW COMPANY WITH ANOTHER FULL PENSION!!!!!!

Those guys weren't stupid.

[joerockhead]

Double dipping? You're dead on target! Check this out: the orginal contractor operated the nuclear facility for over forty years. When the new contractor took over, the old guys retired and were given their pensions from the old contractor. So many retired, there wasn't enough "brain power" left on the site to help the new contractor get projects moving. The new company rehired the retired workers to help. The retirees worked for the new company for 8-10 years and then RETIRED FROM THE NEW COMPANY WITH ANOTHER FULL PENSION!!!!!!

Those guys weren't stupid.

No they where not. Too bad the rest of our Government is.:ugh:

[joerockhead]

Now, The US Government wants to own 40% if CitiBank.

And then they will take more and more.

Our Right to bear arms will be removed in the next year
Our Right to assemble in protest will be removed in the next two years
Our Right to fair taxes will be eliminated in the next year
Our Right to a True and fair Democracy is being destroyed right now.

No one wants to stop it, and no one cares. Everyone sees free medical and 100% opportunity to get free stuff from the Government as a positive. They are blinded.

And, the worst part, this will take us down to the level of a third world country in about 10 years.

And it was WE THE PEOPLE, that voted in the members of congress and Presidency.

[shiiboi]

Our Right to bear arms will be removed in the next year
Er, that would require a repeal of the 2nd amendment...

Our Right to assemble in protest will be removed in the next two years
That's protected by the first amendment...
Our Right to fair taxes will be eliminated in the next year
The only right to 'fair' taxes the 16th amendment grants is that citizens be taxed according to a nationwide policy-- you can't discriminate on a state by state basis.

Our Right to a True and fair Democracy is being destroyed right now.
Frankly, what we got is the result of democracy in action.

[Krasch]

Er, that would require a repeal of the 2nd amendment...


Frankly, what we got is the result of democracy in action.
While I agree for the most part, I do see a scenario where it's possible without a repeal.

Simply make the process to legally get a gun so onerous, so complicated, so much of a pain in the ass with restrictions on allowable types, waiting periods, etc. that obtaining a gun legally is almost a FUNCTIONAL impossibility if not a literal one.

Kinda like Canada only worse.

And frankly the Democrats could get 'er done in the current Washington climate without any real difficulty as they control all three branches, if they really want to.

[fmb]

Our Right to bear arms will be removed in the next year
Our Right to assemble in protest will be removed in the next two years
Our Right to fair taxes will be eliminated in the next year
Our Right to a True and fair Democracy is being destroyed right now.


Will these predictions come true? Possibly; however, I believe this process will take longer than your predicted ten years. There are many people that would say this process has been slowly ongoing for the last five decades.

Why listen to me? Why not listen to a man whose desire was to bring governmental domination over all in the world? (BTW, I use this quote as part of my work email signature..)

"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."
- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959
Matter of fact, while speaking of socialism, communism, or Marxism, why not think about words from the past? Here is a quote from an economist explaining his view of FDR's economic policies:

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

Or, why not listen to these words from a world leader of our time??

"...take a lesson from this pages of Russian history and not exercise excessive intervention and economic activity in blind faith in the omnipotence of the government. ... In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute...In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."
~Vladimir Putin

And, the worst part, this will take us down to the level of a third world country in about 10 years.

Will we drop to the third world level? Definitely, this is a valid possibility. For instance, what is the United State's major exports (besides, debt)? Raw materials is our major export. Name a first world country that economically survives and thrives on raw material exports. Answer: NONE! Raw material exports are the economic backbone of second and third tier nations.

In the decades ahead, I see trouble and hard times for my son.

And it was WE THE PEOPLE, that voted in the members of congress and Presidency.

Sometimes, the results of democracy are ugly. What kind of government do we want? Our governmental desires are a direct reflection of OUR votes.

[ravenshrike]

Er, that would require a repeal of the 2nd amendment...


Actually, all that would require is for the BATFE, OSHA, and other acronym agencies to start pulling anti-gun bullshit. Do you have any idea how manylawsuits it would take to fix the problem?

[phunlee]

I'm a libertarian, so I am very much against socialism. I can respect that going too far in either direction can be a bad thing, so I can respect balance. Such as no more than we have now - social security and unemployment insurance.

If the government wants pet little porjects, then look for sponsors like PBS does. Lobbyists spend huges amounts of money lobbying congress, if only a fraction of that actually went for useful program.

Socialism says they want everyone to be equal and have their fair share, but those promoting and succeeding in socialism tend to get more than their fair share.

The book Animal Farm is great example of that.

[shiiboi]

Socialism says they want everyone to be equal and have their fair share, but those promoting and succeeding in socialism tend to get more than their fair share.
Socialism, like capitalism, isn't a single system, but rather a category of possible political-economic structures. What you describe is the extreme left of socialism known as 'communism,' which has been demonstrated to be not feasible.

But 'softer' European-style socialism, in which the state takes on the responsibility of providing services which the society defines as essential, but which the free-market fails to provide, is workable.

If the government wants pet little porjects, then look for sponsors like PBS does. Lobbyists spend huges amounts of money lobbying congress, if only a fraction of that actually went for useful program.
This is not an aspect of socialism, but actually of oligarchy-- the flavor of capitalism to which the US has been moving towards since the 1980s.

As a libertarian, surely you understand that in a truly free-market, it is difficult to impossible for economic power to concentrate into the hands of the few. It take the power of the government, supporting some and excluding others to allow a corporation to grow as large as a Citibank or AIG.

[joerockhead]

Er, that would require a repeal of the 2nd amendment...

That's protected by the first amendment...

The only right to 'fair' taxes the 16th amendment grants is that citizens be taxed according to a nationwide policy-- you can't discriminate on a state by state basis.

Frankly, what we got is the result of democracy in action.



If you believe that the government cannot change what our current amendments are, then you are being blind.

Is Not Freedom Of Religion one?
Yet people are forbidden to say Merry Christmas or have Christmas decorations in government offices in various places in this country.

and there can be restrictions put on many of these that will be just the same as destroying those rights.

[shiiboi]

Is Not Freedom Of Religion one?
Yet people are forbidden to say Merry Christmas or have Christmas decorations in government offices in various places in this country.

The first amendment protects your right to practice (or not) the religion of your choice without interference from the government, BUT it also prohibits government from endorsing or favoring a particular religion.

Christmas decorations in government offices are a VIOLATION of the first amendment because they are an implied endorsement of Christianity. The only way around the first amendment would be to decorate government offices for every single religious holiday in practice today. According to adherents.com there are 22 "major" (having at least half a million members) religions practiced in the US today .

It would be impractical to acknowledge EVERY religious holiday, and so the only constitutionally acceptable solution is to acknowledge NONE.

It takes a 2/ 3 majority of both houses of congress just to propose a constitutional convention to discuss changing an amendment, and then a 3/4 majority to ratify it.

[Krasch]

The first amendment protects your right to practice (or not) the religion of your choice without interference from the government, BUT it also prohibits government from endorsing or favoring a particular religion.

Christmas decorations in government offices are a VIOLATION of the first amendment because they are an implied endorsement of Christianity. The only way around the first amendment would be to decorate government offices for every single religious holiday in practice today. According to adherents.com there are 22 "major" (having at least half a million members) religions practiced in the US today .

It would be impractical to acknowledge EVERY religious holiday, and so the only constitutionally acceptable solution is to acknowledge NONE.

It takes a 2/ 3 majority of both houses of congress just to propose a constitutional convention to discuss changing an amendment, and then a 3/4 majority to ratify it.
One problem.

Christianity is not, as the framers of the Constitution would have put it, A religion per se.

It is a blanket term that encompasses many different religions with the common thread that Christ is the son of God. It includes such variants as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, which share relatively few beliefs with many of the other variants.

If you want to lump them in together just because they all agree Christ is the son of God, then you might as well include Judaism and Islam in the mix too on the basis in that they all agree on the same overseeing God despite the fact they don't agree on His name.

The First Amemdment was designed to prevent a USA home grown version of an Anglican Church setting up the President as the spiritual head of the nation as well as its secular one. Anglicanism itself being a variant of Christianity.

And considering that "Christians" represent more than 75% of the US population, it's definitely arguable that being forbidden to wish people Merry Christmas in ANY workplace is a direct violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

[CD]

One problem.

Christianity is not, as the framers of the Constitution would have put it, A religion per se.

It is a blanket term that encompasses many different religions with the common thread that Christ is the son of God. It includes such variants as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, which share relatively few beliefs with many of the other variants.
So a bunch of people that believe that a person was a divine being and/or God himself, doesn't qualify that group as a religion?

If you want to lump them in together just because they all agree Christ is the son of God, then you might as well include Judaism and Islam in the mix too on the basis in that they all agree on the same overseeing God despite the fact they don't agree on His name.
The same overseeing God with a different name???? You have got to be shitting me! Just cause these religions acknowledge that Jesus was a real person and a prophet, does NOT mean that their God is the same God. The reason Jews and Christians are labeled different religions is because Jews label Christ as a prophet, and NOT the son of God.

The First Amemdment was designed to prevent a USA home grown version of an Anglican Church setting up the President as the spiritual head of the nation as well as its secular one. Anglicanism itself being a variant of Christianity.

And considering that "Christians" represent more than 75% of the US population, it's definitely arguable that being forbidden to wish people Merry Christmas in ANY workplace is a direct violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.
Just cause you are in the majority doesn't mean you are always right. What if at one point over 75% of America was white slave owners? Does that mean that it's definitely arguable that "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" does not include blacks?

[shiiboi]

One problem.

Christianity is not, as the framers of the Constitution would have put it, A religion per se.

It is a blanket term that encompasses many different religions with the common thread that Christ is the son of God. It includes such variants as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, which share relatively few beliefs with many of the other variants.

If you want to lump them in together just because they all agree Christ is the son of God, then you might as well include Judaism and Islam in the mix too on the basis in that they all agree on the same overseeing God despite the fact they don't agree on His name.
Please reread your post with the emphasis I added. The first amendment prohibits the acknowledgment of any religion by a government entity, period.

The First Amemdment was designed to prevent a USA home grown version of an Anglican Church setting up the President as the spiritual head of the nation as well as its secular one. Anglicanism itself being a variant of Christianity.

And considering that "Christians" represent more than 75% of the US population, it's definitely arguable that being forbidden to wish people Merry Christmas in ANY workplace is a direct violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

The motivation behind the 'separation of church' and state, as well as most of the other principles established by the bill of rights is the idea that the individual has a right to be protected from the 'tyranny of the majority.'

It has been established many many times that freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom. When one freedom comes in conflict with the potential for harm against another, the protection from harm prevails. The classic example is that you have no freedom of speech right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, or to call for the assassination of a public figure on the radio.

Given how frequenlty wars and other violence occur over religious disputes, you have no freedom of speech to impose your religious doctrine on another person who may be offended by it in the context of your employment by a government entity.

[Krasch]

Please reread your post with the emphasis I added. The first amendment prohibits the acknowledgment of any religion by a government entity, period.

The motivation behind the 'separation of church' and state, as well as most of the other principles established by the bill of rights is the idea that the individual has a right to be protected from the 'tyranny of the majority.'

It has been established many many times that freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom. When one freedom comes in conflict with the potential for harm against another, the protection from harm prevails. The classic example is that you have no freedom of speech right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, or to call for the assassination of a public figure on the radio.

Given how frequenlty wars and other violence occur over religious disputes, you have no freedom of speech to impose your religious doctrine on another person who may be offended by it in the context of your employment by a government entity.

Regarding your first point, kindly enlighten me where it prohibits the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of any religion in this passage. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (The government can't establish a religion, but I fail to see anything about acknowledgement...)

As to the second point, who actually wishes someone Merry Christmas with any intent on affecting the other person's religious beliefs? The problem is a bunch of people wearing too-tight underwear who need to get a clue and look beyond the words to the sentiment behind them, namely the other person wishing them happiness at that time of the year.

The flaw with your "protection from harm" argument is that denying people from frely expressing themselves in a way that pays homage to their religious beliefs is an affront to their sensibilities, a direct contravention of their free-exercise rights, and does them the same emotional harm such idiotic restrictions would ostensibly protect others from. I'll guarantee you their are a ton of Christians out there offended to hell and back by the continued atacks on their religious traditions. Trying to please everybody simultaneously just ends up offending everybody, so you might as well please the majority. The world's gotten too damn PC for its own good.

[Krasch]

So a bunch of people that believe that a person was a divine being and/or God himself, doesn't qualify that group as a religion?


The same overseeing God with a different name???? You have got to be shitting me! Just cause these religions acknowledge that Jesus was a real person and a prophet, does NOT mean that their God is the same God. The reason Jews and Christians are labeled different religions is because Jews label Christ as a prophet, and NOT the son of God.


Just cause you are in the majority doesn't mean you are always right. What if at one point over 75% of America was white slave owners? Does that mean that it's definitely arguable that "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" does not include blacks?

Not A religion as I said, but several different ones with some shared beliefs. Calling it "A" religion implies a singular one, which it is not.

Actually to my recollection Jews do NOT acknowledge Jesus as a prophet (although Islam certainly does). Both Jews and Christians recognize the Old Testament for example, but Jews do not count the NEW Testament as gospel. And I recall Islam recognizes the New Testament but differs on the point that Jesus was the Messiah. They definitely acknowledge the Old Testament as part of their heritage.

Are you saying that just because "Christians" happen to be in the majority that they should be denied their constitutionally protected free exercise of religion?

[CD]

Not A religion as I said, but several different ones with some shared beliefs. Calling it "A" religion implies a singular one, which it is not.

Actually to my recollection Jews do NOT acknowledge Jesus as a prophet (although Islam certainly does). Both Jews and Christians recognize the Old Testament for example, but Jews do not count the NEW Testament as gospel. And I recall Islam recognizes the New Testament but differs on the point that Jesus was the Messiah. They definitely acknowledge the Old Testament as part of their heritage.

Are you saying that just because "Christians" happen to be in the majority that they should be denied their constitutionally protected free exercise of religion?
I never said they should be denied rights. I said that just cause you are a majority, doesn't mean you are correct. I personally don't have anything against anyone that wishes me a Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah. I say thank you, and I mean it. I consider it well wishes and no harm intended. However, I'm also a lot more tolerant of everyone then most Christians that I know.

[Krasch]

I never said they should be denied rights. I said that just cause you are a majority, doesn't mean you are correct. I personally don't have anything against anyone that wishes me a Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah. I say thank you, and I mean it. I consider it well wishes and no harm intended. However, I'm also a lot more tolerant of everyone then most Christians that I know.

Ah well, that IS different. Yeah some of the variants of Christianity can be quite intolerant, as can other religions as well.

Heck these days you don't even meed to be religious to be a zealot.

[shiiboi]

Ah well, that IS different. Yeah some of the variants of Christianity can be quite intolerant, as can other religions as well.
And thus, the reason it is a bad idea to permit religious expression in the context of government.

kindly enlighten me where it prohibits the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of any religion in this passage. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This passage has been interpreted that way by the US Supreme Court, and the supreme court in multiple states. i.e., Reynolds v. United States, McCollum v. Board of Education, Lee v. Weisman.

The Courts' justification for this interpretation has been the writings of Thomas Jefferson and his contemporary political leaders responsible for authoring the bill of rights (which I have referenced for you previously, so I won't repeat).

As to the second point, who actually wishes someone Merry Christmas with any intent on affecting the other person's religious beliefs? The problem is a bunch of people wearing too-tight underwear who need to get a clue and look beyond the words to the sentiment behind them, namely the other person wishing them happiness at that time of the year.
Sadly, you just don't get it, do you?

The flaw with your "protection from harm" argument is that denying people from frely expressing themselves in a way that pays homage to their religious beliefs is an affront to their sensibilities, a direct contravention of their free-exercise rights, and does them the same emotional harm such idiotic restrictions would ostensibly protect others from.
Please reread my statement:

"It has been established many many times that freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom. When one freedom comes in conflict with the potential for harm against another, the protection from harm prevails. The classic example is that you have no freedom of speech right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, or to call for the assassination of a public figure on the radio.

The notion that a public employee is being harmed by the prohibition against endorsing a religion while in the conduct of official duties is just preposterous. That same public employee is free to express any religious sentiments he/she wants ON THEIR OWN TIME.

It's very similar to the 'sexual harrassment' problem. One person may find that crude humor, pornographic pictures, or racy comments made to a colleague of the opposite sex is 'okay' in the workplace, and that the silly young woman who feels vicitimized ought to 'get a clue' and 'loosen up.' But the courts have held that the first employee's right to free speech is superceded by the second employees right to freedom from a hostile environment.

While you, as a christian, believe that your holidays express positive sentiments and its up to the non-christians to look through the trappings of the holiday and appreciate those sentiments, you are being an intolerant oaf, creating a hostile environment in the same way as the sexual harrasser does.
Next you'll argue that it should be permissable for a public employee to wear a ku klux klan outfit to work and put racist propaganda pamphlets available at their desks.

[Krasch]

And thus, the reason it is a bad idea to permit religious expression in the context of government.


This passage has been interpreted that way by the US Supreme Court, and the supreme court in multiple states. i.e., Reynolds v. United States, McCollum v. Board of Education, Lee v. Weisman.

The Courts' justification for this interpretation has been the writings of Thomas Jefferson and his contemporary political leaders responsible for authoring the bill of rights (which I have referenced for you previously, so I won't repeat).


Sadly, you just don't get it, do you?


Please reread my statement:

"It has been established many many times that freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom. When one freedom comes in conflict with the potential for harm against another, the protection from harm prevails. The classic example is that you have no freedom of speech right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, or to call for the assassination of a public figure on the radio.

The notion that a public employee is being harmed by the prohibition against endorsing a religion while in the conduct of official duties is just preposterous. That same public employee is free to express any religious sentiments he/she wants ON THEIR OWN TIME.

It's very similar to the 'sexual harrassment' problem. One person may find that crude humor, pornographic pictures, or racy comments made to a colleague of the opposite sex is 'okay' in the workplace, and that the silly young woman who feels vicitimized ought to 'get a clue' and 'loosen up.' But the courts have held that the first employee's right to free speech is superceded by the second employees right to freedom from a hostile environment.

While you, as a christian, believe that your holidays express positive sentiments and its up to the non-christians to look through the trappings of the holiday and appreciate those sentiments, you are being an intolerant oaf, creating a hostile environment in the same way as the sexual harrasser does.
Next you'll argue that it should be permissable for a public employee to wear a ku klux klan outfit to work and put racist propaganda pamphlets available at their desks.

OK so you seem to be implying that just because some religious people are zealots, we should deny everybody their right of free-exercise if they happen to work in the government and/or public sector. So everyone is equal under the law except those in public service.

The First Amendment was interpreted that way, in relatively modern times, by judges seeking to further their own agendas by cherry-picking what writings oif the founding fathers they choose to pay attention to and trying to change the values the USA was built on instead of reading the document for what it actually says. But that's another story.

You say I'm for creating a hostile environment, but I'm not the one making ad hominem attacks. You might want to look in the mirror to see who's really being hostile here. "Intolerant oaf" indeed...

As for bringing in "sexual harrassment" as an analogy. Yeah they really should get a clue. Such regulations serve only to punish guys for being what they are, and trivializes REAL sexual harrassment.

I GET it, I just don't agree with you, and I doubt we're going to see eye-to-eye on this. BTW your assumption that I'm Christian is totally incorrect.

[shiiboi]

OK so you seem to be implying that just because some religious people are zealots, we should deny everybody their right of free-exercise if they happen to work in the government and/or public sector. So everyone is equal under the law except those in public service.
It's hardly a stretch to understand that one gives up a certain degree of freedom in the context of their employment to their employer. i.e., athletes aren't permitted to use performance-enhancing nutraceuticals, pilots may not use alcohol, in most industries employees are prohibited in engaging in activities which may be construed as a conflict of interest with their duties.

It's no different in government employment-- you agree to the abide by the terms of the laws in place, such as not violating the bill of rights-- while engaged in your activities as a government employee. Outside of work is your own time and you may say or do anything (that is otherwise legal).

I call you out for intolerance because of your 'take no prisoners' attitude regarding others offended by your speech or activities. These laws were written SPECIFICALLY to protect the rest of us from such intolerance.

Perhaps living in Canada your society is more homogenous than the US and you can't relate to the hair-trigger conflicts that occur here due to religious, cultural and/or political differences.

[Krasch]

It's hardly a stretch to understand that one gives up a certain degree of freedom in the context of their employment to their employer. i.e., athletes aren't permitted to use performance-enhancing nutraceuticals, pilots may not use alcohol, in most industries employees are prohibited in engaging in activities which may be construed as a conflict of interest with their duties.

It's no different in government employment-- you agree to the abide by the terms of the laws in place, such as not violating the bill of rights-- while engaged in your activities as a government employee. Outside of work is your own time and you may say or do anything (that is otherwise legal).

I call you out for intolerance because of your 'take no prisoners' attitude regarding others offended by your speech or activities. These laws were written SPECIFICALLY to protect the rest of us from such intolerance.

Perhaps living in Canada your society is more homogenous than the US and you can't relate to the hair-trigger conflicts that occur here due to religious, cultural and/or political differences.

Agreeing to abide by the laws in place such as not violating the Bill of Rights?

Do you not see that the modern interpretation of the First Amendment as a vain attempt to protect some from being offended by religious displays only serves to ensure others are equally offended by attacks on their traditions. A document that is supposed to protect everyone equally and apply to everyone only applies to those who happen to achieve "victimized" status because they're in the minority.

If the Bill of Rights is supposed to apply to everyone, and the Christians are expected to just free-exercise their religion in their homes, then so should all the other religious groups out there do the same.

Now I know what you're going to be thinking. That's what you have now right? No religious displays in the public sector. Right?

Wrong. What's actually occurring is by trying to force other religions out of the public sector, they're actually PROMOTING atheism/secularism which is in itself recognized as a religious group. Epic fail.

The only fair way to truly address the problem is to leave all this modern interpretation crap behind and go back to the original document. As long as the government doesn't create its own home grown version of the Anglican Church or such, then it should stay hands-off when it comes to religion. Neither preventing the free-exercise of nor the lack of exercise of religion. Let the workers in the workplace decide amongst themselves what religious traditions are appropriate for their workplace. Democracy in action.

Sure you'll see a lot of Merry Christmas out there, but you'll also find places that are mostly Jewish wishing you Happy Hanukkah, others that wish you Happy Holidays, and so on. And more power to 'em. Are some going to be offended anyway? Sure. But you've got that now anyway and this way you'll have a lot fewer.

I live in Toronto, a place that is ANYTHING but homogeneous. We get hair trigger conflicts there too, but on the whole at a much lower rate than the US because we generally need at least three people to agree before we confront someone.

[shiiboi]

The First Amendment was interpreted that way, in relatively modern times, by judges seeking to further their own agendas by cherry-picking what writings oif the founding fathers they choose to pay attention to and trying to change the values the USA was built on instead of reading the document for what it actually says. But that's another story.


What's actually occurring is by trying to force other religions out of the public sector, they're actually PROMOTING atheism/secularism which is in itself recognized as a religious group. Epic fail.

1. Visit your library and read some history. The United States is a secular state ('religion-neutral'). That is what the first amendment is meant to clarify. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say otherwise; in fact it explicitly states that the justification for the rule of government derives from the governed, not a 'creator' or other religious source. The first amendment's meaning was self-evident to the early government and the 'founders' were very clear about their intentions in their other writings.

The first time a court challenge was brought against secularism in government was in the late 1940's, and numerous writings from the 'founding fathers' were used by the supreme court to derive the interpretation of the first amendment that prevailed. It's pure nonsense to claim that secularism in the US government is a modern revision imposed by activist judges to change the values the US was based on.

For the first 150 years of the US' existence there was no popular disagreement to the principle of separation of church and state. It was only in the late 1950's, during the Sen. Joe McCarthy witch hunts that christian fundamentalists promoted christianity as the 'anti-communism' and succeeded in insinuating religious wording into common federal documents, etc. i.e., changing the US motto from 'e pluribus unum' to 'in god we trust' (1954), or adding 'under god' to the pledge of allegiance (1956).

It's only since the 1980's, when Ronald Reagan and the republican party courted and won the support of fundamentalist christians, that the assault against the secular state began in earnest. The idea that the US was founded on 'christian values' or that its a 'christian nation' and should permit religious expression in the context of government is the relatively modern claim-- only about 20 years old.

2. The statements you make (per the quote above) are the verbatim propaganda from the fundamentalist christian right wingers. Especially when you insist that secularism in government promotes atheism and that atheism is a religion. WHO recognizes atheism as a religious group? Atheists certainly don't.

[Krasch]

1. Visit your library and read some history. The United States is a secular state ('religion-neutral'). That is what the first amendment is meant to clarify. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say otherwise; in fact it explicitly states that the justification for the rule of government derives from the governed, not a 'creator' or other religious source. The first amendment's meaning was self-evident to the early government and the 'founders' were very clear about their intentions in their other writings.

The first time a court challenge was brought against secularism in government was in the late 1940's, and numerous writings from the 'founding fathers' were used by the supreme court to derive the interpretation of the first amendment that prevailed. It's pure nonsense to claim that secularism in the US government is a modern revision imposed by activist judges to change the values the US was based on.

For the first 150 years of the US' existence there was no popular disagreement to the principle of separation of church and state. It was only in the late 1950's, during the Sen. Joe McCarthy witch hunts that christian fundamentalists promoted christianity as the 'anti-communism' and succeeded in insinuating religious wording into common federal documents, etc. i.e., changing the US motto from 'e pluribus unum' to 'in god we trust' (1954), or adding 'under god' to the pledge of allegiance (1956).

It's only since the 1980's, when Ronald Reagan and the republican party courted and won the support of fundamentalist christians, that the assault against the secular state began in earnest. The idea that the US was founded on 'christian values' or that its a 'christian nation' and should permit religious expression in the context of government is the relatively modern claim-- only about 20 years old.

2. The statements you make (per the quote above) are the verbatim propaganda from the fundamentalist christian right wingers. Especially when you insist that secularism in government promotes atheism and that atheism is a religion. WHO recognizes atheism as a religious group? Atheists certainly don't.
Well there are writings from the founding fathers that contradict the notion of the US as a secular state, I've posted examples in other threads. But it seems they only decided to pay attention to certain ones and not others.

Like I said, we're not likely to see eye to eye on this and neither is likely to change the other's mind, so I'll bow out of this issue here. We're just going to go around and around to no real end. I see no point in wasting either of our time.

[CD]

Agreeing to abide by the laws in place such as not violating the Bill of Rights?
Christians not that long ago could justify violating the Bill of Rights when it came to women, blacks, and gays. Oh wait, they can still justify the gays.

Now I know what you're going to be thinking. That's what you have now right? No religious displays in the public sector. Right?

Wrong. What's actually occurring is by trying to force other religions out of the public sector, they're actually PROMOTING atheism/secularism which is in itself recognized as a religious group. Epic fail.
Speaking of epic fails... How is preventing any religious display in a public building the same as promoting atheism? I can imagine the Christians, Jews, and Muslims all around the water cooler, thinking that since they can't decorate the offices with their religious flair, or have a religious themed office party, that maybe switching to atheism will fill that hole in their hearts.

Oh, and by the way, just cause when you fill out an employment form and under RELIGION it says Atheist, it doesn't actually mean it's a religion. Religions are about a group of people that view a supernatural being as the creator of life, and that group follows certain guidelines and observances to worship that creator. Atheists believe there is no creator, so they don't have guidelines or observances.

The only fair way to truly address the problem is to leave all this modern interpretation crap behind and go back to the original document. As long as the government doesn't create its own home grown version of the Anglican Church or such, then it should stay hands-off when it comes to religion. Neither preventing the free-exercise of nor the lack of exercise of religion. Let the workers in the workplace decide amongst themselves what religious traditions are appropriate for their workplace. Democracy in action.

Sure you'll see a lot of Merry Christmas out there, but you'll also find places that are mostly Jewish wishing you Happy Hanukkah, others that wish you Happy Holidays, and so on. And more power to 'em. Are some going to be offended anyway? Sure. But you've got that now anyway and this way you'll have a lot fewer.
Oh yeah, that will end nicely. Let's let the staff use democracy, and watch the majority get their way 100% of the time and severely piss off the minority. Not like that has ever happened in this country's history! Dude, your way would promote certain companies to hire based on religion (a no-no), and promote a specific religion, and have entire companies spring up to service a particular religion... basically, you would turn this country upside down and set us back hundreds of years in race relations. Not to mention that the increased power of Christians would then go towards maintaining their power by stacking the deck against Islam, Judaism, etc. They would also then start to use that power to infiltrate the government and twist the original principles of this country.
Good job Krasch.

Look, the reason there is separation is because religion is very judgmental by nature. It's supposed to be about tolerance, but when you have a group of people who's religion tells them that they are right, and their neighbors are wrong, you are left with groups that feel that it is there mission to inform the "dumb" people why they are wrong. As far as the work place and religion, think about it like this. If you were a Christian boss and everyone on your payroll was the same, would you want to hire an extremely talented Muslim that would possibly get offended by the Christian work parties? Obviously, his vote wouldn't supersede the dozens of Christians, so he would lose EVERY TIME. Also, by hiring him, he would have to hear about how his religion is wrong by every single coworker of his. Would he want to work there? NO. So where would he work? Only a Muslim place would hire him, and who is to say that a Christian business would use a Muslim company as a business partner? Hell, I'm neither atheist nor Christian, so imagine how hard it would be for me to get a job. Maybe I'd just be unemployed for life, and you could pass me on the street while I'm begging for money, and tell me that if I signed up for Jesus, I could make something of myself.

[Krasch]

Atheists believe there is no creator, so they don't have guidelines or observances.
They do have guidelines though, in that they all agree there is no creator, and it can be said their chosen observance is a lack of what other religions call observances.

It's like saying no matter how thin a sheet of paper is, it still has two sides. Even a lack of observances is in fact a form of observance in itself. Like yin and yang the two haves cannot be separated as they are both parts of the whole.

That's why saying you can't have anyone else's religious practises in the workplace is in fact promoting atheism.

An admittedly difficult concept for Western minds to wrap themselves around as we're brought up with the notion of opposites as separate things as opposed to polarities of a single process.

[shiiboi]

They do have guidelines though, in that they all agree there is no creator, and it can be said their chosen observance is a lack of what other religions call observances.
What you are stating is a fallacy well-known in philosophy; it is known as a false dichotomy.

Theism/atheism are not equal opposites. Theist religions make positive assertions, i.e., there is an all-powerful supernatural being, it created the universe, it intervenes in human life and demands worship, etc. If you accept those assertions it unifies you into a group with common beliefs and practices (a religion) , i.e., christians, muslims.

But the alternative, 'atheism,' is not a positive assertion. An atheist is simply an individual who does not accept your assertions. There may well be others who also do not accept these assertions, but that does not unify them into a group with common beliefs and practices. Atheism makes no positive assertions.

For example, suppose a christian makes a positive assertion that a person called 'Jesus' was born and was the human incarnation of a supernatural being called 'god' with certain properties, etc. In the same room, there are 5 other people, all of whom deny that those assertion are true.

What unifies these 5 other people who do not accept the christian's positive assertion? You claim that they are unified by their atheism. Except that those five people may, in fact, not be atheists; they may be a muslim, a jew, a hindu, a zoroastrian, and a buddhist.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen Roberts

In fact, take it one step further.

Suppose I fervently insist that the world is filled with unicorns, galloping around so fast that you can't see them. But you feel them, of course, the breezes and winds you feel are caused by their rushing by, and their motion creates the weather and all sorts of events in our world, both positive and negative. Therefore, it's important that we keep the unicorns happy-- we must put food out for them, and stay close to the walls when we walk outside so that we keep out of their way. If we interfere with their movements, they may get angry and stampede, causing misfortunes to occur on us, like hurricanes or tornadoes.

Suppose that I construct this into such a compelling story that I manage to develop a group of believers who accept this and invent formal practices to appease the unicorns, and we adopt assorted practices to help unify our community and proselytize to the world.

Now, you're unlikely to believe my assertions vis-a-vis unicorns, and most other people will doubt them, too. But you can't PROVE that my assertions are false. Does your failure to believe in unicorns unite you into a 'religion' with others who also don't believe in my unicorns?

[CD]

They do have guidelines though, in that they all agree there is no creator, and it can be said their chosen observance is a lack of what other religions call observances.
So their lack of an observance IS an observance? Do you realize that you actually typed that? Wow! Krasch, you are unique, just like everyone else.

It's like saying no matter how thin a sheet of paper is, it still has two sides. Even a lack of observances is in fact a form of observance in itself. Like yin and yang the two haves cannot be separated as they are both parts of the whole.

That's why saying you can't have anyone else's religious practises in the workplace is in fact promoting atheism.

An admittedly difficult concept for Western minds to wrap themselves around as we're brought up with the notion of opposites as separate things as opposed to polarities of a single process.
Look, light and dark are ying and yang. Religion is not one of those things. And to tell me that preventing a Christian from displaying their religion is to try to turn them into Atheism, is flat out funny. I'm sure you could ask any religious person you know if they would switch to atheism if they couldn't practice their religion at work, and 100% of them would flat out say no.

[CD]

What you are stating is a fallacy well-known in philosophy; it is known as a false dichotomy.

Theism/atheism are not equal opposites. Theist religions make positive assertions, i.e., there is an all-powerful supernatural being, it created the universe, it intervenes in human life and demands worship, etc. If you accept those assertions it unifies you into a group with common beliefs and practices (a religion) , i.e., christians, muslims.

But the alternative, 'atheism,' is not a positive assertion. An atheist is simply an individual who does not accept your assertions. There may well be others who also do not accept these assertions, but that does not unify them into a group with common beliefs and practices. Atheism makes no positive assertions.

For example, suppose a christian makes a positive assertion that a person called 'Jesus' was born and was the human incarnation of a supernatural being called 'god' with certain properties, etc. In the same room, there are 5 other people, all of whom deny that those assertion are true.

What unifies these 5 other people who do not accept the christian's positive assertion? You claim that they are unified by their atheism. Except that those five people may, in fact, not be atheists; they may be a muslim, a jew, a hindu, a zoroastrian, and a buddhist.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen Roberts

In fact, take it one step further.

Suppose I fervently insist that the world is filled with unicorns, galloping around so fast that you can't see them. But you feel them, of course, the breezes and winds you feel are caused by their rushing by, and their motion creates the weather and all sorts of events in our world, both positive and negative. Therefore, it's important that we keep the unicorns happy-- we must put food out for them, and stay close to the walls when we walk outside so that we keep out of their way. If we interfere with their movements, they may get angry and stampede, causing misfortunes to occur on us, like hurricanes or tornadoes.

Suppose that I construct this into such a compelling story that I manage to develop a group of believers who accept this and invent formal practices to appease the unicorns, and we adopt assorted practices to help unify our community and proselytize to the world.

Now, you're unlikely to believe my assertions vis-a-vis unicorns, and most other people will doubt them, too. But you can't PROVE that my assertions are false. Does your failure to believe in unicorns unite you into a 'religion' with others who also don't believe in my unicorns?
Good quote and a nice example with the 5 people in the room.

[Freemason]

The two never really seem to work. The free market system does seem to have long term value even with it's ups & downs. However, imo..we do currently and always have had elements of these two in our gov. the left will see to that.

The current president (who again imo..might not legally be president) doesn't seem to be a freind of the free market system and the DOW smells this. Everytime he or one of his pals open their mouths the DOW tanks. We'll see what happens today

[thecowboy]

As much as I disagree with the SC on this issue, shiiboi's got the legal edge in this argument. The SC has declared acknowledgement by a public employer to be unconstitutional. Total ridiculousness in my opinion for many (but not all) of Krasch's arguments. Restatement is unnecessary.

[shiiboi]

The two never really seem to work. The free market system does seem to have long term value even with it's ups & downs. However, imo..we do currently and always have had elements of these two in our gov. the left will see to that.
The central tenet of communism is a planned economy. Completely planned economies are always destined to fail because the communist planners are no better at economic forecasting than your average entreprenueur-- and remember that 50% of all new businesses fail in their first year. Communist countries were plagued by planning failures, i.e., they were able to provide brand new tractors for every farm but forgot to ramp up production of necessary lubricants, so the tractors ended up sitting idly in the fields when their engines seized up.

Generally speaking, free-market systems provide the greatest good for the greatest number, and are the most sustainable long-term. But free-markets work best when they are subject to regulation for the same reason we need traffic regulations, such as speed limits and stop signs at intersections. Most people will drive responsibly and be cautious at intersections, but a few will selfishly and recklessly drive without regard to others and when they crash will cause damage to the whole system, not just themselves. Adopt this analogy to the economy and you have the current crisis.

The challenge is to find the correct balance of regulation. For the past 20 years or so, powerful corporations have used their economic power to lobby government to eliminate important regulations that protected the economy but inhibited their ability to increase profits even further, and create regulations that made it difficult to impossible for new competition to develop, which ultimately hurt the economy.

The current president (who again imo..might not legally be president) doesn't seem to be a freind of the free market system and the DOW smells this. Everytime he or one of his pals open their mouths the DOW tanks. We'll see what happens today

The daily fluctuations of the DJIA have more to do with deliberate manipulation by powerful large investors than by the overall health of the economy. But long-term damage to the stock market results in a tightening of credit, which ultimately does long-term damage.

And of course, these stock manipulators don't like Obama, because his stated goal is to re-instate some of the regulation that would make it difficult for them to manipulate the markets to their advantage.

Obama is not an opponent of the free market. His stated position is derived from Abraham Lincoln's maxim that the free market should be the source of everything which it can provide, that the government ought only step in to provide for the public needs which the free market cannot. What unserved public needs the government ought to provide is where the debate lies.

Government-provided services obviously have their place within the free market economy. A unified, government-provided national defense is much more secure than private militias. A national highway system provides better for interstate commerce than locally maintained roads. Etc. Just becasue Obama draws the line at what public goods ought to be provided differently than you does not make him a foe of the free market system.

[joerockhead]

I am bringing this thread back into discussion, because of what President Obama said tonight.

1 - Health Care for Everyone. Although, I agree, Everyone should be able ot get decent health care, including preventive care and regular care, not just emergency care. I think that the Government controlling it is wrong and a negative aspect. It will grow in cost and for the first 20 years or so, be so fucking slow, that people will still suffer in pain, waiting for an appointment or consultation.

2 - When President Obama was campaigning, he PROMISED that he would not raise taxes to cover the costs. Yet, that is what IS going to happen.
Taxes are going o be raised on everything, and they will use the guise it is only items that are not deemed healthy. (Soda, Beer, Booze, Fast food, etc).

And, they will begin to tax those of us that get health benefits from work. It will be considered INCOME. Yup, we that are responsible and making a true effort to take care of our families are going to get screwed some more.

We are going to let our Government control this. A Government that cannot even account for 90% of BOTH Tarp bailouts. A Government that cannot get AmTrak to make a profit, yet keeps it running.

So, Even though Everyone voted for this man, because of his hollow Promises, they will continue to support him, even though he is showing his is "Changing" his mind. Or he just outright lied before. I say the second.

If You voted for him, you cannot complain about him down the road.

[CD]

I am bringing this thread back into discussion, because of what President Obama said tonight.

1 - Health Care for Everyone. Although, I agree, Everyone should be able ot get decent health care, including preventive care and regular care, not just emergency care. I think that the Government controlling it is wrong and a negative aspect. It will grow in cost and for the first 20 years or so, be so fucking slow, that people will still suffer in pain, waiting for an appointment or consultation.

2 - When President Obama was campaigning, he PROMISED that he would not raise taxes to cover the costs. Yet, that is what IS going to happen.
Taxes are going o be raised on everything, and they will use the guise it is only items that are not deemed healthy. (Soda, Beer, Booze, Fast food, etc).

And, they will begin to tax those of us that get health benefits from work. It will be considered INCOME. Yup, we that are responsible and making a true effort to take care of our families are going to get screwed some more.

We are going to let our Government control this. A Government that cannot even account for 90% of BOTH Tarp bailouts. A Government that cannot get AmTrak to make a profit, yet keeps it running.

So, Even though Everyone voted for this man, because of his hollow Promises, they will continue to support him, even though he is showing his is "Changing" his mind. Or he just outright lied before. I say the second.

If You voted for him, you cannot complain about him down the road.
1) Nobody can predict the future. (see the bold text above)

2) Everyone has known for a long time that social security and medicare will be in trouble. With so many baby boomers going into retirement age, and the medical costs associated with those retirements likely to explode, we've all had an idea for years that it will get rough. I think with the advances in medicine and health care, the retirement age might have to get pushed back even further into old age. As far as the solution is concerned, I don't know, but borrowing a lot of money while a cost explosion happens, is not going to be good.

3) I would believe that if prices go up, it will have more to do with inflation going up, rather then taxes going up. Assuming the taxes stay the same, the increased cost of products will naturally mean that the amount of taxes collected per item increases. The problem is that if prices go up too much, less of them are likely to be sold.

Anyone else notice that if the government was to increase the taxes on unhealthy stuff, they are technically helping this country whether we like it or not? Case in point: In South Carolina, it is illegal to drive without a seat belt on. Driving without a belt is a very unhealthy practice (if you wreck), and yet the government steps in to protect us from ourselves. Could it be possible that one day the costs of the "unhealthy tax" are dwarfed by the savings in the treatment of Americans?

And yet I still believe that it's less about the bad food we eat, and more about the laziness of America that has gotten us to this point of gluttony.


4) Amtrak isn't supposed to make money. It provides an important service to the people and products it transports. We've discussed that before, so that is a non point as far as I'm concerned.

5) A person can run a business smoothly and be a great help to that community. A large corporation made up of many people who run it are less likely to think of the community, and more then likely will damage the smaller businesses they are in competition with. So basically, capitalism at it's core, is going to create a superpower corporation that will effectively negate any and all competition. This is why monopoly laws are in place (Bell), and anti-competitive laws are still in the news (Intel).

Neither Socialism nor Capitalism are the answer. This country is still here because we can adapt to the problems of now and in the foreseeable future. We can stimulate growth, while also trying to defend any industry smothering. We can protect the CEOs and also the every day workers. I guess what I'm trying to say is maybe this country went a little too far towards the rights of a select few, and maybe the needs and rights of the majority are about to get their fair share.

[joerockhead]

As for comment 1 - Why did he not stick to him promise? He said he would NOT raise taxes on Benefits. Now, he is "Considering it". Yeah, Slam McCain for suggesting it, then "re-consider it" once he wins.

CD you are being blind!


As for Social Security.... Our Government was borrowing against Social Security for years, and though they say they paid it back, they did so without interest, thus, it has lost great value. Once again, both parties wasted our Money.
And Since Congress does not have to pay in or claim it, they could care less.
True Cost of a product going up will increase tax revenue, but not as much as you think.
A $1.00 Twinkie pack at .082(8.2%) is 8.2 cents. If it is raised to $1.20, then you are talking 9.8 Cents. Yup, a whole 1.6 Penny!
OH WAIT!!! Twinkies are bad for people!!! Lets put a 2 Cent tax on it!!!!!


Comparing raising taxes on Soda and Beer to a Seat belt law is lame.
How will the fact you pay a find (Tax) going to impact sales?
A 10 cent tax on Soda will obviously reduce the amount consumed. Thus, will result in the amount required to meet sales, thus result in the amount needed to be manufactured, and thus, reduce the amount of service to manufacture it and thus loss of JOBS. The Reduction in the sales will reduce the amount of taxes collected. Yes, less soda (not necessarily healthy) sold will mean less Tax revenue.

Similar scenario with beer.

Amtrak is NOT supposed to make Money??? Since WHEN!!!!!! BS!!
I guess that General Motors never has to make money again!!!!!

BULLSHIT!!!!

Comment 5 is full of SHIT too!!!! You think a Corporation does not help communities???? I bet most Major Corp's donate a higher amount then the little guys!! and FAR more then a Government Owned Corp!!!

so again BULLSHIT!!!!

You are just so infatuated with Obama, that you are willing to follow him to Hell!!!


I have never heard of a business that is not out to make Money!!!
Oh yeah, Amtrak is Govvie owned. Never mind!

Oh and in case you say I am anti Democrat, yes. I am. But I am also Anti Republican, because they are just as responsible for this shit too!!! It is our Government! Not just 1 party!