2687 replies to this topic

[Roll the Bones]

JustDoIt, on 26 July 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

I understand what you are saying. I was pointing out that RHETORIC and LIES obfuscate legitimate concerns. I will use Mr. Harris as a example. He has a legitimate issue with John McCain, but his inflammatory rhetoric totally obfuscated his issue.I understand your concerns with the Mormon Church. I could argue that Mitt Romney could fulfill his commitment to the church by being a good President. And of course we have another Mormon in the position of power Harry Reid.When it comes to Mormons I guess you could call me biased since I live in Mormon country and grew up with friends who are Mormon including one who was very high in the church being a member of the Quorum of 70.The church does a lot of good including their welfare system. In my neighborhood the elderly of all faiths do not have to worry about fall leaves because the Mormons go through the neighbor hood and clean up the leaves. And of course I let my Mormon neighbor farm my land. They have raised 12 kids and every morning when I get up the 4 kids still at home are already out there working.I know a person not by label but by what is in their heart.

Well, actually the Mormon church is a vast tax free business that does little actual charity. The amount of money they give to charity is well under 1% of the actual take. An NGO would be run out of town and ostracized for such a record. But the truth is most churches aren't that much better. Walmart gave more money to charity last year than the Mormons in their entire history.

[Roll the Bones]

Balloon guy, on 26 July 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

Did they change the definitions of words last night? Cause fact doesn't mean what you are trying to mean.In fact, if you divide amount of violence by years in action, atheism is so far and away the most violent world view, that Islam would be classified a mild level of violence.Of course, killing people is what atheist are best at, that and sucking off the society Christians created, while never creating anything themselves ( except for the mass graves and better ways of killing the most people in a short period of time )Now those are actual facts, not revisionist silliness only believed by the sheep who can't figure out the Google!

Well, you might have something except athiesm isn't a "world view" and has absolutely nothing to do with government ideology other than to keep religon out of it.

[brvheart]

Roll the Bones, on 26 July 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Well, actually the Mormon church is a vast tax free business that does little actual charity. The amount of money they give to charity is well under 1% of the actual take. An NGO would be run out of town and ostracized for such a record. But the truth is most churches aren't that much better. Walmart gave more money to charity last year than the Mormons in their entire history.

That all depends on how you are defining charity. Just because they don't give it to an outside group or organization, doesn't mean that money isn't being used to help people. I'M NOT DEFENDING THE MORMON CHURCH!

[brvheart]

Roll the Bones, on 26 July 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

except athiesm isn't a "world view"

You're crazy.

[Balloon guy]

Roll the Bones, on 26 July 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Well, you might have something except athiesm isn't a "world view" and has absolutely nothing to do with government ideology other than to keep religon out of it.

So they believe that religion is the opium of the people?

[Balloon guy]

Roll the Bones, on 26 July 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Well, actually the Mormon church is a vast tax free business that does little actual charity. The amount of money they give to charity is well under 1% of the actual take. An NGO would be run out of town and ostracized for such a record. But the truth is most churches aren't that much better. Walmart gave more money to charity last year than the Mormons in their entire history.

Compared to atheist organizations,I would put up the worst offenders of the Christian faith and probably have to still give you a few points

[timwakefield]

Balloon guy, on 26 July 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Compared to atheist organizations,I would put up the worst offenders of the Christian faith and probably have to still give you a few points

http://en.wikipedia....ates_FoundationI see your lack of citations and raise you $33.5 billion.

[DJ Vu]

Is it normal for charities to donate to other charities?

[Balloon guy]

timwakefield, on 26 July 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....ates_FoundationI see your lack of citations and raise you $33.5 billion.

Hadn't read where Bill Gates has become the leader of the atheist churchBut glad you feel that the actions of 1 person is enough to justify the lack of action for the whole...

[timwakefield]

Balloon guy, on 26 July 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

Hadn't read where Bill Gates has become the leader of the atheist churchBut glad you feel that the actions of 1 person is enough to justify the lack of action for the whole...

"Atheist church" is an oxymoron. You said atheist organizations. I assumed that a non-religious organization headed by an atheist counted.

[Balloon guy]

timwakefield, on 26 July 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

"Atheist church" is an oxymoron. You said atheist organizations. I assumed that a non-religious organization headed by an atheist counted.

I agree, any non-religious organization headed by an atheist counts as an atheist organization.Don't forget though that the Atheist Church has tax exempt status according to the IRS. So you're not knowing about them doesn't mean they don't exist. ( btw, their leader was murdered by one of the 'faithful' for money, which seems to me to be pretty consistent with their teachings )

[JustDoIt]

Roll the Bones, on 26 July 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Well, actually the Mormon church is a vast tax free business that does little actual charity. The amount of money they give to charity is well under 1% of the actual take. An NGO would be run out of town and ostracized for such a record. But the truth is most churches aren't that much better. Walmart gave more money to charity last year than the Mormons in their entire history.

I have no response since it is obvious you have no clue of what you are talking about.

[mrdannyg]

JustDoIt, on 26 July 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

I understand what you are saying. I was pointing out that RHETORIC and LIES obfuscate legitimate concerns. I will use Mr. Harris as a example. He has a legitimate issue with John McCain, but his inflammatory rhetoric totally obfuscated his issue.I understand your concerns with the Mormon Church. I could argue that Mitt Romney could fulfill his commitment to the church by being a good President. And of course we have another Mormon in the position of power Harry Reid.When it comes to Mormons I guess you could call me biased since I live in Mormon country and grew up with friends who are Mormon including one who was very high in the church being a member of the Quorum of 70.The church does a lot of good including their welfare system. In my neighborhood the elderly of all faiths do not have to worry about fall leaves because the Mormons go through the neighbor hood and clean up the leaves. And of course I let my Mormon neighbor farm my land. They have raised 12 kids and every morning when I get up the 4 kids still at home are already out there working.I know a person not by label but by what is in their heart.

I like everything you say here. I don't live near any Mormons, but I understand they are generally a kind, charitable group. They, generally, use their religious beliefs as a basis for actions that most of us would consider good. And I also agree that encouraging a 'good' society would be an excellent way for Romney (or any other Mormon) to fulfill his Church's requirements.This kind of falls apart in two ways:- Romney (and any other Mormon in politics) does plenty of things that would not really be considered generally good. Mostly because it's impossible, since high-level politicians have to decide on things like abortion, which won't be generally seen as good by a majority of people no matter what he does. So it falls down to personal politics and beliefs, which we can assume are in line with the Church's. Logically then, a strong religious figure in a political role will make decisions based on religious beliefs.- Everything you said applies to Muslims. I promise, even though the media and your neighbours tell you all brown people are terrorists. I promise that is true. There are violent Muslims too, who say they are acting in the name of their Quran, and the media will tell you that is because the Quran says to kill all infidels or some shit. Well, the Mormon Bible says plenty of awful things too if people followed them precisely, but most Mormons do not and act well.

Balloon guy, on 26 July 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

Did they change the definitions of words last night? Cause fact doesn't mean what you are trying to mean.In fact, if you divide amount of violence by years in action, atheism is so far and away the most violent world view, that Islam would be classified a mild level of violence.Of course, killing people is what atheist are best at, that and sucking off the society Christians created, while never creating anything themselves ( except for the mass graves and better ways of killing the most people in a short period of time )Now those are actual facts, not revisionist silliness only believed by the sheep who can't figure out the Google!

You're hilariously wrong. Christians are, by an incredibly significant margin, the most violent group in history. It's only because Christians try to pretend that those who do violent things while identifying as Christians are not 'really' Christians because...well they did bad things. Whereas any (communist or otherwise) regime without a publicly-stated belief is assumed to be atheist. Even though, of course, atheism is not equal to not being religious, and that most of these situations involved atheism only to avoid any power high than the regimes, rather than basing their murders on atheist beliefs and the eradication of non-atheists.Hitler: Christian.

[mrdannyg]

I now have a new favourite website. Highlights so far, two examples of Christians I looked up had a heading of Religion: (some form of Christianity). The two murderers I looked up instead had a heading of "Claimed Religion". And in both cases, it stated the the murderers religions were "rejected" (no citations given). Even though it lists Hitler's Christian beliefs as "rejected", it does include this paragraph:"Despite the common myth that Hitler was an atheist, Hitler was actually a confirmed Roman Catholic Christian. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote, “by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord”. However, he was not very strong in his religious beliefs, and it is likely he only mentioned Christianity in his speeches to gain the votes and favor of both Catholics and Protestants."Of course! He only mentioned Christianity to curry favour. Wasn't really a Christian. Now those Muslims and Atheists though, THEY are the best examples of their faith.http://www.conservapedia.com/Mitt_Romneyhttp://www.conservapedia.com/Mao_Zedonghttp://www.conservapedia.com/Adolf_Hitlerhttp://www.conservapedia.com/Michele_BachmannBachmann's might be my favourite. The second paragraph:"Bachmann is pro-life, pro-gun,^[3] pro-religion and holds many other core conservative values. She is widely considered one of the most important politicians in the fight against evolution. A search for her on Google turns up five positive sites for every 100 nasty liberal smear sites, like the Huffington Post."Holy crap.

[Balloon guy]

Well, I knew one person who was very much in support of evolution, used it to guide his national policy of evolved people and the need to remove the undesirable genes from the gene pool.He claimed to be one thing, but his actions were decidedly Darwinian Evolutionist...And I know of two countries that used the doctrine that religion is the opium of the people as a foundation to begin their reign, and had atheism as the national belief in their country...who then began to 'clean out' the undesirables in their country by the tens of millions. A few other countries also followed this belief, but they only killed a few million people.Now I know you want to say that since some of these people walked physically into a church once or twice in their life that you get to attribute their actions solely into the 'religious side of the equation...but the rest of the world acknowledges that they weren't.Don't worry, it will probably happen again, and we can watch millions of people killed to 'clean the gene pool' or 'purify the state' and you can see it first hand. Because those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

[JustDoIt]

mrdannyg, on 27 July 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

I like everything you say here. I don't live near any Mormons, but I understand they are generally a kind, charitable group. They, generally, use their religious beliefs as a basis for actions that most of us would consider good. And I also agree that encouraging a 'good' society would be an excellent way for Romney (or any other Mormon) to fulfill his Church's requirements.This kind of falls apart in two ways:- Romney (and any other Mormon in politics) does plenty of things that would not really be considered generally good. Mostly because it's impossible, since high-level politicians have to decide on things like abortion, which won't be generally seen as good by a majority of people no matter what he does. So it falls down to personal politics and beliefs, which we can assume are in line with the Church's. Logically then, a strong religious figure in a political role will make decisions based on religious beliefs.- Everything you said applies to Muslims. I promise, even though the media and your neighbours tell you all brown people are terrorists. I promise that is true. There are violent Muslims too, who say they are acting in the name of their Quran, and the media will tell you that is because the Quran says to kill all infidels or some shit. Well, the Mormon Bible says plenty of awful things too if people followed them precisely, but most Mormons do not and act well.You're hilariously wrong. Christians are, by an incredibly significant margin, the most violent group in history. It's only because Christians try to pretend that those who do violent things while identifying as Christians are not 'really' Christians because...well they did bad things. Whereas any (communist or otherwise) regime without a publicly-stated belief is assumed to be atheist. Even though, of course, atheism is not equal to not being religious, and that most of these situations involved atheism only to avoid any power high than the regimes, rather than basing their murders on atheist beliefs and the eradication of non-atheists.Hitler: Christian.

- Romney (and any other Mormon in politics) does plenty of things that would not really be considered generally good. Mostly because it's impossible, since high-level politicians have to decide on things like abortion, which won't be generally seen as good by a majority of people no matter what he does. So it falls down to personal politics and beliefs, which we can assume are in line with the Church's. Logically then, a strong religious figure in a political role will make decisions based on religious beliefs.Your correct, a lot of people vote special interest only. It is sad these people don't wade through the mud and figure out what the candidates are really all about. I consider these votes’ ignorant votesIf Romney is elected I hope he concentrates on his strength’s the economy. It is my hope that the first thing he does is send a strong message and raids Wall Street and arrest about 300 of them and lead them out in hand cuffs. Probably will not happen, but I think he will shock everyone and make a strong effort to deal with Corporate Cronyism.I guarantee if he were President, Goldman Sachs and other companies would not have received dollar for dollar settlements on AIG.- Everything you said applies to Muslims. I promise, even though the media and your neighbours tell you all brown people are terrorists. I promise that is true. There are violent Muslims too, who say they are acting in the name of their Quran, and the media will tell you that is because the Quran says to kill all infidels or some shit. Well, the Mormon Bible says plenty of awful things too if people followed them precisely, but most Mormons do not and act well.You are correct. I have done work in the Middle East and met a lot of super people. It is IGNORANT for any one to say all Muslims are dangerous and bad people. But it would also be IGNORANT not to acknowledge and deal with some very dangerous fringe groups hiding behind the Koran. And yes, their has been and are Fruitcakes and dangerous fringe groups that have spun off of the Mormon Church. And yes, I do know what’s called a Jack Mormon (bad person).Last Point. I think you are frustrated by the NOISE and RHETERIC as I am. As I pointed out the other day that Rep. Bachmann's letter (along with other letters sent by other Congressman) addressing a legitimate concern was that was totally obscured by NOISE and RHETERIC. Instead of addressing a legitimate concern the NOISE and RHETERIC reached a level as you pointed out where the Muslims were all labeled as bad people. We need to get back to addressing issues and toning down the RHETERIC.

[mrdannyg]

JustDoIt, on 27 July 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

- Romney (and any other Mormon in politics) does plenty of things that would not really be considered generally good. Mostly because it's impossible, since high-level politicians have to decide on things like abortion, which won't be generally seen as good by a majority of people no matter what he does. So it falls down to personal politics and beliefs, which we can assume are in line with the Church's. Logically then, a strong religious figure in a political role will make decisions based on religious beliefs.Your correct, a lot of people vote special interest only. It is sad these people don't wade through the mud and figure out what the candidates are really all about. I consider these votes’ ignorant votesIf Romney is elected I hope he concentrates on his strength’s the economy. It is my hope that the first thing he does is send a strong message and raids Wall Street and arrest about 300 of them and lead them out in hand cuffs. Probably will not happen, but I think he will shock everyone and make a strong effort to deal with Corporate Cronyism.I guarantee if he were President, Goldman Sachs and other companies would not have received dollar for dollar settlements on AIG.- Everything you said applies to Muslims. I promise, even though the media and your neighbours tell you all brown people are terrorists. I promise that is true. There are violent Muslims too, who say they are acting in the name of their Quran, and the media will tell you that is because the Quran says to kill all infidels or some shit. Well, the Mormon Bible says plenty of awful things too if people followed them precisely, but most Mormons do not and act well.You are correct. I have done work in the Middle East and met a lot of super people. It is IGNORANT for any one to say all Muslims are dangerous and bad people. But it would also be IGNORANT not to acknowledge and deal with some very dangerous fringe groups hiding behind the Koran. And yes, their has been and are Fruitcakes and dangerous fringe groups that have spun off of the Mormon Church. And yes, I do know what’s called a Jack Mormon (bad person).Last Point. I think you are frustrated by the NOISE and RHETERIC as I am. As I pointed out the other day that Rep. Bachmann's letter (along with other letters sent by other Congressman) addressing a legitimate concern was that was totally obscured by NOISE and RHETERIC. Instead of addressing a legitimate concern the NOISE and RHETERIC reached a level as you pointed out where the Muslims were all labeled as bad people. We need to get back to addressing issues and toning down the RHETERIC.

Despite the formatting, one of my favourite posts by you. Funny to see how a logical person can use very logical underpinnings to spin so far off sometimes.Anyway, if you're voting Romney because you want to see less corporate cronyism and less corporations being bailed out, I think you need to remember that every party attacks every unpopular thing the last person did, even if it is the same thing they would've done in the same scenario. Ignoring the NOISE AND RHETORIC, I can't imagine a scenario where the large corporations don't come out at least as well, if not much better off, if a Rep had been President in the last 4 years.

[Balloon guy]

mrdannyg, on 27 July 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

Despite the formatting, one of my favourite posts by you. Funny to see how a logical person can use very logical underpinnings to spin so far off sometimes.Anyway, if you're voting Romney because you want to see less corporate cronyism and less corporations being bailed out, I think you need to remember that every party attacks every unpopular thing the last person did, even if it is the same thing they would've done in the same scenario. Ignoring the NOISE AND RHETORIC, I can't imagine a scenario where the large corporations don't come out at least as well, if not much better off, if a Rep had been President in the last 4 years.

Reality ruins your postIn a move that serves as a capstone to Rep. Ron Paul’s colorful career, the House on Wednesday voted to have Congress‘ chief investigators conduct a full audit of the Federal Reserve’s shrouded decision-making process.The overwhelming 327-98 vote sends the measure to the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, at one time expressed support for an audit — though he reportedly has changed his mind.Opposition in Congress came chiefly from Democratic leaders, who said they doubt the bill ever becomes law — but worried about sending a signal to financial markets that lawmakers want to intervene in financial affairs.“It seems to me what we’re talking about is taking some fake punches at the Federal Reserve but not doing anything serious,” said Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee.Every top Democratic leader voted against the bill, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, along with 95 other Democrats and one Republican, Rep. Robert L. Turner of New York.

[mrdannyg]

Balloon guy, on 27 July 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

Reality ruins your postIn a move that serves as a capstone to Rep. Ron Paul’s colorful career, the House on Wednesday voted to have Congress‘ chief investigators conduct a full audit of the Federal Reserve’s shrouded decision-making process.The overwhelming 327-98 vote sends the measure to the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, at one time expressed support for an audit — though he reportedly has changed his mind.Opposition in Congress came chiefly from Democratic leaders, who said they doubt the bill ever becomes law — but worried about sending a signal to financial markets that lawmakers want to intervene in financial affairs.“It seems to me what we’re talking about is taking some fake punches at the Federal Reserve but not doing anything serious,” said Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee.Every top Democratic leader voted against the bill, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, along with 95 other Democrats and one Republican, Rep. Robert L. Turner of New York.

Wait...so one party wants to audit the actions of another party? You're right, that completely disproves my point that each party will contend the other's actions, even if a realistic person would acknowledge that they would've done similar or worse if given the opportunity. Or, it is completely consistent with my point. But, I guess you had to get your quota of half-dozen Conservative articles posted today, and couldn't be bothered to find a relevant one.

[Balloon guy]

mrdannyg, on 27 July 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Wait...so one party wants to audit the actions of another party? You're right, that completely disproves my point that each party will contend the other's actions, even if a realistic person would acknowledge that they would've done similar or worse if given the opportunity. Or, it is completely consistent with my point. But, I guess you had to get your quota of half-dozen Conservative articles posted today, and couldn't be bothered to find a relevant one.

The Federal Reserve isn't political....