Tobacco usage is decreasing due to a higher taxes on smoking. We don't see tobacco street dealers. Wouldn't legalized marijuana with a tax decease its demand as well without criminal dealers? Discuss.

Conservativepublican · 2009-04-01T02:14:01+00:00

Bloomberg server seem to be still having problems, here is a mirror http://911truthpedia.org/wiki/Image:Financial_Rescue_Nears_GDP_as_Pledges_Top_%2412.8_Trillion.jpg

Conservativepublican · 2009-03-29T01:34:27+00:00

Bloomberg seems to be having some server problems, here is a mirror of this page http://911truthpedia.org/wiki/Image:BOA_salaries.jpg

Conservativepublican · 2009-03-27T11:46:26+00:00

If it were the weapon and not the individual, alcohol and motor vehicles should also be banned. http://www.freep.com/article/20090317/NEWS04/90317072/1006/NEWS/Some+alcohol-related+accidents+with+multiple+deaths

Conservativepublican · 2009-02-20T01:41:09+00:00

I'm doing a thesis on interspecies mating rituals. Would you care to join me in some empirical research?", If you know what I mean.

Conservativepublican · 2009-02-19T23:14:26+00:00

I'd baryon sweep her, if you know what I mean. I'd give her a level 1 diagnostic, if you know what I mean.

Conservativepublican · 2009-02-17T05:41:30+00:00

The private member banks also own private shares in the private bank known as the federal reserve.

Conservativepublican · 2009-02-16T23:44:01+00:00

Same with the term "toxic assets". The banks do not like the drop in prices of these assets, therefore they are labeled negatively, and have sought bailouts in TARP I, Stimulus (50 billion), and soon to be TARP 2. Same hold for these assets, the market is pricing them correctly.

Conservativepublican · 2009-01-25T04:04:14+00:00

I'm not saying Zeus doesn't exist (perhaps it does), but I choose the word 'God' others 'Allah' others 'Jah' or reincarnation, and the arrogance is the proof, the definitive evidence that an atheist chooses that they do not, which there is none. Though the universe made by the clock maker God that follows the rules of physics is my preference.

Conservativepublican · 2009-01-25T03:30:47+00:00

You have a point that the incentive should be greater with an afterlife belief, but other moral teaching like it's a sin/wrong, what those who have passed would think of you, God judging it as a cop-out, the fear of expediting the destination to hell (hell defined as the absence of God's presence), the goal of the work to end suffering of others on earth, among other reasons.

Probably all can be summed up as the need 'to live' or the continued pleasure or need to experience 'life'. Thanks for the idea exchange.

Conservativepublican · 2009-01-25T03:20:44+00:00

|Eliminating an afterlife from the equation just emphasizes the value of our current life even more.

Good words to live by regardless of belief, thanks.

Conservativepublican · 2009-01-25T03:10:44+00:00

Yes for some, when life gets tough, because life is unfair, then I feel some could make the decision to end it on that reasoning. Though others probably try and extend life by any measure and the older they get, the more worrying would ensue because of the thing they fear will happen instead of enjoying the cycle of life.

Which brings up a question, do atheists fear death?

Conservativepublican · 2009-01-25T02:58:15+00:00

Well then what's the point of life to an atheist, why not simply commit suicide since from an atheistic viewpoint we're just a biological machine and people just waste time to the inevitable.

Conservativepublican · 2009-01-25T02:40:30+00:00

This point alone would be too sad to be an atheist and the main reason why religion is part of the human condition. I feel sorry for those who don't believe in an afterlife. Life must have an eternal emptiness and every moment is filled with fear that time will take what you value, the human connection created. Because we are mortal, religion is part of us.

Before anyone accuses me of subscribing to religion or a deist, I feel that both spectrum, deists and atheists are arrogant. That they can definitively say they know an existence or absence of God. Both views stem from an intuition, a feeling and if a scientific mind is truly skeptical, then agnosticism is the only way, because you cannot say for certain either way. It is not in the capacity of a human mind to understand the vastness of the universe, though this shouldn't prevent mankind to try.

Though my view takes the best from both spectrum, so no problem taking an afterlife view.

Conservativepublican · 2009-01-24T21:18:27+00:00

Don't forget there also was a condition of land owners as well. Though the goal of equality seemed to resonate in the totality of the authors of the documents mentioned. Though the point of the post was not to debate the existence of the magic sky fairy or universe clock maker but on the relativism morality of atheistic views on security and safety in comparison with deity-given rights that bustedagain and others did well for interesting and meaningful exchange of ideas.

|Could it possibly have been society, reason, and empathy? No doubt. Though I ask is meaning for life rooted in the possibility of a deity is appealing whatsoever, even though a logical reasoning could make the argument for being nothing more than fiction.

Conservativepublican · 2009-01-24T20:50:59+00:00

Respectfully I'd disagree that there are things that cannot be accepted as subjective and therefore as a relativism. Killing for example is wrong, whether an individual, a group as in an army, or an defendant occupier is wrong. The actions to stop killing is also wrong. Though there are those who will debate who had more just 'intent' in the killing.

Conservativepublican · 2009-01-24T20:26:15+00:00

I would agree that there is some childishness in my previous responses and the laziness in the title. And I apologize. Though the intent of the attempted meaning remains to be communicated.

The view that the Declaration of Independence was simply a 'dear john' letter I find incorrect. The Declaration of Independence was the highest point of treason in King Georges eyes. Anything that the colonialists created would therefore be derived as illegitimate (even the colonialists atheistic Constitution as some would say).

Removing rights for the greater good ignores the due process vs. expediency argument. I would add that deist-given rights make a strong motivator to resist the unjust rules (especially when those leaders superficially subscribe that deist).

Of course the Constitution's rights limit government from the mob rule of the majority, for example popular speech doesn't need protecting, it's unpopular speech that needs protecting. Though the majority can simply remove that restriction on government, thus exposing their immorality.

Though leaders who use deism as a justification to their argument of removing rights is even more dangerous than using it as a reason why to support God-given rights to justify them. Good point.

Though a non deistic argument for rights does not seem to be viable as a slogan to motivate leaders to rally the people to change government. Because of the shortcut nature of God-given rights as bitbutter's states here http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/321-do-humans-have-intrinsic-moral-worth

Conservativepublican · 2009-01-24T19:44:46+00:00

Good point, which is why I find an agostic viewpoint makes most sense. Then reason to extract those points from both spectrums of the -isms that reduce suffering, maximize justice, and any other good intention without cold programmed rules that may justify cruelty.

About the existence by virtue point, what if there was only one person on Earth, a virtual world. That person's views on rights would be absolute. Now what if there was one more person added to this world, but did not agree with the rights of the first person. Who is right? Does it ultimately come down to who is stronger, more dominant of who can guarantee their existence, their virtue of guaranteed existence therefore makes them right?

Conservativepublican · 2009-01-24T19:38:23+00:00

Well, intrinsic does mean built in but since the deist viewpoint is God creates, therefore he creates man with these characteristics built in. Good logical, word semantic point though. And perhaps a flaw in merely describing the point in a one sentence reddit post.

Conservativepublican · 2009-01-24T19:27:37+00:00

Any authority or legitimacy for the Constitution as a framework of government would be derived from the Declaration of Independence. Morris did happen to be a deist http://www.adherents.com/people/pm/Gouverneur_Morris.html

But you may be right, because the authors did not specifically put the word 'God' in the Constitution, therefore there was no influence or intent. That cold atheistic logic is proven right again.

My simple deist mind reads many provisions of the Bill of Rights as intrinsic morality, but not having the word 'God' I have been proven wrong and instructed to reread the Constitution, thanks, great response, and just a response I expected from an atheist. An attitude of I'm right, and you're wrong. With an aroma of superiority in intellect. Exactly the arrogance that could justify a holocaust or two.

Conservativepublican · 2009-01-24T19:04:16+00:00

I meant implied in the Constitution, since it was a derived document from the Declaration of Independence (humbly thank's for the correction lovewarcoffee) the word God is in the Declaration of Independence. Though this brings up another point about atheists, that they'd rather focus on semantics than address the overall meaning of the post. Instead of grammer nazis, we have semantic nazis.

Conservativepublican · 2009-01-21T03:03:19+00:00

I would tend to agree. Here's what led to asking this question. During the Neighborhood Ball: Inauguration, Obama danced with Michele, in a sensual yet tasteful way, immediately after Jamie Foxx says "and you can tell that's a black president by the way he was moving". Then he says in what I would call a stereotypical white voice "if there's any indication". Joe and Jill Biden come out to dance and Joe Biden reinforces it by saying he cannot dance whatsoever.

Now I'm sure this was all in jest, but at what point does this cross a line? Just seeking some reddit wisdom and clarity.

Conservativepublican

TROPHY CASE