73 replies to this topic

[Mishelle]

Thank you waser

[Cript]

Don't forget the multi-millionaires and multi-billionaires being taxed at a lower rate than receptionists.

Why is the rate relevant? If Mitt Romney paid 1.5M in taxes while his receptionist paid 10K, who has contributed more? Shall we stop letting citizens reduce their taxable burden by donating to charity, etc? As I've said, the tax code should be simplified so certain deductions aren't available in all cases but this "rate means more than quantity" argument is horse shit.

Mishelle - Consider your signature. It's a modified version of "The Last Supper." Would you do the same thing to the Quran? If not, why not?

[Mishelle]

Welfare = The government giving something (from one person to another)
Corporations don't receive welfare. They keep more of their own money. For a corporation to receive welfare, the Gov would have to write them a check at the end of the year. For instance, I'm not on welfare because I reduce my tax burden by writing off mortgage interest.

I agree that we should reduce our defense budget. I agree that we should simplify our tax code and reduce deductions that allow profitable entities to claim no tax burden. I'd encourage you to look at what companies truly take advantage of such deductions though - look at the subsidies provided to "green" energy companies compared to oil companies.

My main point in this topic is that we're chasing a lost cause here. We've tried making these folks like us for a long long time and it's not going to happen. I don't agree with the dual standard their religion gets. I think it's ridiculous that Muslims can constantly respond with violence to any perceived slight against their religion yet consistently talk of wiping the entire nation of Israel off the earth. I 100% agree that there are bad Christians, bad Muslims, and bad people of every religion. What I don't agree with is the idea that we need to apologize or "set the record straight" for any perceived slight. In a country that tolerates nut cases like those baptists that picket veterans' funerals, it seems silly that Muslims would be spared.

http://en.wikipedia....rporate_welfare

Big agribusinesses receive BILLIONS in subsidies that they do not need while Congress can't even pass 1 bill to help small farmers being effected by the drought. Giving the banks a bailout every time they fuck up and letting them fuck up again and again while refusing to even mention reinstating the glass -steagall act. Mitt Romney is saying he wants to increase military spending when if you talk to many servicemen overseas they'll tell you about all the humvees that just sit unused and all of the military equipment that just sits there because the government is giving these companies huge subsidies to make these weapons when they are not even needed.

The point is you can't just declare that all people in the middle east hate us when that's blatantly untrue, there is a clear power struggle going on. There are extremists vs people who want to be free. The Libyans held their own protest to stand in solidarity with the US. The people who attacked us in Libya were a minority of extremists. That's the problem, people like you are taking a minority and applying them to the majority when it's simply not true. Yes there has been a rise in green on blue attacks but at the same time most of the soldiers over there are not attacking Americans, most of them actually want to receive training. You can't take the actions of extremists and apply it to the millions of people over their who's lives are hanging in the balance.

and I believe in Snoop Jesus, don't question my religion I might just bomb you.

Edited by Mishelle, 23 September 2012 - 03:56 PM.

[Waser Lave]

Why is the rate relevant? If Mitt Romney paid 1.5M in taxes while his receptionist paid 10K, who has contributed more? Shall we stop letting citizens reduce their taxable burden by donating to charity, etc? As I've said, the tax code should be simplified so certain deductions aren't available in all cases but this "rate means more than quantity" argument is horse shit.

We both know there's no point in getting into a debate about the pros and cons of different tax systems because neither of us has any chance of changing the mind of the other even slightly.

[luvsmyncis]

and I believe in Snoop Jesus, don't question my religion I might just bomb you.

If Da Vinci had painted Gabriel and Muhammad having a chat, we could photoshop Jay-Z in there. But some things just weren't meant to be.

[Cript]

If Da Vinci had painted Gabriel and Muhammad having a chat, we could photoshop Jay-Z in there. But some things just weren't meant to be.

Touche. I forget that Da Vinci would've been murdered just for painting Muhammad.

[redlion]

Why is the rate relevant? If Mitt Romney paid 1.5M in taxes while his receptionist paid 10K, who has contributed more? Shall we stop letting citizens reduce their taxable burden by donating to charity, etc? As I've said, the tax code should be simplified so certain deductions aren't available in all cases but this "rate means more than quantity" argument is horse shit.

Alright, I'll take a crack at answering some of your stilted scenarios.

First, a bit on the taxes. Yes, in your example Mitt "contributed" more but his contribution is nowhere near as big a financial burden as his receptionist's is. That's the difference. You seem to think that making more money implies that your voice should be heard more, or that the amount of your tax contribution is somehow related to how useful you are to society. These are morally bankrupt claims. I invite you to explain how they're not, or how you aren't claiming what I've said here.

Yes we should put an end to charity donation write offs. People shouldn't give to charity because they get something in return, they should give to charity because it's fucking charity. Also, I disagree with granting religious charities tax-free status. Scientology illustrated the point for me, but many other tax free organizations are just as malevolent and predatory.

Rate does have more significance than quantity. Investment bankers add nothing to our domestic output, yet they're taxed at capital gains rates instead of income rates. Fucking stupid.

Welfare = The government giving something (from one person to another)
Corporations don't receive welfare. They keep more of their own money. For a corporation to receive welfare, the Gov would have to write them a check at the end of the year.

Not quite. Welfare doesn't allow corporations to keep more of their own money. That money belongs to the state as soon as it's taxed. It's not going from one person to another. It's going from person, to society, and back to a person (or corporation to society and back). We have determined as a society that welfare programs are necessary for society and individuals. Corporate welfare was an outgrowth of the dole when corporations started claiming they were people too. We also have one of the lowest corporate income tax rates in the world, which only redoubles the lunacy of lowering their tax rates.

I'd encourage you to look at what companies truly take advantage of such deductions though - look at the subsidies provided to "green" energy companies compared to oil companies.

Well I'd encourage you to do the same. Why try to slough off the responsibility to back up your own assertions?

My main point in this topic is that we're chasing a lost cause here. We've tried making these folks like us for a long long time and it's not going to happen. I don't agree with the dual standard their religion gets. I think it's ridiculous that Muslims can constantly respond with violence to any perceived slight against their religion yet consistently talk of wiping the entire nation of Israel off the earth. I 100% agree that there are bad Christians, bad Muslims, and bad people of every religion. What I don't agree with is the idea that we need to apologize or "set the record straight" for any perceived slight. In a country that tolerates nut cases like those baptists that picket veterans' funerals, it seems silly that Muslims would be spared.

It is ridiculous that Muslim extremists can respond with violence to any perceived slight against Mohammed; that doesn't change the fact that extremists control nuclear weapons in Iran, Pakistan and Israel, with further chemical and biologic WMDs in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and the Gulf. Doesn't change the fact that keeping those WMDs pointed away from the US is a major priority for us.

Setting the record strait is a whole hell of a lot different than apologizing or capitulating. Especially when radical clerics were saying that the US government actually produced this film. This isn't Neville Chamberlain 2.0.

[Frizzle]

Any muslim is an extremist compared to a normal non-religious person. This is the religion that advocates slicing an animals neck whilst it's still alive without anaesthesia just because it's more pure.

A religion that states all non-believers should die

“Verily, those who disbelieve, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah (i.e. Islam); then die while they are disbelievers, Allah will not forgive them.
So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds."

A religion which actively participates in apostasy.

A religion which praises and idolises a womanising peadophile.

Tell me which sane human being who wasn't indoctrinated into this from an early age, would believe in this?

[Deathscythe]

Any muslim is an extremist compared to a normal non-religious person. This is the religion that advocates slicing an animals neck whilst it's still alive without anaesthesia just because it's more pure.

A religion that states all non-believers should die

“Verily, those who disbelieve, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah (i.e. Islam); then die while they are disbelievers, Allah will not forgive them.
So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds."

A religion which actively participates in apostasy.

A religion which praises and idolises a womanising peadophile.

Tell me which sane human being who wasn't indoctrinated into this from an early age, would believe in this?

To say that any or every Muslim is an extremist compared to a normal non-religious person is a bit of a stretch. By saying that, you are directly attributing extremist tendencies to an entire religion, which is comprised of numerous sects and branches, each different in their own little way. You are effectively classifying every branch under the one label and that is extremely unfair to the many peaceful and socially productive Muslims in the community. Also, you are making the assumption that anyone with no religious tendencies are more likely to be sane. Maybe so, maybe not. If you have evidence that this is the case, I would love to see it, but until then, I would say that there is little to no correlation between religious beliefs and sanity. What I do think you are saying is that the portrayal of Muslims in the media is very different to the expected norms in whatever part of the world you live in, which is likely Westernised. It is easy to criticise a culture as savages if you do not understand how their culture works.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the animal slaughter. The purity of a certain meat is entirely up to one's beliefs, but given the age of the religion, I doubt that they need anaesthesia before killing animals. Animals kill each other for food every day without anaesthesia - it is a completely natural process. Yes, it may disgust you but how do you think your ancestors got their meat before anaesthesia was discovered?

You make a good point about the death of non-believers. However, I would argue that this a trait of many religions, including Christianity. Christianity states that non-believers will go to hell, or not go to heaven (resurrected), which is similar to some extent. This is one of the many shortcomings of religion, the threat of punishment for not believing, but I will not go into that here.

As for the practising of apostasy and the treatment of women, from a Western standpoint, yes, they are horrible. However, it was only a couple centuries ago that the same things were practiced in Western civilisations. Women have only had the same rights as men or an expanded set of rights in Western civilisations due to the feminist/suffrage movements from 1900 to 1950s and onward. You likely grew up at a time when these problems no longer existed, and hence, your expectations of what the world is like is different to those of the Muslims. Who are you to say that your way of life is the right way?

[Frizzle]

To say that any or every Muslim is an extremist compared to a normal non-religious person is a bit of a stretch. By saying that, you are directly attributing extremist tendencies to an entire religion, which is comprised of numerous sects and branches, each different in their own little way. You are effectively classifying every branch under the one label and that is extremely unfair to the many peaceful and socially productive Muslims in the community.

Yup


Also, you are making the assumption that anyone with no religious tendencies are more likely to be sane. Maybe so, maybe not. If you have evidence that this is the case, I would love to see it, but until then, I would say that there is little to no correlation between religious beliefs and sanity.

Sane people don't talk to themselves and believe in a sky grandad. Sane people use logic and reasoning, religious people don't use either.


What I do think you are saying is that the portrayal of Muslims in the media is very different to the expected norms in whatever part of the world you live in, which is likely Westernised. It is easy to criticise a culture as savages if you do not understand how their culture works.

The fact that you are trying to defend religious maniacs purely as something of my ignorance is quite ridiculously a non-point.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the animal slaughter. The purity of a certain meat is entirely up to one's beliefs, but given the age of the religion, I doubt that they need anaesthesia before killing animals. Animals kill each other for food every day without anaesthesia - it is a completely natural process. Yes, it may disgust you but how do you think your ancestors got their meat before anaesthesia was discovered?


So we don't need to progress as society? Animal cruelty is ok because we used to do it thousands of years ago? We also used to rape, pillage and steal, but I'm pretty sure you'd be pissed if I came around your house, raped your mum and took a shit in your closet.


You make a good point about the death of non-believers. However, I would argue that this a trait of many religions, including Christianity. Christianity states that non-believers will go to hell, or not go to heaven (resurrected), which is similar to some extent. This is one of the many shortcomings of religion, the threat of punishment for not believing, but I will not go into that here.

Yes, all religions are evil and stupid. Islam just happens to be one of the worst.


As for the practising of apostasy and the treatment of women, from a Western standpoint, yes, they are horrible. However, it was only a couple centuries ago that the same things were practiced in Western civilisations. Women have only had the same rights as men or an expanded set of rights in Western civilisations due to the feminist/suffrage movements from 1900 to 1950s and onward. You likely grew up at a time when these problems no longer existed, and hence, your expectations of what the world is like is different to those of the Muslims. Who are you to say that your way of life is the right way?

My "way of life" is right because it is based on equality, fact, science and moral reasoning without having to look through a very old book. I don't need reasoning from an Iman or tribal leader. I don't feel the need to slit the gentials (http://en.wikipedia....ital_mutilation) of young girls simply because it has been done for generations.


Just because something was generally acceptable a long time ago, does not mean it should be forgotten or accepted as part of times, especially not when it influences today's society. You wouldn't accept any form of nazism or homophobia now, but just because it was widely accepted and encouraged 60 years ago, it was ok?

You have a very warped mind and the fact you feel the need to defend these "people" suggests to me you have an alternative motive.

[Bone]

Muslim =/= Islamist.

Islamists are to Islam as WBC is to Christianity.

[Frizzle]

Muslim =/= Islamist.

Islamists are to Islam as WBC is to Christianity.

No.

[Josh]

Eh, I have more respect for the WBC than I do "Christianity".

At least they have the balls to stick by The Bible, not cherry-pick it (as much) and tell you how they feel to your face.
To me, what most Christians in America practice and politicians is far more dangerous and hateful.
They won't tell you to your face how they feel. They'll do all their dealings behind closed doors, lie to your face and secretly are doing all they can to characterize you as less than human and in some cases demonize you, comparing people like myself to pedophiles, rapists, drug users, criminals, etc.

At least the WBC tells me they hate me to my face.

Hating you isn't Biblical either

[Bone]

Eh, I have more respect for the WBC than I do "Christianity".

At least they have the balls to stick by The Bible, not cherry-pick it (as much) and tell you how they feel to your face.
To me, what most Christians in America practice and politicians is far more dangerous and hateful.
They won't tell you to your face how they feel. They'll do all their dealings behind closed doors, lie to your face and secretly are doing all they can to characterize you as less than human and in some cases demonize you, comparing people like myself to pedophiles, rapists, drug users, criminals, etc.

At least the WBC tells me they hate me to my face.

You're responding to the generalization of 'people like yourself' by generalizing an entire religion?

[Frizzle]

You're responding to the generalization of 'people like yourself' by generalizing an entire religion?

Religions have something in common and can be grouped together. Individuals cannot.

[Bone]

Religions have something in common and can be grouped together. Individuals cannot.

The sects of Christianity and ways of practicing are diverse enough for his generalizations to be inappropriate. They're inaccurate assertions based on his personal experiences and emotions, anyways.

[Frizzle]

The sects of Christianity and ways of practicing are diverse enough for his generalizations to be inappropriate. They're inaccurate assertions based on his personal experiences and emotions, anyways.

No, they are not.

[8143FF763271]

Probably Israel pulling off their own danish cartoon crisis 10x worse to cripple developing Middle East-US relations.

You people are also being naive by making this a moral argument. You need a crash course in IR. Oh, yeah, it's so awful that Muslim people don't uphold freedom of speech and behave in civilized ways inviting argument instead of suicide bombings like we do. Wish they weren't a bunch of religious maniacs... really?

Western powers in the Middle East have a history of intervention that, given its nature, gives them a right to be pissed off. It's not the same to make fun of black people today than it was to make fun of black people during segregation. One thing is an act of mockery, and another is to add insult to injury. There's a feeling of shared humiliation in the Middle East whenever the West makes fun of their religion because they feel -with some justice- that they are being ridiculed by the very people that they blame for their precarious conditions. To pretend that violence is more strongly inherent in Islam than it is in the Old Testament or most religious texts is to miss the point. Religious fervor in the Middle East is nothing but a vehicle of political outrage that won't change until their socio-political conditions change.

The sad thing is that there's no reason for us to have a problem with these people at all. They are pissed off over relations and affairs that happened during the Cold War for Cold War reasons and that we're still paying for today. American diplomats, most notably Obama, have tried to "reason" this with the Middle East (that there's no reason to be enemies) but some moron always comes along and shits on it. Sometimes it's important for people to know when it's decent to shut up. The film was nothing but an obvious act of provocation to pit people we finally begun to get along with against us and if Al Quaida wins upward momentum after its free-falling popularity since Obama came into office and Osama Bin Laden becomes a martyr, the authors of that film are to blame and should be treated accordingly. They are terrorists.

Edited by Khaligula, 24 September 2012 - 07:45 PM.

[Sweeney]

I'd be a body guard for him if I knew where he was personally.

...really?

[Waser Lave]

so.. I wonder if someone will kill him, hope not. I'd be a body guard for him if I knew where he was personally. Fuck the extremist.

He seems like a complete prick to me and I'm not even religious.

[Mishelle]

From what I read the guy was a routine criminal and identity thief who stole his neighbor's identity even though the guy was also a member of his church. And he mislead these actors into thinking they were working on a film and instead dubbing over them to make it look like they're spewing hate speech. He sounds like an asshole.

[iargue]

The film did nothing at all to affect my views on Islam.

The riots and killing over a stupid film.... Thats changed my views greatly.