Community > Posts By > Melaschasm
Topic:
Ron Paul
|
|
I agree that there are Christians who behave in an intolerant way. All religions are made up of imperfect people who behave badly.
Big Government Liberals both Christian & Anti Christian, by using the Federal government to promote their agenda and philosophy, force their opponents to use the Federal government to battle for their agenda and philosophy. Only with a small Federal government is it possible for people with differing religious and philosophies to freely practice their beliefs. That is a great example of why the Federal government power was limited by the Constitution. Once the Federal government power extends into the daily lives of the people, then the people will fight over how that power should be used. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Ron Paul
|
|
I am all for a separation of church and 'Planet'. Driven, I am not going by speeches I am reading what he is actually saying in HIS OWN WORDS: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html If you can't see it your way to close to it. And Driven, I am no body's supporter. I won't agree with everything one president does or says. In fact I think Obama is just as indoctrinated in Christianity as the next guy, so I don't expect him to have views that are in line with my own, nor did I expect if of Bush of Clinton or Reagan or the first Bush. And frankly with the domination of the Christian church in politics I don't expect any president to be honest about how they really feel about Christianity or religion of any kind. You can bet that no wanna be president will ever say he is agnostic or atheist and win, because people would freak out. Does this mean I don't like other things that Paul has said, no, but there aren't enough for me to vote for him as a president. If that makes me the other side, so be it, to me it just means I see thing differently than you guys that like Paul exclusively. Separation of Church and State does not actually appear in the Constitution. What does appear is a limitation on government power. The Constitution forbids government from endorsing any one religion. Basically what Ron Paul is saying is that communities that want a Saint Patrick's Day parade should be allowed to have one. However, the government should not be mandating such a parade, and it should not be forcing people (or even bribing them) to participate. If a different community wants to celebrate some other religious holiday, they should be allowed to do so without coming under attack from the government. At the same time the government should not be forcing everyone to participate in that celebration. This is the real tolerance of the Constitution. While it may not have always been enforced, trying to use the concept of 'separation of church and state' to prevent religious people from practicing their faith in public is not tolerant. (and I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything, I am just explaining what I believe in, and in this case what Ron Paul supports). |
|
|
|
Topic:
Ron Paul
|
|
So the fact that he wants people to be allowed to freely express their religion means that he is bringing religion into politics? I ask, should muslim children not be allowed to pray at school when his or her religion requires? All Ron Paul was asking for is tolerance. Did anyone else see anything different? Tolerance for Christianity is no longer acceptable to many people. I know more than a few people who will not be happy until Christians are forced to worship in basements after dark with only a few very trusted friends and family. Want an example? Check out the General Religion forum on Mingle. If you post anything about Christianity, there will be a bunch of posts attacking the religion and the person within a few minutes. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Ron Paul
|
|
I am not sure what the hidden agenda of this topic is.
However, I can say that I mostly agree with the libertarian philosophy, and regarding Ron Paul, I only have a few disagreements with him on issues. |
|
|
|
Topic:
bad idea?
|
|
So Justin & I are on a break. Lately I felt like he was more distant and recently he said he misses the days when he could go to clubs, and drink, and smoke without worrying about calling me or my reaction. So I said he needed to take time off and figure out if he wants to party or be in a serious relationship! Was this a bad idea? and... Im I wrong for asking him to not go to a club every weekend (He still goes sometimes) and spend a little more time with me? You need to figure out what type of lifestyle you want to live, and find a guy that is willing to live that lifestyle. Personally I think if he is not cheating on you, then going to the club and drinking with friends is fine. People need time apart. Perhaps you should focus on improving both the quantity and quality of time you spend with him, and let him determine what to do with his time away from you. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Read my lips... no new taxes
|
|
"Read my lips, no new taxes". An infamous quote by George H. W. Bush at the 1998 Republican National Convention. After elected Bush raised taxes. In 1992, Bush lost his bid for re-election which I believe can be partially or mostly due to this broken promise. Flash ahead to September 12th, 2008 and Barack H. Obama. "I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." "Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases." Joe Biden: "No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised," Joe Biden said, "whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1 Good luck Obama supporters in defending this one. This is just one of many campaign promises Obama has broken. If you look at the carbon tax (cap and trade) that will primarily be a tax on people making less than $250,000, if you look at it from the standpoint of the percentage of income that will be allocated to this tax. |
|
|
|
As horrible as this is, it is a standard part of Sharia law. If you are a supporter of multiculturalism, then you are supporting this law.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Myth of Free Will
Edited by
Melaschasm
on
Mon 03/30/09 08:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
soldiers treated like sh!it
|
|
Contact the Red Cross. They have a program to facilitate bring soldiers home for the birth of a child, or for the death of a family member.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Leaving Iraq
|
|
I am growing increasingly worried about future inflation. It likely will take at least a year to start, and a couple to really get going.
There are a few reasons domestic (USA) oil is expensive. 1. The location of the oil is often difficult to extract from. 2. US has stronger regulations for worker safety and environment. 3. US has some silly rules that prevent extraction. 4. US taxes and auctions for oil rights add to the cost. I personally like the idea of shifting some autos to CNG (natural gas). We do not need massive new subsidies to support this process. CNG is already half the price of unleaded gas, and vehicles that run on CNG are becoming more common. The biggest danger of switching cars to CNG is the possibility of dramatically increasing solar and wind electricity generation. For each watt of solar and wind generation we need one watt of backup power, which is almost exclusively from natural gas. If we are going to replace inexpensive coal/nuclear power with expensive wind and solar, we need to keep using oil for our cars, because the price of natural gas is going to go up without switching our cars to CNG. Then again if we figure out how to get the frozen gas from the ocean floor at a reasonable price, we will have more than enough domestic natural gas to support both cars and wind/solar backup. |
|
|
|
Topic:
The Myth of Free Will
|
|
Free Will.
That is an interesting topic. While I don't have time for a full discussion tonight, I do have a couple quick comments. Free Will from a Christian perspective is the ability to overcome both nature and nurture and make a free choice. 1. Free Will does not mean that nature/nurture have no effect. 2. I suspect that most of the time people do not exercise free will. 3. I suspect that I often go through life without using free will. 4. I believe that when I make a carefully considered decision to change, that I am exercising free will. It is theoretically possible that free will could be proven to exist or not exist. However, we are not even remotely close to being able to prove either side of the free will debate. To prove free will requires us to have an accurate definition of every nature/nurture variable, and be able to consistently predict the results of each variable. Only then could we run an experiment that would prove that free will exists, or does not exist. Because of the lack of proof regarding free will, it is up to each individual to decide if they choose to believe in free will. |
|
|
|
Topic:
nugent for governor?
Edited by
Melaschasm
on
Sat 03/28/09 06:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Illegal immigrants are by definition criminals. Many studies have shown that on average illegal immigrants get more in taxpayer benefits than they pay into the system. Which makes sense, because the average illegal immigrant is a low wage worker. I have had the same position on immigration since the late 1980's. We should streamline the process for legal immigration, and have much stricter enforcement of illegal immigration laws. Along with stronger border security, employers should face harsh penalties for hiring illegal immigrants. This isn't a complicated issue, but as long as corrupt politicians and businessmen can benefit from lax enforcement of illegal immigration, the problems are only going to get worse. Illegals do not get benefits from the government so that is not accurate. If the employers here would stop hiring them they would not come here. Illegals get access to some government benefits 'legally', and gain many benefits by forging documents. If the government would enforce illegal immigrant laws, companies would not be hiring illegals. However, when the government turns a blind eye to one company hiring illegal immigrants, paying them less than minimum wage, and bending various other regulations because illegal immigrants can't easily bring lawsuits against their employers, all those companies who do not hire illegal immigrants are at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace and will go out of business if they do not break the unenforced laws against hiring illegal immigrants. |
|
|
|
Illegal immigrants are by definition criminals. Many studies have shown that on average illegal immigrants get more in taxpayer benefits than they pay into the system. Which makes sense, because the average illegal immigrant is a low wage worker.
I have had the same position on immigration since the late 1980's. We should streamline the process for legal immigration, and have much stricter enforcement of illegal immigration laws. Along with stronger border security, employers should face harsh penalties for hiring illegal immigrants. This isn't a complicated issue, but as long as corrupt politicians and businessmen can benefit from lax enforcement of illegal immigration, the problems are only going to get worse. |
|
|
|
Topic:
President Obamas vision
Edited by
Melaschasm
on
Sun 03/22/09 06:33 PM
|
|
Atleast hes not busy "PLAYING" a rancher in Texas all the time!!!!!! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/03/04/BL2008030401392.html http://www.slate.com/id/2098861/ Get off the hate Bush bandwagon he is gone. This isnt about him. Its about our new president. And IMO delgateing to much and not steping up to the plate and being a leader! Obama hasn't been on job long. I'm giving him a chance. I gave Bush that same chance. I know he hasnt been on the job long but he needs to give geithner help, and let him focus alone on the stimulas and take the rest away. Just letting him deal with all he has to will just lead to failure. When he himself says Geithner has a lot on his plate should he lighten his load? I mean trillions of dollars is a lot to deal with in of itself. Look at AIG "no one knew the bonus thing was in there? Give me a break somebody had to wright it! Bush let the problem go so long no one wants to be associated with the mess. Geithner didn't want the job. They can't get him any assistants because no one else wants the job either. Who would want that job? I would take the job, but they don't want to hire someone who believes in constitutional limitations on government power. |
|
|
|
Does anyone remember the series "V" A sci fi series of how reptile race disguised as humans live on Earth to control the masses, but the humans didn't believe they existed, except for a few rebels who really saw their true intentions. It was a 80's series and was cut from the program because there was too much controversy on the program. I remember that one - where they ate mice? Wasn't the guy who played Freddy Kruger (Nightmare on Elm Street) in that one. That was a good show. The books were good as well. |
|
|
|
Farscape (although it was brought back a few years after cancellation for a couple more seasons.
True Calling Dark Angel** The first season was great but the director for the second season did not do a good job. |
|
|
|
I will put a smile between your statement and my answer, then two smiles at the end of my answer.
Ok bare with me here. Many of you are concerned about government involvement in schools, well the thing is I have never known it to be any other way, and I am almost 60 years old. Why is it such a feared thing all of a sudden? I am 35, I went to a very good public high school, and I have been fighting against the public school monopoly since I was 17. The reason why is because those aunts and uncles that were not factory workers or construction workers were teachers. Including one uncle who chose to teach in the Detroit school system for the challenge of it. The public school systems in big cities are almost always a disaster, and our nation's youth deserve better. You guys also say you are concerned about finances and the cost of education so why are we making things so complicated with private, charter etc. I don't understand why we would have to have so many options for parents to deal with. Dont we want a society where people learn to live together in some sort of harmony? Private schools do not receive much tax support. They generally provide the best education, with some operating at much lower cost than a public school, or even a charter school. Charter Schools are a hybrid between public schools and private (not religious) schools. Here in Michigan a Charter school receives a little more than half as much money per student as a public school. The difference between what the State (tax payers) give to charter schools and public schools goes to public schools to help offset the lost 'revenue' from the child attending a charter school. Charter schools tend to have medium quality education, being better than many public schools and nearly all big city schools. The state maintains significant control over the charter schools, including limiting the number of students who can attend a charter school. However, they do have a little more freedom than a public school. Public schools are fully funded by the State, and heavily regulated by the State, as well as the NEA. Public school quality varies drastically by school, with big city schools have horrible educational quality. This results in poor inner city kids receiving a terrible education. Why not have public schools where the education is equal to a private school. It seems to me that it's not 'always' better to have more choices, it's more confusing and more difficult for parents and the kids, no? Not to mention unequal due to finances and geography. You are right, it is more confusing and difficult to have several schools to choose from. However, the public school monopoly in big cities has been an abject failure for decades, even though they get more funding per pupil. If the public schools were working, this would just be an academic discussion between libertarians, not an issue of growing importance and popularity with both democrats and republicans. Everyone is so worried about what their particular children are going to be exposed to. To me that is strange, because in the end these kids need to be aware of reality, it's no wonder we adults don't understand each other, we have all been separated by our own parents fears of this or that, so we grow up already disliking half of society. I agree that some students are being sheltered to much, but that is a tiny minority. The schools which are going to face the most competition from school vouchers are the big city schools where most of the kids families are poor or lower middle class. In schools like these, teachers are told to take self defense classes before their first day. Kids have to dodge and hide from gangs, even in the younger grades. Knives, guns, and drugs are a constant presence. More than half the students who enroll in kindergarten in the Detroit Public School system do not graduate from high school. Of those who do graduate, more than 20% are illiterate. This is a national disgrace. I went to both catholic school and public school, in 9th grade I was in public school twiddling my thumbs literally because I already knew the material. So yes catholic school was more advanced, but tell me why public school can't be as well. And why do these charter schools pull money away from public schools. Oh and what the heck is a charter school anyway? When I was completely out of school and on my own I discovered what I did not learn in catholic school and frankly that bothered me, it's as if my parents did want me to learn certain things like things about science, so I would be completely unprepared for an adult conversation about such things. I sometimes think we are all at fault for the way society is today, paranoid and frankly a bit off our rockers in some ways. Every school, and every teacher has biases which affect the education of their students. There is just as much indoctrination in public schools as in private schools. It is just a different agenda being pushed. Everyone is so concerned about indoctrination but that can be said about private schools and heck you can be indoctrinated in your own home. I know I was. I realize I am just a schmuck on the internet expressing an opinion. Even if you do not agree with my opinion, I hope you will consider the opinion of the parents. The last time Michigan had a State wide ballot initiative for school vouchers about 70% of black people living in Detroit voted in favor of school vouchers! Just think about that for a few minutes. The parents of poor black kids in Detroit voted in favor of school vouchers by a 70% to 30% margin. |
|
|
|
One of the biggest problems with charter schools in Michigan is the need for approval from an existing public school or college.
If we had a voucher system that would allow private companies to aggressively go after profits by providing the best possible education with the money available. Even with these problem charter schools in Michigan are generally more successful than public schools. Just about the only public schools that compete with charter schools for educational quality are the ones in wealthy communities. Although there are a few charter schools that do not do a good job, they do not survive long, since parents prefer to send their kids to the best possible school. |
|
|
|
ok...this makes NO sense to me. regardless of if the person you voted for is in office....why want them to fail???? that would hurts the people. why gloat over it??? if the leaders fail....we the people will feel it. The reason why people want Obama to fail to push his ultra left wing socialist agenda through congress is because Obama's success is bad for America. It is no different than opposing Bush on the war, or tax cuts, or stopping some abortions. If you disagree with someones policies based upon strongly held principles, then you should want them to fail to do whatever harm you are opposing. The question really was why would you be so insensitive to say you want him to fail knowing it would hurt a lot of americans. We already know they assume Obama is going to turn our country into socialism, it's not like we haven't heard it every day since he became president. Because if Obama fails, our country will be much better off, and many people around the world who are likely to suffer because of Obama would be saved from his idiotic socialist agenda. Did you want Bush to succeed in every political position he took, or did you sometimes want Bush to fail to achieve his center right agenda? |
|
|