MAGAThread XVII: All Things NOT Impeachment

[Greater Miami Shores]

Again Your statement false things are your opinions, not your facts.

No, they are facts.

I now have no choice but to repeat myself Again, and I will keep it short. When I lived in Cuba I saw spirits and the little old lady rocking in the rocking chair at night, since then I believe. Since then I believe in God and Spirits - Ghosts if you Prefer.

That's not the kinds of things we're talking about. We're talking things like the age of the earth, evolution, things that a classroom setting would actually delve into.

You know, you make a big song and dance about how much you hate Castro's regime, but you sure seem excited about the prospect of America's youth becoming scientifically illiterate - and that's definitely something Fidel would've been okay with.

If one side the right or left says about religion, President Trump, the Republicans, the Democrats, the issues, right wing sources or left wing sources, our views are facts, then their is nothing to argue, debate or discuss on NS on any issues. At least I don't say my views are my facts. Not even on Cuba my Pet issue on NS for obvious reasons. I argue it and I defend my views but I don't say to other nation persons, my views are my facts and your views are not facts. As you and many others here seem to do. Have I now made any sense to any of you all?

[Vassenor]

No, they are facts.



That's not the kinds of things we're talking about. We're talking things like the age of the earth, evolution, things that a classroom setting would actually delve into.

You know, you make a big song and dance about how much you hate Castro's regime, but you sure seem excited about the prospect of America's youth becoming scientifically illiterate - and that's definitely something Fidel would've been okay with.

If one side the right or left says about religion, President Trump, the Republicans, the Democrats, the issues, right wing sources or left wing sources, our views are facts, then their is nothing to argue, debate or discuss on NS on any issues. At least I don't say my views are my facts. Not even on Cuba my Pet issue on NS for obvious reasons. I argue it and I defend my views but I don't say to other nation persons, my views are my facts and your views are not facts. As you and many others here seem to do. Have I now made any sense to you all?

No. Because you aren't actually addressing any of the points people have raised.

[Greater Miami Shores]

If one side the right or left says about religion, President Trump, the Republicans, the Democrats, the issues, right wing sources or left wing sources, our views are facts, then their is nothing to argue, debate or discuss on NS on any issues. At least I don't say my views are my facts. Not even on Cuba my Pet issue on NS for obvious reasons. I argue it and I defend my views but I don't say to other nation persons, my views are my facts and your views are not facts. As you and many others here seem to do. Have I now made any sense to you all?

No. Because you aren't actually addressing any of the points people have raised.

Yes I have, and anyways I can assure you the leftist will not agree with my views they already know very well. Many times they don't accept my answers agree with them or not and move on to other issues. They keep on asking the same questions over and over again, as their posts to me and to each other proves to me. Because they don't like my answers to their questions. I cant do anything about it if they don't like my answers to their questions.

When I disagree with their answers and views I accept them and move on to other posts and issues. I don't keep asking them the same questions over and over again, but this is me.

Thank you for your post Vassenor.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

This is what happens when you elect Republicans... they create safe spaces for religious 'views'.

https://local12.com/news/local/ohio-hou ... o-religion

The Ohio House on Wednesday passed the "Student Religious Liberties Act." Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.

The right wing snowflakes can't handle science because science keeps proving religion to be wrong?

So Ohio becomes the first US state to institute theocracy.

[Telconi]

This is what happens when you elect Republicans... they create safe spaces for religious 'views'.

https://local12.com/news/local/ohio-hou ... o-religion



The right wing snowflakes can't handle science because science keeps proving religion to be wrong?

So Ohio becomes the first US state to institute theocracy.

Only if we utterly gut the meaning of the word "Theocracy"

[Vassenor]

So Ohio becomes the first US state to institute theocracy.

Only if we utterly gut the meaning of the word "Theocracy"

Religious exemptions for laws are a good thing now then?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Only if we utterly gut the meaning of the word "Theocracy"

Religious exemptions for laws facts are a good thing now then?

Fixed that for you.

[True Refuge]

Only if we utterly gut the meaning of the word "Theocracy"

Religious exemptions for laws are a good thing now then?

Come on. What part of the post suggests that Telconl thinks that?

As awful as it is to argue over definitions, they have a point. It’s hyperbolic to describe Ohio as a theocracy when the word has a fixed meaning.

Naturally, these exemptions are dumb and they should never have been considered.

[Galloism]

Only if we utterly gut the meaning of the word "Theocracy"

Religious exemptions for laws are a good thing now then?

I mean, we’ve had them since roughly the founding of the republic.

[Neutraligon]

Religious exemptions for laws are a good thing now then?

I mean, we’ve had them since roughly the founding of the republic.

I am of the opinion that there are too many of those, sorry if you want tax exempt status you show some tangible benefit to the community (being church is not a benefit in and of itself).

[Sovaal]

I mean, we’ve had them since roughly the founding of the republic.

I am of the opinion that there are too many of those, sorry if you want tax exempt status you show some tangible benefit to the community (being church is not a benefit in and of itself).

Why should it be based on that basis? And what is "tangible benefit"?

[The East Marches II]

I mean, we’ve had them since roughly the founding of the republic.

I am of the opinion that there are too many of those, sorry if you want tax exempt status you show some tangible benefit to the community (being church is not a benefit in and of itself).

That's a very good reason to keep the general exemptions we make. For such a militant atheist, you sure wish to give religions legs again.

[Neutraligon]

I am of the opinion that there are too many of those, sorry if you want tax exempt status you show some tangible benefit to the community (being church is not a benefit in and of itself).

That's a very good reason to keep the general exemptions we make. For such a militant atheist, you sure wish to give religions legs again.

First, not a militant atheist given I have not taken up arms to support atheism. Second, nope it should be on an individual basis. So if a church acts as a charity then I am all for them getting that nice tax break.

I am of the opinion that there are too many of those, sorry if you want tax exempt status you show some tangible benefit to the community (being church is not a benefit in and of itself).

Why should it be based on that basis? And what is "tangible benefit"?

Because I think churches should be held to the same standards as other non-church tax exempt organizations.

[The East Marches II]

That's a very good reason to keep the general exemptions we make. For such a militant atheist, you sure wish to give religions legs again.

First, not a militant theist given I have not taken up arms to support atheism. Second, nope it should be on an individual basis. So if a church acts as a charity then I am all for them getting that nice tax break.

The first bit is a matter of opinion, militant atheist has entered the common understanding to mean extreme. Militant doesn't mean what it used to.

As for the second one, so what to your nope? You'll be bringing it back which is contrary to your goals. The irony of your sort is you are so desperate to stamp out God that you'll bring him back. Just wait 40 years and your problem will be solved. There is a serious argument to be made that the State Church system in Europe accelerated the collapse of Christianity there. Our churches at the moment don't do much. You'll get them to re-engage with the real world while giving Christians, who love to be martyred, a cause to be martyred for even if philosophically. What an excellent idea you have had!

[Galloism]

I mean, we’ve had them since roughly the founding of the republic.

I am of the opinion that there are too many of those, sorry if you want tax exempt status you show some tangible benefit to the community (being church is not a benefit in and of itself).

The deal we made on churches was a good one.

The fact that we don’t enforce the terms of the deal is the problem.

[Imperial Esplanade]

I mean, we’ve had them since roughly the founding of the republic.

I am of the opinion that there are too many of those, sorry if you want tax exempt status you show some tangible benefit to the community (being church is not a benefit in and of itself).

Those exemptions don't exist solely because they are "of benefit to the community," rather they do to serve as a protection against taxation on religious expression. Although, to your point, I don't doubt you will find anyone who would disagree on the premise that there are too many who exploit such a glaring loophole for their own self-benefit, under the guise of "religious expression."

[Neutraligon]

First, not a militant theist given I have not taken up arms to support atheism. Second, nope it should be on an individual basis. So if a church acts as a charity then I am all for them getting that nice tax break.

The first bit is a matter of opinion, militant atheist has entered the common understanding to mean extreme. Militant doesn't mean what it used to.

Rather sad that a word that at one time meant things like say terrorists has now degraded to meaning simply strongly supporting a particular view point. Should I call Christians who strongly support Christianity militant Christians?

As for the second one, so what to your nope? You'll be bringing it back which is contrary to your goals. The irony of your sort is you are so desperate to stamp out God that you'll bring him back. Just wait 40 years and your problem will be solved. There is a serious argument to be made that the State Church system in Europe accelerated the collapse of Christianity there. Our churches at the moment don't do much. You'll get them to re-engage with the real world while giving Christians, who love to be martyred, a cause to be martyred for even if philosophically. What an excellent idea you have had!

Funny, where did I say I want to stomp out god? Where did I state what my goal was. I did not state at all that I want to get rid of Christianity or anything like that.

[Neutraligon]

I am of the opinion that there are too many of those, sorry if you want tax exempt status you show some tangible benefit to the community (being church is not a benefit in and of itself).

Those exemptions don't exist solely because they are "of benefit to the community," rather they do to serve as a protection against taxation on religious expression. Although, to your point, I don't doubt you will find anyone who would disagree on the premise that there are too many who exploit such a glaring loophole for their own self-benefit, under the guise of "religious expression."

Yep, I will point to the prosperity gospel churches or scientology as an example. I will also point out that there is a second problem, that the exemptions puts the government in a position of having to determine what counts as a religion.

I am of the opinion that there are too many of those, sorry if you want tax exempt status you show some tangible benefit to the community (being church is not a benefit in and of itself).

The deal we made on churches was a good one.

The fact that we don’t enforce the terms of the deal is the problem.

I am not sure the deal was good one, namely because I do not think it was possible to enforce it in the first place. You are right the fact that we have failed to enforce it is a big problem.

Edit: Actually thinking back on this I should not threadjack. *Slaps self on wrist "bad mod bad"

[The East Marches II]

Rather sad that a word that at one time meant things like say terrorists has now degraded to meaning simply strongly supporting a particular view point. Should I call Christians who strongly support Christianity militant Christians?

Yes? I feel like that's rather an obvious one to deploy as a rhetorical device. It's not sad, it's the evolution of English. Something you went on about at length as being a good thing the last time I suggested a remedy to that sort of thing :^)

Funny, where did I say I want to stomp out god? Where did I state what my goal was. I did not state at all that I want to get rid of Christianity or anything like that.

Yes you are against religion in general. Your anti-religious positions are something of a trend as is your resentment of the dominate nominally-Christian culture. It's actually rather totalitarian your position. If they don't do what you think they should, you'll punish them for it. Brings a whole new meaning to nanny state tbh.

[Neutraligon]

Rather sad that a word that at one time meant things like say terrorists has now degraded to meaning simply strongly supporting a particular view point. Should I call Christians who strongly support Christianity militant Christians?

Yes? I feel like that's rather an obvious one to deploy as a rhetorical device. It's not sad, it's the evolution of English. Something you went on about at length as being a good thing the last time I suggested a remedy to that sort of thing :^)

I don't recall saying it is necessarily a good thing, just that it does happen. In this particular incident I think it means that the word no longer has any meaning. Using this definition you could say I am a militant supporter of strawberry ice cream. The word has lost any and all meaning whatsoever, so why use it?

Funny, where did I say I want to stomp out god? Where did I state what my goal was. I did not state at all that I want to get rid of Christianity or anything like that.

Yes you are against religion in general. Your anti-religious positions are something of a trend as is your resentment of the dominate nominally-Christian culture. It's actually rather totalitarian your position. If they don't do what you think they should, you'll punish them for it. Brings a whole new meaning to nanny state tbh.

No I am not.I am not anti religious at all. Amazing how very wrong you are about my position. Do I think that religions tend to be nonsensical, yep! Do I support secularism, yep! Do I think that people should be prevented from teaching their religion, nope! Do I think people should be punished for their religion, nope! Interesting to be told I am anti-religious while I celebrate the Sabbeth, fast on Yom Kippur, etc.

[The East Marches II]

I don't recall saying it is necessarily a good thing, just that it does happen. In this particular incident I think it means that the word no longer has any meaning. Using this definition you could say I am a militant supporter of strawberry ice cream. The word has lost any and all meaning whatsoever, so why use it?

Yes I could say you were a militant supporter of strawberry ice cream. Guess what? People would understand what I meant by it. Even dictionary.com gets it. It is quite possible for a word to gain a colloquial meaning which then becomes the norm.

No I am not.I am not anti religious at all. Amazing how very wrong you are about my position.

Of course, I sincerely believe you and will correct the error of my ways :^)

[Neutraligon]

I don't recall saying it is necessarily a good thing, just that it does happen. In this particular incident I think it means that the word no longer has any meaning. Using this definition you could say I am a militant supporter of strawberry ice cream. The word has lost any and all meaning whatsoever, so why use it?

Yes I could say you were a militant supporter of strawberry ice cream. Guess what? People would understand what I meant by it. Even dictionary.com gets it. It is quite possible for a word to gain a colloquial meaning which then becomes the norm.

very much so, given the differences in use between scientific theory and colloquial theory. But then, once again, the term militant was already used colloquially to talk about people who took up arms to support a cause. By using it the way you are, you are so diminishing what the term means as to make it a pointless term. The only use for the term as you are using it is as basically an insult.

No I am not.I am not anti religious at all. Amazing how very wrong you are about my position.

Of course, I sincerely believe you and will correct the error of my ways :^)

Nice of you to admit your mistake.

[Genivaria]

I am of the opinion that there are too many of those, sorry if you want tax exempt status you show some tangible benefit to the community (being church is not a benefit in and of itself).

Those exemptions don't exist solely because they are "of benefit to the community," rather they do to serve as a protection against taxation on religious expression. Although, to your point, I don't doubt you will find anyone who would disagree on the premise that there are too many who exploit such a glaring loophole for their own self-benefit, under the guise of "religious expression."

Radios, Newspapers, and TV Networks all pay taxes despite Freedom of the Press being in the Bill of Rights.

[The East Marches II]

very much so, given the differences in use between scientific theory and colloquial theory. But then, once again, the term militant was already used colloquially to talk about people who took up arms to support a cause. By using it the way you are, you are so diminishing what the term means as to make it a pointless term. The only use for the term as you are using it is as basically an insult.

Why would you take a descriptor as an insult? You are the only apportioning something negative to it. Why can't you see past your own negative connotations? I didn't diminish anything. This may come as a surprise to you, but some times words have multiple definitions. I would infact be complimented if you were to say I was a militant defender of privacy for instance.

Nice of you to admit your mistake.

I am nothing if not gracious, even to those with tyrannical ideals.

[Vassenor]

Speaking of the free press:

KNUS radio host Craig Silverman says he was fired mid-show for criticizing Trump