Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Albenia wrote:Hell no.

Hell no. Churches (Minus the Baptist, Catholics and there's one other church accused of it) and religious contribute economically to society by economically helping the poor voluntarily.

They don't need to be taxed. Now Catholic pope over there wants compete forced taxes on the rich to help the poor when he's in charge of the richest organization today.

I don't even understand half of that, but HELL YES. It's a business. Businesses pay taxes. Why should a church where people are fooled into paying to absolve themselves of sins be treated any differently than a business? That's what they do, and they make you feel bad if you don't put money in the dish thing. Every church ever:

"We are all sinners and we all do things that are bad. You are all awful people, but you can find redemption... somehow. Okay let's pass the dish now, we encourage everyone to donate! *pastor starts whispering* you sinners."

That isn't fair. If God had any actual power he would just create mounds of money so the church could feed all of the people that way, wouldn't he? He has infinite power, right? So why would he help out all these starving people, you big dumb idiot?

And the only thing the church contributes to society is the mental installment of slavery to get fools like you to donate and keep feeding priests or popes pockets, not hungry people.

Muh Roads wrote:Horse.

What....oh...

HOLD ON NOW!

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:I don't even understand half of that, but HELL YES. It's a business. Businesses pay taxes. Why should a church where people are fooled into paying to absolve themselves of sins be treated any differently than a business? That's what they do, and they make you feel bad if you don't put money in the dish thing. Every church ever:

"We are all sinners and we all do things that are bad. You are all awful people, but you can find redemption... somehow. Okay let's pass the dish now, we encourage everyone to donate! *pastor starts whispering* you sinners."

That isn't fair. If God had any actual power he would just create mounds of money so the church could feed all of the people that way, wouldn't he? He has infinite power, right? So why would he help out all these starving people, you big dumb idiot?

And the only thing the church contributes to society is the mental installment of slavery to get fools like you to donate and keep feeding priests or popes pockets, not hungry people.

1. A religion is not a business. Business pay their workers. Religious...SOME RELIGIONS do not.

2. A religion is not a governments business. If it was taxed then government could begin regulating religion. Take a look at USSR to see an example

3. It's voluntary charity. Pastors never say someone is awful...well....depends actually. But at this point that's just bashing it and has no place in this discussion.

4. That's not how god does things. He tests people to see if they are righteous

5. My religion doesn't pay the clergy. So don't go saying I'm being enslaved. Because at that point your trailing off the discussion at hand and straight in bashing and slander (Technically Libel)

Muh Roads wrote:Horse.

Now I will not have sex with a horse. Okay?

Lets get that through your head.

Albenia wrote:Now I will not have sex with a horse. Okay?

Lets get that through your head.

No longer commenting on this matter.

Muh Roads wrote:No longer commenting on this matter.

Good. Now. When the hell will I get a Socialist/Communist Party in France on Victoria 2. I can't make a red france if there are no Red parties.

Albenia wrote:What....oh...

HOLD ON NOW! 1. A religion is not a business. Business pay their workers. Religious...SOME RELIGIONS do not.

2. A religion is not a governments business. If it was taxed then government could begin regulating religion. Take a look at USSR to see an example

3. It's voluntary charity. Pastors never say someone is awful...well....depends actually. But at this point that's just bashing it and has no place in this discussion.

4. That's not how god does things. He tests people to see if they are righteous

5. My religion doesn't pay the clergy. So don't go saying I'm being enslaved. Because at that point your trailing off the discussion at hand and straight in bashing and slander (Technically Libel)

1&2. The church is on government owned land. They should pay taxes to that government. Again, if God really cared, he would say "don't tax my churches" but he doesn't, because he can't.

3. I have been to church before son, and I am completely aware of their tactics to make you feel bad and coax people into giving money. It's not that hard. If you tell someone their going to suffer forever then they will probably give you 10 bucks to make themselves feel good, don't you think?

4.That's bullshit. And if so, he certainly is testing all those kids dying of malaria and starvation in Africa then, huh?

5. I can guarantee they make a salary for the "work" they do. You have been indoctrinated since birth to think the way you are right now, and told if you stray away you're going to burn in Hell. Sounds like slavery to me. "Do this or you will be punished!" And way to just say I'm slandering because you have no legitimate argument against me right now haha. That cracks me up. It does belong here. Please tell me why God can't just give these people what they need right now, prove his existence infallible, and prove me wrong right now? Why would he allow people to die for no reason? Please answer me, with a legitimate reason, prove me wrong right now. And don't retreat into your "stop offending me" argument just to get out of it.

1. There is separation of church and State.

Look at Medieval Europe politics to see what would happen if religion had power in government.

Look at USSR to see the opposite.

Neither of those situations are good. If you started taxing religion. Religion would become political and one of those two things would happen.

3. I honestly don't know what your talking about. The issue here is only I'm a Mormon and you apparently understand zip about my religion. I on the other hand understand very little about other religions outside of Baptists, and Muslims. Catholicism is pretty bad at that as well as most protestant religions. However this isn't the kind of crap that happens in every religion. That's like me saying all Atheists are Communists because of those two people.

4. .......And some people it's just their time to return to heaven.

5. My Clearview do not. No one is paid. Money we pay as tithing goes towards temples and charity. Now it does not say anywherethe only people going to heaven are Mormons. It says that no where. You just ccan't do stuff like murder and stuff like that. Again this is my religion standpoint as I can't argue for other religions views on god.

5a. I said you were trailing off somewhat and it was heading towards slander. You haven't said any slander yet but you were kinda close once or twice.

5b. Prove you wrong...........?

My problem with Paul Krugman is that he puts his politics before his economics. Breaking with traditionally Keynesian counter-cyclical policies, he runs with moronic liberal proposals like raising taxes during recessions and introducing green regulations, despite the obvious harm that they do to the economy. Slightly less insane Keynesians like the Romers realise how stupid it is to raise taxes during a recession, but because Krugman is a very bad economist, he still barks on about how teh rich need to pay der fare share, and inequality, and other politically manufactured non-issues. F__king Keynes was a supporter of the Laffer Curve, like anyone who knows anything about economics is. But modern liberalism has become so mentally corrosive that even the Keynesian so-called economists believe the populist lies that Michael Moore and other fools float around.

Whoever supports voter IDs is racist.

Pevvania wrote:Whoever supports voter IDs is racist.

If a white guy says "black", it must have a racist connotation to it and that man should be burned.

Related: voter ID = good idea

Miencraft wrote:Related: voter ID = good idea

Finally, some debate. I agree with you - I don't care whether it's a ploy to restrict Democratic voters. You need a license to drink alcohol and drive a car, but why not vote?

Pevvania wrote:Finally, some debate. I agree with you - I don't care whether it's a ploy to restrict Democratic voters. You need a license to drink alcohol and drive a car, but why not vote?

It's a ploy to do what?

Pevvania wrote:Finally, some debate. I agree with you - I don't care whether it's a ploy to restrict Democratic voters. You need a license to drink alcohol and drive a car, but why not vote?

I rather like the way Mark Levin structured the Voter ID mandate amendment in The Liberty Amendments; make it mandatory to have photo ID to vote, but also provide for free photo ID in the event that you can't get something like a driver's license, as long as you can prove you're a citizen. That seems 100% reasonable to me. Apparently, most people don't feel that way.

Muh Roads wrote:Ban IDs.

No. If you can't prove your a citizen you can't vote.

Albenia wrote:No. If you can't prove your a citizen you can't vote.

Why have citizenship?

Albenia wrote:No. If you can't prove your a citizen you can't vote.

Such is this awful region.

Ankha wrote:Such is this awful region.

If it's so awful why are you here :p

Btw, you could always try and have the law repealed..

Muh Roads wrote:If it's so awful why are you here :p

Btw, you could always try and have the law repealed..

Joke....and Lord Muh, what is the answer to our newest fallacy? (TTAs crisis)

Ankha wrote:Joke....and Lord Muh, what is the answer to our newest fallacy? (TTAs crisis)

I'd hope you were joking xP

Which fallacy? Voter IDs?

Muh Roads wrote:I'd hope you were joking xP

Which fallacy? Voter IDs?

No, TTAs *gasp* NOISES!! OH NO THE WORLD IS EMDING!!!

Muh Roads wrote:Why have citizenship?

Because....Ummm....Because it is good.

Ankha wrote:No, TTAs *gasp* NOISES!! OH NO THE WORLD IS EMDING!!!

....Shut up...

I guess Ill have to......IF I DIE ON JUDGEMENT DAY!!,

(No offense, joke..)

Ankha wrote:No, TTAs *gasp* NOISES!! OH NO THE WORLD IS EMDING!!!

Ohhh lol

I won't claim to know where the noises are coming from.. however, being the non-religious type I would not freak out over such things. I'm sure there is a scientific and reasonable explanation.

What seems odd to me is that if they were in fact the "trumps" as I'm the bible.. and some could not hear this noise, then how did the news capture the sound? It seems to be the same situation as when they saw a horseman during the Egyptian rioting or when some trashy individual sees Jesus on toast.

Albenia wrote:Because....Ummm....Because it is good.

Being owned is a good thing?

Muh Roads wrote:Ohhh lol

I won't claim to know where the noises are coming from.. however, being the non-religious type I would not freak out over such things. I'm sure there is a scientific and reasonable explanation.

What seems odd to me is that if they were in fact the "trumps" as I'm the bible.. and some could not hear this noise, then how did the news capture the sound? It seems to be the same situation as when they saw a horseman during the Egyptian rioting or when some trashy individual sees Jesus on toast.

I second this, and third this..

Muh Roads wrote:Ohhh lol

I won't claim to know where the noises are coming from.. however, being the non-religious type I would not freak out over such things. I'm sure there is a scientific and reasonable explanation.

What seems odd to me is that if they were in fact the "trumps" as I'm the bible.. and some could not hear this noise, then how did the news capture the sound? It seems to be the same situation as when they saw a horseman during the Egyptian rioting or when some trashy individual sees Jesus on toast.

I looked the thing up.

It's called the Hum. It is at low frequencies so only 2% of people in a given area could hear it, yet Recording devices could pick it up when around the sound.

So god speaks to machines too..

Ankha wrote:So god speaks to machines too..

.......I have no clue what he speaks to.

Ankha wrote:Not Chris..

Chris?

Well of course not. Everybody hates him.

Ankha wrote:Not Chris..
http://www.peoplequiz.com/images/quizzes/everybody-hates-ch-8154.jpg

Albenia wrote:Chris?

Well of course not. Everybody hates him.

Blast. Beat me to it.

Albenia wrote:Chris?

Well of course not. Everybody hates him.

That was an innuendo speaking of Chriss ever active relationship with humpy, but both work. :)

Just letting everyone know: I have been kinda inactive this week, but starting Sunday, I won't even remotely be on until next Friday.

Clarification: I am not, in fact, in a relationship with Amarican.

Ankha wrote:That was an innuendo speaking of Chriss ever active relationship with humpy, but both work. :)

Humpy is no God :p. However....

I however...

Liberosia wrote:If it is the will of The Lord Government, let it be.

Government is government. There is no government but Government and Roads is His prophet.

(Gonna love this quote forever).

I however? Stupid phone. Not so smart for a smart phone :(

Humpheria wrote:Just letting everyone know: I have been kinda inactive this week, but starting Sunday, I won't even remotely be on until next Friday.

Clarification: I am not, in fact, in a relationship with Amarican.

I can see it as clearly as a magic trick. (You see it fine, but r decieved)

Muh Roads wrote:Humpy is no God :p.

Wut?

Humpheria wrote:Wut?

Doesn't mean you aren't amazing :)

I'm confused. What about me being a god?

Humpheria wrote:I'm confused. What about me being a god?

Scroll up/down a Lil you will see lol.

your the opposite of a god, Hallo is more of a godlike figure. jk

I'm just here to spread the goodword of the government. Come friends, hold hands and let's sing Kum-by-Obama.

Kum by Obama, my love

Kum by Obama

Kum by Obama, my lord

Kum by Obama

Kum by Obama, my lord

Kum by Obama

O'lord Kum by Obama

We made another statist, O'lord

Kum by Obama

I'm so done lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nrySg4&hd=1

The Amarican Empire wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nrySg4&hd=1
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KI-BCbKuJGA

no!!!!!!! it hurts to see the kids being brainwashed by the left.

Beware of the Left Side. Anger, fear, aggression; the Left Side of Politics are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. Once you start down the Left path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did America's Democrats.

Democrats... Is the Left Side stronger?

No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

But how am I to know the good side from the bad?

You will know... when you are rational, focused, attentive. A libertarian uses politics for knowledge and freedom, NEVER for control.

But tell me why I can't...

No, no! There is no "why".

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

But how am I to know the good side from the bad?

You will know... when you are rational, focused, attentive. A libertarian uses politics for knowledge and freedom, NEVER for control.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote: Quicker, easier, more seductive.

the bad?

for control

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Quicker, easier, more seductive. bad control.

The Amarican Empire wrote:yes!!!!!!! i love when people are brainwashed by the state. Also, <3 Muh Roads

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Beware of the Left Side. Anger, fear, aggression; the Left Side of Politics are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. Once you start down the Left path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did America's Democrats.

Democrats... Is the Left Side stronger?

No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

But how am I to know the good side from the bad?

You will know... when you are rational, focused, attentive. A libertarian uses politics for knowledge and freedom, NEVER for control.

But tell me why I can't...

No, no! There is no "why".

Your feeble debating skills are no match for the power of the Left Side. You'll pay the price for your lack of political ambition. Now, young Idealism, you will die...

Liberosia wrote:Your feeble debating skills are no match for the power of the Left Side. You'll pay the price for your lack of political ambition. Now, young Idealism, you will die...

Since your dicta.... eternal leader and all, and I'm evidently the governments prophet. I guess I'm left side too. Succumb to the left.

Liberosia wrote:Your feeble debating skills are no match for the power of the Left Side. You'll pay the price for your lack of political ambition. Now, young Idealism, you will die...

You can join the Middle Side.

The Dark Right or Light Left as I call it.

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

Liberosia wrote:There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

That is a narrow way of thinking.

Liberosia wrote:There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

Indeed.

"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Shermaniya wrote:False, Liberals believe in Voluntary Charity. Conservatives only mention Charity to get chairs in parliament and presidential votes. They don't actually care about the unemployed. Politics is all about lying. I'm sure you get all of your information from CNN and FOX NEWS which explains your biased knowledge.

Not sure if truly this ignorant, or is really good at trolling

Liberosia wrote:There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

Yeah, I hate grey

Lack There Of wrote:Yeah, I hate grey

Yep, grey presupposes a black and a white.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:That is a narrow way of thinking.

Deal with it, Statist

(Kidding...kinda) it is merely an affirmation of moral objectivity: the only kind of morality. I'm only gonna go with logic based on rational premises. I refuse to grant pardons to immoral individuals.

Btw it's a Rand quote

Liberosia wrote:Yep, grey presupposes a black and a white.Deal with it, Statist

(Kidding...kinda) it is merely an affirmation of moral objectivity: the only kind of morality. I'm only gonna go with logic based on rational premises. I refuse to grant pardons to immoral individuals.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K7oAb5c2q_k/UIXCHK3CoZI/AAAAAAAAAAs/ReW8oNBPuOQ/s320/WW+objective+morality.jpg

Guys, there is a reason we are called Libertatem, we don't side with the left or right

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Guys, there is a reason we are called Libertatem, we don't side with the left or right

From: Right Winged Nation

Liberosia wrote:There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

The middle is not always evil. In most cases it is preferable.

Albenia wrote:From: Right Winged Nation

You see though, I have dark side of the moon as my flag, which contradicts the name for a practical joke. I do see how the name would make the statement seem ridiculous.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:You see though, I have dark side of the moon as my flag, which contradicts the name for a practical joke. I do see how the name would make the statement seem ridiculous.

Yeah

I will say this, the next president we elect needs to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I will say this, the next president we elect needs to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Moderate Conservative economically.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K7oAb5c2q_k/UIXCHK3CoZI/AAAAAAAAAAs/ReW8oNBPuOQ/s320/WW+objective+morality.jpg

Perhaps our definitions aren't the same. Either way you're wrong.

Liberosia wrote:Either way you're wrong.

Pretty much sums up everything

Albenia wrote:The middle is not always evil. In most cases it is preferable.

The middle is always a compromise of the good with the bad. When the moral right is sacrificed for expediency, then morality has ended and you are left with the arbitrary wills to power: evil.

Liberosia wrote:The middle is always a compromise . of the good with the bad. When the moral right is sacrificed for expediency, then morality has ended and you are left with the arbitrary wills to power: evil.

The middle tales the good aspects of both and combines them

[quote=albenia;6672196]Moderate Conservative economically.[/quoted[quote=albenia;6672196]Moderate Conservative economically.[/quote]

We have an 18 trillion dollars debt because of republicans and democrats. Our government operates according to what their political affiliation is, we need a change.

Liberosia wrote:The middle is always a compromise of the good with the bad. When the moral right is sacrificed for expediency, then morality has ended and you are left with the arbitrary wills to power: evil.

It looks lie we answered the question, Who is John Galt

Minerva, how can I take someone who doesn't care about consistency seriously? I mean really, what foundation do you have to stand on.

Albenia wrote:The middle tales the good aspects of both and combines them

You libertarians are in the middle with their views, so is Libertatem evil?

Albenia wrote:The middle tales the good aspects of both and combines them

We've had the "middle" for the past century. Pragmatism. Read it pls

Right-Winged Nation wrote:You libertarians are in the middle with their views, so is Libertatem evil?

Looks like you done did miss the point

Right-Winged Nation wrote:You libertarians are in the middle with their views, so is Libertatem evil?

Please, don't attempt to fit libertarians on any BS left right political scale. Please just don't. We have our own, distinct, consistent philosophy (usually?)

Right-Winged Nation wrote:We have an 18 trillion dollars debt because of republicans and democrats. Our government operates according to what their political affiliation is, we need a change.

We do yes.

But with Moderate Conservatives economics.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:You libertarians are in the middle with their views, so is Libertatem evil?

I'm not a Libertarian entirely. Not economically.

Liberosia wrote:We've had the "middle" for the past century. Pragmatism. Read it pls

No. We have not. We have had Left-Right

Lack There Of wrote:Looks like you done did miss the point

Lack There Of wrote:Looks like you done did miss the point

I apologize for the horrible typing, my computer is so screwed up.

Liberosia wrote:Please, don't attempt to fit libertarians on any BS left right political scale. Please just don't. We have our own, distinct, consistent philosophy (usually?)

Your right- Libertarian on the Compadd

Albenia wrote:Your right- Libertarian on the Compadd

......oh TTA, those scales are so arbitrary. I'm a liberal anarchist. Isn't that good enough?

Liberosia wrote:Minerva, how can I take someone who doesn't care about consistency seriously? I mean really, what foundation do you have to stand on.

Consequentialism.

[quote=albenia;6672286]Your right- Libertarian on the Compadd[/quote libf[quote=liberosia;6672279]Please, don't attempt to fit libertarians on any BS left right political scale. Please just don't. We have our own, distinct, consistent philosophy (usually?)[/quote]

I'm not trying to, but we are libertarians who agree with conservatives economically but agree with liberals on social issues(at least I am) so technically that's in the middle.

Liberosia wrote:......oh TTA, those scales are so arbitrary. I'm a liberal anarchist. Isn't that good enough?

Yes.

I'm a Libertarian Neoliberal with a belief in Social Market Economy

Albenia wrote:We do yes.

No. We have not. We have had Left-Right

A mix, yes. Have you ever listened to JFK? "Practical" economics. That's how it's been, a moderate mix of socialism and enterprise

Have you guys ever wondered how the state first came into being ? Was it just some big cave man with a stick extorting food out of his neighbors, or a more relatively recent development ?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I'm not trying to, but we are libertarians who agree with conservatives economically but agree with liberals on social issues(at least I am) so technically that's in the middle.

That Political Spectrum is economics only...

Liberosia wrote:A mix, yes. Have you ever listened to JFK? "Practical" economics. That's how it's been, a moderate mix of socialism and enterprise

JFK? No...

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Consequentialism.

*claps slowly at the astounding philosophical truth revealed in the RMB post*

Thank you Mr. Friedman

Albenia wrote:That Political Spectrum is economics only...

I'm speaking of views of libertarians, i'm not putting us on the spectrum, i'm just saying we are in the middle with our views.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.