 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —William R. Ward
|
| | | (...) I have no problem with people believing in whatever religion they want. However, when the State, through the public school system, offers *financial* support for an institution of religion, then that crosses the line. The Bible Club should be (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | (...) And some would call that 'reverse discrimination' Just because a group of students has a student run group and they want to discuss their belief in God, and they can't get school support on par with students who want to have a Camera club, (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) "Reverse Discrimination": A politically correct term for the right wing meant to really say, "We done stole it fair and square, so no trying to redress the crime." ;-) Actually, I don't see how "reverse discrimination" applies here whatever (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —William R. Ward
|
| | | | | | (...) There is nothing in the Constitution about supporting a hobby or game. There is something about supporting a religion. And that's how it should be - religion is a much more controversial topic than chess or cameras. --Bill. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Socialism is thought by some to be a religion (1), are you OK if we ban the teaching of socialism in public schools? Let's stick to things we know are true, after all... I'll support not funding religious schools or religious activities in (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —William R. Ward
|
| | | | (...) I don't see what relevance this has to anything I said. (...) Why? --Bill. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) OK. But you're a socialist, right? Since belief that a socialist system can actually work is counterfactual, holding such a belief is a kind of religion since it requires faith. (...) Separation of Church and State. A permanent mural (contrast (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) I suppose that depends on what level of socialism you are refering to. Virtually every nation on the planet practices some form of socialism, so I'd have to say that your claim that socialism working is counterfactual is...well, (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Practices... Amen, brother. They all **practice** it, but none of them have gotten it to WORK. (...) Don't confuse using with working. I'm happy with my claim, socialism doesn't **work**. (...) Um... I dunno. :-) What party sacrifices (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yes, but which party staunchy 'misinterprets' the 2nd ammendment so Homer can have his cache of assault weapons "cause 'looky right there--that's what it says in black and white, now git off my porch ya varmit!" while adapting others, "Well, (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | (...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) I'm happy with a claim that anything done to the point of the exclusion of *anything else*, doesn't work. Pure democracy does not work, for it's 'mob rule'--the most voices dictate what happens and the underdogs get (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ok, lets explore this. You say that people tend to want to not want to help, that they would vote to keep the money for themselves, and that only a government can convince them to help others. Well, what is the government made up of? Last I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) Counterfactual, as I said. (...) I'm sure FDR would have a bone to pick with you if he was alive. (...) I'm ashamed of you, Larry! Libertarians is the answer, of course. They stick to their guns - or dogma, depending on your viewpoint - better (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) And I with him. Didn't work then (his shenanigans prolonged a depression that was caused by other politicians meddling) and doesn't work now. Please provide an example of a country that's socialist that works. If you choose a mixed economy be (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't really have to: it's you that needs to prove that virtually every single country on the planet is a failure. _ :-O (Edvard Munch) - I said that every country practices socialism to some degree or another. You are stating that socialism (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) This I think is the crux so I snipped the rest. If a car has a flat tire, but the driver is driving it down the road because the other three tires are OK, is the car "working"? One could argue that it is. After all, the car is moving in the (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) I'd generally accept that ;-). But in accepting that, I have to accept that, as one gets closer and closer to a pure capitalist system, there are more and more people who are worse off (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That's not entirely accurate, but even if it was, it's not a good metric. The average standard of living in the US is significantly higher than, say, China. I don't tend to agree with Larry on political ideals, but as a goverment moves closer (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Ok. Now say Sweeden... it's not below the US standards. And it's just as much socialist as it is capitalist. (...) That's absurd. Was there at any point in history a nation which *democratically* chose socialism, and later had a socialist (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) A socialist gov't is more prone to being victimized by a dictatorship or ruling class because a significantly larger percentage of the power in the system rests with the government. In a capitalist system the would-be dictators become CEOs (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) And I would tend to concur. I mean, if I'm going to be fed and housed, and really not have to do anything to 'earn' it, why would I work? In the 'perfect' socialism, everybody works and then everything that they made gets gathered up and (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Sorry, in what way is redistribution "fair"? (...) This is the same old argument and the refutation is simple. NOT everyone has to do good or be charitable. Merely enough people to take care of the problem. We have empirical evidence that is (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I don't accept that as a given. Too often pure socialist countries started off way down the ladder anyway, and are further weighted down by being dictatorships. (...) I think it is easier for socialists to take over capitalist countries with (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | | | I actually think that everything Bruce wrote was spot on. Here's a couple snipets about which I want to comment. (...) Yup. Communal living is cool. It has been claimed to me that 40,000 Hopi lived under a single socialist government. Anyone know (...) (22 years ago, 18-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Well, *obviously* they were savages. Actually, that factoid rings a bell, but I can't place it; I'm likewise interested in a confirmation. Dave! (22 years ago, 18-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) Again, in a perect world, this would work, but, as todays newspaper headlines tell us, and as numbers are crunched, we see the gulf between the richest of us and the poorest of us (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Indeed, but I'm not comparing the US to China, nor the US or China to a world average - I'm merely comparing people to the average within their own system. My statment was "as one gets closer and closer to a pure capitalist system, there are (...) (22 years ago, 16-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) No. A car with a flat is going to eventually crash (not work). Governments with a "flat" would eventually fail. Better to use a clogged fuel injector analogy, where the performance is impaired, but leaving the car still working. (...) The next (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) It took Larry to uncloud the muddy waters??? What's the world coming to?? That was perfectly said ++Lar. Dave K. (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) Ooops, fergot the smiley Should've read: (...) Again, IMHO, what Larry said is what I would've if I could've... Though here's a debate... Hypothetically, a teacher askes her grade 3 (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —William R. Ward
|
| | | | (...) By US standards, I suppose I would be called that. By European standards, I'd probably be considered centrist. But that isn't the topic currently being discussed. (...) Good. (...) Huh? That's a straw man. The issue is religion, not viewpoint. (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Or suppress it either. Allowing a club to meet isn't support, but preventing one from meeting is suppression. Unless the school has a policy forbidding all clubs from meeting on school grounds it cannot prevent some clubs (which are otherwise (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Poll tax! (was: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: (snipped) (...) ! You have to pay a tax TO VOTE???!!! :-O Or did I misinterpret? (...) Pedro (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Poll tax! (was: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) No, we currently do not. That's the UK I think(1). I was talking about under an idealised constitution if I got to write it. 1 - or at least I recall that there was some talk of introducing same. Note that a "poll tax" was used as a repressive (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Poll tax! (was: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) The real UK Poll tax was a very long time ago - perhaps 100's of years ago(?). In the 80's Thatcher introduced a tax for which she intended to use the electoral role to set up the database of payees - this became known as the “poll tax” as (...) (22 years ago, 16-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
