gvg

Pretty funny actually =) And I was wondering the same thing: who DID pick Tea Party?

It looks like a good religion but for two things: One: I don't believe that the universe has always existed, as this religion believes. Two: It seems that they think God created everything (tell me if I'm wrong), which as I stated before, I do not believe, although I think he set the forces of creation in motion. However, it does seem that this religion won't put restrictions on my scientific beliefs, so maybe this one's good to. Now I have to think a little more =)

I see what you mean, and I understand what you are saying. I was just not entirely sure, since I've been living with the same religion for my entire life. I actually did try to search through different religions before this, but could only find major religions, which I didn't agree with. I thought that maybe doing something like this would bring to light a religion that I've never heard of before or that is so small that it would take a while to find it on the internet. Thanks for the post though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/business/16regulate.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw Obama is passing a bill that will allow the government to make sure businesses are practicing fair, safe, non-stupid business practices. It won't inhibit corporations and companies from doing anything unless it's illegal. As you can probably figure out from my posts, I like this. Thoughts?

And thanks =)

Yes, dual citizenship, citizens 18+ can vote (ONLY citizens, but if dual citizenship is allowed, that won't be much of a problem) Amendment: 40 states out of 50. We need to be certain of an amendment, so 80% (that's what it is, I checked) is appropriate... The elastic clause should be kept. Oh, and no direct democracy. I've already stated why it won't work, so I won't repeat myself.

People: WE CANNOT LET THIS DIE!!! Now, since UtF is going to be gone, we can switch to a different issue. Anyone have something?

6. =)

If we're talking strictly about '6,' then -6 is the opposite.

Yeah, that's what I thought I was towards... thanks =)

I was born into a roman catholic family, though not the most religious ones out there. I sat through catechism from 1st grade until the end, when I got my confirmation. Recently, however, I've realized that my beliefs don't necessarily match with the catholic religion, or Christianity as a whole.I'm going to write out my beliefs below. If anybody knows of a religion that fits, please tell me what it is. Also, anyone else with the same problem is welcome to get help here as well. I believe in God, therefor, atheism is out of the question. I believe that God set in motion the vents that make the present universe, meaning that he set the Big Bang in motion, and everything from there can be explained by science. Genesis is crud. Evolution created the diversity we have, and the heterotroph hypothesis is responsible for life. I believe in miracles, but mostly scientific ones. Physics explains the universe beautifully. Brains of alternate universes, string theory. All what I believe. I also think people can be spiritual and moral without religion. It seems like I'm deistic, but I don't agree with some of their points either, like complete rejection of books claiming to be the word of God. I think some parts of the bible, mostly the New Testament, are correct, and I believe that Jesus was the son of God. I know it seems messed up, but that's why I made this, to see if there is a religion that I agree with. PLEASE ANSWER!!!!!

UtF: I know it may seem surprising, but I don't like the idea of the government flexing its muscles by invading people left and right. It's like bullying. If our government was good enough, poeple would know we were a great nation without the showings of power. That's what I'm trying to reach. Although it would be inhumane to ignore a mass cry of help.

I know I'm a little late to the party, but to me, congress is the most unjust of the three branches. It can stunt possible progress (as with Obama) or raise hell for a president they disagree with (as with Andrew Johnson). Now I know that they have to keep the system of checks and balances and all that, but the only time I can think of that they did that for a good reason, for Johnson, they were overruled during the impeachment trial. It's supposed to be the people's part of the government, but it never seems to be that way, especially in the senate.Although I'm for socialism and bigger government, I wouldn't care that much if congress sorta disappeared. But no direct democracy. It's too chaotic to just vote on every single thing that is needed. We'd have to be voting close to 24 hours a day. We still need representatives. Maybe to make sure that everyone is represented, we could make it illegal not to vote (as they do in Australia), or for you libertarians, we could place penalties for not voting and rewards for voting, but still keep it voluntary. We have no right to go in unless they ask for help. It's not our problem. That's why I condemn the Iraq war: it's pointless. (Afghanistan, on the other hand, is OK to me, because we are at war with the Taliban, and not Afghanistan themselves, but that's another discussion.) UtF: You do realize that if you are charitable, you get tax deductions, right? If you give to Big Brother or another organization, you get a tax refund based on what you gave. Meaning you pay less the more generous you are. So that's another option to taxes that is available NOW (although I don't think it can eliminate all of your taxes). That rich person who doesn't want to pay all of their taxes? Give a lot to charity.

I'm not saying that we should ignore it. I'm saying that we should make sure that all the other things we want included or fixed in it before we get to this 'Great Compromise' of sorts.

Yeah, you're right. Let's think of something else to argue. We'll put this into our 'constitution' later, although we will have to face it again eventually and find a compromise.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure libertarian is within the liberal spectrum. Also, you asked about the health care bill. What it does is require all businesses with a certain number of employees and up to offer health insurance. It fines corporations that do not, and for small businesses that can't, it gives them money to do so. Yes through taxes on those that make 250,000 dollars per year and above. The workers of the companies have to py part of the cost of the health insurance, and thus are allowed to turn down the offer if they do not want to pay. That's as much as I know. Also, read 'Lord of the Flies.' I myself haven't read it yet, although I intend to do so soon, but it supposedly shows what some of us think would happen in something similar to your idea.

UtF: Toushe. And yes, that does seem to be fair. And yes, I do believe that the poor have many more problems than the rich. The poor have to deal with getting food, having shelter, getting through each day, while the rich have to worry about pretty much nothing but how much money they have and taxes. All their needs, and many of their wants, are filled. So you do understand my view. And I understand yours. To answer your question: I might listen, depending on what shrinking the government would entail. Shrinking the government is also a liberal view; it is change but in the other direction. I do want society to benefit; that is why I want change. It's obvious that the current situation isn't working, otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing a new government . I took the bigger gov. approach to change, while you want the smaller approach. If you convince me that it will help society, I will accept it. Would you agree with my idea if I could prove the same? I don't care about how much the tax is; what I want is for the Rich t pay the most and the poor to pay the least. Instead of 30, 10, and 1, it could be 20, 8, and 1. By the way, the reason the republicans didn't vote for Obama's plan is because they wanted to see him fail. The party system is in such a way that they don't care about the progression of society, they just want to beat the other guy. Thus, i don't care about what either side does or doesn't do for the other right now. It means nothing.

UtF: Then just leave. You are allowed to under laws. It's called emigration. Find a country that you prefer, or go and discover an island unknown previously and instate your ideas. It's legal. And about your society being "just:" To me, it isn't just to allow a group of people with huge amounts of money, many of which probably came upon it through the luck of having rich parents, to control the rest of those under them. Yes, animals are unlucky sometimes. But humans have been able to separate themselves from other species because of the fact that they work together. Look at apes: They live together in groups. All the members of that group look out for each other, regardless of how weak or seemingly unsuitable they are. The price to be in a group: A version of taxes. The head ape, representing the government, who helps protect the others and lead them, gets part of the food and first dibs. Now, I may be wrong on some of the details, but you get the idea. Have apes not been successful, since we evolved from them? And plus (please correct me if I'm wrong) isn't all of our money technically the government's money? They create (I'm talking about the fact that a GOVERNMENT agency prints the bills and makes the coins) the money and send it out to be used. They ask for part of it back through taxes, and use the part that is asked back on projects that benefit the people that follow the government. Therefor, what is really happening is that by refusing to pay taxes, you are keeping the government's money from them. Thus, they have a right to get it back. Yes, you had no choice in whether or not you lived here; you were born here. But didn't your ancestors? Maybe even your parents. Thus, you are in your position because of forces beyond your control. You find this unfair, correct? Well, that's what I'm talking about economically. Some people are lucky enough to benefit from their parent's actions or economic level (the rich who never have to work because they were born into rich families). Others are unlucky enough to suffer because of the same (the poor who have to work their entire lives and may never get better). There are some who change their positions. Some rich people go bankrupt (in which case it is most likely their fault, but not always) and there are some poor who get rich through their hard work (in which case they are responsible). But both cases aren't common, which is why many, including myself, enjoy stories like that in 'The Pursuit of Happyness' (Yes, that's how happiness is spelled in the title). Many people are simply unlucky. Luck shouldn't play a role in life passed being born with the mindset and ability to work hard. That is why I am OK with the taxes and welfare that you despise But once again: if you want to avoid all of this, you can move to another country and leave it all behind. Or, if you are lucky (here's that word again) enough to find an area that was previously unsettled and not controlled by anybody, you can make your own country. It's legal.

UtF: Did you see dawh's post about the ABCDE thing in which E wasn't implemented? That's what I mean.

UtF: 1: I understand that what you are proposing isn't communism. I'm saying that your system will fail for the same reasons communism did. 2: Stop marking liberalism like it's evil. Liberalism is change. That's it. Some people are liberals and want to change taxes the way you do. Others want to change them in a way that me, Izzy, and others are proposing. You can't say that liberalism is causing the problems you want to fix. They were still there during the republican reign, after all. 3: What you said about the dictators: Wouldn't removing them from power be using force to get what you want, their removal, as you claim the government is doing with taxes? What if that country wanted the dictator? Removing him/her would be against there wishes. They wouldn't have a choice if that happened, or if they did, they would just put a new one in power.

I just realized that once again, the magic of your ideas got to me. They're too good to be true. Izzy is right. Even me, a Liberal, would not agree with every liberal. Under your system each liberal would have a different country, to the point where each person would be their own country. It would be chaos. And looking at it, UtF does seem a little anarchist. His ideas would lead to the end of all CIVILIZED government. So yes. Anarchist.

UtF: What I meant about the armies: I'm just using what you were saying, that people would pay for what they wanted. What if they didn't want to pay for an army to protect everyone, since it would cost them more than to protect themselves? That's what I'm saying. I do want a big army so I know there is something there to protect me. And yes, maybe I wasn't 100% with you. You can do a Sealand thing (Smallest country in the world ). There are quite a few islands for the taking. So you can have that right, but there needs to be some way to regulate it so that there isn't a sudden mass exodus of people. We need to make sure it's orderly. Just remember what happened during the last secession: war. And it was the fault of the seceders (Is that a word?), as they (I'm talking about the south here) attacked Fort Sumter. Of course, if you are peaceful, then fine. Although Izzy's point is more like what I agree with. It is a selfish system, and 300 million countries is total chaos. And the example with communism: I just wanted to show another idea that failed because of the selfishness of humans.

UtF: Before any shootouts would happen, you would go through one of the main things that keeps this country free, in good condition: The courts. After all, a fair, speedy trial is a right. And if they find you guilty, you'll be forced to pay your taxes. Big whoop! If we do get a progressive tax, as I want, then you will either not pay a lot or have enough to part with some with the good of SOCIETY. I've already said it: Human nature doesn't allow for voluntary governments without abuses. One would decide to spread it's power because it doesn't like the government of it's neighbors. If the attacker is strong enough, he will succeed. Who will help his neighbors? No one, unless another government has some sympathy. Because of this, eventually, one would reign supreme, and it would be the same as now or worse. And that's the thing: Your ideas are wonderful. Believe me. But people's greed, human nature, cannot allow something like that to continue. That's what led to communism's downfall. Humans cannot live with being equal; we naturally defend and worry about ourselves first. Again I point to the fact that a toddler has to learn the concept of sharing; they do not come out of the womb generous. Wars wouldn't happen if people weren't greedy; one example is the Gulf War. It was for NOTHING else but oil (which, by the way, is why I want the spread of green technology, but that's another discussion). And about the welfare: For the millionth time, we have basically agreed (someone tell me if I'm wrong) to fix that. We know. It needs to weed out the moochers. But those who try, who work hard, deserve some help. The road: What if there are other farmers closer to the area, or even right next to the town? This would mean that it wouldn't be worth it to build the 100 mile road to the other farmer. Is that fair? The other farmer has to suffer because he was unlucky enough to be far away? And the way you want to treat the poor: You say it's a plague. I don't. I see a group of people that were unlucky in life. Maybe they got laid off because of the recession caused by Bush (A conservative mind you; the US isn't liberal just because the president is. Don't mark liberalism like that), maybe another issue caused by the evils of a free market, like big businesses that cause mom and pop stores to go out of business, whatever (yes, the free market isn't that great; see the depression example I posted earlier). It doesn't mean that they are a bane on society; they aren't vermin. You need to give them a chance. The moochers will separate themselves from those that can add to society if given a bit of luck and a chance. Think about which is fairer: what Bush did (Cutting taxes on the rich and increasing those on the middle class) or what I'm proposing (Increasing taxes on those that can pay, the rich, and decreasing it on those who can't). Yes, the US government is in no way perfect. In fact, one of the main reasons I'm here is because I severely disagree with it. Just wondering: what do you feel about the new health care bill? Do you wish to see millions die because of lack of health insurance or would you rather help those in need?

Well, I prefer to be on the side of reality, so.... =) The part about socialism isn't really true. Socialism is only economics. What you said about being forced onto a religion seems more monarchy like, or maybe communist (but I'm not sure). Now, could be wrong. It might be a certain extreme, but from what I learned, socialism is strictly economics. That's the sad thing, isn't it? That something that looks good can't work because of what it's meant to serve. It really irks me.