The "[labeled] a racist today" bit probably refers in part to the fact that some radical nutjobs now consider standardized tests, including those for IQ, racially biased against non-whites. Apparently, holding everybody to the exact same standards is just another way "The Man" is keeping black folks down.

You sir, win the internet.

Any clue what team Destiny is on nowadays?

Destiny rejoined ROOT when it was revived by CaTZ

Kay my wording was horrible, but what i meant was most of the laws we have were around Christianity because that was what was the majority religion in Europe, when our Country was founded and Developing. Therefore, we founded our laws by this. However, i do admit that we are now slowly trying to get rid of this to make it so no religion is offended and taking these laws away. But, Canada is far more into the process as us..


Im not good at explaining D: nor can i spell x.x im sorry.

No, our rules and codes of law came from the Enlightenment that occurred in Europe. The ideas of Montesquieu, John Locke, Adam Smith etc., established a Balance of Power, natural rights, and free markets came from these philosophers.

Just because Christianity was the major religions does not mean it was a significant force in the creation of our country. In fact, the Church had lost much of its clout by the end of the Thirty Years War that ended around 1645.

Yeah, but you could have a Scandinavian model in certain american states, so it doesnt have to be run by the federal government, because I agree, implementing a "full welfare state" on a federal level would take too much time and meet to much resistance especially in the conservative states, and could probably fail on the federal level, but some smaller liberal states could and should really try for it.

We blend capitalism and socialism very well, and I live in Norway.
And I don't think it is that hard. Unemployment here is around 4 percent. I think you can do the same in many places. But of course, it will take time

No, because the population of other countries far exceeds that of Norway. There is no feasible way the Scandinavian model could fit in any other country that has a large population. It is not difficult to for 9 million people to become employed so of course a developed nation should be able to provide employment for a small population.
America 300 million
England 51 million
France 64 million
Germany 81 million

Yeah, but you could have a Scandinavian model in certain american states, so it doesnt have to be run by the federal government, because I agree, implementing a "full welfare state" on a federal level would take too much time and meet to much resistance especially in the conservative states, and could probably fail on the federal level, but some smaller liberal states could and should really try for it.

"Also, nothing is free, someone else is required to pick up the cost."

Yes, that "someone else" is called EVERYONE

That is true, the worst side of both are equally infuriating. However, I don't consider that to be very hypocritical. Those who choose to follow religion like I said are engaging in an activity and wanting to share their love for it. But atheists are just choosing not to participate in something. That is exactly why brony haters are so stupid. They do nothing and come on here and hate others for loving a tv show. Lol sorry about the rant.

tl;dr believing in something trumps believing in nothing (by nothing i am referring to only acknowledging fact)

One thing you should keep in mind though is that it's not like Christian beliefs come without any consequence. If Christians truly did just keep to themselves about their beliefs, then you would be right, however, look at the debates going on in the US government right now. At least two of them, the issue of Gay Marriage and Abortion, have one side which is nearly entirely fueled by "According to my religion this is wrong! Therefore it should be illegal!!!" Which fuels this hostility toward religion, as people on the other side of the debate see religion as a barrier to change and advancement of society. Some of these people develop the idea that they should challenge religion at any turn they encounter it as though doing so will somehow weaken the religious side of such debates, but again, the only reason they get this impression in the first place is because of people using religious ideals as a basis of law.

tl;dr Religion isn't harmless, that's why atheists get militant.

I agree religion has no business in politics but part of the debate on abortion is that you are taking a life. To some people murdering an unborn child is morally wrong (religious or not) so like just about every topic in life you can pick and choose a side and justify either one. That is why politics/life is a fucking joke and I have just accepted it!

I greatly appreciated your post and put this forward for you: Everything we know is thro our senses, correct? Scientific tests are worth nothing if the results were not tangible by sight, smell, touch, heard, or so on. Even abstract data can be seen an observed. Consider now that our senses are determined by placements and connections of organs to, we'll say, the brain. Should these organs be scrambled, it is possible (and has happened in rare medical cases) that people have seen sound and heard color. It is a new beauty to their senses and their universe has been changed. Therefore, what we see as Reality is a likewise illusion produced by our evolved (or created) brains. It may or may not be real, we are only perceiving what we can at this current time of our outside universe. Should simple organs change or evolve, we experience an ENTIRELY new universe (or at least aspect of a new universe). Science, then, is our best guess at the illusion our brains create for us. Science and romanticism are dancing together. Science solves our romantic adventures of our widely mysterious and unknown universe. Should we further evolve, perhaps science itself becomes obsolete. I tell you this: as long as science relies on our senses, romantic ideals can always and will always persist.

I must say that that was a beautifully crafted argument.

I guess that makes a lot of sense. But yes, I can understand what would motivate a Christian to want to get in a forum and share his/her beliefs. They feel passionate about something they are actively taking a part of. On the other hand Atheists who just get online and spout scientific facts just about everyone has already hear, with the simple intention of disproving religious people's beliefs just seems pathetic...

Well I think that is your problem. If you believe that then you are being hypocritical. An atheist should be able to feel passionate about their beliefs just like a religious person. I think it starts getting bad when they become hostile. Religious and Atheist fanatics are equally terrible.

That is true, the worst side of both are equally infuriating. However, I don't consider that to be very hypocritical. Those who choose to follow religion like I said are engaging in an activity and wanting to share their love for it. But atheists are just choosing not to participate in something. That is exactly why brony haters are so stupid. They do nothing and come on here and hate others for loving a tv show. Lol sorry about the rant.

tl;dr believing in something trumps believing in nothing (by nothing i am referring to only acknowledging fact)

One thing you should keep in mind though is that it's not like Christian beliefs come without any consequence. If Christians truly did just keep to themselves about their beliefs, then you would be right, however, look at the debates going on in the US government right now. At least two of them, the issue of Gay Marriage and Abortion, have one side which is nearly entirely fueled by "According to my religion this is wrong! Therefore it should be illegal!!!" Which fuels this hostility toward religion, as people on the other side of the debate see religion as a barrier to change and advancement of society. Some of these people develop the idea that they should challenge religion at any turn they encounter it as though doing so will somehow weaken the religious side of such debates, but again, the only reason they get this impression in the first place is because of people using religious ideals as a basis of law.

tl;dr Religion isn't harmless, that's why atheists get militant.

I agree religion has no business in politics but part of the debate on abortion is that you are taking a life. To some people murdering an unborn child is morally wrong (religious or not) so like just about every topic in life you can pick and choose a side and justify either one. That is why politics/life is a fucking joke and I have just accepted it!

Most of the founding fathers, and the early presidents that made this country great were republican. Back when republicans were the liberal ones. Most of the democratic party were pro-slavery, and yes, Lincoln was a republican.
But if they could see what the republican party has become today, they would vomit.

And i don't think obama is truly stepping on the constitution (which btw is a document written 200+ years ago).

Sorry, I meant to say Republican (Modern Day Democrat)

Also, I got into an argument with my Liberal government teacher over the limits of that the constitution calls for. (I've had the misfortune of being forced to debate against gay adoption in his class)

To me it seems pretty blatant that Obama is stepping on the constitution and the presidents that did similar are the ones applauding. The constitution is a document that gives the federal government specific powers and it contains a Bill of Rights

In the Bill of Rights there is a 10th Amendment that says all powers not given to the Federal Government will be given to state governments. The reason for this is because it is very difficult to change federal policy quickly without breaking the balance of powers, and rightly so. The Federal government is suppose to work slowly so the best we can have the best bipartisan outcome. Having this separation of powers in America is essential.

As things become more localized, the average person had a larger voice over legislation. If you write a letter to the President, chances are it will not make a difference. If you write a letter to the governor, their constituents are far more important because there are fewer of them.

THis is so obviously right wing propaganda.
All the democratic presidents are clapping, but the founding fathers are upset.

To me it seems like presidents who exceeded the powers granted by the constitution and presidents adhered to the constitution. George W. Bush is standing behind Barack Obama looking towards the left side, while most of the presidents that followed the constitution are looking towards Obama and the Right side.

Also Abraham Lincoln was part of the Republican party and he is on the Left side.

Most of the founding fathers, and the early presidents that made this country great were republican. Back when republicans were the liberal ones. Most of the democratic party were pro-slavery, and yes, Lincoln was a republican.
But if they could see what the republican party has become today, they would vomit.

And i don't think obama is truly stepping on the constitution (which btw is a document written 200+ years ago).

Sorry, I meant to say Republican (Modern Day Democrat)

Also, I got into an argument with my Liberal government teacher over the limits of that the constitution calls for. (I've had the misfortune of being forced to debate against gay adoption in his class)

To me it seems pretty blatant that Obama is stepping on the constitution and the presidents that did similar are the ones applauding. The constitution is a document that gives the federal government specific powers and it contains a Bill of Rights

In the Bill of Rights there is a 10th Amendment that says all powers not given to the Federal Government will be given to state governments. The reason for this is because it is very difficult to change federal policy quickly without breaking the balance of powers, and rightly so. The Federal government is suppose to work slowly so the best we can have the best bipartisan outcome. Having this separation of powers in America is essential.

As things become more localized, the average person had a larger voice over legislation. If you write a letter to the President, chances are it will not make a difference. If you write a letter to the governor, their constituents are far more important because there are fewer of them.

The only reason the "world" is outraged is because of that one guy that made that big campaign to have him noticed.. if it wasn't for that people outside of Africa probably still wouldn't know about it or care.

On hte top you say kills a couple thousand people, that makes it sounds like it's no big deal.

Fukken saved. Thumb for you. Doger is awesome.

The Dark Ages was not caused by Christianity. Christianity was the only pillar to survive the fall of the Roman Empire.

HOLY JESUS FUCK MICK TITTY BALLS ITS DODGER FROM GTS

Figure you might enjoy this

coxinyoface.tumblr.com/

So many gifs and pictures

yes and those people are downtrodden because the mega corporations that the OWS people are protesting came in and snatched the land they were using for agriculture. those poor people were not poor until wall street got a hold of them.
corrupt backroom government deals and predatory loans lead to exxon and nike owning most of africa, and american law does not apply in africa, and african law won't dare bite the hand that feeds, so now people who were quite well off have been forced from their homes and given deadly jobs making less then enough money to afford less food then they were easily able to get before "progress" came and "developed" their nation.
so yes, while in comparison to those in third world countries, OWS people do have it pretty good, but still not as good as they should have it. i hate people who say it could always be worse, it makes me want to punch them in the stomach, shrug and say hey, be happy it wasnt your face, right? there is no real excuse for poverty, it is artificially created out of pure unadulterated greed for the sake of greed. when my parents were my age, they made half the wages i do, but paid 1/8th the rent i do. one step closer to slavery and it's only getting worse.
those in the middle of the food chain are best suited to bring down the parasites at the top because they have the resources to not be entirely consumed with the challenges of day to day survival, and can stop to think and recognize the source of the problem and do something about it.

Them being poor farmers does not make anything better and their poverty extends farther than 'mega corporations'. The poor people were given jobs that provide a wage, just like during the industrial revolution, they were paid low wages, just like during the Industrial Revolution, and just like the industrial revolution, their standard of living will increase because of the benefits this industries have.

I am valiantly opposed to corporate influence in government, but these industries will lead to the rise of their standard of living. The problems in Africa extend farther than just some corporations. Personally, I blame European imperialism because they effectively destroyed progress in Africa.

Also no one really cares about what happens to the Africans, it is just a facade. If we really cared, instead of handing Africans clothes--effectively ruining a profitable business in Africa, we should teach them how to make and run businesses. Capitalism is the best way to take a country out of poverty, no country has ever become wealthy from socialistic ideology.

Every society has a 'poor' class, it is not just greed, every country runs on greed. Soviet Russia ran on greed, Communist China runs on greed, Cuba runs on greed. Pure capitalism with no corporate influence is the best way to take people out of poverty.

China's military patrol the boarder in Hong Kong because many Chinese were running away into Hong Kong, a true free market. They run to Hong Kong because they know that their standard of living will increase. Of course, I want the 'poor' to live better, but I feel a capitalistic model with little influence from large corporations is ideal.

To me, Occupy Wall St seems very socialistic and many of them want a larger government. What they fail to realize is that Corporations will use the large government to fuck over the common man. The real parasite is a large government.