n8nrgim

the bible says Jesus said some people will experience eternal punishment. i do still think though that hell can be temporary for some people, or like purgatory. I would think God wouldn't give eternal consequences for temporary misconduct, so I would think eternal punishment is only for those who eternally separate themselves from God. we do have free will, after all. or, if the possibility for eternal life for all is true, there will always be a stain on our lives for how we act, even if we are redeemed, a stain that could still be eternal even though we're saved. 

I also think God loves everyone unconditionally, but that there are natural consequences to our actions. like, you can't just keep eating a bunch of cake and not expect to gain weight. except, the consequences are spiritual when it comes to the ways of God. if you have low vibrations and are sinful, you will experiences low vibrations and consequences to sin, and a less fulfilled life. 

how do you view hell? is that an indication of conditional love? personally, i the way i handle it, is to say God loves everyone unconditionally, but that there are natural consequences to our actions. like you can't eat cake non stop and expect to stay skinny, only in a spiritual sense. 

God hates fags... thus, Best.Korea hates fags, too 

if God hates homos, does that mean it's fair to infer that you too hate homos? 

this thread is comical in how stupid it is. i know that wasn't the author's intent, though. 

how about left wing terrorists?

democrooks r libtarded amiright??

democrooks r libtarded amiright??

democrooks r libtarded amiright??

normally, people usually split constitutional interpretation into two camps, 'living constitution' and 'originalism'. living constitution means we can use our modern perceptions and values to determine what the text means, whereas originalism means we should only interpret the text to mean what was originally intended. 

a new version i've come across is 'dynamic originalism'. this means that the core principles orginally intended should be preserved, but modern changes in context can allow for a different application of the text. i think the new justice jackson on the supreme court follows this philosophy. 

so for example. originally, interracial marriage could be banned by law.  but, the original context was that interracial meaning was immoral or unbliclical or that black people were inferior. but, modern sensibility differs with that. only rarely do people think blacks are inferior or that it's all immoral or unbliblical. the core value of the bible, or morality, can still be a guiding light, even though the context is different. 

so what do ya'll think?

is this just a back door end run around the power of originalist thinking? i'm sure there's lots of examples where it would seem reasonable to change the application of text based on changing contexts, such as with search and seizure and probable cause etc. my guess is when you get into the weeds, it would become muddled or blurry if one were to espouse 'dynamic originalism'. 

if north korea wasn't always talking about killing other countries, maybe they could have more autonomy. it's like when i use to wonder why iran shouldn't get nukes... then someone pointed out to me, if these countries weren't so hostile it would be fair. but as it is, they can suck a dick. 

good well thought out arguments 

if you're not a teenager, you have the mind of one. if you have a degree in economics, it's from a shit university or you barely scraped by. i didn't graduate with a degree in economics, but i was an honor's graduate who got an A in a graduate level economics class from a competitive university. 

you have too many incoherent and ignorant points to respond to.  you're a lost cause. 

you didn't answer how old you are. you must be close to being a teenager, or at least you have the thought process of a teenager. out of touch with reality. 

you are proving you know nothing of how the rich avoid taxes. what i'm stating is a fact. they borrow very low interest loans so they can avoid paying taxes on capital gains and so they can make profit on the income they didn't realize by selling. you are just proving you have stupid theories and that you are ignorant. there's a thing called google.... go educate yourself. 

how old are you? that's one of the stupidest most touch with reality posts i've ever seen on this site.

taxing rich people, i mean very rich... would hardly change anything at all other than increasing tax revenue. someone like jeff bezos doesnt barely pays taxes because he has stocks and no realized capital gains. if he actually had to pay a tax on the things he buys through loans, it's super small fries compared to his wealth. i mean, even if he spent a hundred million a year from loans, which is on the high side for a billionaire, he's still paying only maybe 40 million tax tops out of his 100 - 200 billion wealth. 

a consumption tax is in addition to a sales tax. it's an attempt to tax the rich people's wealth, indirectly. just taxing the sales tax amount is very weak and ineffective at drawing money from them. it's only directed at rich people, in my way of doing things. 

"In that case, they'd be borrowing against assets they already have—accounting for the interest and taxes, they'd be borrowing significantly less than the value of their assets. This is not a net gain for them, because they'd be able to buy more by just liquidating their assets instead of borrowing."

rich people borrow because it is a net gain for them. they borrow at one percent interest a year, while they keep their money invested, where their investment increases at twenty percent a year. it's never a net gain for them to sell their assets, cause they then have to pay income tax on it, and they can't make profit if they sell the assets. 

we could just raise taxes on our progressive tax system. that might fulfill my desire for more taxes from the rich. but it wouldn't directly address people who go their whole life without paying taxes, or paying very little in taxes. to you it's about some ideal efficiency in our tax system not to go after them directly, not to tax things other than income... but the bigger picture is that everyone should have to chip in a more standard amount. if they just borrow money their whole life and never have income... they could get rich and never pay taxes. that's just unfair. i think u just need to be willing to think outside the box a little more. it sounds like you suppose progressive taxes, so it's a modest and logical step to support meager consumption taxes and wealth taxes. (and for rich people, a higher capital gains tax)

"They have to pay it back eventually or go bankrupt. For that, they need income, on which they will pay taxes."

id rather they pay taxes during their life. with your system, they could just borrow money their whole life and wait for their estate to pay it back when they die

billionaires probably aren't going to go broke. but either way, why not take tax from their consumption and wealth? what harm is there? if they go broke eventually, at least they helped support the government with meager taxes. these aren't huge things i'm asking for. most likely, they will either be just as rich when they die, or maybe a little more or less... still all the more reason they should have to support their government in the form of taxes 

the rich can borrow money their whole life and never pay a penny in taxes. why do you support this?  a two percent wealth tax is meager, and is only trying to get at people who pay little or nothing in taxes. why do you not support that? for some reason, you keep making bare assertions that you just dont like the idea of them paying anything other than an income tax... but you keep not supporting your arguments with philsophy or barely any reasons. why do you care so much about rich people who pay nothing in taxes? 

a person like jeff bezos can go his whole life without paying taxes. for some reason that you won't get into, you think this is just a fine outcome. you are not doing a good job arguing why we shouldn't try to get more taxes out of those who avoid paying taxes yet get rich. they're using loop holes. and on the wealth tax, why does it matter that they might lose it all some day? they might they might not. either way they should still be contributing meaningfully to the country. as it is, because of your vision, they can go their whole life without paying anything. you need to argue the philosophy better about why you care so much about rich people who dont pay much in taxes. 

my intention is only for the rich to pay a consumption tax 

why should the rich be able to use borrowing money as a loop hole to not pay taxes?

why do you care about saving them money? shouldn't we be more worried about the rich paying their fair share? you seem more worried about me making the rules different for the rich than everyone else, but why do you care to begin with? if we have a progressive system as our base, wouldn't our system be more consistent on those values, if we tried to get rid of all these loop holes? isn't it more fundamentally fair to make sure that the rich contribute to our society? the way it is, they could go most their lives without even paying taxes. that's ridiculous. 

i'm just calling it what it is, by dictionary definitions. a progressive system is where the rich pay a higher percent of tax than everyone else. or higher amount in general. and it's regressive when the rich pay less. that's just the dictionary definition. 

well, i'm kind of advocating a wealth tax and a consumption tax, and i'd even advocate an ordinary income tax rate on capital gains at for a high enough amount. i know i'm being scatter shot about my proposals, i'll have to reorganize them and reargue them later. 

according to you, our current capital gain taxes should be adequate as it is. but you are not doing a good job arguing why the rich should pay less in taxes than everyone else... why they should pay less as a percent than their secretary. why they should be able to use borrowing as a loop hole. you need to argue the philosophy of why we should be worried so much about the rich. 

your vision is regressive. optimally, rich people should pay a higher percent of tax on their income than everyone else. what actually happens is they pay less. even if we didn't have a progressive system, and only had a flat tax, they even avoid that tax too... they pay less than everyone else. that shouldn't be allowed to happen. yes it is punishing to have consumption and wealth taxes, but so what. the rich want to live here, they enjoy the benefits of our system... there's no reason a consumption tax and meager wealth tax is a bad thing. the alternative is they pay nothing or next to nothing in taxes. that's just unfair. what i propose is a bare bottom request to help level the playing field. even with what i propose, they are still getting away with murder, and paying way less than everyone else. 

u r probably right, that the base wants culture wars, but if there's any hope in beating trump, everyone else needs to hope an optimistic alternative message might work. we'll call it a hail mary play, like the football play. 

rich people take a lot of the earth's resources to become rich. it's like a farmer of a giant farm insisting it's all his and he doesn't owe anybody else any responsiblity. it's only the rules of man that says that whole farm is his. in the real world, people would go plant trees and crops on that farm, and would fight the farmer to survive.  it's a basic social contract that we need to make sure the rich pay their fair share because of that abuse of wealth hoarding. rich people shouldn't pay less in taxes than their secretaries. a consumption tax is a good way to level the playing field, to avoid letting them use borrowing as a loop hole. 

this is all also why i suppose a wealth tax. that two percent tax on the wealth of rich people that elizaebeth warren supports....  sounds like a good idea to me. but that's another debate. 

instead of selling their investments to pay for their spending, rich people instead borrow money at super low rates. this causes them to not have to pay much in taxes. they dont have to pay capital gains taxes if they dont realize capital gains by selling. that's a big way the rich get by without paying much in taxes. we shouldn't be allowing that loop hole. they should have to pay a high tax bracket rate on the money that they borrow. 

overall spending isn't going up much, proportional to what it's been in the past as a percent of GDP, if you dont count social security and medicare. the reason spending keeps going up so much, is because congress is trying to pay back social security and medicare. it's not that all other parts of the government have gone run amok. so what are the republicans trying to do? they are trying to cut spending to the poor, and miscellaneous spending, to pay for entitlements. they're trying to give less food to poor people, to give more money to seniors. they shouldn't be doing that. what should be done, is that taxes should go up. compared to the rest of the developed world, we dont have much of a welfare state, and just looking at what benefits poor people can get... we just dont have much of a welfare state. compared the rest of the developed world, our taxes are low. granted, our bloated healthcare system and defense spending causes our overall (if you count the private sector too) spending to be similar to other countries, albeit we dont spend as much on welfare while overall spending is similar to other countries. so congress should cut into defense spending and healthcare spending (lowering medical reimbursement rates for example) to help pay for increasaed spending. but most importantly, the rich should be paying more in taxes, too.  it's not right that rich people pay less in taxes than their secretaries. 

trump is the king of culture warriors. he's the ultimate bully, he's an alpha male. folks like ron desantis shouldn't be trying to focus so much on trying out do trump on that turf, cause they'll lose every time. desantis, for example, got a lotta legislation passed, that doesn't have to do with the culture wars. he should focus on that... all these guys should be focusing more on concrete ways that they have improved people's lives, and to focus on their proposals for how they will continue to improve people's lives. 

the liberal in me thinks they dont focus on those kind of details, cause they are weak on the details that will improve people's lives. as is common these days, both sides of the political aisle wanna keep fighting culture wars instead of things that actually matter 

he might just be playing by the rules as they are. kind of like when a rich person thinks taxes should go up on the rich, but they dont voluntarily donate to the government when taxes aren't increases as they'd like. 

balanced budget. congress should set every item in the budget, except social security and health care, to be the same percent of GDP every year. like defense spending might be twenty percent of GDP, and it will stay that way every year even as our GDP rises.

the exception, is that congress can always pass legislation on a case by case basis that deviates from this norm. by having this overall balanced budget approach, we will avoid the yearly debt ceiling fights that we see every year. those are risky, and they're not sustainable. 

of course, someone will complain that GDP shrinks during recessions. historically and practically, though, that's not a big deal. as was said, congress can always pass legislation on a case by case basis to deficit spend even more so. but just as importantly, though, is the fact that GDP doesn't shrink much during recessions, usually just a few percent. even during the great recession, GDP only shrunk 5 percent.... so, a 5 percent spending cut isn't that big of a deal. of course, during the great depression GDP shrunk 30 percent... so congress would need to use its case by case power to deal with that sorta situation, cause there are no good options during those times other than to deficit spend to stimulate the economy but maybe not too much, it's their judgment call. 

the reason social security and health care are exempted, are because those are expected to change over time, given the government has been borrowing against medicare and SS and currently is trying to pay them back and demographics change over time. the thing is, with these debt ceiling fights, republicans are trying to cut say spending on say food stamps, in order to have enough money to pay social security back. that's the way our accounting is structured. that choice shouldnt exist... social security should just do its own thing and rise and fall on its own merit. it shouldn't come at the cost of other programs, such as food stamps. forcing a choice between paying seniors more and paying poor people less (or giving less food to hungry people) shouldn't be a thing that politicians do. social security can be figured out on its own and congressmen will be forced to reckon given by 2033 the trust fund is going to run out of money and can only pay 80 percent of benefits. maybe taxes on the rich can go up on their payroll tax, benefits for the rich can be cut, retirement age can go up, maybe everyone can chip in a little more on their pay roll taxes. point, solutions are out there, but it shouldn't be intermixed with other governemnt spending. one of the biggest mistakes ever congress made was borrowing against social security and medicare. and on that point, healthcare spending needs to be tackled on its own just like social security, for many of the same reasons.  

good point. maybe i should have focused on the dems being more likely to help those who are struggling. 

u may be right, i dunno. 

???

maybe making politician pay dependant on them getting debt manageable is a good solution. i dont know how it'd work, but it's also a good starting point. 

i dont know how you mean that half a bridge would be paid for. agencies spend what they are budgeted for. if they have the money to build a bridge, they will, but if they dont, then they won't.

i do acknowledge that spending and budgets would be a lot more volatile. maybe doing the quiz should only be done once per presidential term to provide a little more stability. or maybe even every eight years. of course, they can always pass other bills on a case by case basis... which i think would be ok, though i'm not sure how effective it'd be. 

the real politics is deciding how to create the quiz... the quiz as it is is sensible, but everyone will want to game that decision, cause that decision would decide how the cards will fall, politically. a lotta times its not the specifics the public responds to, it's just 'food stamps were cut, therefore that's good', instead of any details. but i think this general framework could work. 

committee for a responsible budget has a quiz that lets average joe's like us to address taxes and spending decisions

what congress should do is make each congressman to fill out that quiz to a point that achieves the goal purpose, getting debt to a manageable level within thirty years. and then they will have to average out everyone's response. by doing that, debt will get to a manageable level within thirty years.

a key point, is that every congressman's decision should be open to the public.  the great thing about this quiz, is that nothing on it is radical, so even if they were completely liberal or conservative, no one would be radically hurt. also, most congressmen will be forced by public pressure not to be too radical. if they attack social security, they will get attacked at the voting booth, perhaps. some congressman can escape consequnces cause their electorate doesn't care about the issues, but again, nothing on that quiz is a radical choice. 

even dreams arent so consistent in seeing dead family members and telepathy.

you do see how ridiculous your argument is right? 'sometimes i dream about my dead family members, and sometime i dream about telepathy... therefore, when people die they will almost always hallucinate dead family members and telepathy'. such a leap of logic.

it's like when someone argues the tunnels in NDEs could be explained by a dying brain and light in the eyes... therefore, apparatenly, it all makes sense that people would hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die too, i guess? makes perfect sense. 

1. so do skeptics acknowledge that their position is that out of body experiences and 'blind seeing' are simply inaccurate in what these sources report? do the skeptics admit that if these were not inaccurate, there must be something to these NDEs? if people are actually seeing things out of their body and the blind are seeing, there must be something to these experiences.

2. do skeptics admit that people should be hallucinating living people and non family members? your explantion is possible, but it isn't what should be happening... there's no good reason people would just hallucinate dead family members. i dont even know how skeptics would explain why people would always hallucinate telepathic communication in their experiences. there's no plausible alternative explanations than these are real afterlife experiences. do skeptics just assume this is another inaccurate finding? or, what alternative theory would they posit? something about human nature is such that humans would only hallucinate telepathy and never what the humans do in real life, verbal communication? 

it seems pretty clear that it's the democrats who are more likely to do so. minimum wage, housing assistance, child care, student loans, health care... everything. i admit that a lot of it goes to far and is stupid on the policy details, but it still seems clear dems are better. republicans are more obscure in helping the average person economically... what are your ideas? even immigration is more about poor americans, not average americans. what are the points that republicans have? it's more obscure, like making life good for your boss and hoping it trickles down to you, even though it probably won't. 

most of politics is about the horse race and stupid cultural issues that aren't very relevant. that's the kind of stuff most of ya'll argue about.... you care cause you are told you are suppose to care. 

when it comes to which party is more likely to help the average person, even if they have their problems,,, it's the dems. that's why i usually vote blue.

there can be purpose in struggle. there is a wise video circulating about a priest saying how God answers prayers. he asked for strength and God gave him difficult people to deal with... that develops strength. the priest asked for courage, and God gave him scary siutations that required him to develop courage. 

life is about creating our reality as a species. we're co creators. the higher purposes require us to find meaning in doubt, to live in faith... to create based on faith.  we use our free will, without having all the answers, to embrace a higher possible purpose. 

ultimately, i admit that you have formidable philosphical arguements. but it really comes down to optimism v pessimism. your arguments dont necessarily describe existence the best. it's just a way of looking at it. pessimistic, instead of optimistic. you see the glass half empty. it might not be the right way to look at it. you are being like an ingrateful teenager who doesnt get things their way, so they assume the world is unfair, instead of just figuring out that there's something to gain in not always getting things the way you would like. our desires of our flesh, v our desires of our spirit. 

bottom line, you are simply just choosing to be a pessimist, when it's possible to be an optimist, and there's good reason to think the optimists have it right. 

it lacks common sense, even if, again, i were to admit that a rational person could argue there's no evidence for the afterlife.  when i concede that it's possible to say it's not evidence, or to entertain the idea... i'm being generous. you can find a fool to think anything. i mean, i suppose if it makes the skeptics feel better, i'll grant that it's possible to do a bunch of mental gymnastics and arrive at the conclusion that there's no evidence for the afterlife. but it's all platitude. this stuff indicates something, without question. to say it indicates something but isn't evidence, is just stupid. just because it's possible to argue there's no evidence for the afterlife doesn't mean it makes sense. it's like someone arguing that our lives are hallucinations... if we accept basic logic and what our eyes tell us, then our lives are not mere hallucinations. i admit there's a degree of difference between saying our lives are hallucinations and that NDEs are hallucinations, but it's not much different. it's still a good analogy to show how 'ostrich with its head in the sand' skeptics are on this. 

there's instability for the average person on the globe, i'll give you that. but, the average person has evolved to have decent health until they die or get close to death, and the ones who don't have decent health are the exception. they might not live lavishly, but they have enough to survive. life is about more than lavish living. it's about gratitude, and making the best of not having everything one wants. 

our dispute the way i see it, is whether the average person on the globe has a decent life or not. it's at least gotta be good enough to think existing is better than not existing. the way you describe it, most people would be better off not being born, but the irony is that almost none of them agrees with that. life can be a struggle and still worth living, and still worth being grateful for, for the average person. 

the thesis that i am arguing is that at the very least evidence for the afterlife exists. if your thesis is that the afterlife can't be proven as true, then i am open to healthy skepticism. 

as far as i see it, the skeptics on the evidence usually just ignore it. i assume they think the out of body evidence and 'the blind seeing' evidence is simply inaccurate. they have to believe that for the evidence to be untrue, but it looks like the evidence isn't simply inaccurate. this is a case of skeptics simply ignoring evidence. 

then there's just the stuff they dont give reasons for. why are people met on the other side almost always dead family members, why is communication almost always telepathic?  if this was hallucations neither of those things would be so consistent. this is plain evidence, and skeptics almost never even try to deal with it.

what if the afterlife is as these experiences indicate them to be? how stupid would a person have to be to have it plainly in front of their face, whether you want to call it evidence or not, and still pretend they had no clue as to the truth? people are experiencing elaborate afterlife stories when they die, yet skeptics pretend there's nothing that might indicate an afterlife. at best, it's skepticism for the sake of skepticism. hallucinations are a possible explanation, so they assume that's what it is, despite the philosophy and science that indicates they are mistaken. they are right that their interpretation is possible... but it's not probable, or in any case, it's not like there's nothing that might indicate an afterlife exists. 

even if it's not evidence, it's still a plain 'indicator', whatever you want to call it. it has meaning. to have to quibble if something might indicate something v if it's evidence is just stupid. it's right in front of our faces and skeptics just choose to ignore it. 

it looks like there's been an outbreak of atheism lately on the forum. i thought i'd bump this thread to remind atheists how stupid they are. 

life is a struggle for almost everyone. but i would still say overall the good outweighs the bad. even the poorest among us have a lot to be thankful for. it's about perspective. there's a lot of people born with disease, or people who come into massive problems, but those are the exception, not the rule. as jesus said about those who are born diseased, they were allowed to be made that way... allowed, not created... so that one day, even if it's in the afterlife, when their poor condition is changed for the better.... God will be glorified. 

trying to make a virtual reality or otherwise escape reality is just avoiding the truth as it is. i mean i guess it's okay to have a way to escape, if it's done in a healthy way, but the truth needs accepted as the truth, otherwise a person is living a lie. i suppose the details would need to be determined on a case by case basis.