Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I don't care what it takes. I guess it will take Congressional action to change or clarify law as necessary. But this crap has got to stop:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Taking money from people because there was some issue with their parents doesn't cut it. It really doesn't. Surely all can agree that this is not right. Well, except for atheists/nihilists. They can say that nothing is inherently right or wrong.

You seriously don't understand what you are talking about, JSO. Just because you cannot understand how atheists have morals doesn't mean they don't.

This isn't a failing on the part of atheists. It's a failing on the part of JSO.

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't care what it takes. I guess it will take Congressional action to change or clarify law as necessary. But this crap has got to stop:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Taking money from people because there was some issue with their parents doesn't cut it. It really doesn't. Surely all can agree that this is not right. Well, except for atheists/nihilists. They can say that nothing is inherently right or wrong.

It must be right, God wills it. Pun intended.

Just trying to get the most recent post on six threads.

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't care what it takes. I guess it will take Congressional action to change or clarify law as necessary. But this crap has got to stop:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Taking money from people because there was some issue with their parents doesn't cut it. It really doesn't. Surely all can agree that this is not right. Well, except for atheists/nihilists. They can say that nothing is inherently right or wrong.

This will NEVER stand up in a court of law, period.

On the surface it seems very wrong. But what does belief have to do with it?

kalm wrote:On the surface it seems very wrong. But what does belief have to do with it?

This. No reason for religion to be brought into it.

All because of a one-sentence rider to the pork-filled farm bill that got rid of the old statute of limitations.

Delaware has a state constitutional provision that prevents that from happening. It says, in essence, that the title of a bill has to match its content. So if the title says "farm bill," you can't hide non-farm stuff in it.

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't care what it takes. I guess it will take Congressional action to change or clarify law as necessary. But this crap has got to stop:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Taking money from people because there was some issue with their parents doesn't cut it. It really doesn't. Surely all can agree that this is not right. Well, except for atheists/nihilists. They can say that nothing is inherently right or wrong.

Vidav wrote:You seriously don't understand what you are talking about, JSO. Just because you cannot understand how atheists have morals doesn't mean they don't.

This isn't a failing on the part of atheists. It's a failing on the part of JSO.

I probably shouldn't have said anything about atheism so we could focus on the tax thing.

But since I did and you responded to it: I do understand. They have morals because they think they have to. So they set about trying to construct some basis for them.

It's not that they don't have morals. It's that there's no basis for intrinsic right and wrong in their world view.

It IS a failing on the part of atheists who do that. They want to accept atheism and that's fine. But then for some reason they find it necessary to try to deny the ramifications of their world view should it be correct. They just can't deal, apparently, with the idea that if they are right that means there is no intrinsic right or wrong. At best they can come up with something like the set of rules that would be necessary to ensure the maximum distribution of well being and happiness levels among human beings but then somebody can ask why there is anything intrinsically "right" about doing that. And they could ask what would be intrinsically "wrong" about something like a small group of people exploiting everybody else for their own well being.

It's wrong because it makes other people unhappy? It's wrong because they're taking advantage of people? So why is it wrong to make other people unhappy? And why is it wrong to take advantage of other people?

At some point atheists trying to argue for an intrinsic basis for declaring certain things right or wrong end up having to say you have to accept a premise or premises that can't be supported.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Vidav wrote:You seriously don't understand what you are talking about, JSO. Just because you cannot understand how atheists have morals doesn't mean they don't.

This isn't a failing on the part of atheists. It's a failing on the part of JSO.

I probably shouldn't have said anything about atheism so we could focus on the tax thing.

But since I did and you responded to it: I do understand. They have morals because they think they have to. So they set about trying to construct some basis for them.

It's not that they don't have morals. It's that there's no basis for intrinsic right and wrong in their world view.

It IS a failing on the part of atheists who do that. They want to accept atheism and that's fine. But then for some reason they find it necessary to try to deny the ramifications of their world view should it be correct. They just can't deal, apparently, with the idea that if they are right that means there is no intrinsic right or wrong. At best they can come up with something like the set of rules that would be necessary to ensure the maximum distribution of well being and happiness levels among human beings but then somebody can ask why there is anything intrinsically "right" about doing that. And they could ask what would be intrinsically "wrong" about something like a small group of people exploiting everybody else for their own well being.

It's wrong because it makes other people unhappy? It's wrong because they're taking advantage of people? So why is it wrong to make other people unhappy? And why is it wrong to take advantage of other people?

At some point atheists trying to argue for an intrinsic basis for declaring certain things right or wrong end up having to say you have to accept a premise or premises that can't be supported.

Stop it Johnny, you're killin' me!

Baldy wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't care what it takes. I guess it will take Congressional action to change or clarify law as necessary. But this crap has got to stop:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Taking money from people because there was some issue with their parents doesn't cut it. It really doesn't. Surely all can agree that this is not right. Well, except for atheists/nihilists. They can say that nothing is inherently right or wrong.

This will NEVER stand up in a court of law, period.

I agree. I thought you can't assume someone's debt, is that not true? This is egregious. There is NO justification for something like this.

Baldy wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't care what it takes. I guess it will take Congressional action to change or clarify law as necessary. But this crap has got to stop:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Taking money from people because there was some issue with their parents doesn't cut it. It really doesn't. Surely all can agree that this is not right. Well, except for atheists/nihilists. They can say that nothing is inherently right or wrong.

This will NEVER stand up in a court of law, period.

Doesn't matter. She'll pay. This is 'mericuh, we have freedom and if the bitch don't like it she can haul her welfare-ass to some other country.

Perfect example...this gal isn't responsible for her "families" taxes and hopefully this will be legally resolved and closed for the future, for everyone!

Now everyone can just concentrate on shooting that SOB in Nevada and his 'Montana" militia friends and I'll be happy! RIGHT BETWEEN THE EYES!!!!

John, I think if you said that atheists have no defined objective source for their morality, no one would take exception with that. Heck, Nietzsche acknowledged that point.

When you say they have no intrinsic sense of right or wrong, you're overstating the case. For example, Judeo-Christian morality is intrinsic to secular humanism, not because, in the eyes of a secular humanist, it is compelled by an objective lawgiver (i.e., God), but because it is "essential" to natural order.

JoltinJoe wrote:John, I think if you said that atheists have no defined objective source for their morality, no one would take exception with that. Heck, Nietzsche acknowledged that point.

When you say they have no intrinsic sense of right or wrong, you're overstating the case. For example, Judeo-Christian morality is intrinsic to secular humanism, not because, in the eyes of a secular humanist, it is compelled by an objective lawgiver (i.e., God), but because it is "essential" to natural order.

Joe, God bless you, you magnificent bastard
You're talking to John
The very same guy who just said he likes Rush Limbaugh because Rush is so well researched and honest



The likelihood that John will admit he's wrong in the face of EVERYBODY slowly and logically explaining it to him - is still virtually ZERO - his self proclaimed open (and objective) mind is solidly closed

JohnStOnge wrote:

Vidav wrote:You seriously don't understand what you are talking about, JSO. Just because you cannot understand how atheists have morals doesn't mean they don't.

This isn't a failing on the part of atheists. It's a failing on the part of JSO.

I probably shouldn't have said anything about atheism so we could focus on the tax thing.

But since I did and you responded to it: I do understand. They have morals because they think they have to. So they set about trying to construct some basis for them.

It's not that they don't have morals. It's that there's no basis for intrinsic right and wrong in their world view.

It IS a failing on the part of atheists who do that. They want to accept atheism and that's fine. But then for some reason they find it necessary to try to deny the ramifications of their world view should it be correct. They just can't deal, apparently, with the idea that if they are right that means there is no intrinsic right or wrong. At best they can come up with something like the set of rules that would be necessary to ensure the maximum distribution of well being and happiness levels among human beings but then somebody can ask why there is anything intrinsically "right" about doing that. And they could ask what would be intrinsically "wrong" about something like a small group of people exploiting everybody else for their own well being.

It's wrong because it makes other people unhappy? It's wrong because they're taking advantage of people? So why is it wrong to make other people unhappy? And why is it wrong to take advantage of other people?

At some point atheists trying to argue for an intrinsic basis for declaring certain things right or wrong end up having to say you have to accept a premise or premises that can't be supported.

Some of the most wonderful, godlike people I know are atheists and some of the cruelest, amoral people I know are Christians....

Ibanez wrote:

Baldy wrote: This will NEVER stand up in a court of law, period.

I agree. I thought you can't assume someone's debt, is that not true? This is egregious. There is NO justification for something like this.

Sure you can assume someone else's debt, but not in this situation....not even close.

The most common instance is if you buy a business. Not only do you assume the assets of the business, you also assume the liabilities.

Chizzang wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:John, I think if you said that atheists have no defined objective source for their morality, no one would take exception with that. Heck, Nietzsche acknowledged that point.

When you say they have no intrinsic sense of right or wrong, you're overstating the case. For example, Judeo-Christian morality is intrinsic to secular humanism, not because, in the eyes of a secular humanist, it is compelled by an objective lawgiver (i.e., God), but because it is "essential" to natural order.

Joe, God bless you, you magnificent bastard
You're talking to John
The very same guy who just said he likes Rush Limbaugh because Rush is so well researched and honest



The likelihood that John will admit he's wrong in the face of EVERYBODY slowly and logically explaining it to him - is still virtually ZERO - his self proclaimed open (and objective) mind is solidly closed

i dint know if Limbaugh is a good example

I am not a dittohead but i do
think he has a VERY good understanding of politics in this country and the two sides that drive it- agree with his own politics or not - he's pretty astute in matters political and professional sports. I would usually trust his analysis in either of those unless I have experience or evidence of my own to the contrary

now Id agree if we were condemning him as a smug, snarky asshole

It really does.

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Joe, God bless you, you magnificent bastard
You're talking to John
The very same guy who just said he likes Rush Limbaugh because Rush is so well researched and honest



The likelihood that John will admit he's wrong in the face of EVERYBODY slowly and logically explaining it to him - is still virtually ZERO - his self proclaimed open (and objective) mind is solidly closed

i dint know if Limbaugh is a good example

I am not a dittohead but i do
think he has a VERY good understanding of politics in this country and the two sides that drive it- agree with his own politics or not - he's pretty astute in matters political and professional sports. I would usually trust his analysis in either of those unless I have experience or evidence of my own to the contrary

now Id agree if we were condemning him as a smug, snarky asshole

Except Rush says things like: There's more old growth timber in this country now than when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock...

and this:
"Obamacare is . . . the largest tax increase in the history of the world."
and this:
"President Barack Obama shut down NASA space flights and turned the agency "into a Muslim outreach department."
and this:
"You can't read a speech by George Washington . . . without hearing him reference God, the Almighty."

The Rush Limbaugh list of completely false statements is so long that Factcheck has to have an entire new section just for Limbaugh and his guests who also seem to lie a lot too



Why is it that What Republicans call "well researched" FactCheck calls a LIE..?

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
i dint know if Limbaugh is a good example

I am not a dittohead but i do
think he has a VERY good understanding of politics in this country and the two sides that drive it- agree with his own politics or not - he's pretty astute in matters political and professional sports. I would usually trust his analysis in either of those unless I have experience or evidence of my own to the contrary

now Id agree if we were condemning him as a smug, snarky asshole

Except Rush says things like: There's more old growth timber in this country now than when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock...

and this:
"Obamacare is . . . the largest tax increase in the history of the world."
and this:
"President Barack Obama shut down NASA space flights and turned the agency "into a Muslim outreach department."
and this:
"You can't read a speech by George Washington . . . without hearing him reference God, the Almighty."

The Rush Limbaugh list of completely false statements is so long that Factcheck has to have an entire new section just for Limbaugh and his guests who also seem to lie a lot too



Why is it that What Republicans call "well researched" FactCheck calls a LIE..?

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
i dint know if Limbaugh is a good example

I am not a dittohead but i do
think he has a VERY good understanding of politics in this country and the two sides that drive it- agree with his own politics or not - he's pretty astute in matters political and professional sports. I would usually trust his analysis in either of those unless I have experience or evidence of my own to the contrary

now Id agree if we were condemning him as a smug, snarky asshole

Except Rush says things like: There's more old growth timber in this country now than when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock...

and this:
"Obamacare is . . . the largest tax increase in the history of the world."
and this:
"President Barack Obama shut down NASA space flights and turned the agency "into a Muslim outreach department."
and this:
"You can't read a speech by George Washington . . . without hearing him reference God, the Almighty."

The Rush Limbaugh list of completely false statements is so long that Factcheck has to have an entire new section just for Limbaugh and his guests who also seem to lie a lot too



Why is it that What Republicans call "well researched" FactCheck calls a LIE..?

Wow

A political pundit says goofy things of questionable veracity

so different from all the other political pundits and politicians

Limbaugh has his demagogue moments- sometimes frequently- but like I said before- his political analysis is generally pretty sound

tell me- would you be that passionate about debunking someone who held forth anybody at MSNBC, FOX, or ANY political leader on the House, Senate or White House as exemplars of honesty and integrity? Or is it just Rush Limbaugh?

JoltinJoe wrote:John, I think if you said that atheists have no defined objective source for their morality, no one would take exception with that.

How does this differ from religionists? Men (and women) wrote the Bible and other religious (supposed ethical) works without divine intervention which suggests humans have an intrinsic morality... thus, atheists = religionists in this regard.

CID1990 wrote:
Wow

A political pundit says goofy things of questionable veracity

so different from all the other political pundits and politicians

Limbaugh has his demagogue moments- sometimes frequently- but like I said before- his political analysis is generally pretty sound

tell me- would you be that passionate about debunking someone who held forth anybody at MSNBC, FOX, or ANY political leader on the House, Senate or White House as exemplars of honesty and integrity? Or is it just Rush Limbaugh?

Wait... Didn't you just say (one post back) what a reliable honest source Rush was..?
And now you're saying this ^ come on CID which one is it..?

I'll tell you what - I have never come running - like you just came running
to defend anybody (except Whole Foods)

When somebody says some guy on MSNBC is full of crap, frankly I would likely agree

But the percentage of Republicans who come to Limbaugh's "Aid" whenever he gets identified as a hoax is always alarming - and then when it's pointed out again that he is INDEED just a common LIAR who makes sh!t up on the spot and is anything but a reliable source - they step back ever so slightly and point to the pundits on MSNBC or wherever...

I expected better that "Right out of the playbook" from you CID, but whatever...