How would you tweak your country's government?

[Irvine511]

wait, the Constitution isn't flawless and sacred and perfect?

(was going to post something on this as well)

 

[INDY500]

This is sneaking dangerously close into "if it's in the Bible, it must be moral" territory, which is the entire point of my argument.

No the point of your argument and your amendment is, in your words, to ban "religiously informed thinking" because it is "non-factual thinking."

So you are not dangerously close, you are in the territory of "if it's in the Bible, it must be false."

You are free to think what you will of the Bible and those that think it Holy (that's your free exercise of religion), but if it's "non-factual thinking" you want to ban might I suggest the following:

1) Banning the non-factual thinking that a centralized, top-down, price-controlled, government-mandated health care system will result in an improved, cost-effective, innovative, compassionate, patient-centered practice of medicine in the future.

2) Banning the non-factual thinking that the government can spend and borrow its way out of debt.

3) Banning the non-factual thinking that government spending adds or stimulates the economy. It either first taxes money from the economy before "redistributing" it, borrows money that would otherwise be used by private investors or prints money threatening the value of the dollar. No wealth is created however.

 

[Irvine511]

1) Banning the non-factual thinking that a centralized, top-down, price-controlled, government-mandated health care system will result in an improved, cost-effective, innovative, compassionate, patient-centered practice of medicine in the future.

2) Banning the non-factual thinking that the government can spend and borrow its way out of debt.

3) Banning the non-factual thinking that government spending adds or stimulates the economy. It either first taxes money from the economy before "redistributing" it, borrows money that would otherwise be used by private investors or prints money threatening the value of the dollar. No wealth is created however.

i'm not even going to touch the economics at play here ... i want to only point out that you've made the point.

all of the above can be debated on factual grounds. smart people with fancy degrees and years of study debate this all the time. they use a common, secular language to do so without claiming true knowledge of the whims of an omniscient invisible sky friend.

seems to me that if you are a religious person and you want to prove to me that, say, evolution is "flawed," you'd better provide some secular argument if you hope to get anywhere in a secular democracy.

 

[kramwest1]

If I'm reading this correctly, a state could designate the power to choose its electors to Donald Trump.

This is evidence of stunningly bad design in the US Constitution. Just awful.

National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

I wonder what will spur this into action.
I think the Electoral College is so flawed, and the answer of a popular vote so obvious, it'll probably never happen.

 

[financeguy]

No the point of your argument and your amendment is, in your words, to ban "religiously informed thinking" because it is "non-factual thinking."

So you are not dangerously close, you are in the territory of "if it's in the Bible, it must be false."

You are free to think what you will of the Bible and those that think it Holy (that's your free exercise of religion), but if it's "non-factual thinking" you want to ban might I suggest the following:

1) Banning the non-factual thinking that a centralized, top-down, price-controlled, government-mandated health care system will result in an improved, cost-effective, innovative, compassionate, patient-centered practice of medicine in the future.

2) Banning the non-factual thinking that the government can spend and borrow its way out of debt.

3) Banning the non-factual thinking that government spending adds or stimulates the economy. It either first taxes money from the economy before "redistributing" it, borrows money that would otherwise be used by private investors or prints money threatening the value of the dollar. No wealth is created however.

The level of disconnect between what GOP supporters believe and how the really real world actually is and behaves is suggestive of mental illness, at this point.

 

[PhilsFan]

No the point of your argument and your amendment is, in your words, to ban "religiously informed thinking" because it is "non-factual thinking."

So you are not dangerously close, you are in the territory of "if it's in the Bible, it must be false."

You are free to think what you will of the Bible and those that think it Holy (that's your free exercise of religion), but if it's "non-factual thinking" you want to ban might I suggest the following:

1) Banning the non-factual thinking that a centralized, top-down, price-controlled, government-mandated health care system will result in an improved, cost-effective, innovative, compassionate, patient-centered practice of medicine in the future.

2) Banning the non-factual thinking that the government can spend and borrow its way out of debt.

3) Banning the non-factual thinking that government spending adds or stimulates the economy. It either first taxes money from the economy before "redistributing" it, borrows money that would otherwise be used by private investors or prints money threatening the value of the dollar. No wealth is created however.

It's not that the Bible is false. It's that the Bible isn't in and of itself a source of information.

The whole point is that you can't vote on a gay marriage or an abortion or a death penalty, etc. on religious grounds. You cannot force your religion onto the people. You can't try to vote down a gay marriage bill on the basis that God wouldn't like it. Can't happen. That's forcing your religion onto people.

 

[INDY500]

The level of disconnect between what GOP supporters believe and how the really real world actually is and behaves is suggestive of mental illness, at this point.

Yes, well let's give it a proper, medical sounding name then. Debtspiral-phobia.

It's the fear of watching the European welfare state crumble before our eyes while continuing to follow in your footsteps.

 

[financeguy]

Yes, well let's give it a proper, scientific sounding name then. Debtspiral-phobia.

It's the fear of watching the European welfare state crumble before our eyes while continuing to follow in your footsteps.

You really are completely nuts.

 

[PhilsFan]

If the GOP cared about the debt, they'd tax the top 2%. They don't care about the debt; they care about 2012. By making debt the issue, they prevent the government from taking care of the real issue: jobs.

 

[Irvine511]

If the GOP cared about the debt, they'd tax the top 2%. They don't care about the debt; they care about 2012. By making debt the issue, they prevent the government from taking care of the real issue: jobs.

they also would have been protesting in 2007, if not earlier, and we'd have had town meetings about the cost of the Super Iraq Adventure.



what's really happening is that the GOP elites are manipulating an economic crisis to dismantle not just the Great Society, but the New Deal itself.

kind of how the Bush admin manipulated 9/11 grief into justifying an attack on a country that didn't attack us with imaginary weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Axver]

What the hell happened to this thread.

Shame that good discussion we were having about Australia and New Zealand didn't go much further.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

You really are completely nuts.

I used to have hope that he was just being sarcastic ...

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

If the GOP cared about the debt, they'd tax the top 2%. They don't care about the debt; they care about 2012. By making debt the issue, they prevent the government from taking care of the real issue: jobs.

not to mention they can sit back and let obama take the blame for everything they have and haven't done. yet if a republican gets elected in 2012 and things don't get better, suddenly it'll be the democrat minority who's supposedly being immature and preventing progress. when the republican president wins by a landslide in 2016 and the economy naturally starts to improve, then it'll be real progress at work thanks to the republicans.

the right is right!

 

[mobvok]

I suppose it may be too late to save the intent of this thread, but I'd like to hear from any UK-ers out there. Particularly with regards to whether Scotland can actually pull off independence/devolution in general and how reform for the House of Lords is going.

 

[INDY500]

It's a relatively limited amendment in scope. It would really only affect a couple debates.

You seem to think Jefferson's "separation of church and state" is an important concept to our nation's form of government. I agree. But Thomas Jefferson also wrote in 1786 the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. A portion of it is chiseled in stone at the Jefferson Monument.

Almighty God hath created the mind free...All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.

How does that jibe with your amendment?

So actually your amendment strikes at the very root of our liberty. Why? Because prior to the American Revolution no nation declared rights as God-given or recognized the sovereignty in the citizen rather than the government. Philly, the American Revolution was tried with the same "freedom from tyranny" and enlightenment thinking but minus the sky gods you wish to ban from governance. It's called the French Revolution. Didn't turn out so good.

 

[PhilsFan]

I don't really care. I don't have to uniformly agree or disagree with them because I don't hold the founding fathers to be absolutely good or evil, right or wrong.

It doesn't even have to be that amendment. Again, this thread is really just about discussion. I posted that amendment at 3:30 in the morning after a night of heavy drinking. My point is that I'm really, really sick of religion creeping into places it objectively shouldn't creep into. I don't care how it gets banished. I just want us to start talking about things that actually matter. Some Republican senators' opinion on Bible interpretation is a complete and total waste of time. Let's get to the real issues.

 

[mobvok]

I posted that amendment at 3:30 in the morning after a night of heavy drinking.

Was everyone in this thread drunk?!!??!??!

 

[Axver]

Was everyone in this thread drunk?!!??!??!

It's just that posting in FYM generally only seems like a good idea whilst drunk.

(In fact, I am getting inebriated right now.)

 

[Irvine511]

portion of it is chiseled in stone at the Jefferson Monument.

he also wrote this:

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

i also don't think anyone should get into throwing around "Founding Fathers" (peace be upon them) quotes in the way that people have thrown around Bible quotes. firstly, because these were just other people giving us their opinion, they didn't think nearly as highly of themselves as the Right Wing now seems to, and i'm quite sure they'd be horrified at their modern day deification for the simple minded.

 

[PhilsFan]

Was everyone in this thread drunk?!!??!??!

At the beginning. Generally if I'm posting after 2AM on a weekend it's a safe bet.