tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post951420056553194766..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The rotting of American democracyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53533303664751776342011-08-23T07:18:45.862-04:002011-08-23T07:18:45.862-04:00We are both, constitutional republics are a partic...We are both, constitutional republics are a particular kind of democracies.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57806545893622925672011-08-23T01:29:59.812-04:002011-08-23T01:29:59.812-04:00We are not a Democracy --- We are a Constitutional...We are not a Democracy --- We are a Constitutional RepublicElijahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960775725405431996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74107413383735132782010-02-06T23:21:27.609-05:002010-02-06T23:21:27.609-05:00I don't know whether this is serious or a joke...I don't know whether <a href="http://www.murrayhillincforcongress.com/" rel="nofollow">this</a> is serious or a joke, but I hope it is serious. The company does exist. Be sure to watch the video! :-)J. Marcelo Alveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09967299561849915314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72556092599185808452010-01-31T19:36:06.792-05:002010-01-31T19:36:06.792-05:00@Blaine:
"On what possible Constitutional gr...@Blaine:<br /><br />"On what possible Constitutional grounds could you say corporations have NO free speech rights?"<br /><br />Um, what part of "We the People..." don't you understand?LCShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230899522753297278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23422715027084421742010-01-30T12:04:46.913-05:002010-01-30T12:04:46.913-05:00So does my music. :)
Anthony Evans - Meaningless
...So does my music. :)<br /><br />Anthony Evans - Meaningless<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pdN1i9OqCIcalianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86846797371758157642010-01-29T17:47:38.726-05:002010-01-29T17:47:38.726-05:00"I did understand what you said."
"..."I did understand what you said."<br /><br />"Secularism is a choice ... "<br /><br />No. You don't understand. But how could you? It seems apparent that any kind of nuance or 'grey' is something you're simply not interested in (perhaps capable of?) nevermind entertaining it for discussions' sake.<br /><br />Though, I suppose the world seems simpler when viewed as either black or white, red or blue, left or right, god or secularism...<br /><br />As for your former comments, I think they speak for themselves.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43172494089851705622010-01-29T14:47:23.803-05:002010-01-29T14:47:23.803-05:00I think we could solve the issue here by taking a ...I think we could solve the issue here by taking a closer look at the word "free". I know we have a couple of hundred years of precedent on the meaning of "free speech" and it has been liberalized almost to the point of meaninglessness. My proposal: speech, without control or consequences (one meaning of free), only applies if that speech is made without cost (the other meaning of free). Stand in the public square and say what you please, sit on your neighbor's porch and say nasty things about the government without being hauled off to jail. It costs you nothing monetarily and therefore risks no censorship. But... pay a printer to print a 1,000 flyers, buy a radio station, purchase a million dollar Super Bowl ad, or hire someone to go to Washington and you've put yourself into the control zone. Free speech is free but paid speech is regulated.Die Anywayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10632857696534495049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81664183190692574272010-01-29T11:39:26.148-05:002010-01-29T11:39:26.148-05:00C: And there is also the implication through the w...C: And there is also the implication through the whole chapter that there are some who think Israel ought to be cut off.<br /><br />Isn't that 100% true?"<br /><br />D: No. Its not.<br /><br />Did you read Romans chap 11?<br /><br />Okay so maybe it is not 100% of the world that wants Israel to "be <br />cut off". But it is 100% true that there are plenty who do. <br /><br />A LOT of the world does and has tried repeatedly to cut the Jews out of their covenant with God - WHY!? Ridiculous to continue to do that when the covenant supposedly does not even exist! So I know for a fact that God's covenant remains intact with the Jews. Most of the world proves that there must be something to it with their actions towards Israel.<br /><br />NOW that would be something to bring up in one of the important meetings in the middle east with world leaders. "Good morning gentlemen. That thing about God calling Israel and the Jews His holy place and His holy people, that no long is true...no one believes that anymore." <br /><br />HA! Who would accept that either? No one. They are ACTUALLY thinking that they can change the course of history and possibly even Gods mind or will on the matter. <br /><br />As if... <br /><br />"You did not understand what I said. Secularism, just like every other man-made concept doesn't mean anything in and of itself. People have to give it meaning (in this case with religion present)."<br /><br />I did understand what you said. Secularism is a choice (regardless of how it was arrived at)just as non-secularism is. The fact that it appears that humans have contributed to either set of ideas doesn't make them more or less a choice that can be decided upon. <br /><br />And I think that Gods law is written on each persons heart whether they choose it or not. Secularism, as far as I can see, is just a reaction to not wanting to choose Gods way.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91476578116364360102010-01-29T02:14:54.351-05:002010-01-29T02:14:54.351-05:00"I guess PEOPLE don't give meaning to sec..."I guess PEOPLE don't give meaning to secularism? Lol!"<br /><br />You did not understand what I said. Secularism, just like every other man-made concept doesn't mean anything in and of itself. People have to give it meaning (in this case with religion present). <br /><br />Does a child, without given the instruction or undestanding, simply come from the womb knowing who Jesus or Jacob or Muhammad are? Or what secularism is? No. People have to give these names and ideas meaning - in this case to other people to perpetuate the concepts.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30018586601121742002010-01-29T02:02:37.958-05:002010-01-29T02:02:37.958-05:00caliana,
"Isn't that 100% true?"
N...caliana,<br /><br />"Isn't that 100% true?"<br /><br />No. Its not. <br /><br /><i>You</i> are connecting the dots. <i>You</i> are trying to wrangle together meanings from two different time periods thousands of years apart. <i>You</i> are trying to play the role of editor, historian, religious scholar and psychic.<br /><br />Stop pretending.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39668298536048430202010-01-28T13:09:50.555-05:002010-01-28T13:09:50.555-05:00Darek: "That Romans verse itself has absolute...Darek: "That Romans verse itself has absolutely nothing to do with what you're trying to say about the catholic church. Why pretend otherwise?"<br /><br />If you have the patience for it pick up my link and read the (entire) chapter 11. Inductively, if you read the whole chapter you'll understand easily that the "natural branch" is referring to the Jews. And there is also the implication through the whole chapter that there are some who think Israel ought to be cut off. <br /><br />Isn't that 100% true?<br /><br />"If only more people understood its really people who give meaning to things rather than things having any meaning themselves, we can do away with things like religion."<br /><br />I guess PEOPLE don't give meaning to secularism? Lol!calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64310235157136862312010-01-27T20:47:34.102-05:002010-01-27T20:47:34.102-05:00Notice, in addition, that not one member of the Su...Notice, in addition, that not one member of the Supreme Court argued that corporations *don't* have the right to free speech. The minority admits as much. Stevens writes (in an opininion in which all the minority justices concurred): "The majority grasps...that speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation.... Of course not, but no one suggests the contrary, and neither Austin nor McConnel [precedent cases] held otherwise. They held that even though the expenditures at issue were subject to First Amendment scrutiny, the restrictions on those expenditures were justified by a compelling state interest." Nor did any of the justices argue that spending money is not a form of expression.<br /><br />The sole nub of contention between the majority and minority is whether there is a compelling state interest to limit what both treat as standard examples of expression. See Glenn Greenwald's posts on this, here: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.htmlBlinn Combshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17851019534266952885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80156750671003855602010-01-27T15:00:06.115-05:002010-01-27T15:00:06.115-05:00Romans 11 For if you were cut out of the olive tre...<i>Romans 11 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who [are] natural [branches], be grafted into their own olive tree?</i><br /><br />caliana, using words or verses or books to mean whatever you want them to mean is neither clever or honest.<br /><br />That Romans verse itself has absolutely nothing to do with what you're trying to say about the catholic church. Why pretend otherwise?<br /><br />If only more people understood its really people who give meaning to things rather than things having any meaning themselves, we can do away with things like religion.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-932047545614807172010-01-27T12:10:17.390-05:002010-01-27T12:10:17.390-05:00"On the other hand, my policy is not to block..."On the other hand, my policy is not to block any comment unless it is a death threat, explicitly offensive for no reason, or an advertisement."<br /><br />Ah, you know me well enough. I'd never touch anyone even if I had a strong disagreement with em. I might even try to protect em. (lacking the "go to war and kill" gene)<br /><br />You may see me adversarially. And that would be understandable. I do not see you that way. I think of you as someone who has years of bad church doctrine to weed out and discard. And if you like never change your pov, M, I'd still care about your life just the same. A human-being made (and loved) by God & in His image.<br /><br />Yes and it has nothing to do with the the discussion on democracy. I know. I'll get me back on track.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-22409432745858623142010-01-27T11:45:14.157-05:002010-01-27T11:45:14.157-05:00Mintman "Hitler was a catholic and frequently...Mintman "Hitler was a catholic and frequently mentioned divine providence and Jesus (whom he strangely considered not to have been a Jew) in his speeches."<br /><br />The Catholic church was (and may still) teach that the (their) church came to replace the Jews. This is referred to as Replacement Theology. The Bible explicitly says otherwise. If the Catholic church does not follow key doctrines of the Bible how can it be considered Christian? I do not considered the RCC Christian. <br /><br />The RC Church also follows many gods but Jesus. The saints, Mary, the priest and then maybe Jesus. The doctrine is upside-down and is an absolute perversion of what the Bible really says on many key doctrines. The RC Church gets away with it because most Catholics DO NOT READ their Bible. And that is how a whole nation was (mis) lead into killing 6 mil Jews and 5 mil gentiles. To get God COMPLETELY out of their heads and hearts. As if... <br /><br />I see that many people who are now skeptics once belonged to the RCC. I'd like to change that.<br /><br />Romans 11 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who [are] natural [branches], be grafted into their own olive tree? <br /><br />The rest of Romans 11 is very clear that God has NOT put Israel aside. <br /><br />Romans 11 http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=11&v=18&t=NKJV#18calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80428752685505966212010-01-27T08:20:07.265-05:002010-01-27T08:20:07.265-05:00Mintman,
you may have noticed that I never commen...Mintman,<br /><br />you may have noticed that I never comment on Caliana's posts, unless they are actually pertinent to the topic at hand, and I can't remember when that happened last time. On the other hand, my policy is not to block any comment unless it is a death threat, explicitly offensive for no reason, or an advertisement.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28564951203821684142010-01-27T04:27:18.412-05:002010-01-27T04:27:18.412-05:00Caliana:
Great stuff; now you have gone from dema...Caliana:<br /><br />Great stuff; now you have gone from demanding the cake makers' opinion on grilled locusts to lambasting them for not being Christians. How, again, will that help decide whether to put more flour into the mixture? Even putting aside the very slight problem of the non-existence of gods, I cannot really remember the bible verse that goes "thou shalt have a two party system, for verily: a third party is an abomination in the eye of the LORD". Likewise, I am wondering where Jesus addressed the issues of filibusters or campaign finance, seeing how he never came into contact with a democratic system and was honestly convinced that the end of the world and its judgment would come within ca. 50 years of his teaching anyway (Matthew 16:28, 23:36, 24:34; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27).<br /><br />Still, I feel compelled to answer at least one of the many off-topic falsehoods you are propagating. Hitler was a catholic and frequently mentioned divine providence and Jesus (whom he strangely considered not to have been a Jew) in his speeches. The great majority of the German bishops and priests were on the side of the Nazi government - the few dissidents among them, like Dietrich Bonhoefer, are celebrated so much today by embarrassed Christians precisely because they were the exception. Most importantly, the millions of Germans who were in the SS, SA, NSDAP, and of course the common Reichswehr soldiers were virtually all either catholic or protestant, simply because virtually all Germans were so, and the Nazis were recruited from them. Of course I am not saying that they committed the atrocities because they were Christians, but being religious apparently also did not keep them from doing it. A few high ranking Nazis were some kind of weird mysticist pagan-revivalists, but definitely not rationalists, atheists or humanists, which is what you are impotently raging against here. You would have more luck arguing that Stalin and his adherents were atheists and anti-christian, but then you would still have to show that this was the reason for the bad things they did, or that they would not have done them if they were Christian, which seems to be a tough thing to do considering the aforementioned Nazis as well as medieval crusaders or genocidal conquistadores as counterexamples. But judging from your confused ramblings I guess it would be asking to much of you to do what you, in a textbook example of projection, demand of others: to think these issue through logically, understand the concept of a No True Scotsman fallacy, discriminate between correlation and causation, or understand complex historical processes.<br /><br />Massimo:<br />This is your blog, so I would like to ask what your preference in the face of inane Gish-gallops, derailment of discussions and overall trolling is - commentors correcting the misinformation and distortions such as those spouted by Caliana or ignoring them to keep the discussion on topic?Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90765328511890033862010-01-26T23:11:21.891-05:002010-01-26T23:11:21.891-05:00In the words of Dr. Evil:
"Riiggght..."...In the words of Dr. Evil:<br /><br />"Riiggght..."Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18957110243828702202010-01-26T22:11:01.530-05:002010-01-26T22:11:01.530-05:00"Again, the irony here is that that was a rig..."Again, the irony here is that that was a right-wing phenomenon."<br /><br />Where the Spirit of God ISN'T there is no racial or gender unity. Safe to say that God's Spirit was not with the the Third Reich.<br /><br />I have a 1948 copy of Joseph Goebbels Dairies. 1942-1943 I really don't even like to open the book, but I'll do so if I need to be reminded of certain things. If I didn't know better I would almost be sure that these references about Goebbels and Hitler were talking about people who are alive today. The spirit of the quest to put God behind us is certainly alive. <br /><br />"The aims and method of Nazi foreign policy are disclosed with a frankness and cynicism that makes National Socialism stand forth as absolutely amoral and immoral, as ready to cheat friend, foe and neutral alike. Hitler's and Goebbel's contempt for other nations and their public men was abysmal. Goebbels gloatingly planned the extermination of all Jews, and the reduction of all Christian churches to impotence." pg. 30calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65751597393547088522010-01-26T20:33:16.938-05:002010-01-26T20:33:16.938-05:00Well Massimo,
I couldn't agree with you more ...Well Massimo,<br /><br />I couldn't agree with you more on your prescription. But then again I also agree with you on your definition of ethics as presented in your discussion with Julia. <br /><br />Given those two things, I give the probability of sucessfully arguing your (my) position as one chance in ten million.<br /><br />We face counteracting challenges. One, those that agree with our ethic are immune to appeals from emotion and want hard data that the solutions proposed will work. Two, those that disagree with our ethic don't care about hard data and need an emotional appeal to warrant a change in at least any one small aspect of their world view. And three (here's the real kicker), both sides demand a consistant repetive message.<br /><br />I'm the empiricist, the answer clearly won't come from my subset of the group (although the problem I layed out above does). So, I think it is a truly philosophical conundrum. How do you merge the three requirements?Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03513589609857845105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86206270484491479922010-01-26T18:15:02.793-05:002010-01-26T18:15:02.793-05:00That precisely is how the collective "we"...<i>That precisely is how the collective "we" fell head over heels for propaganda during the time of the Holocaust in case anyone missed that. </i><br /><br />Again, the irony here is that that was a right-wing phenomenon.<br /><br />Also, collectivism isn't exclusive to left-wing causes. I don't think someone like Bill O'Reilly, for example, is thinking of only himself when he considers the "white, christian, male power structure".Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62670116886737587882010-01-26T17:26:40.119-05:002010-01-26T17:26:40.119-05:00Mintman: Look, our current system is not as bad as...Mintman: Look, our current system is not as bad as Venezuela's current system" does not cut it; it does not help to improve the US system. I mean, I can do one better:"<br /><br />That's not the point at all. The point is that much of Chevez's criticisms of the US are almost identical to those of the left and yours. You seem to recognize that he is a nut, but, of course, you are not??!!!<br /><br />And no idea where you get that I am screaming something about being proud. I am German too. I just don't identify at all with the popular, political attitude of the leftist, communist policies coming from your and my county. Talk about arrogance? Germans ARE terribly ARROGANT. Immigration is hardly even allowed in Germany. Several years visas for foreign workers at the most? I know that it is also a hard working culture too but inclined to reserve judgment and action on anything moral and righteous. That precisely is how the collective "we" fell head over heels for propaganda during the time of the Holocaust in case anyone missed that. <br /><br />Say anything negative about a true dictator? Ah! you must BE THE DICTATOR!! Of course, why didn't I think of that?!<br /><br />THINK.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46326471938950466612010-01-26T16:26:28.827-05:002010-01-26T16:26:28.827-05:00Enjoyed the post. A few points.
(1) the 1st Amend...Enjoyed the post. A few points.<br /><br />(1) the 1st Amendment includes an imperative to the government about the types of laws not to be made, and is silent about the kinds of entities to which these prohibited laws might apply;<br /><br />(2) the distinction between "fundamental" and "legal" rights is without a difference in this context, since, rhetoric aside, government officials are (legally) bound only by the latter category;<br /><br />(3) imagine a parallel case: the police have decided to search the offices of your local corporation without obtaining a warrant: is that permissable, or an infringement?<br /><br />(4) If you deal with parallel cases like (3) and Carter's publishing analogy by claiming that the offices are offices of people, and the writing writing of people, your distinction between "people" and "corporations" looks like a case of special pleading; GE's board of directors is a collection of people.<br /><br />(5) Your analogy with voting rights is odd; I suspect it's undergirded by your appeal to isonomia--in this case, one person, one vote. But notice the large discrepancy between the two cases. Voting is highly regulated. The options are controlled, the possibilities severely restricted, and the value of each vote precisely equal. Is any of this true of expression?<br /><br />(6) I'm deeply ambivalent about the SC ruling, but my ambivalence is largely a factor of its possible bad consequences. As I understand the term, "fundamental" rights are, at least in part, those we hold to be worth protecting even (and some would say especially) in the face of very bad consequences. Obviously, there has to be some tradeoff, but the line isn't always so easy to divine.<br /><br />As ever, I appreciate your thoughtful perspective on these issues.Blinn Combshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17851019534266952885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-5878790862987804522010-01-26T15:13:37.480-05:002010-01-26T15:13:37.480-05:00caliana wrote: Down in the south valley of Albuque...caliana wrote: <i>Down in the south valley of Albuquerque months ago a there was a man who had abducted and held a 14 yro girl from CA. His doors were broken down without a warrant and he was instantly arrested. The officers claimed that they could see that he was either about to attack or possibly harm her. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but it really doesn't matter. I'm ALWAYS going to side with the police and or any force that seeks to protect. And I mean LITERALLY protect. So if you want to judge George Bush like he really intended to trounce on the rights of truly innocent and harmless people, I guess that is your delusion to live inside of. I do not believe it.</i><br /><br />I don't know what is worse, the fact that you would use an anecdote like that to justify policy changes for the lives of countless others who may or may not share your ideas/values on a whim like that, or your emotionally-infused method in analyzing things like democracy. Ironically, dictators have been known to be susceptible to both of these issues.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46679923699303179292010-01-26T15:03:57.353-05:002010-01-26T15:03:57.353-05:00So what do you want? Do you have anything producti...So what do you want? Do you have anything productive to contribute? "Look, our current system is not as bad as Venezuela's current system" does not cut it; it does not help to improve the US system. I mean, I can do one better: The Haitian infrastructure is better than Somalia's, so obviously they do not need to ever improve anything! Same logic. If you want to have a genuine reason to be proud of your country, you have to do more than scream "I am proud" in everybody's face and compare yourself to the next worst you can find.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.com