jryan

Well, it is possible to separate the two, you know. When he flies to Palestine and declares an Israeli Apartheid the image of him building homes doesn't seem quite so redeeming to many.

I think there is common ground in immigration so long as everyone understands that opposing illegal immigration is not the same as opposing all immigration. Too often the fact that someone opposing illegal immigration gets labeled as a xenophobe when in reality they are not. This also dovetails with your welfare comment, as often people opposed to giving aid to illegal immigrants gets them labeled something even worse. So I think there is fairly common ground in this country in the notion that foreign nationals should not be free to cross our border as they please and without our permission and supervision, and should not be allowed to live off of our system when they do.

I knew that as well. But I'm fairly certain it wasn't a Revolutionary War era story about Tories bulldozing a public park.

Actually I do. If you don't then you have the right to be careless with your money as well. Edit: If you want to know where to donate, try donating here: CCNV, Washington DC Back when I was a social worker in the Washington DC area this charity was one of the best in providing actual assistance to the area poor. They are incredibly efficient as well. If you would rather donate more locally then I would suggest emailing CCNV and they would be happy to give you a list of charities in your area that they work with. I would trust their opinion.

I as an American found it somewhat funny and troubling at the same time when I mentioned "Tories" in a discussion with my wife the other day and had my 7 year old perk up and say that she had read about Tories in a book recently at school. In the book there was a little girl protagonist fighting the evil Tories to save some parkland from construction. I can only assume that it was some young readers book of British origin. She couldn't remember the name of the book, but would such a book be common in the UK? I would ask her to check it out next time so I could see it but I don't want her to waste her book choice on such a book just to satisfy my political curiosity.

It's also not the same thing as it gives the individual direct say on where their money goes. As such you will have a demand for results from charitable organizations that you won't get with he Federal Government which, through defacto tenure and a need to maintain a desperate voting base it is in a politician's best interest to give a person enough to eat but not enough to make them independent.

True, as such #7 is also always a yes vote when you give them money. But they can never make more than $500,000. But I stand by the decision that the plan creator must accept $0 or $0.01 of the total payout simply to maximize their chance to keep their job. As such, by the second in line viting "No" to any plan they are essentially voting themselves into seniority, but with $0 compensation. With the exception of #6 who will always vote against any plan other than their own because they are the only one with the potential to get everything. Leaving #2, 3, 4 and 5 at play, obviously. Also, I would say that we have to decide based on the info given since it's not a given that various sales executives would even know each others total compensation, so that knowledge should not be required. Actually, given that compensation is not known, we will have to ignore the seniority aspect, I think, and realize that the decision maker will always have their job on the line and therefor try to maximize the votes by taking $0 on $0.01 in compensation.... except that bastard #6. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSo, if we assume that #1 is gone, and the vote choice falls to #2, his choice would be: #2 - 0 #4 - $500,000 #? - $500,000 In this case #7 is not necessary to win, so it is really a toss up for #5 and 7... as so I think it is in #2, 3 and 7s bets interest to take option 1 rather than risk losing everything (though it is impossible for #7 to lose their job, so their vote is always dependent on bonus money).

Well, I think that #2s strategy might have to include #5 as #6 can hold out for a $1 million pay day, #3 will be eyeing the senior spot leaving 4 and 7 I suppose... which would then need to bet a $0-$500,000-$500,000 split to make it worth #4 and #7's consideration as they are already looking at a $500,000 payday if it makes it to #4s choice. So in #2s best interest, answering the question with the data provided, the proposal I stated still seems to be the best option for all 4 yes voters as #1 skips the pay out in favor of their job and #2 and #3 get a pay out that they would have had to skip otherwise, and #7 plays the pivotal vote as they were never going to get more than $500,000 anyway, but the cascading cancer of seniority + Bonus would likely mean that #6 would wind up with all the money and seniority anyway.

Well shoot. That puts some unknowns into the original question (salary differences, etc.) that would need to be considered. But in your #3,5 and 7 scenario it is not in #5's best interest to vote for #1's solution as you spelled it out as he is better off voting against #1 and holding out for a $500,000 pay day that he would likely get in later votes.

If the order of voting was known before hand, the first exec would split the money evenly between #2, 3 and 4, forgoing his own compensation (or grant himself one penny) but keeping him his job and giving #2, #3 and #4 a split they would not otherwise be entitled to due to their place in line. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOops, hang on a minute... scratch that. #4 would be entitled to $500,000. So yeah, it is in #6s best interest to always vote no, so #6 will never be floated any money. So the money would be divided like this: #1 - $0.01 #2 - $333,333.33 #3 - $333,333.33 #4 - $0 #5 - $0 #6 - $0 #7 - $333,333.33 This way #2 and #3 get a split greater than or equal to what they would expect anyway, and #7 Would certainly vote for it as they would be eligible for no money otherwise. For #1, passing on the money is the only way to keep their job.

First, the useful conclusion is that the claim of a positive offering of personal moral choice is not what it appears to be. Very bad things can come from people who develop their own individual moral code, therefor there is no intrinsic value to personal morality. As such, personal morality can only be deemed of any value by comparison to others, and often in posterity. Second, You assume that the Nazi moral code was something above Hitler's own personal code. For the average SS troop the was a strict external moral code, but their higher power was Adolph Hitler. For Adolph Hitler himself his moral code was of his own making. Finally, one of the alternatives is codified morality. As I stated earlier, such an alternative is a morality that is attached to an unchangeable higher power and that has been developed through the test of time, and not on a whim. I would even argue that it is all but impossible to develop a multi-generational code of morality without pinning that code to a higher power. People can still choose not to follow those moral guidelines, but as I have seen in my lifetime those rules are there, and persist for a reason whether they are followed or not.

I always just assumed that the big bang was the beginning of our known universe... but I never assumed that it was the beginning of everything. I like Terry Pratchett's joke about the big bang: "In the beginning there was nothing.. and then it exploded." I like to think that the Big Bang was an ultra-massive white hole connected to an ultra-massive black hole from an alternate, collapsing universe. Of course, if that were true, then this universe would probably be destined to collapse and spawn another white hole in another universe.

Well, no, he becomes relevant when the idea of moral relativism, or personal moral code gets bandied about as a positive thing. But I guess I am a pessimist. The first time I heard that Sheryl Crow song "If it makes you happy (it can't be that bad)" I immediately thought of Jefferey Dahmer.

I don't think I am over-simplifying it. He is arguing that more affluent cultures are more liberal, and therefore a policy that promotes affluence will promote liberal ideas. His solution is a more conservative approach to economics (deregulation and lower taxes) that will lead to increased money in the federal coffers to be used to fund liberal agendas. I don't think that this plan is as well thought out as the length of the article would indicate.

Rules regarding who can vote in primaries is really a state-by-state thing. Many states allow anyone to vote in any primaries. If you remember, there was some talk in the last Presidential election about people trying to prop up the weakest candidates from the opposing side by voting them up in the primaries. Of course, given the two options we wound up with in 2008 I can see a clear argument for disallowing open primary voting based on the resulting weakness of the candidates.

It's an interesting article, but nothing new really. Libertarianism was born, to an extent, after the term Liberal was coopted in the early 20th century by the Progressive Movement. In essence he is saying that liberals and libertarians could work together if liberals were just more economically conservative... which is no different than libertarians arguing that libertarians and conservatives could work together if conservatives were just more socially liberal. In other words: Libertarians could get along with anyone ... who simply adopts their beliefs.

I am not arguing for or against God as a "being" at all. I'm stating that these various concepts of God aren't different in practical terms. Whether God is a being or a long standing anthropomorphic representation of society's survival instinct really doesn't matter in practical terms.

I think the multi-party system (more than two) is very much over-rated in it's importance. As it is the U.S. has a multi-party system with the Democrats and Republicans really representing what would be considered a coalition in other countries. In coalition governments you still have those who feel disenfranchised by the coalition because their party has thrown in with a coalition and watered down their message... leading to splits of the parties in question, and another party... with more aspirations... and disenfranchised adherents and the need for more parties. The "three or more" party system just seems to be a semantic waste of a wish. Do as I do: let them keep the system as it is and register as an Independent... you are now a party of 1.

Now go read the rest of my post. I have attempted to define "God" there, at least insofar as both atheists and an theists can understand in practical ways.

When I say "that which is unchangeable" I am saying it with respect to man's relationship to God and his ability to change God. Humanity can not change God. My wording did leave open the misunderstanding, but hopefully that clarifies my stance.

No useful conclusion that I can think of. I mean, Hitler also used peace treaties to extort huge concessions, and build large armies without repercussions. I would guess nobody here thinks that that invalidates the idea of peace or treaties.

It's an interesting topic, to be sure. I think it is actually possible for theists and atheists to come to some agreement on a root definition of God even if they differ on how "God" acts in every day life. I look at it this way: Take the word "God" and it's synonyms of "Creator", "Supreme Being" and others, and replace that with the phrase "that which is unchangeable". "God", as a concept, refers to the Universe that we no, and the universe that we do not know. We see "God" in action in that which we do know and can observe and guess at "God" in that which we have yet to discover. "God" is a philosophical unified theory. "God" connects various scientific disciplines and philosophies. As I see it, from a common perspective, when the Bill of Rights, for example, decalred a set of inalienable human rights, and attributed their granting to a Creator, it established that they were "that which is unchangeable". Whether they are allowed by the governments of man is immaterial, these rights still exist and always will. As such, whether or not God exists, he exists as a useful shorthand for the limits of human existence as Humanity, being endowed with seemingly infinite potential also has infinite potential for destruction. As we find those limits where humanity can not cross, or should not cross, there is "God" -- real or imagined -- driving fence posts and "keep out" signs. As we progress as a species we find that some of those fence posts were driving by other men, and they are quite capable of being crossed safely... and then there are others that, for time immemorial, we have watch people try and pass unsuccessfully. So, in my mind, be "God" real or imagined, his rules and limitations are the instructions for the continued existence of the species. In that light, you can look at some of "God"s older recorded laws and see that there is a common sense to them and many we would not really question beyond their attributed origin. For instance, looking at the 10 Commandments: 1) You shall have no other Gods and you shall make no false idols: This is, at it's heart, a statement of authority. An argument for why you should not question the wisdom of the rest of the commandments. 2) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God: In short, it tells us not to drive our own fence posts. 3) Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy: Reflect on these rules often, and go out of your way to do so once a week. 4) Honor your father and mother: An appeal to us to respect our parents, and their wisdom. This makes a lot of sense to me, but I see where it might not to someone who grew up in an abusive household. But in that regard, you would find that those parents were not following these commandments... GOTO 1. 5) You shall not murder: Self explanatory. 6) You shall not commit adultery: This is a longer discussion that I want to get into here, but as you can see in the "Sex" thread, I find wisdom here that I didn't see in my youth. 7) You shall not steal: Also fairly self explanatory. But I think at it's root is the understanding that societies that condone thievery are weak societies. In this commandment lies the respect of personal property that is the underpinning of all healthy societies. 8) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor: Another fairly self explanatory law. This law establishes the need for truth in public discourse. Like respect for personal property, healthy societies are built of truths. I don't think many people would argue that our legal system works better when ruling on what actually happened, for instance. 9) You shall not covet your neighbor's wife (spouse): This rule in part augments #6 as it leads you to confront your desires before they are translated into action. The other part of this is less obvious but just as important: If you are coveting your neighbors spouse you are probably taking your own for granted. 10) You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor: Similar to #9 in form and purpose. So, as I see it, "God" in practice is simply the acceptance that there are some rules that we must all live by whether we like it or not, given our immense ability do cause harm.

Well, it's necessary to question the validity of some of the supposed benefits of atheism in practice. I would expect that a discussion of what religion has to offer would be destined to a discussion of the Crusades.

And I am pointing out that Hitler had a History of using anything he could to gain power. I mean, he also signed a non-aggression pact with Russia and a peace agreement with Chamberlain in Munich. Does that make him peaceful, too? I am pointing out that in his private journals he cared little for a God beyond nature, and that his personal philosophy seemed heavily influenced by a bastardization of Humanism, Darwinism and Social Darwinism rapped in ancient German paganism... but the latter was primarily symbolic and as a tool for nationalist pride.

Let me know when they indict Charlie Rangle.