Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Both "sides" (fringes really, but who is counting?) would love to believe that we live in a theocracy... fortunately for the rest of us, we are just in a proverbially sinking boat....

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:We are at the edge of an abyss

It gazes into you.

Thats deep. Fortunately I have rum to cunteract its effects, lest I start to think about it. I hate waking up screaming in the middle of night. Its so annoying.

Really Wrex, you HAD to put that up? You couldn't leave well enough alone.

Now I'm going to have nightmares for the rest of my life.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
And what does that have to do with a "coorporately owned theocracy"?

By the way just a little FYI here. Maybe the congregation actually has the same point of view as their Church Clergy? Do you expect them to attend a Church that has different beliefs as themselves?

I'm surprised this passed Dogma's all seeing eye.


GG

Yeah, I'm disappointed in myself.

That said, I can see the corporately owned point. Though I'd say that 'ownership' is probably too strong a concept.

But theocracy? That's nonsense. A group of people casting their votes in accordance with their religious beliefs is not a theocracy.

well, emotion is hard to convey over text, but I don't genuinely believe America is a theocracy, it was intended to be hyperbole. That being said, I don't believe the tax exempt church has any place telling its followers how to spend their vote, isn't that lobbying? and if so, shouldn't they NOT be tax exempt? Being guided by religious morals (lol) is one thing, but when your pastor/priest/imam specifically tells you "This bill is God's will, don't disobey him" or "This bill is immoral and this is NOT how our America is meant to be," well, you can see where I'm coming from.

Falconlance wrote:
I don't believe the tax exempt church has any place telling its followers how to spend their vote, isn't that lobbying? and if so, shouldn't they NOT be tax exempt? Being guided by religious morals is one thing, but when your pastor/priest/imam specifically tells you "This bill is God's will, don't disobey him" or "This bill is immoral and this is NOT how our America is meant to be," well, you can see where I'm coming from.

Isn't that the job of a pastor/priest/rabbi? They are there to help provide a moral compass for the members of their congregation, so it makes sense if they say, "This is immoral you shouldn't support it." They are human beings too and are allowed to express their opinions as they see fit. Also, I have never heard any religious figure tell the members of their congregation to face God's wrath if they disagreed. Many churches that I have been to, in both Texas and California, put it this way, "We can't tell you how to vote, nor should we, but we can and will tell you what we think the Bible says on this subject." I find that to be perfectly acceptable... Not to mention the fact that one of the main driving factors behind the Revolutionary War was the pulpit, so it also fits in with America's cultural history.

dogma wrote:The Founders, by the way the Constitution is written, used the word republic as a euphemism for representative democracy (though they didn't necessarily comment on how representative that democracy might be).

Ah... now I get it. It's what they wrote but not what they meant. I see now... it's a living document that has to be interpreted in the times which we live in. It's not meant to be taken literally.

I think we're done here.

The Green Git wrote:

dogma wrote:The Founders, by the way the Constitution is written, used the word republic as a euphemism for representative democracy (though they didn't necessarily comment on how representative that democracy might be).

Ah... now I get it. It's what they wrote but not what they meant. I see now... it's a living document that has to be interpreted in the times which we live in. It's not meant to be taken literally.

I think we're done here.

You seriously don't know what the word republic means do you?

The Green Git wrote:
Ah... now I get it. It's what they wrote but not what they meant. I see now... it's a living document that has to be interpreted in the times which we live in. It's not meant to be taken literally.

I think we're done here.

Um, no. Its what the word republic means; further clarified through the system of governance laid down in the Constitution.

I'll also point out that the line you quoted ("The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." ) has nothing at all to do with the federal government outside of its status as the union which guarantees that all states have Republican governments. The federal government, as defined in the constitution, is a representative democracy (a form of republic). The states have the freedom to govern themselves in any way they so choose, provided their governments are also based on the republican model (not ruled by a monarch, allow for citizens participation).

It means Taboo is annoyed at you, your leader is a wrinkled relic with no real power, and the Sith secretly control everything, right?

Falconlance wrote:
well, emotion is hard to convey over text, but I don't genuinely believe America is a theocracy, it was intended to be hyperbole. That being said, I don't believe the tax exempt church has any place telling its followers how to spend their vote, isn't that lobbying?

Lobbying is usually confined to direct interaction with elected officials, and even further limited by professional status. Otherwise you end up with a system where literally every political conversation is a form of lobbying.

Falconlance wrote:
and if so, shouldn't they NOT be tax exempt? Being guided by religious morals (lol) is one thing, but when your pastor/priest/imam specifically tells you "This bill is God's will, don't disobey him" or "This bill is immoral and this is NOT how our America is meant to be," well, you can see where I'm coming from.

Its a dicey proposition, as once you go in that direction you can also find a conflict of interests in any university faculty with an ethics professor, or political science department.

I'm going to step in lightly here......

To the OP: I think the "YOU LIE!" it was an ill conceived staged act of "outrage" who's purpose was simply to get some more face time for the wing-nut talking heads, and bring attention to the utter sh**tiness that is this health care reform bill. I will give Obama some credit though, because by opening up this debate he has brought attention to the utter sh**tiness that is the American health care system, and it shows balls for him to even attempt it while there are so many other pressing issues demanding attention. But, as they say, no time like the present.

If you really want to hear a good opinion on health care reform check out Rep. Ron Paul's book "Revolution: A Manifesto" Think what you may about the man, but he's been a doctor for decades, and probably has a better idea about how to go about this than most of us. If anything he offers another solution to the problem besides government involment.

Frazzled wrote:
I for one welcome our new Democratic overlords, and look forward to their shepherding art, tv, media, and the political process to inevitable victory. For a small fee I am more than willing to help provide detailed locations on traitors, spies, and other non right thinking individuals who would sabotage the Cause. Hail Ming, er Obama.

Frazz, I've seen you to be an intelligent person, and while I don't disagree with the above analysis can you honestly tell me that there was a big difference when the religious right was in control? The "cause" may have seemed different then, but the motives and tactics used to control and achieve the general public's submission were the same. It doesn't matter who we "elect" they are all playing from the same book, and drinking cocktails together afterwards.

warpcrafter wrote:It's a corporately owned theocracy. Prove me wrong. I double dare you.

I agree with warpcrafter.

dogma wrote:
But theocracy? That's nonsense. A group of people casting their votes in accordance with their religious beliefs is not a theocracy.

It is when their religious belief is nothing more than a narcissistic circle jerk, and the statist goal of complete domination of all religion and information.

warpcrafter wrote:Vince McMahon for president! Dana White for VP! That's what I'm taking about.

Nah you've got it backwards, White for prez.

Lint wrote:
It is when their religious belief is nothing more than a narcissistic circle jerk, and the statist goal of complete domination of all religion and information.

No, that's still not a theocracy. Theocracy is a form of government where the state is considered to be an extension of God. If only part of that state happens to worship God in a way such that they utilize their religious beliefs to dictate their political decisions (I actually can't imagine how you could claim that a religious person doesn't allow their religious beliefs to dictate their political decisions) is not a theocracy. Pretending otherwise is outright sensationalism.

dogma wrote:
No, that's still not a theocracy. Theocracy is a form of government where the state is considered to be an extension of God. If only part of that state happens to worship God in a way such that they utilize their religious beliefs to dictate their political decisions (I actually can't imagine how you could claim that a religious person doesn't allow their religious beliefs to dictate their political decisions) is not a theocracy. Pretending otherwise is outright sensationalism.

My mistake, I had an incorrect definition of theocracy in mind. You are correct then that it is not a theocracy, and I still say that the elite leaders of this country are nothing more than egotistical jerk offs waiting for their turn at the pitching side of the glory hole, while the american public waits on it's knees for the next "gift" labeled as freedom/democrats/ or protection/republicans/ But either way we've all got j*zz in our eyes.

Disrespect is appropriate when the subject of the disrespect lacks the merit (and proves it regularly) and the actual right to hold the position.

Some people in this thread have a pretty low opinion of Americans. For once, it's not the Euroscum or towelheads dishing out the gak.

You guys ought to have a bit more faith in the common sense of your fellow citizens.

As Sir Winston Churchill said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

Kilkrazy wrote:As Sir Winston Churchill said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

Well, we do what we can. When we get around to it.

Kilkrazy wrote:Some people in this thread have a pretty low opinion of Americans. For once, it's not the Euroscum

Clearly our infiltration and mind control techniques are working as hoped.

No, we're all just sitting here enjoying the show.

No big deal, he said what was on his minde. And Obama desverse all the flak he gets, as do all dose who dabbel in politics, and besides if Obama fails I am breaking out the party hat

Why? What significance does it have for you? And do you really miss the days of disappeared suspects and "legal" torture so much?

How can we miss them, they're right here!

No, they ended when Cheney left office.

I am sure they did....

Here's the thing: torture is always going to be with us. Even if it doesn't produce good results, it certainly allows intelligence personnel to express some form of personal absolution. The reason its illegal is that such personal absolution should be reserved for those circumstances in which its likely to be the result of highly detrimental abstinence.

The law is a filter, not a moral imperative.

ShumaGorath wrote:Unfortunately your party is completely unwilling to do so. Instead preferring 24 hour talk of death panels and the socialist agenda. You have to be willing to actually talk about it as an adult to do so. And the number of conservatives willing to do so can be counted on one hand. The democrats are already decisively divided along far too many lines to pass the realistic and good solutions without needless bickering and infighting, and the conservatives wouldn't let it go through anyway. Instead preferring to vote along party lines to deny the socialist agenda and please their undereducated and ignorant demographic all the way to the bank (The bank being the total failure of the U.S. healthcare system). Both parties are paralyzed, one by its total lack of cohesion, and the other by it's total lack of balls in the leadership and brains in the populace.

I like this part. Last time the President had a bipartisan meeting over ObamaCare was back in April. also there's so much unrelated gak that they're trying to stuff into the Healthcare Reform act, it's no wonder there's such a statistical drop in approval on many fronts from most polls.

The statistical drop seems to be the result of a prevailing doubt with respect to liberal ideology (liberal in the academic sense, not in the liberal vs. conservative sense). Both sides appear to be operating under the assumption of moral (and technical) certitude, such that compromise (which is the life-blood of any liberal system) has flown out the window.

More simply: freedom ain't what it used to be.

The Green Git wrote:

malfred wrote:I asked you to review this with your friend who read the bill in the other thread:


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/joe-wilson/joe-wilson-south-carolina-said-obama-lied-he-didnt/

I agree that weak enforcement does not necessarily equal outright denial, but it's also not
directly providing money for illegals.

To which we retort with http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112742853

NPR.org wrote: A GAO report finds that illegal immigrants constitute more than one-third of all Medicaid-funded pregnancies in California. Elsewhere in the country, the GAO found: "From 1992 to 1995 in Texas, the number of Medicaid-funded births to undocumented alien mothers more than doubled, while the total number of births remained fairly stable."

Saying that the exact wording of the law would not allow what the common practice of the law WOULD allow is just semantics.

Thanks, I'll have to read this (been trying to figure out which OT threads I've been following, blech).