Or in short, you will feel a stranger upon walking through Paris, no matter how omnipotent you or God is. — GraveItty

:up: But, as an American, I have a God-given right to be Ugly. :wink:

What does that tell you? — frank

It tells me I was right. It's just one of the lessons we can take out of the pandemic. .gov wasn't bailing out the banks/industry like it usually does; it was putting money in the pockets of labor; i.e. those who will spend it on something besides yachts and emerging markets. Even banks and industry knew where there bread was buttered when the shit hit the fan.

The conservatives like to Hemorrhage toward various military ventures. Liberals prefer to Hemorrhage toward social welfare. — frank

Trickle down is a proven failure. Trickle up is proven to work. The only issue is this: When you redistribute wealth to those who will actually spend it, those at the top will actually have to work to get some of it. We can't have that! After all, if you work, you pay taxes and that's verboten.

Gotta love Winston! :grin:

No whatabouts. This thread is a platform to complain about Biden. — Wheatley

Gotcha! I had thought whataboutism was a uniquely American stupidity, but when I complained about Trump on the Trump thread, I was treated to a bunch of stupidity about Biden. Naturally I had to ask. I thought maybe I'd missed something. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Glad to know that whataboutism hasn't gained traction everywhere.

Stop. This is a Joe Biden thread. — Wheatley

So, this is not where I come to say "Well what about Trump? He did etc etc."?

I agree, sort of. But in a capitalist system, if I conserve a gallon of gas, I just increased the supply, reducing the price, stimulating demand so some asshole can roll-coal with his gas guzzler, one more mile. Government action is needed to force that guzzler off the road while the owner screams about his rights.

If they save us, then we need to do whatever it takes to encourage others to emulate them. That will be making a virtue of necessity.

I addressed the first, and showed you the failure in your reasoning. When you tried to defend your failure, you demonstrated that you could not distinguish between something, nothing, and time. You also said God was all powerful but subordinate to God's creation (time). That's just fundamentally stupid. If you want that, you have to redefine God to something similar to my definition.

I was going to address your second argument, which I actually found more intriguing, with only one correction I would make: Instead of bottom up, the same result could be achieved top down. That top down angle tracks, somewhat, with my own notion that we are the Universe experiencing itself.

But in the end, I decided to not pursue that with you because you acted like an obstinate, petulant little child who refused to admit he was wrong on the issue of time/something and then, later, nothing.

Anyway, the record, above, speaks for itself. So again, I cede the floor.

It's quite simple. It means they have existed forever. — GraveItty

:up:

In law school, a professor tried to describe the relationship between states/Indian tribes and the Federal Government. In typical legal fashion, he used the phrase "quasi-sovereignty." I asked if that was anything like limited infinity. I got a raised eyebrow.

Anyway, I can't think of an equivalent for quasi-eternity. There is no beginning and there is no end.

A little backwards, yes. So is the US. — Wheatley

At least we have the myth we tell ourselves that no one is above the law. I know, I know, that's a lie. But having the myth lets us run around talking shit. And our women aren't our women. And they can show more skin.

Saudi Arabia. — Wheatley

I've never been there. But I will say, fuck a monarchy.

My country is only partially the state: a small part in my heart, but huge in it's footprint on my back. My country is only partially the people: a small part in my heart, but huge in it's footprint on my back. My country is largely the land. The land is a huge part in my heart. It's welcome footprint on my back is getting smaller all the time. When I sing "God Bless America" I'm thinking of the dirt where I was born. The grass. The bison. The hawk.

I've left before and I might leave again. But I'm not going anywhere for ever. This is my land.

I wish I had optimism, but I do agree we can change rapidly. Change is a real boogey man for those who fancy themselves "risk-taking, bootstrapping, individualist, entrepreneurs." They won't invest without guarantees from big government. That's why they need to be ignored and put on the back shelf to sooth each other's egos, confirm their biases, and dab each other's tears. Meanwhile, government and the real risk-takers, with spine and balls, just invent the car and let the cowards moan over their stock-pile of buggy whips.

In other words, ignore the apocalyptic whining from those with vested interests. Kick them to the unemployment line and go boldly into the future. We'd be surprised at how fast the economy will adjust and we move on. But that takes a leader. Like Gretta Thunberg, Bernie Sanders, AOC and their counterparts around the world. Nobody wants to follow girls, women and old Jewish socialists. People like the comfort of good honest salt-of-the-earth, hard working men-of-the-people white men like Joe Mansion and Mitch McConnel. After all, they are looking out for our best interests. Carry on, people.

A good summary, as far as I'm concerned (and worried about):

I chose "very unlikely." Based solely on my observations of homo sapiens.

Just remember not to take part in any executions without regard for due process of law. They tend to take place uring revolutions an awful lot. ;) — Tobias

I know, right? Revolutions and insurrections and insurgencies.

You are correct. — Bartricks

It's a habit of mine.

Again, you excrete knowledge on me. — Bartricks

oo, yes, I see now. Truly i am blessed to be receiving such treasures from your insight bowels, and for free. — Bartricks

You are welcome, my son.

If you want a bike and don't have one but I do, are you entitled to take mine? — Bartricks

It depends. If you are an anti-taxer, then yes. If you contribute to society and pay your fair share of taxes, no.

I am learning good. — Bartricks

Not so good. You didn't answer the question; not even with another question.

Tell me, Peu, can you steal something off no one? — Bartricks

Well, my little Padawan, who is no one? I have to know who no one is before can tell you whether or not I can steal from it/hem.

Did you? — Bartricks

Yes. I just did something that you said could not be done.

Anyway, enough of the bar tricks. I'm teaching you a lesson here. You start with your turnup hermit on an island. But in order to do that, you must distinguish her from the environment she exploits. Somehow she gets a pass and we don't delve into how she came into possession of what she has. That's okay, but you must understand that that is us, humanity, collectively, agreeing that the the slate is cleaned and starts with her; conveniently forgetting that which came before, and which she took into her possession. With might. That process is, at it's very core, *might*. And by that process I'm not merely talking about what she did. I'm talking about our collective agreement to wipe the slate and start with her. It's might's open conspiracy.

Why do we start where you say we start? How convenient. That's how society works. Criminals steal shit until such time as they can "go legit." After that, they are good-to-go. They have so much they can buy politicians and exempt themselves from taxation. They can even circulate myths about themselves so that saps will join in their chorus of anti-taxation and dream about islands where they can just be left alone. Until Epstein and his ilk decide they want the island. So they "buy" it with their ill-gotten gains. And they demand the state defend them against other states that would take the island from them. But they don't pay for that defense.

You can't answer a question with a question. — Bartricks

But I just did. So you must be wrong again.

Er, so you think you are entitled to steal the hermit's turnips. Okaaay. — Bartricks

The hermit is stealing from whatever would have been there before she trashed the land. Terns? Gulls? Isn't it the way of the world? Did she pay fair market value to them before ousting them? And if they don't count, why? Because a law says so? Or might?

Er, so you think she gets to suck off the society that defends her without kicking in? Okaaay.

Sounds like your typical anti-tax welfare queen.

Now, once more, do we both agree that you have no right to take the hermit's turnips? — Bartricks

P.S. On further thought, which sovereign claims the territorial waters and the island? They will, quite rightly, have the right to tax her to defend her from me, or from another sovereign who might take all the turnups, enslave and rape her. And if she refuses to pay her taxes for the defense she benefits from, the sovereign can foreclose and sell the island and the turnups to someone who is more civically oriented.

Race baiting still works. That's why it's perennial. — frank

:100:

Now, once more, do we both agree that you have no right to take the hermit's turnips? — Bartricks

Might makes right, so I have the right if I can do it. That's what the anti-tax people taught me.

So just to be clear, you agree that you have no right to take the hermit's turnips, yes? — Bartricks

So just to be clear, you agree that the victims of theft have a right to recover their property, yes?

And before I answer, are you a hermit who does not stand on the bones of any who have gone before? Who does not benefit from community?

Yes, that which has been stolen should be returned, other things being equal. Why do you ask? — Bartricks

Go take a history course. Talk to all those who have had their land stolen, or their labor stolen. You benefit from it. Are you prepared to give it back?

Also, look up the law of compounding and note that it not only works up, but it works down, too.

If I steal your money, it's still your money. If I invest that money and earn interest, the money and the interest is still yours. Not only that, but your lost opportunity should also be recovered. After all, you could have invested that money into something that grew it even more, like your kids education.

I don't think you have a problem with all that. But what if I do all that, give it to my son, and then I die? He didn't steal it. So is it his now? I don't think you would think so. What if he gives it to his son, and it goes on down the line, growing and growing, while you get poorer and you kids get poorer? Compounding up (me and my kids), and compounding down (you and your kids).

Guess when we stop and wipe the slate clean and start over, so that sons don't suffer for the sins of their fathers? We stop when it gets to you. How convenient. You get to keep your ill-gotten gains and then whine like a little bitch when the victims (other their heirs) come calling.

It's awesome that nobody mentions that Sanders is a Jew. If he'd been the Democratic candidate, we would have heard about that over and over. It would have been so disgusting. — frank

Baby steps. Democrats played hell getting a Roman Catholic in, over the kicking and screaming of the WASP Plutocracy.

I am anti might!! — Bartricks

Should that which was stolen be returned? Define "theft." Does that definition have something to do with law? If it's legal, is it theft. If those who were stolen from take it back, is that theft?

What happened before the emergence of our universe from a singularity? — GraveItty

:100: Yeah, whenever someone says the universe is 14b years old, I immediately want to know what happened 1t years ago. Then they say there was no time so there could be no 1t years ago. To me, that means God is not separate from that which God created; rather, God is that which God created. God is creation. God is All. In order for All to be All it must account for (I hate the word "include") the absence of itself.

I'm no bible thumper but when it says something like "I am the alpha and the omega, I am the beginning and the end" it's not wrong.

So you meant 'time' and elected to use the word 'something'to express that? A word that doesn't mean 'time'and is considerably longer. Clever. — Bartricks

So, you don't know what you were talking about? Not too clever. Either that, or time is nothing. So you were talking about nothing? Why didn't you say so?

Good job too in addressing nothing argued in the OP. — Bartricks

Oops! You just stepped on your dick again. So you are saying that when I said something I was addressing nothing? Get your shit together, son. Time is either something or nothing. First your don't know what your talking about, then you claim I'm not talking about something, then you claim I"m talking about nothing. Which is it? I thought you were talking about time. Is time something, or nothing, or neither?

That's how philosophy works. You say something and it's true. No need for arguments. — Bartricks

Wait, now you say I said something? I thought you just said I said nothing? WTF? You need to go back to school. Only this time, pay attention.

I am anti tax. Why should I have to pay for your education or healthcare or, you know, any of your costs whatsoever? — Bartricks

You just answered your own question. You said "I am anti tax." That's why.

But you have no right — Bartricks

Might makes right. Right? I mean, money is might. If I buy the politicians and hence the laws, then I can get a free ride on the people's back and not pay my fair share for all the shit I use that allowed me to accumulate the wealth. Ergo, if we organize to steel from you, it's all good. We don't want to steel from the poor, DOH! They don't have any money any more. The poor want to steel their money back from those who stole it from them. What? You didn't actually think they earned their 1%, did you? LOL!

That'd be outrageous behaviour, as you too would recognize if I did it to you. — Bartricks

Uh, that's what people are proposing to do: Organize, because your ilk has been doing it to us.

And nothing changes if you steal from me to give to a third party. — Bartricks

Sure it does. It changes who is getting stolen from. From the third party to you. Hopefully we can someday ask you "How does it feel?"

So you are not entitled to anything from me, at least not in any force-liscensing way. And so the state is not entitled to steal from me to give to you either. — Bartricks

Sure we are. And the state is entitled to steel from me to give to you because it's doing it now. Might. You you know. You anti-taxers have been doing it for half a century. That's why we need to go after you, and not someone who's willing to contribute to their community. The community decides. Or you could pack your trash and go to some shit hole like Somalia.

See? You said 'something' not 'time'. — Bartricks

What is the subject of this thread? Time? DOH! That is the "something" we are talking about. I did not say "anything". I said "something" in the context of what we are talking about.

So you - you - imputed to me the absurd view that if one has created something, one is subject to it, a view found nowhere in anything I have written. — Bartricks

I don't need to impute an absurd view to you. You have embraced it outright. You have carved time out as something special, something different from everything else. I just pointed out that you are wrong, that's all.

I said that if one has created time then one is subject to it (and if one has not one is subject to it). — Bartricks

Yes, you did. I never said you didn't. I just said you were wrong.

If time exists, God would be subject to it. Ok? — Bartricks

No, not okay. It's God, after all. God isn't subject to time.

But time is what we're talking about here, — Bartricks

Glad we got that cleared up.

time is something that God would be subject to if God and time exist. — Bartricks

No. If God were to be subject to time (or something or anything else; but forget that, because it apparently distracts you) simply because God created it, then God would not be God. Which, of course, in my A = A and A = -A analysis is true, but we aren't talking about that. We are talking about:

God is all powerful by definition. — Bartricks

I didn't say that if one creates anything one is then subject to it. I said that if one creates time then one is subject to it. And then I said it again. — Bartricks

Yes you did and yes you did. Whereas I did NOT say "anything." You imputed that to me. You and I were both talking about time. So forget "anything" and focus on what you said about time. You said what I said you said. Now if you want to move past that, we can continue. Otherwise, we aren't going anywhere.

There are some things that, if they exist, an omnipotent person would have created else not qualify as omnipotent. And there are a whole load of things that are not like that. — Bartricks

I have no disagreement with that. But we are NOT talking about any of those things. We are talking about time. You believe that, having created it, God is subject to it. I disagree. God is not subject to it. If God were subject to time, God would not be God.

Just because God created something that exists does not mean God is subject to it. — James Riley

I didn't say it did. — Bartricks

Yes you did. And you did it again when you said:

If time exists, then we are all subject to it, God included. — Bartricks

I'm merely saying God is not subject to time unless God wants to be. If God was subject to it, that would violate your initial proposition that I agree with:

God is all powerful by definition. — Bartricks

God doesn't even have to be subject to Gods will. God is All. All, by definition, accounts for the absence of itself. If it did not, then it would not be All.

Stupid people are not really a problem. The problem is the smart people who use stupid people against other smart people. Wise people will not use people; stupid or otherwise. I'm against smart people who use stupid people against other smart people.

God is all powerful by definition. From this we can conclude that God created time. Why? Because if time exists, then one is subject to it. And so if God did not create time, then God would be subject to something he did not create, which is incompatible with being omnipotent. So, given that God would be subject to time if time exists, something which would be incompatible with his omnipotence were he not to have himself created time, God created time. — Bartricks

[[i]emphasis added[/i]]

Just because God created something that exists does not mean God is subject to it.

Anyway, I refer to God as All, or A, but I'm fine with using God. I think that God is capable of being a singularity and heat death at the same "time", and every place in between and then some. It's my understanding there is no time in a singularity. I would think there would be no time at heat death, either, especially if each particle could not influence any other particle, either with gravity or heat, then it might as well "pop" out of existence. Regardless, where God can be both, then God can be with time and without time and whatever else we can't comprehend.

Time is for those who are subject to it. Or Gods who want to be. Or Gods who simply want to watch.

That would ruin the fun. — StreetlightX

Oh, I get it. You're a fucking troll. Same difference. Trump is a troll too. That's what half his minions like about him. Oh well, you outed yourself even if you were trying not to. DOH! Fucking moron. Bye!

P.S. Look at the thread title. Can't spell liberal and can't spell Trump. Illiterate to boot.