Boycott Google

Fascinating documentary:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eViswN602_k[/youtube]

@Serendipper

I can give you examples of predominantly theistic nations allying themselves, against the ‘racially pure cause’, can you give me an example of a predominantly atheistic nation allying itself against the racially pure cause?

Atheist Ayn Rand was a moral absolutist, theist Spinoza was a moral relativist.

And for some people, being a theist makes them happier, because they feel cared for.

I’m not necessarily against, and may be in favor of someone absolutely supporting values I relatively support.

And while absolute = made up, made up doesn’t necessarily = absolute.

An atheist may say it’s relatively, or absolutely good to kill a person, or people.

Are animism, deism, pantheism, polytheism and trinitarianism (gracious or merciful monotheism) on the one hand, and democracy on the other antipodal?

When did Mao claim or his followers proclaim him to, literally be a god?

They blame the dealers and users too, that’s why they imprison them, meanwhile progressives blame the addiction, which they attribute to an absent or abusive conservative father, capitalism, poverty…anything and everything but the individual.

While instituting checks and balances (which ought to include the division and, right limitations of powers (I have little respect for corporate sovereignty, but great respect for the sovereignty of individuals, families, communities, nations and small businesses) will help, any and every institution, including, perhaps especially government, is corruptible, and government corruption is the worst, because it’s organized violence.

Democrats ban you from banning people, and behaviors from your family, business, country, club, community and church.

Trump, like Hitllary can get away with soft tyranny, not hard.

Greed masquerading as religious, or secular righteousness is the rule, real righteousness the exception.

And the German parties to the left of Merkel want to coddle them even more.

Trump wants to ban all or some Muslims permanently or temporarily, ban all Muslim refugees, institute more background checks and surveillance on and of Muslims and he’s not afraid to use the term radical Islam, meanwhile democrats oppose him on all this.

They want a looser border, and while they, say they want to reduce the military, they’re often nearly as hawkish as Republicans, and both the green party, and the libertarians would probably reduce the military a hell of a lot more.

Here’s just one example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

Referring to Hitler as Christian makes about as much sense as referring to Stalin as a communist.
Other than claiming to be Christian, not only was everything Hitler did and said unchristian, but it was anti-Christian.
There’s no such thing as a perfect Christian, but so what?
There’s no such thing as a perfect anything.
Hitler was about as far from Christian as one could possibly get.
The question now is: for how long was Hitler, consciously anti-Christian?

The Nazi Party was at best apathetic about Christ’s divinity and at worst hostile to Christ, and so at best apathetic about or hostile to Christianity.

If we caught a political party pretending to be Christian for at least the last 8 years of its existence (1937-1945, which is when they committed their atrocities, mind you), than not only is there no reason to believe they weren’t pretending to be Christian the entire time, but if anything they probably were.

Adolf Hitler

Historians probably have fair-good reasons for believing this was Alfred Rosenberg and the Nazi Party’s intent, what reason do you have for disregarding them?
You haven’t presented any.

There’s too much emphasis on Hitler and not enough on the Nazi Party.
even if Hitler was Christian (which he wasn’t, in fact he was (consciously) anti-Christian), the Nazi party had some pagans, irreligious theists, so it can’t be blamed solely on a single religion.

I have no incentive to lie, I’m agnostic, and insofar as historians have reason to lie, Hitchens, who was an atheist and vehemently anti-Christian, all the more so.

The point is not all theism is equal, some forms are easier to use to commit atrocities, or good deeds for that matter than others.

I have reason to suspect.
It’s irrational to be 100% certain of anything.

This is a philosophy forum, not his class, there is no authority here.

Says the guy who casually dismisses what multiple historians have to say about the Nazi Party’s religion.

Perhaps unlikely, but if unlikely, that still doesn’t mean it’s not worth critically examining him.
It’s also unlikely he’s 100% right and his reader 100% wrong where they disagree or his reader has doubts or questions, and if the reader doesn’t critically examine everything, he’ll never uncover what Chomsky is wrong about.

Two heads are better than one.
So long as the reader is fairly knowledgeable and reasonable, if he critically interprets Chomsky, he, and you’ll be getting Chomsky’s brain + the reader’s, instead of just Chomsky’s.

Insofar as history and sociology are art, Chomsky may be popular among academics primarily for his art.

Insofar as history and sociology are about man’s love of authority, certainty and hierarchy, he, and his school of thought may’ve been somewhat arbitrarily chosen to be number one, because there has to be a number one, even if many of the alternatives are about equally knowledgeable and reasonable.

Chomsky may be highly regarded because he’s primarily, well, highly regarded, many of his colleagues may’ve happened to be mistaken about him, and the colleagues of those colleagues may’ve had faith in their judgement, and so on down the line, so a big part of Chomsky’s success may be luck, many people highly regarding him primarily because many people highly regard him, and few people ever critically examining him.

They want everyone to pay for it.

Republicrats are bribed by special interests who stand to gain from their allegiance.

You think too much about money, and not enough about the fact that those who choose to work will have to worker harder for less stuff if millions of people quit their job to live solely off UBI.

Here’s what I mean by what I’m now calling BSI (basic supplementary income):
Government directly pays the employed and involuntarily unemployed 10000$ annually at the richest 1%'s expense in addition to whatever their employers or welfare are already paying them themselves, it doesn’t force employers to raise their wages.

How’re you going to know how to take care of your kids if, according to you, you don’t even know how to take care of yourself?

The US has more democracy than say Brazil, Russia and China.

The following countries in your list have mid-low GDP per capita (PPP), which’s one way to measure a country’s standard of living: China 16624$, Algeria 15150$, Thailand 17786$, Iran 20030$ and Botswana 18146$, world average: 16779$.
Standard of living is not the same as having a large economy, for example China has the second largest economy in the world, but it also has the largest population in the world, so it’s spread thinly among the people, the average Chinaman is just scraping by.
I find it awfully suspicious most of the well off countries in your list are oil rich and/or small (Brunei, Macau, Qatar, Luxembourg, Ireland, the UAE, Singapore, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Bahrain, Malta, Denmark, Czech Republic and Slovenia).
I wonder if that has something to do with it?
The only exceptions are Norway and Sweden.
And as you know, correlation doesn’t necessarily = causation.
Did Brunei, Macau, Qatar and so on start spending a lot of money on the public before, or after they made it to the top?

No it helped rebuild those countries.

Why’re some tributaries more prosperous than others?

No it’s because they have bigger brains and iQs, like east Asians, which you conceded.
Jared Diamond’s theory that the environment (alone) can explain why Europeans were more successful than others in many ways, is heavily academically contested.

If they were as adventurous, ambitious and explorational as Europeans, they would’ve found them, they had the technology.

That’s like saying what breed of dog a dog is, and how it was nurtured, has nothing to do with how successful of a hunter it’ll be.

Of course race has implications for success, the only sensible question is, to what degree?

Perhaps it’s a few more prestigious scientists than you think.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cnwlN1CC28[/youtube]

Race is a sensitive topic in the multicultural west, but in the monocultural east, their scientists have no qualms or reservations about attributing outcomes to race.

Norway is oil rich

No, as far as I know, there have never been atheists rallied together for anything except the extermination of theism. That’s my point: how can you rally atheists together for any cause? There is no moral absolute to appeal to.

Rand was an idiot.
Spinoza believed in god like I do and Alan Watts did.

What are you saying by that?

Absolutists scare me though.

True but so what?

As a matter of expediency maybe.

Deism and pantheism have no monarchical authoritarian to worship, so no. I don’t know what the others are.

When did they not? Emperors have always been perceived as gods, so how could Mao have not been also perceived that way? It’s as if people suddenly decided the next pope is not christ incarnate.

The progressive position seems accurate to me. You can’t blame the plant for how you raised it. You can’t blame the child for how you raised it. You can’t blame citizens for the society they grew up in.

The drug war is meant to criminalize undesirables. Prisons are concentration camps. If you can’t make the rich richer, then you’re herded into slums or prisons. Chomsky gave a lecture on this.

If rich people cannot exist in government, then it’s hard to see how corruption could manifest.

What’s the problem? Why do you want to ban people?

If your club is private, you can ban anyone. If your club is open to the public, then it’s open to anyone. If you think you can ban people from a public club, then the public can ban you from a public society by the same logic. So either play fair, or have your own ethics imposed on you. Makes sense right?

The settlers pushed the natives out because they wanted the gold (Dahlonega, GA had lots of gold). You push them out because you’re righteous.

Right, but show me who is coddling muslims. Everyone talks about it, but I can’t tell who is to blame. I don’t have any particular affinity for muslims or natives or anyone and I just think people are people. Who are putting muslims on a pedestal?

Bernie Sanders@BernieSanders
We spend more on our military than the next 10 nations combined. American troops have been in Afghanistan for nearly 18 years, Iraq since 2003 and in Syria since 2015.
We’re going to invest in housing, public education and infrastructure, not never-ending wars.
twitter.com/BernieSanders

Chomsky said military spending is corporate welfare.

Libertarians = ultra-conservatives.

And how far did he get with that?

Phyllo is arguing that the germans were the most educated people on the planet and yet Hitler could convince them that Jesus wasn’t a jew? If all the village idiots left their villages and formed their own village of idiots, the village idiot of that village would still know Jesus was a jew.

Hitler was christian when he wrote his book. He was not at some later date.
I was christian, now i’m not.
Matt Dillahunty was on his way to being a preacher, now runs an atheist call-in show and conducts debates with christians.
Everyone on Matt’s team was a christian, but are now atheists.
Seth Andrews ran a christian call-in show, now gives atheist lectures.
It’s par for the course. I can’t think of any atheist who was born that way. The vast majority started as christian.
Why do you find such a regular occurrence so hard to believe? The answer to that is obvious to me and any fair-minded reader of this.

No, there is a good reason: the reason I stated above. Statistically, it’s exceedingly unlikely for any atheist to not have been christian at one point. So on the basis of statistics alone, there is good reason. Plus, Hitler said in his own book that he was christian. Then he said in countless speeches that he was christian. So, giant reason + giant reason + giant reason = you focusing on remotely small chance that makes no sense except in the context of grasping for anything at all to defend your religion (that of your family anyway).

Well for one, Mein Kampf appeals to christianity, so you can’t have a new bible that appeals to the previous bible for a foundation. Second, the notion is completely idiotic. Even the most backwoods hillbilly would not substitute another book for the bible and neither would professors or anyone in between. I think you’d sooner convince me the earth is flat.

I don’t blame it on a single religion, but religion itself because religion = absolutism. The good/evil, right/wrong, us/them, white/brown type thinking that causes atrocities.

Your family is christian and whites are typically christian, so you have HUGE incentive to lie.

Why did Hitchens have incentive to lie? I’m pretty sure his brother is still a christian and his family were christians.

All guns kill, but not all kill with the same effectiveness, so what’s your point?

How could you pass anyone’s class? How could you get a degree in anything without accepting the authority of the professor?

Only when they make utterly ridiculous claims like Mein Kampf replacing the bible. Chomsky’s claims are sensible and backed by his notoriety. Your claims statistical flukes backed by incentive to lie. Where would a betting man put his money?

He’s highly regarded because no one, that I’ve ever seen, has beat him in debate. He makes fools of everyone. He even made that pompous prick Buckley blush. youtube.com/watch?v=-gsFb0uSG5w

Everyone except the rich because the goal is to transfer money from everyone to the rich.

That and they’re dimwitted morons who genuinely deify the rich or perceive them as victims.

Oh yes, I think too much about facts and not the feels of your noble cause of enslavement. Start a new thread about it so I can get some public exposure and I’ll explain it to you for the 20th time because, although you will certainly ignore everything I say, at least I’ll have an audience to address. I’m not going to argue with a brick wall, buried in this thread, where no one can benefit by it.

Never gonna happen. UBI is coming so you’ll have to think of another way to hurt people who won’t prostitute themselves. Maybe you can throw eggs or something.

Bernie Sanders@BernieSanders
The ages 0-4 are the most important years of human development. The kids and parents of this country deserve quality, affordable child care. We will establish a high quality, universal pre-K program. twitter.com/BernieSanders

The US is ranked 25th and is considered a “flawed demoncracy” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy … untry_2018

Did you miss this? Brunei is ranked fifth in the world by gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity.

When free money flows from the ground, sometimes they spread it around. I started a thread on this viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194766

Dy1w4l2UUAAtcug.jpg

Some are more useful than others. Some are more willing to play ball than others. Thugs are useful so long as they don’t go rogue.

The bigger brains came from the better soil. It’s luck. Stick you head back in the sand and ignore me once again. This is getting old man.

That’s incredibly hard to believe.

They didn’t have the right set of animals that the eurpeans had.

Sure but the breed of dog came into existence as a result of the environment. You can never escape that fact, except burying your head in the ground in ignore-ance.

All I can figure is you think breeds came into existence by magic or that someone orchestrated it… or maybe the breed of dog existed before it existed and orchestrated its own existence. I don’t know what you’re dreaming.

White men existed before white men existed so that they could orchestrate the evolution of white men so that white men could get the credit for the creation of white men. That’s insane.

White men came into existence because of the environment. Period. It’s luck. No one gets a trophy for being white. “Good job making yourself white, man!”

I might take time to watch that if I thought you took time to watch mine, but I’m just not that interested in this topic.

I was racist before. I’ve heard the arguments of Stefan Molynuex. IQ differences exist, but how those difference came to be is a result of the environment.

I don’t have a problem with it either, but the cause for the racial difference is environmental. Anyone denying that is expressing inferiority of cognitive ability.

The ten happiest countries are small, not superpowers, and to some degree isolated.

The ten unhappiest countries are small too en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hap … l_rankings

And two of the top ten are pretty big: canada and australia.

@Serendipper

Sometimes trying to make something more efficient isn’t worth the effort, because it can’t be done, or it can’t be done without making something else less efficient, or miserable.

I meant our major problem isn’t the absence of efficient technology, it’s that the lower classes aren’t really benefitting from the presence of efficient technology.

Some prefer it.

Firstly, I want to take a more bottom-up (socialist) and philosophical approach more than a more top-down (communist or corporatist) and scientific or religious approach.
Secondly, there’s no reason why consumers and small businesses can’t take a scientific approach to society, especially after being emancipated and empowered by my plan.

Some urban progressives prefer small local to big global too, so I guess you’ll just have to shoot them.

And while their numbers appear to be gradually, relatively (and absolutely) declining, there’ll always be countryfolk, at least, for the foreseeable future.

That’s just scientists’ educated guess.

We’ve been over this, shorten the workweek…or maybe we won’t have to, since the employed won’t have to work as much (for they’ll be richer, because of BSI), there’ll be more jobs for the unemployed to do.

I thought it was, but I wasn’t sure.

Good points.
every race has talents and things to admire.
Whites are pretty well rounded.
Often we can be nearly as spirited as Africans on the one hand, and nearly as disciplined as east Asians (when it pays to be) on the other.
Overall I think we used to be more like east Asians, but centuries of intimate contact with Africans, Latinos and Native Americans have mellowed us out, made us less uptight, as well as relatively good times, decadence.
This is especially true of Anglo-Americans, and Southern Europeans, who’re always a little more, joie de vivre, laisse faire than Northerners.

And I understand what you mean that being more alive, more connected, less domesticated, robotlike, means you feel more intensely, both positively and negatively.
It also means you may be more of a threat to the establishment in all sorts of ways.

Or at least they would be a threat if they had greater numbers and could match their passion with intellect.

And sometimes people make up excuses for not wanting to change.

Doubling efficiency is halving the cost. Benefit to the lower class; upper class won’t notice.

Yeah but the inconvenience trumps the preference. Sometimes I’ll get vidalia onions, but the ones from peru are just as good, maybe better. It’s the same onion in different soil that by law cannot be called vidalia. Peru has better climate for growing just about all our food except grains n such. Tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, and who knows what all originated in south-central america. Tomatoes grown around here will be deficient because the soil sucks. They taste better because the variety is different and they’re ripened naturally. Better soil exists in the midwest, but it’s more suited for grains. California might be ok.

Right.

There is a good reason: the total of lots of small companies making profit is orders of magnitude higher than the profit required to run one massive operation. The loss of efficiency is through the roof with small companies.

No, just need the boomers out of the way.

They will be a new breed… one with an education and the internet.

No it’s logical deduction. If there is any chance of extinction, then in infinite time it’s a certainty. So either you concede there is no chance of extinction or you concede it’s inevitable :wink: Either way, what are you worried about?

Alright, let’s paint this picture so the ridiculousness of it is more readily apparent.

You’re roping me into pitching-in at star bucks to serve coffee so that someone else can have a shorter week. I’d don’t want to serve coffee. If you want coffee, make your own damn coffee. You can’t conscript me into serving you coffee in order to make some opulent jerk richer.

Should I do time at the IRS too? Gotta pitch in with the audits, ya know.

Where else is this chain gang heading?

You’re authoritatively conscripting people into making the rich richer so that the other people who are making the rich richer can work shorter weeks, the length of which you’ll decree by law, of course.

If you want to make the rich richer, then go make the rich richer, but leave me out of your fetishes. Keep your manacles away from me.

We should pay people not to work, and if the wage isn’t enough, then people can go find supplemental work. The lack of supply of workers will drive wages up, which will entice people to work. People will have the freedom to decide what they want to do and mothers can be mothers instead of wage slaves. We wouldn’t need a min wage law, no new laws, just money in the mail. What’s to complain about? Oh yeah, punishing people who don’t conform to your standards, which includes prostitution for survival. Snap out of it man! Even in Monopoly you get $200 every time you pass go.

@Serendipper

And other times people make up excuses to enslave themselves and others to the ruling class.

You’ll be taking wealth and power from small business (us) to give to big (them), so unless you want to nationalize or unionize big businesses, that makes you an elitist.

Well that’s your opinion, some people only buy small local because that’s all that’s available in their neighborhood, and they wish there were more big global, other people only buy big global because that’s all that’s available in their neighborhood, and they wish there were more small local.
Big business isn’t inherently cheaper, more convenient, ecofriendly, efficient, healthy or aesthetic than small.

Unless you want to nationalize and/or syndicate big business, it will still be making a profit, even with UBI or USI, and I’d rather have many small businesses making small profits, than one big business making big profits.
Small businesses are already proportionally less exploitive than big, and under my plan, almost everyone will be able to save, become self employed, start their own small business or co-op, and invest loads of money.
My plan will encourage more people to become independent, whereas yours will encourage more to become either dependent on meagre provisions from an authoritarian government, or big business, which’s what the elite want.

For the last millennium, every generation has been more educated than the last, yet capitalist still win 50% of the time, and the other 50% pseudo-socialists.

Maybe there’s a 50/50% chance we’ll make it for the first million years of progress, but if we make it over that hurdle, further progress will be inevitable.

Or maybe me and others worrying about our survival is part of what makes it inevitable.

every democracy is deeply flawed, including Nordic countries as we’ve seen, and the fact that your list doesn’t get that, invalidates it.

Right, spreading it around is a consequence, not a cause of economic growth.
And who or what are they spreading the 50%+ tax around on anyway?
Might be on stuff that doesn’t actually benefit the poor.

The ones with bigger brains and higher iQs tend to be more able and willing to play ball.

No it came from DNA, among other internal factors, which you’ve already conceded.

Firstly, everything that happens to someone or something is a result of both external, and internal factors.

Secondly, it is not an injustice for the smart, strong and hardworking to prosper more than the not so smart etcetera, it is justice, so white people don’t owe others anything.

The rich could promise to make the poor governors rich after they exit government.

My club is something I own, our country is something we own, so the two are not equivalent.

I don’t want to push the natives out, I don’t have a problem with them so long as they don’t think I owe them something they don’t owe me.

Trump hasn’t started any new wars I’m aware of, whereas Obama and the Clintons did.

On the economy I party agree with you, but recall Finland, they want the middle class to pay the same % of tax as the rich, and the working class to pay half that.
Since the rich often evade taxes, they’ll end up paying say the same % of tax as the poor or less, so essentially what we have is the middle class paying for the poor’s crumbs and the rich’s corporate welfare, so if libertarians are ultra-conservative, than everyone is.

And on social and foreign policy I totally disagree.

It doesn’t matter how many Germans actually drank the cool aid, the point is the Nazis were serving it, for they weren’t Christians, they were Social Darwinists and neopagans.

If you discovered the woman you were married to for 10 years was plotting to kill you, for you found and read her diary, and in it there was a five year old entry where she wrote she hated you and was plotting to kill you after you became sufficiently wealthy, would you assume the day before she wrote that entry she loved you?
Of course not, you would presume she was using you for most or the entire time, especially if upon further reflection, you realized everything she did was 100% for her, and not at all for you.

Sure, perhaps when they were kids, but not for long after they joined the Nazi Party.

I’m sure they were going to edit that part out.

You don’t know anything about Nazi philosophy then, they saw the bible as the very antithesis of everything they stood for, they blamed democracy, communism and all they considered degenerate and weak in Europe on it, permitting all whom they hated to survive and flourish,for them it was either usher in a new scientific,pagan era,or perish

You can be irreligious and an absolutist or relativist and still discriminate.

And discrimination isn’t bad if it’s your preference and it’s not unreasonable.

So do you, most of those hillbillies you hate are Christian.

I thought Hitchens was left-wing across the board, but politically he was mixed.

Guns can be used to defend people or act as a deterrence too, and religion isn’t just a gun, it’s charity, community, etcetera.

I could regurgitate the answers I know they want without believing all or any of them.

Chomsky’s good, but everyone with half a brain should try to critically analyze as much as they can.

Trust is a necessary evil at best, plain evil at worst.

Liberty isn’t just a means to an end for some people, even irreligious people, it can be an end in and of itself.

You can value liberty and still value other values simultaneously.

You be can be both reservedly willing to sacrifice some liberty for the sake of other values at times, and reservedly willing to sacrifice other values for the sake of liberty at times, it doesn’t have to be a one way street.

I think the fundamental difference between your socialism (or your communism, for as time goes on I can see you wish to expand government far beyond UBI) and my socialism, is for me it’s ultimately a means to an end (extrinsic socialism), something limited and perhaps temporary, the end being greater freedom and independence, the more free and independent we are the less we’ll need it, whereas for you it’s an end in and of itself (intrinsic socialism), something absolute and permanent.

It’s happening on its own. It would take gov intervention to prevent the consolidation. Big farms eat small farms because big farms produce cheaper food. Only an elitist could stop it.

I think it is inherent.

The profit to run lots of little farms is more than the profit required to run one big farm.
The pollution required to run lots of little farms is more than the pollution required to run one big farm.
It’s easier to regulate one big farm than lots of little farms.

Yes and Trump would rather get rid of all robots so we could go back to 1955. Lots of people want to decrease efficiency for sentimental reasons.

No, I disagree. The small ones exploit far more than the big. They have to to stay in business in competition with the big.

Most people do not want to run their own business and are not capable of it.

I’d consider myself more free while depending on government than I would depending on employment. Rights come from government.

Capitalists are getting their clock cleaned by socialists. What planet are you living on?

According to chomsky, capitalism is something we impose on 3rd world countries to destroy them, but we don’t practice it here. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194766&start=50#p2720985

Dude, the fact that you’re terrified of extinction, outgroups taking over, and that poor people may get something for nothing means you. are. brain. damaged. That’s not an insult. Take it seriously. You should be angry at the system that did this to you. The good news is I got out of it and you can too.

The list doesn’t posit that the #1 rank is a perfect democracy, but just that it’s more democratic than #2. And as Sil pointed out, the US should really rank much lower, perhaps in the 50s.

Economic growth? What the heck does that mean? Oil flowing from the ground is economic growth? Is prostitution economic growth? If we tear down a house and rebuild it, it counts in gdp, but is it economic growth? Tornadoes are economic growth? You get a speeding ticket and that’s economic growth? Economic growth is meaningless.

As President, I will…
Change the way we measure the economy, from GDP and the stock market to a more inclusive set of measurements that ensures humans are thriving, not barely making it by. New measurements like Median Income and Standard of Living, Health-adjusted Life Expectancy, Mental Health, Childhood Success Rates, Social and Economic Mobility, Absence of Substance Abuse, and other measurements will give us a much clearer and more powerful sense of how we are doing both individually and as a society.
yang2020.com/policies/human-capitalism/

Leave it to an Asian to think clearly LOL!

True.

Yeah maybe.

And dna came from the environment. Still getting old man.

The internal could only come from the external unless the internal existed before it existed in order to create itself.

Here’s some of your smarter white people :laughing:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMXRHjfMGq8[/youtube]

I guess so, but at least they are required to be out of government in order to realize the wealth.

If you own it, then it’s not public. If it’s public, then you don’t own it. Can’t have it both ways.

But you’re sitting on their land.

Trump wants to cut social spending and issue new debt to expand military spending, which is more welfare for the rich to go along with his massive tax cut for the rich. Bush started Iraq. Bush started Afghanistan. I don’t know much about Syria. Anyway, Clinton and Obama were conservatives.

That just means the Fins are buying the baloney from the right. Appeals to “fairness” come from the right.

Hence all the bible references and appeals to Jesus.

Probably. If not the day before, then at some point before. Am I supposed to believe she married me because maybe one day I might get rich and then she could kill me? Why not marry someone who was already rich?

Most don’t snap out of it until they are adults. Hitchens may be the only exception, who realized it was baloney at 8.

Then it wouldn’t be Mein Kampf

Sure I do. It’s identical to republican philosophy. They even advocate killing people in our concentration camps. Go on fox news and read comments. Right after church on sunday they cheer lethal injection and complain that it took 30 years and want more killings of undesirables. I can’t see a difference in a bible-thumping republican and a nazi; only the extents.

That’s true of the republican party, but they don’t seek to change it. Republicans are a mockery to the bible, yet the bible is their ally.

They blame it on atheism the same as they do today. Later on Hitler realized the degeneracy of the christian, but also realized there’s no way to convince the people of that.

But if you call yourself an atheist, it’s highly unlikely you’d be an absolutist.

Depends why you’re discriminating.

Ok, you have me there lol. What can I say? We both have incentive to lie, but my position is sensible while yours is reaching.

He evolved through time. He began as a flaming liberal but tempered after seeing religiosity in the left. Like the Green party. And he went to school with Clinton at Oxford and knew the guy was a charlatan. And he was for the Iraq war (no one can figure out why).

Yes but we don’t need religion for charity. The Red Cross is secular.

But how could you disagree without accepting a contrary authority? Unless you were around in nazi germany, you pretty much have to trust someone.