The Conference on Founding Principles

Sigh ...

1. We all pay taxes in order to give back to our country and keep it a civilized and relatively secure place to live. Education and health care should be part of that.

2. Yes. I can choose those websites with a good reputation for accuracy and fairness.

3. Could you live on $7.25 per hour? That's the current federally mandated minimum wage. $290 per week gross if you're lucky enough to have a full time job, after taxes that's maybe $220 or so. Per four week period, which is how most workers budget, that's a whopping $880. How can you pay rent and buy groceries in the cities where the most minimum wage jobs exist on that? Much less feed your family. I'd love to see certain people try it. $15 per hour would be more than twice that, which would allow a full time worker at an approximate net of around $1,840 in a four week oeriod to not only o ay rent and buy groceries, but raise a family in a decent neighborhood and even perhaps put a little money aside.

4. My association with my insurance company is beside the point. I cost them enough for it to be worth the drag on my monthly income. I think you know that isn't the point. The point is that whether or not we receive a specific necessary treatment without selling our houses for it should not be determined by a bean counter sitting in an air conditioned office and looking something up in a freaking spread sheet.

5. Right. It isn't fair, and it was set up poorly by the founders.

6. Good grief. I'm a gun owner. That statement was not about guns at all. It was about adults being free to do what they like as long as they aren't harming anyone. This is not a difficult issue. You say the state dictates your behavior, but if everyone lived by this "do no harm" rule, far less legislation would be needed. And yes, as a nation and a community, we should bear responsibility towards each other.

7. I support a woman's right to abort a pregnancy for her reasons, which are none of my business, and definitely none of yours. If you think it is done purely for convenience, that's your ignorance of how women think. Also, I don't see a fetus as a baby until it can survive outside the womb, and only a tiny percentage of abortions occur beyond the first trimester, which is far from convenient! You're trying to make a woman's personal privacy into an emotional argument based on your own perceptions. It isn't about you.

 

Easy to say when you aren't in a minority that people still feel safe to misunderstand and constantly ridicule. How many openly atheist candidates are there for any public office? I've only ever heard of one. In this country, you can't get elected dog catcher if you don't thank god for it.

I'm guessing I'm older than you. Been puffing cannabis since 1966, still enjoy it like others enjoy cocktails or wine. My mother was a vodka drinker (and I'm talking maybe two drinks some evenings) and used to say "It's five o'clock somewhere!" when she wanted an early start. For me, it's always 4:20 somewhere.

 

You didn't address my question:
How are those someones responsible for providing these people said goods and services?

7.25/hr @ 50 hrs = $400/wk, about 360/wk after taxes. 1440/month.
Yes. I can, Why can't you?

No, Its the -entire- point.
No one forces you to be subject to your insurance company's bottom line -- you CHOOSE to be so subjected.

And yet, it works exactly as intended, for the reasons so intended.
The electoral college exists for the same reason as the senate - so the states themselves have a say in the formation and the function of federal government, a necessary part of our Republic. You may not think it is fair, but as the US is a union of 50 sovereign states, ti is necessary.

Just curious:
Had the 2016 election been determined by the popular vote, what do you think would have changed/

You haven't addressed the issue I put to you.
Given your position, and my apparently accurate assessment thereof, do you agree the state has no basis for regulation of simple ownership and possession of a firearm by those with the right to do so?
If not, why not?

So... yes.
Thank you

 

I don't think you are older than me, I got a doob for my 13th birthday from my beatnik dad in 1964.
Dropped acid in '66. I think it was legal, I forgot. I did it three times, and never again. It was a revelation for a 15 year old boy.

I don't believe in an 'intelligent designer', but I think there is a spiritual basis to existence, like a force, like a river, it's not an 'intelligence'. Acid will do that do you.

Do you really think an Atheist would make a better politician? Most criminals are Atheists. I'll bet Trump is, deep down, an atheist. I don't think it matters what you believe, or do not believe, that it has nothing to do with your character, in my estimation.

As for it being 5:OO somewhere, I wish I had written that song, it made the writers a small fortune, back when a fortune could still be made for merely writing a song.

If I were running for office, I would just lie about it, and in a way, I'm not lying, I'm more of a Pantheist ( it's the flip side of Atheism, but the result is essentially the same, i.e., both understand that there is no such thing as a personal God, there is no one listening).

But, I do believe in Aliens, and they just might be listening.

 

Where do you live?

You can't find an apartment in San Diego for less than $1500 per month. So, I imagine it depends on where you live.

Who works for 50 hours per week? There shouldn't be a requirement to work more than 40 hours per week to live.

 

Now you're just being inane. And WTH do you mean by "Given your position, and my apparently accurate assessment thereof, ..." What position? What accurate assessment? You don't seem to be assessing anything other that "how can I make this into a fight?"

Why do you want the poorest Americans to work 50 hours per week? I sure wouldn't want you for a boss.

What choice does the average working person have, besides paying a health insurance company? I remember when corporations provided that as a perk, but for a couple of decades now, health insurance has become so expensive that the employees must contribute a big chunk of their pay for it. What other options are there but insurance companies?

All you're doing is being dismissive of my opinions. I'm done here.

 

Perhaps you are a Deist, like many of the founding fathers. So am I.

 

You must be joking! Most criminals are atheists? What an ugly, hateful thing to say and not provide proof. I get so sick of believers making claims like that. Are they atheists, or people who just don't give much thought to it?

We're the same age, I think. Class of '69? The first recreational drug I ever used was LSD. Over the next several years, I took it many times. Any revelations one has under that influence is inside your own head. It frees the imagination and provide insight and perspective into ones behavior and beliefs. It helped me realize that all of the major religions of humans have the same three core messages:

1. My church is the one true church.
2. My faith is the one true faith.
3. My god is the one true god.

My conclusion upon mulling that over awhile is that since they can't all be right, they are most likely all wrong. Religion is the opium of the masses, I forget who said that.

Would you really lie about your beliefs just to get elected? That's disappointing. I wouldn't, which is one of several good reasons why I've never tried. I refuse to compromise my personal honor that way. I keep hoping an alternative party without those prejudices will form and grow ... the Warts and All Party.

 

Have you read any of the work of Alan Watts?

 

Ah. You can't address what I said.

Your position:
Personal freedom of actions ends where the health or life of another begins.
My assessment:
From that, it follows that said freedoms may be exercised as desired until said exercise interferes with the life and health of someone else - at which point, the state may create restrictions upon that exercise.
And so, if the exercise of my freedom does not interfere with the life and health of someone else - that is, it harms no one, and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - the state has no basis to restrict said exercise.

Nowhere do you challenge this assessment - and thus, I assume you consider it correct.
And so:
I assume you apply this to every personal freedom, including and especially enumerated constitutional rights, which is why asked abut firearms.
Well?

You seem to think 40hrs/week is normal for most working people? Speaks volumes.
And then... if you're poor, and you aren't working as much as you can - 50-60 hours/week - you're leaving money on the table and food out of your mouth.

Irrelevant to my statement -
YOU complain about your health care being subject to a corporations bottom line.
Fact is, no one forces you to be subject to your insurance company's bottom line -- you CHOOSE to be so subjected.

Still curious:
Had the 2016 election been determined by the popular vote, what do you think would have changed?
Well?

With obvious cause, expressed clearly and concisely - which you cannot effectively rebut.
What's that tell you about your opinions?[/QUOTE]

 

No. Is he the Brit who tried to popularize Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. in the Western regions? I don't think I would find his work of much interest to me. I've read other books about Eastern mysticism, a really long time ago.

I'm proud to be a member of the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

https://ffrf.org/

 

[/QUOTE]
Sigh . . .

Please don't be so arrogant as to pull words and meanings off my keyboard.

I do not disagree about personal freedoms and where they end in regards to the lives of others. And as I said, I own a gun myself, whick I keep nearby, full clip and one in the chamber. But if I use it on someone who isn't invading my home, it's a criminal act. I live in an open carry state, but the only time my gun leaves my home is when I go out to the range and target practice. I'm actually a pretty good shot, hence my signature line.

You would have to list those constitutional rights. You can't expect anyone to know which rights you mean by "enumerated." I can, however, give one example of what I mean by endangering others: masks during this pandemic. I've seen and heard from so many morons who refuse to wear them in public because, they often say, "I shouldn't have to wear one if I don't want to! It's a free country and they can't make me wear one!" Which is horse pucky, because the science has proven that by wearing a mask, you protect yourself and, more importantly, others from the virus, therefore your right to not wear a mask ends when you're in proximity to others. Those who refuse could cause harm, even death, by not wearing one.

People in other civilized countries do not require workers to put in more than the standard five day, 40 hour work week. According to our laws in most states, anything more than that is voluntary and pays time and a half wages, which is why minimum wage workers are nearly always willing to put in the extra hours, pitting their bank accounts against their physical and mental health. Any employer that routinely requires workers to put in extra hours is stupid. Much cheaper to hire an additional worker. There are plenty of people looking for work.

Again with you're misunderstanding about health insurance companies, and you didn't answer my question: for most American workers under the age of 65, what choice do they have? And what happens when their insurance company won't cover a medically necessary drug or procedure? I faced that dilemma myself just last week: I had a specific type of infection for which there is only one drug that treats it, and my prescription insurance doesn't cover it. It was $250. I had to search for a discount online.

As for the popular vote in 2016 and how that would have been different, I'm not clairvoyant but I'd bet that we wouldn't have several campaign, inaugural, or other associates of the president indicted, convicted, in prison, or taking plea deals. We would not have had impeachment proceedings due to coercing a foreign country to find dirt on a political opponent and/or their offspring. We wouldn't have had a years-long (and still going) investigation into the president's campaign and their many associations with Russian officials, even a known Russian intelligence officer. I could go on all day, but judging by your past posts, you'd find a way to spin all of that into Trump's favorite phrase, "It's a hoax!"

What ibvious cause? What was I not able to rebut?

I'm quite secure in my opinions, based on logic, reason, and facts, which are not on your side.

 

You had an opportunity to disagree with my characterization of your position, and did not do so.
As such, there's a reasonable assumption you did not disagree with it.
To wit:

And so, you agree that the state has no basis to restrict the exercise of a right which harms no one or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - in this case, the basic ownership and possession of a firearm
Correct?
Do you disagree?
If so - and keeping your position in mind - why?
Pro tip: Your gun ownership and all claims related to same is utterly irrelevant to any of this.

I'm sorry -- I assumed you were familiar with the US Constitution and the rights enumerated by the bill of rights.
I -can- expect anyone familiar with the above to know what rights I mean.

And yet, it is exceptionally common here -- white collar, blue collar, service workers, educators, professionals all routinely work more than 40 hours a week.
The idea that if you have to work more than 40 hours per week, there's something wrong with your society, your employer, or even you, has no basis in reality.

Not in the slightest.

As your complaint is related to your voluntary association with your insurance company, your question is irrelevant.
For whatever reason, you apparently believe that your insurance company should cover the costs of your heath care without regard to their bottom line -- why on earth would you ever think such a thing?

Ah. As suspected, you think Hillary would have won.
WHY, if the election was determined on the popular vote rather than the electoral college, do you think Hillary would have won?

My responses to your positions. Clear and concise.

All of the issues presented above, as you have yet to address the issues put to you regarding same.

So far, the opposite has been true.

 

I first encountered Alan Watts in Playboy, of all places. It was maybe 1973 and the article he wrote for Playboy was entitled "The Most Dangerous Book in the World". Dangerous because of all the wars caused by religion. I think he included both the Bible and the Koran. It was a great article, and I went on to read several of his books. A great mind.

 

You're wasting my time. You keep rewording the same questions, already answered.

 

If you believe you meaningfully addressed my questions, you don't know what "meaningfully" means.
But, it is good to see you know when you can no longer defend your positions.

 

Now that does sound interesting. I wonder if that article is available online? Must google ...

 

Yes, actually, I do.

"Meaningful" to you would be me giving you the answers you want. Your goal isn't to learn my views, it's to be antagonistic in the hopes that you can "show me up" on a public forum.

My responses were meaningful, they just weren't what you wanted.

 

Um.... no. It means to give an answer that actually addresses the questions asked.
You'll note how certain topics have fallen off the list? Because you gave a meaningful response.
Other topics are still on the list? Because you have not given a meaningful response.

You, somehow, fail to realize that I already know your views - what I seek is your reasoning behind them, to see if they are rational and actually reasoned, and to see if it remains consistent.
If you aren't able to describe that reasoning, you are embarrassed to admit that reason, or know that is devoid of reason and/or consistency, then this becomes a chance for you to learn.
And thus:
It is good to see you know when you can no longer defend your positions.

So, back to those questions:

- You agree that the state has no basis to restrict the exercise of a right which harms no one or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - in this case, the basic ownership and possession of a firearm
Correct?
Do you disagree?
If so - and keeping your position in mind - why?

- You apparently believe that your insurance company should cover the costs of your heath care without regard to their bottom line -- why on earth would you ever think such a thing?

-Why, if the election was determined on the popular vote rather than the electoral college, do you think Hillary would have won?

 

I've answered enough. Your turn.

 

I accept your concession of all the points made.

You avoid the questions I asked because you know the honest answers to them are not consistent with the positions you took.

 

They are a serial sealioner, don’t waste your time.

 

I answered every question, you just don't like my answers. My opinions are just as valid as yours. I'm curious as to what response you expected in your harrassment and did not get, but not very.

And throughout, your own opinions (because that's what we're talking about here, opinions) are MIA.

I'm done here.

 

Good advice, because a waste of time is exactly what it's been, stretching over two days already.

 

You know this is true, as you know I can list several questions that you have not even tried to answer.

Several of your opinions apparently have no rational basis and/or are also apparently inconsistent with some of your other opinion - so, no.

Another concession. Thank you