Discussion on Morals

[Darth Flatus]

Class system in britain?

The only people called lords and ladies that count sit in a chamber with red leather seats. The name is titular and does not imply any dominance over other ppl.

 

There are no more classes other than thos that are determined by affluence or lack thereof.

[Darth Sirius]

The only people called lords and ladies that count sit in a chamber with red leather seats.

'Lady' Victoria Hervey?

[Darth Flatus]

oh but thats cos she's related to a royal or something and the operative words were that count

[Darth Sirius]

oh but thats cos she's related to a royal or something and the operative words were that count

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the difference is? The 'operative words' of my statement IMO was:

people with money (I'm not talking about power) are called 'lady' blah blah

Now the sisters Hervey, no matter what they may think they are, couldn't torture a lady out of me, because simply put......THEY AREN'T!

 

Now if they were.......I ALWAYS give respect, IF it is due, by whatever means they achieve it is up to them, but NEVER when it isn't.

[metadigital]

Class system in britain?

The only people called lords and ladies that count sit in a chamber with red leather seats. The name is titular and does not imply any dominance over other ppl.

 

There are no more classes other than thos that are determined by affluence or lack thereof.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With respect, if you don't think there is a class system alive and well in the UK, then you aren't looking hard enough.

 

Everyone is pigeon-holed, principally by their accent, and subsequently possibly according to their abilities.

 

Meritocracy is a long way off yet.

[WITHTEETH]

Filibuster

1. politics political delaying tactic: a tactic such as a long irrelevant speech or several such speeches used to delay or prevent the passage of legislation

 

Should filibusters be allowed? I personally find it disgusting and embarressing as a human how part of the US Gov. says "jesus wouldn't filibuster" Yea, name the poor guy who can't defend himself. Jesus doesn't even have a chance to defend himself. also God Vs. filibuster, these radical christians repbilicans are something else, like they never filibustered. this is greatly disturbing to me. there was suppose to be a speration of church and state.

 

so the question remains, is it wrong for one party to filibuster for what it beleives, why or why not.

 

Here is the article.

BBC News: US Filibuster

[Cantousent]

It doesn't matter whether a man is dead or not.  Once his income is taxed, it should safe from further taxation.  The death tax is simply a punitive tax waged on folks for no other reason than they have made and saved enough wealth to leave to their children.

 

The death tax doesn't tax corpses.  It taxes the children of corpses.

 

Frankly, I don't care if folks leave everything to the family cat, the wealth should not be taxed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This gets into how all men are not born equal. their either born rich or poor. or middle class, which bush seems to destroy - my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't care about the descendant, the original owner's money should not be taxed twice. Should the son, daughter, or cat decide to purchase goods, hire a maid, or otherwise use the money, it will be taxed again. Income should not be taxed as a way to punish the wealthy. The wealthy should not be punished. Rather, they should be required to invest more in society since they have a greater stake in it. That's already the case in the United States, where rich pay the lion's share of taxes at any rate. Why tax them at a higher rate and then tax them again upon their death?

[Cantousent]

Yes the corspe will not be taxed but the income the kids get from the estate will get taxed. All money has been taxed at one time. If I give somebody 10,000+ gift the person who receives it gets taxed for it.

 

It's ridiculous. Folks now give gifts at $10,000 from the wife and the husband each year to avoid having to pay taxes simply because the government can't control it's overactive desire to spend. The government should not tax estates upon a citizen's death. It's neither right nor just.

 

 

How come people for abortion because all life if percise also for the death penealty?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am quite against both abortion and the death penalty. Why? I think the death penalty is capricious and random. Justice should be neither.

[cewekeds]

Lets say I win the lotto should that money be taxs or a house, car, etc...? I could careless about the death tax we're at war that cost money.

 

You filibuster 10 people out of 200 people and the democrates are anti-Bush. It couldn't be that the 10 people that are getting filibuster got turned down last time they went through the senate. During the 90's the republicans didn't need to filibuster because they controlled congress and the senate. They controlled what got voted on.

 

"jesus wouldn't filibuster"

I suspect there are many things he wouldn't do.

1. think it ok to order other people to kill for the greater good.

2. Refuse to give helping hand to people in need.

3. Be againest national heathcare.

4. Cut his hair.

5. Destroy earth just to support a handful of countries.

6. Eat until he became fat while so many people strave.

7. Take dirty money from people to to look the other way.

8. Treat the poor like a burden.

 

If you don't like how the goverment is ran go vote or run and get in office.

[Nartwak]

Straving sucks.

[Cantousent]

Of course the lottery should be taxed. It's income. For the record, I thought lottery monies were taxed. The reason the government gives a tax break for purchasing certain items, such as a house, is simple... it's good for the economy for folks to make these purchases.

 

We are in a war. Does that mean we should have a draft? Does that mean we should ration sugar, gasoline, or other such vital materials? The death/estate/"walthy punishment" tax is both bad policy and wrong.

[cewekeds]

Of course the lottery should be taxed.  It's income.  For the record, I thought lottery monies were taxed.  The reason the government gives a tax break for purchasing certain items, such as a house, is simple... it's good for the economy for folks to make these purchases.

 

We are in a war.  Does that mean we should have a draft?  Does that mean we should ration sugar, gasoline, or other such vital materials?  The death/estate/"walthy punishment" tax is both bad policy and wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes we should have a draft because its obvious that we cannot keep are numbers up in the military to do the things that must be done. Since most Americans supported the war its time to put up and stop crying to other countries who didn't support the war to send troops. Yes we should ration gasoline because it supports the very people that want us dead. We supporting are enemies doesn't make sense to me. I understand we need gas to run the country but we don't need waste it for no reason.

 

I still think Kids that make a income from their family death should be taxed for the income they inherited(like money won) unless your under 18 years old.

[WITHTEETH]

Wow, you're twisted.

Your perfect for the army. "

[cewekeds]

I think I'm a realise and yes I already served in the USMC because I love my country even with its faults.

[Cantousent]

I served in the USN because I love my country even with its faults. I'm deeply offended that someone told a jarhead that he was perfect for the Army. Army pukes!

 

...But, Marine service and love of country notwithstanding, you're still wrong. :D

[metadigital]

The Abortion debate has covered many points, but not one of the main issues: gneder politics.

 

I beleive that the US is now making great progress in its efforts to bring fathers that abandon their children to justice.

 

The biggest problem with the world is that males (they aren't men, by my definition) have felt free to copulate without compunction. Men aren't the ones left carrying the baby.

 

Women don't have equal access to top careers, equal pay for equal work and childcare is only now becoming a topical issue because men haven't had to concern themselves with a career and raising children. No wonder so many children from lower economic demographics are not wanted: these people have enough trouble earning money to feed themselves without the added expense of extra mouths to feed. Think how difficult it is if you are a single mother, with poor work experience (qualifications notwithstanding) and the responsibility of another life to manage.

 

I think it has been said eloquently before in this thread, but just to re-iterate: an abortion is rarely taken lightly by the prospective mother. It is the hardest decision they will ever have to make in their life.

[cewekeds]

I served in the USN because I love my country even with its faults.  I'm deeply offended that someone told a jarhead that he was perfect for the Army.  Army pukes! 

 

...But, Marine service and love of country notwithstanding, you're still wrong.  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would be perfect and then some for the army thats why I was a marine.

 

The great thing is where both right or wrong.

[WITHTEETH]

We are in a war.  Does that mean we should have a draft?  Does that mean we should ration sugar, gasoline, or other such vital materials?  The death/estate/"walthy punishment" tax is both bad policy and wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes we should have a draft because its obvious that we cannot keep are numbers up in the military to do the things that must be done. Since most Americans supported the war its time to put up and stop crying to other countries who didn't support the war to send troops. Yes we should ration gasoline because it supports the very people that want us dead. We supporting are enemies doesn't make sense to me. I understand we need gas to run the country but we don't need waste it for no reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The only way ill fight is if I, or A loved one are endangered. and for some corprate theological military oligarchy to start a draft because of their own intrests is not good enough reason for me to get involved. I'm not on a crusade.

[cewekeds]

The thing with the Iraq war nobody willing to sacirface for something they claimed needed to be done. However I believe in keeping my word and I would hope the U.S. people would be willing to keep there word. I knew once we started in iraq it would be tough fight that we could pull out until country can support it self. Right now the people need protection and have yet built a police force or army able to do that. I probably wouldn't think this way if the elecation went different way. However it came down to if you didn't support the war efforts you fail to get into office so to me that means the country for the most part still believe in the Iraq war so therefore we still have to fight. Since marines and army recruitment numbers are way down we have to do something. Do I want draft no but we made our bed now we have to lay in it.

[metadigital]

The only way ill fight is if I, or A loved one are endangered.  and for some corprate theological military oligarchy to start a draft because of their own intrests is not good enough reason for me to get involved.  I'm not on a crusade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, I wonder how you would keep the fires of industry burning, if not with oil? I'm not condoning the Second Gulf War in Iraq, mind, but there is a definite imperative for a nation to protect its industrial base, and the US moreso than most (as it has poor oil production and reserves and is highly reliant on the stuff). And the US economy is keeping the rest of the global economy, at the moment (although the Chinese are out to change this soon). In a perfect world the US government would break the oil cartel (using the Sherman Antitrust Act, as before, on the Standard Oil Trust, in 1911) and force the resultant companies to invest in renewable energies.

 

It is expected, for example, that the Water Wars will begin in the next twenty years or so in North Africa / Middle East. All it would take is for Ethiopia to damn the Blue Nile in their country, simply to allow them to better feed their own people, and Egypt has already stated it will invade ... work out the morality of that conflict!

[Cantousent]

The Iraq war is clearly a moral question. It's a matter of what is necessary, what is right, and what is politically expedient. I have my own views of the Iraq war, but I'll keep those to myself for the time being. Sometimes it's good to sit back and see what other folks have to say.

[metadigital]

The Iraq war is clearly a moral question.  It's a matter of what is necessary, what is right, and what is politically expedient.  I have my own views of the Iraq war, but I'll keep those to myself for the time being.  Sometimes it's good to sit back and see what other folks have to say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

History teaches me that "politically expedient" tends to equate to longevity in the international scene; for example Rhodes practically raped the African continent, and yet we barely recognise that nowadays.

 

The end justifies the means in geopolitics, probably because there is no authoritative global government (and, as we all know from committees, group responsibility equates to no responsiblity).

 

I wish it were different. I wonder what would happen if the global famine were halted and trade were free? I wonder what the rich nations would do? Where does an economic war end and traditional gun battles begin? The future will also see a further divide, between the knowledge-haves and have-nots. Information is power, so there is another hegemony in its infancy.

[WITHTEETH]

I did not understand your last sentence Metadigital

 

"The future will also see a further divide, between the knowledge-haves and have-nots. Information is power, so there is another hegemony in its infancy." - Metadigital

 

EDIT: im guessing you mean since we live in the information age this generation is the new hegemony.

[213374U]

The future will also see a further divide, between the knowledge-haves and have-nots. Information is power, so there is another hegemony in its infancy.

That is something I hear rather often. While information is indeed power, it is not power in or by itself. Ultimately, it is economic strength that dictates the rise and fall of powers, as it has been through History. I don't see that changing with the advent of the era of the information the same way it didn't change when we discovered how to split the atom. After all, it wasn't a nuclear war that ended the USSR. It was clever economics.

[metadigital]

"The future will also see a further divide, between the knowledge-haves and have-nots. Information is power, so there is another hegemony in its infancy." - Metadigital

 

EDIT: im guessing you mean since we live in the information age this generation is the new hegemony.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I was referring to the power of information, just like the power of gunpoweder, or the British Navy, or oil.

The future will also see a further divide, between the knowledge-haves and have-nots. Information is power, so there is another hegemony in its infancy.

That is something I hear rather often. While information is indeed power, it is not power in or by itself. Ultimately, it is economic strength that dictates the rise and fall of powers, as it has been through History. I don't see that changing with the advent of the era of the information the same way it didn't change when we discovered how to split the atom. After all, it wasn't a nuclear war that ended the USSR. It was clever economics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, but information is another weapon in the arsenal.

 

(Clever economics? Hmm, it's a bit early to say whether Mr Regan was lucky, made his own luck by being utterly unflinching in his Supply-side Economics, or truly brilliant. Still, it worked, so the debate about whether he knew what he was doing is moot.)