Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
How sad (not to mention reprehensible) is this? This woman *actually* believes that HPV vaccine causes mental retardation. Any graduate of 8th grade biology would know that that's impossible, but this person is running for President. Not to mention using a special needs child as a political tool. I fear for the future of human kind.
Also she believe that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old and Jesus will return take the believers to heaven the the Jews will convert.
"I support intelligent design. What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides."~ Michele Bachmann
"I think there is a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it. ... The creator that I know created us, each and every one of us and created the universe, and the precise time and manner. ... I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side." ~Ron Paul
"I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution." ~Rick Perry
"I hear your mom was asking about evolution. That's a theory that is out there, and it's got some gaps in it ... In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution. I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right." ~Rick Perry
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I heard some political commentator compare the current state of the US and its politics as being like a car slowly rolling to the edge of a cliff. We could turn left or right and probably be ok but our politics are so broken right now that they can't do either.
It always amuses me when I make my occasional trips to New Zealand and watch the news there. No one goes about talking about using religion as a cheap substitute for political discourse. Instead the news is droll, even boring at times, because the politicians, nor the people they represent, don't have time for such nonsense.
Oh, all politicians are to be taken with several grains of salt-- but the people in NZ (and from what I understand, many places outside the US) don't tolerate needless distractions that degrade political discourse even further.
The difference being that politicians elsewhere in the world aren't quasi-religious zealots bereft of the ability to think past the ends of their noses. I truly, honestly believe that the majority of ours have IQs in the low double digits. I simply can't find any other reasonable explanation for their behavior and beliefs.
We're all connected and in the same ship, whether we are aware of it or not. The whole point of government programs is they benefit society as a whole. It has nothing to do with "forcing" altruism on people, which was Ayn Rand's most beloved red herring.
We're all connected and in the same ship, whether we are aware of it or not. The whole point of government programs is they benefit society as a whole. It has nothing to do with "forcing" altruism on people, which was Ayn Rand's most beloved red herring.
So what do you call it?
As it says in the Constitution: "for the common good".
I have worked for third parties before. I was state chairman of the Washington State Whig party for two years. The US system does not work for a third party. Why? The GOP and the Dems will basically take over third party positions. Like how the GOP has taken over the Tea Party. Also we don't get enough money to launch good campaigns. http://www.modernwhig.org/
Change doesn't always happen as quickly as you might like. This isn't about me and you, it is about those future generations that inherit this country. I will not contribute to leaving them with an attitude that we have no other choice than to submit to two power hungry groups of corrupt politicians.
We're all connected and in the same ship, whether we are aware of it or not. The whole point of government programs is they benefit society as a whole. It has nothing to do with "forcing" altruism on people, which was Ayn Rand's most beloved red herring.
So what do you call it?
As it says in the Constitution: "for the common good".
I am assuming that you are referring to the Preamble to the constitution. Perhaps you should review the document before quoting it.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
A tax may be defined as a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority."[1] A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."[1]
You can't get around that taxes are forced. It is the nature of tax and government. We aren't discussing its benefits, we are discussing its compulsory nature. In the words of Judge Judy (a stern american TV judge), don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining (paraphrased).
If we didn't want to be taxed by ourselves (not by the British 3000 miles away) then we should have set up a different type of government 200 years ago. I think it's a little late at this stage to start grousing because we think taxes are morally wrong. That's the impression I get from the teabaggers. Government is wrong, taxes are wrong, and run amok capitalism is right. The first two are called "anarchy" and the third has been shown time and again to simply not work for the common good. Nobody (to my knowledge) has ever alleged that taxation isn't a compulsory thing in America.
Basically, what it boils down to in the US is, the right simply doesn't care about the common good. The entire concept is anathema to them. In its most basic form, it's pure greed. "Mine for me, and to hell with the rest of you losers" is their mantra.
I am assuming that you are referring to the Preamble to the constitution. Perhaps you should review the document before quoting it.
Well excuse me that the exact phrase is "promote the general Welfare" instead of "for the common good". My apologies for not reading the Constitution every few nights.
@B5C thank you for bringing that up. I just want to make clear that I agree with a government funding education, health care, infrastructure, and protective services. However I feel it should be administered at a more local level. The advantages are that local minds understand local issues and politicians are returned to the community rather than being some person in power to be bought by corporations.
I HATE that my taxes go towards war.
I find it simply horrible that the supreme court has sanctioned the "coercion" of states in an attempt to bypass what the founding fathers put in place with the 10th amendment.
I am assuming that you are referring to the Preamble to the constitution. Perhaps you should review the document before quoting it.
Well excuse me that the exact phrase is "promote the general Welfare" instead of "for the common good". My apologies for not reading the Constitution every few nights.
Nobody said anything about every few nights, just before quoting it.
@B5C thank you for bringing that up. I just want to make clear that I agree with a government funding education, health care, infrastructure, and protective services. However I feel it should be administered at a more local level. The advantages are that local minds understand local issues and politicians are returned to the community rather than being some person in power to be bought by corporations.
...
The problem with local is/was twofold.
Years ago,state and local governments were notoriously corrupt. The feds may not always be competent, but the overall federal government is not what I would call corrupt. For example, the social security system is remarkably well run...unlike the post office.
To give you a good example of the problems with local governments, just look back to schools in the civil rights era. When I started teaching in Maryland, I was in a school with forced busing -- Prince Georges County. I asked about before integration, were Black schools really inferior? The answer -- white schools had libraries, black schools did not. Black students got the old textbooks that were discarded by the White schools.
Later I moved to a very progressive school system -- Fairfax County in northern Virginia. But, in that same era, FFX actually completely closed down their school system, rather than integrate. No public schools at all.
The other issue with leaving things to local governments is the concept of "equal protection", in a broad sense. You can see it today in the education system. Why should children in states like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama have an inferior education system to children in states like NY or Virginia.
@B5C thank you for bringing that up. I just want to make clear that I agree with a government funding education, health care, infrastructure, and protective services. However I feel it should be administered at a more local level. The advantages are that local minds understand local issues and politicians are returned to the community rather than being some person in power to be bought by corporations.
Schools should not be that localy if it did. We would have creationism or ID taught in public schools.
I HATE that my taxes go towards war.
I hate that too, but we still have to pay our taxes unless you are too poor to pay taxes. If you want to end wars you gotta elect people from sending people to war.
I find it simply horrible that the supreme court has sanctioned the "coercion" of states in an attempt to bypass what the founding fathers put in place with the 10th amendment.
What "coercion?" The Supreme Court did the right job on that welfare clause.
Years ago,state and local governments were notoriously corrupt. The feds may not always be competent, but the overall federal government is not what I would call corrupt. For example, the social security system is remarkably well run...unlike the post office.
To give you a good example of the problems with local governments, just look back to schools in the civil rights era. When I started teaching in Maryland, I was in a school with forced busing -- Prince Georges County. I asked about before integration, were Black schools really inferior? The answer -- white schools had libraries, black schools did not. Black students got the old textbooks that were discarded by the White schools.
Later I moved to a very progressive school system -- Fairfax County in northern Virginia. But, in that same era, FFX actually completely closed down their school system, rather than integrate. No public schools at all.
The other issue with leaving things to local governments is the concept of "equal protection", in a broad sense. You can see it today in the education system. Why should children in states like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama have an inferior education system to children in states like NY or Virginia.
How about rather than pointing to the faults of the past, we work on figuring out the successes of the future. Moving toward a central government was exactly what the founding fathers tried to limit. It isn't perfect, but there is no reason why we can't be more involved in our state governments and actually hold them accountable.
Schools should not be that localy if it did. We would have creationism or ID taught in public schools.
We have lots of issues in our education system now and they are not excuses for moving toward a more federal government.
I hate that too, but we still have to pay our taxes unless you are too poor to pay taxes. If you want to end wars you gotta elect people from sending people to war.
I can vote for every candidate that SAYS they won't send people to war, but the problem is that the majority of our politicians don't listen to their true constituents. We also have to deal with rogue executive branches that simply bypass our legislative body.
What "coercion?" The Supreme Court did the right job on that welfare clause.
Didn't you read the article that you send over about "that welfare clause?"
Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.
How about rather than pointing to the faults of the past, we work on figuring out the successes of the future. Moving toward a central government was exactly what the founding fathers tried to limit. It isn't perfect, but there is no reason why we can't be more involved in our state governments and actually hold them accountable.
Depends on which founding fathers you're talking about. And even though Jefferson was one who falls in that category, he didn't consistently follow the principle.
I can vote for every candidate that SAYS they won't send people to war, but the problem is that the majority of our politicians don't listen to their true constituents.
Depends on which founding fathers you're talking about. And even though Jefferson was one who falls in that category, he didn't consistently follow the principle.
I obviously mean those founding fathers that agree with me ;-) haha. Seriously though, that is a very good point. There were and still are two sides to the debate. At that time, there was a balance (compromise) struck between the two and that balance has slowly been shifting toward federalism.
What exactly do you mean by "true constituents"?
I mean the citizens of their districts and not the corporations that the supreme court gave personhood.
You can't effectively legislate morality; it must come from within.
This brings to mind a quote:
“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.”~Martin Luther King Jr.
While it is true that we cannot legislate morality, we can however legislate a system that provides all Americans with free access to healthcare as is done in practically every other industrialized country.
Ron Paul is a big fan of Ayn Rand. Do you really think you want to live an society where they believe Altruism is evil??
[video]
I'm don't know the speaker much, but i wanted to comment on the video you posted anyway.
Buddhism is essentially "selfish' that way, since we deal with our own happiness first. As far as i know the Buddha even forbade the monks to care for the sick (to an extent) or do chores for other people because it distracted from the monk's meditation practices, the use of which is to end the meditating persons own suffering (and not someone else's). This is exactly what the speaker in the video is getting at as well.
The speaker is talking against sacrificing our own happiness for others. This is actually something that is practiced in most situations where there is a situation where people have to be helped but there is some risk involved.
For example, medical staff don't go into a zone to deliver vaccines if they think they cant properly protect themselves to reduce the risk significantly. Putting yourself at great risk for a patient is considered bad practice, because then you can easily end up with more people to deal with than you started with.
Another example would be a group of hikers, where one fell off a some cliff. The others will not climb there unless they have proper equipment to minimize the risk, because again, there could be 2 people injured then.
If someone is drowning, you don't jump into the water to save that person unless you know you can handle him, because he could then climb on you and drown you (or both).
This is what i understood as the speaker is speaking against - if you want to help a person, you can do it. But you shouldn't be forced by society into helping someone even if you don't have an interest to do so. Because then you may or may not end up helping that person while loosing something yourself, so in total both of you (helper and helped) will be worse off then when you started.
I hate that too, but we still have to pay our taxes unless you are too poor to pay taxes. If you want to end wars you gotta elect people from sending people to war.
EGGGGGGGGZACTLY!! Personally, I think voting should be mandatory just like paying taxes (which it is in some other countries). Don't want to vote? Fine, then it's a $50 civil penalty, just like jaywalking.
Buddhism is essentially "selfish' that way, since we deal with our own happiness first. As far as i know the Buddha even forbade the monks to care for the sick (to an extent) or do chores for other people because it distracted from the monk's meditation practices, the use of which is to end the meditating persons own suffering (and not someone else's).
That's a pretty cynical way to view it IMHO. That's like saying it's 'selfish' that the doctor heals him or herself first. If we are not happy ourselves, how can we hope to assist others in becoming so? If my doctor is dying of some horrible, preventable disease, how can I expect her to put her all into helping me maintain my health?
I hate that too, but we still have to pay our taxes unless you are too poor to pay taxes. If you want to end wars you gotta elect people from sending people to war.
EGGGGGGGGZACTLY!! Personally, I think voting should be mandatory just like paying taxes (which it is in some other countries). Don't want to vote? Fine, then it's a $50 civil penalty, just like jaywalking.
EGGGGGGGGZACTLY!! Personally, I think voting should be mandatory just like paying taxes (which it is in some other countries). Don't want to vote? Fine, then it's a $50 civil penalty, just like jaywalking.
I don't see how a bunch of either blank or badly informed votes would help any case? Unless you think people are prevented from voting in your country (as opposed to not going because they don't feel like it) i doubt it would help.
... don't you think so? =/ Or how would it help?
That's a pretty cynical way to view it IMHO. That's like saying it's 'selfish' that the doctor heals him or herself first. If we are not happy ourselves, how can we hope to assist others in becoming so? If my doctor is dying of some horrible, preventable disease, how can I expect her to put her all into helping me maintain my health?
This is what the speaker in the posted video is saying (or the journalist). I'm guessing its to get more views. The speaker is saying that one should help when its one's interest to do so; not because of fear to be considered selfish by society, or because so called "altruism" is required by society. The speaker is speaking against self sacrifice - so the opposite of this is thought of as being selfishness. Here the speaker says that it is okay to help people, but not okay to help people while sacrificing oneself (and notes that people should never be a sacrificial object). Therefore, one kind of selfishness (that of not helping people when its not in one's interest) as talked in the video is okay.
Here i added the parallel to Buddhism - if selfishness is such as is spoken about in the video, then Buddhism has in itself ideas of selfishness being something positive just as well as the speaker does. Therefore, the ideas in the video are according to the Buddha in my opinion, and is a bad example of why not vote for a candidate. After all, we are talking on Buddhist forums.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
EGGGGGGGGZACTLY!! Personally, I think voting should be mandatory just like paying taxes (which it is in some other countries). Don't want to vote? Fine, then it's a $50 civil penalty, just like jaywalking.
I don't see how a bunch of either blank or badly informed votes would help any case? Unless you think people are prevented from voting in your country (as opposed to not going because they don't feel like it) i doubt it would help.
... don't you think so? =/ Or how would it help?
Mandatory voting would help in that right now the parties largly focus their politics on turning out there base and generally only give lip service to the large center of the country. If the parties already know that their bases will turn out to vote then they will concentrate on winning over the middle of the country.
EGGGGGGGGZACTLY!! Personally, I think voting should be mandatory just like paying taxes (which it is in some other countries). Don't want to vote? Fine, then it's a $50 civil penalty, just like jaywalking.
I don't see how a bunch of either blank or badly informed votes would help any case? Unless you think people are prevented from voting in your country (as opposed to not going because they don't feel like it) i doubt it would help.
... don't you think so? =/ Or how would it help?
Mandatory voting would help in that right now the parties largly focus their politics on turning out there base and generally only give lip service to the large center of the country. If the parties already know that their bases will turn out to vote then they will concentrate on winning over the middle of the country.
I have always gone back and forth on compulsory voting. I think we have to be very careful about compulsory anything when it comes to government. I hadn't really considered the effect that compulsory voting would have on the political parties. I wonder what political parties in countries with compulsory voting, like brasil, focus on to get votes.
Do we have any members who are from a country with compulsory voting to chime in on this?
Voting will solve nothing because the people/parties that contest won't go against corporate interests.
And not voting will solve what exactly? Have we got a better system in place? Should we all just give up and let "them" win? I don't think so. Even I'm not *that* cynical yet.
I do think compulsory voting would help matters to a degree-- Republicans are notorious for finding ways of disenfranchising the votes of blacks (hence the reason for their hatred for groups like ACORN).
As far as third parties go, the only way to fix that is get rid of the electoral college (something which I'm all for but no one is willing to seriously propose, least of all the two major parties in power).
I agree re the electoral college. In 1790 it made sense, because it took days to weeks for a rider with a dispatch to get from Boston or New York to Washington. In the era of instant communication, there is no need for it.
The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.[10] Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern that the large states would otherwise control presidential elections.
The electoral college was based on a system of government that focused more on states rights than the federal government. The electoral college was a way to ensure states had a fair shake at electing their federal leaders.
has any one really logically imperically debunked the mercury autism link?
you know... over 100 fold FDA limit or w/e amounts of mercury in vaccinnes given repeatedly... mercury causing heavy neurological damage (proven) and timeline correlations between developement and distribution.
kinda important issue if I go down the kids route. my sister didn't vaccinate her kids.
has any one really logically imperically debunked the mercury autism link?
There is no link. The British researcher who published the paper claiming the link has recanted and stated that it was completely fabricated. Last I heard the government in the UK were considering filing fraud charges against him, but that was some time ago.
There is *no* link between vaccines and autism. Certainly the rise in autism rates is due to something, but it's not that, and not getting children vaccinated is a FAR greater risk (by many orders of magnitude) to their own and public health than if there really were an autism risk.
People automatically draw lines from A to B, implying causality that isn't usually there. Sadly, this one has had drastic consequences, since we're now seeing an upsurge in very dangerous childhood diseases like pertussis because parents were afraid to get children vaccinated.
has any one really logically imperically debunked the mercury autism link?
you know... over 100 fold FDA limit or w/e amounts of mercury in vaccinnes given repeatedly... mercury causing heavy neurological damage (proven) and timeline correlations between developement and distribution.
kinda important issue if I go down the kids route. my sister didn't vaccinate her kids.
Comments
"I support intelligent design. What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides."~ Michele Bachmann
"I think there is a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it. ... The creator that I know created us, each and every one of us and created the universe, and the precise time and manner. ... I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side." ~Ron Paul
"I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution." ~Rick Perry
"I hear your mom was asking about evolution. That's a theory that is out there, and it's got some gaps in it ... In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution. I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right." ~Rick Perry
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/07/140071973/in-their-own-words-gop-candidates-and-science
Oh, all politicians are to be taken with several grains of salt-- but the people in NZ (and from what I understand, many places outside the US) don't tolerate needless distractions that degrade political discourse even further.
So again I ask, what do you call it? You can't get around that taxes are forced. It is the nature of tax and government. We aren't discussing its benefits, we are discussing its compulsory nature. In the words of Judge Judy (a stern american TV judge), don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining (paraphrased).
Basically, what it boils down to in the US is, the right simply doesn't care about the common good. The entire concept is anathema to them. In its most basic form, it's pure greed. "Mine for me, and to hell with the rest of you losers" is their mantra.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/commongood.html
You forgot one this: The Welfare Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause
I HATE that my taxes go towards war.
I find it simply horrible that the supreme court has sanctioned the "coercion" of states in an attempt to bypass what the founding fathers put in place with the 10th amendment.
Years ago,state and local governments were notoriously corrupt. The feds may not always be competent, but the overall federal government is not what I would call corrupt. For example, the social security system is remarkably well run...unlike the post office.
To give you a good example of the problems with local governments, just look back to schools in the civil rights era. When I started teaching in Maryland, I was in a school with forced busing -- Prince Georges County. I asked about before integration, were Black schools really inferior? The answer -- white schools had libraries, black schools did not. Black students got the old textbooks that were discarded by the White schools.
Later I moved to a very progressive school system -- Fairfax County in northern Virginia. But, in that same era, FFX actually completely closed down their school system, rather than integrate. No public schools at all.
The other issue with leaving things to local governments is the concept of "equal protection", in a broad sense. You can see it today in the education system. Why should children in states like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama have an inferior education system to children in states like NY or Virginia.
I mean the citizens of their districts and not the corporations that the supreme court gave personhood.
“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.”~Martin Luther King Jr.
While it is true that we cannot legislate morality, we can however legislate a system that provides all Americans with free access to healthcare as is done in practically every other industrialized country.
Buddhism is essentially "selfish' that way, since we deal with our own happiness first. As far as i know the Buddha even forbade the monks to care for the sick (to an extent) or do chores for other people because it distracted from the monk's meditation practices, the use of which is to end the meditating persons own suffering (and not someone else's). This is exactly what the speaker in the video is getting at as well.
The speaker is talking against sacrificing our own happiness for others. This is actually something that is practiced in most situations where there is a situation where people have to be helped but there is some risk involved.
For example, medical staff don't go into a zone to deliver vaccines if they think they cant properly protect themselves to reduce the risk significantly. Putting yourself at great risk for a patient is considered bad practice, because then you can easily end up with more people to deal with than you started with.
Another example would be a group of hikers, where one fell off a some cliff. The others will not climb there unless they have proper equipment to minimize the risk, because again, there could be 2 people injured then.
If someone is drowning, you don't jump into the water to save that person unless you know you can handle him, because he could then climb on you and drown you (or both).
This is what i understood as the speaker is speaking against - if you want to help a person, you can do it. But you shouldn't be forced by society into helping someone even if you don't have an interest to do so. Because then you may or may not end up helping that person while loosing something yourself, so in total both of you (helper and helped) will be worse off then when you started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
... don't you think so? =/ Or how would it help?
This is what the speaker in the posted video is saying (or the journalist). I'm guessing its to get more views. The speaker is saying that one should help when its one's interest to do so; not because of fear to be considered selfish by society, or because so called "altruism" is required by society. The speaker is speaking against self sacrifice - so the opposite of this is thought of as being selfishness. Here the speaker says that it is okay to help people, but not okay to help people while sacrificing oneself (and notes that people should never be a sacrificial object). Therefore, one kind of selfishness (that of not helping people when its not in one's interest) as talked in the video is okay.
Here i added the parallel to Buddhism - if selfishness is such as is spoken about in the video, then Buddhism has in itself ideas of selfishness being something positive just as well as the speaker does. Therefore, the ideas in the video are according to the Buddha in my opinion, and is a bad example of why not vote for a candidate. After all, we are talking on Buddhist forums.
Do we have any members who are from a country with compulsory voting to chime in on this?
I do think compulsory voting would help matters to a degree-- Republicans are notorious for finding ways of disenfranchising the votes of blacks (hence the reason for their hatred for groups like ACORN).
As far as third parties go, the only way to fix that is get rid of the electoral college (something which I'm all for but no one is willing to seriously propose, least of all the two major parties in power).
has any one really logically imperically debunked the mercury autism link?
you know... over 100 fold FDA limit or w/e amounts of mercury in vaccinnes given repeatedly... mercury causing heavy neurological damage (proven) and timeline correlations between developement and distribution.
kinda important issue if I go down the kids route. my sister didn't vaccinate her kids.
There is *no* link between vaccines and autism. Certainly the rise in autism rates is due to something, but it's not that, and not getting children vaccinated is a FAR greater risk (by many orders of magnitude) to their own and public health than if there really were an autism risk.
People automatically draw lines from A to B, implying causality that isn't usually there. Sadly, this one has had drastic consequences, since we're now seeing an upsurge in very dangerous childhood diseases like pertussis because parents were afraid to get children vaccinated.