On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:34:18 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530151638.278d3c2446462a5bc78ce7ca@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:29:31 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530094917.e21da935d677cd85ce403381@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:02:40 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:29 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America
voted Thursday to end its controversial policy
banning gay kids and teens from joining one of
the nation's most popular youth organizations,
ditching membership guidelines that had roiled
the group in recent years. Over 61 percent of
Scouting's National Council of 1,400 delegates
from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes
votes, to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the
Boy Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what
you have between your legs? Or was it because of
what you don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls
trying to get into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on
around you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as
you're not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded
on discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the
psychological health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on
discriminatory ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Careful: this is a very wide and woolly definition indeed!
In Europe, this rationale can and indeed is being used to
fight anything that smacks of "elitism", including schools
and universities that try to be centres of educational and
scholastic excellence. Ditto organisaitons and institutions
that practise positive discrimination, say for women or
minorities: these, too, would fall under that
categorisation.

Indeed.
People who dive into such waters often fail to think ahead of
the unintended consequences of their beliefs and actions.

A little bit of Marxism can cure that "elitism" problem (as long
as the populace is willing to make an exception for the ruling
class).

Too bad you didn't study enough history to learn how that nonsense
usually turns out..
(Hint: Not well)

I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your assumption
that I "didn't study enough history" lacks credible justification.


Is "a little Marxism" like being "a littel bit pregnant" ?

No.

History also shows that "a little marxism" also has a tendency to
grow bigger over time.

How it grows depends primarily on the leadership. If they desire a
greater amount of control, then oppression will be retrofitted into the
social evolution. If they are more loyal to their followers, then the
social evolution will head in a very different direction.

Compared to alternatives like capitalist democracies, communism tends
to scale really well with larger populaces. Democracy, on the other
hand, tends to be less effective as the size of the populace grows. It
doesn't mean that one is better than the other, rather that the
ideologies are just better-suited to certain environments.

In addition to that, your concession that history isn't a reliable
guide, as implied by your use of the word "usually," has been
accepted.

Made no such concession
That is PURELY of figment of your fantasy
Nothing to do with reality
Now go look up the meaning of "usually" you dummy.

The word "usually," unlike "always," is not an absolute, so you weren't
specific enough to exclude your implication from being a concession,
even if that was only a partial concession.

Your inclusion of a fallacious ad hominem attack further reduces the
apparent credibility of your otherwise-reasonable response.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"I don't believe that God exists because I have not seen any evidence
ever provided for the existence of such, just like I don't believe that
my right arm could spontaneously turn into a frog."
-- Daniel San (February 18, 2012)

On Fri, 31 May 2013 00:07:03 +0100
"Alex W." wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:01:10 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower
Interstate Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

Just look at another military funded project that is in common
PUBLIC use today
The Internet

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to
the moon"


What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of
such projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Got another one: the Hoover Dam. The construction cost at
the time was less than $50 million (around $800 million in
today's tax dollars). Benefits, however, are HUGE: from
providing water to 8 million people and irrigating a million
acres of farmland to an electricity-generating capacity in
excess of 2,000MW and creating commercial opportunities
(tourism and leisure activities).


Indeed
There are projects which when allied with a bit of vision, which is
far too rare in government, and the ability to finance over the
long term with no need for immediate profit, that are perfect for
government projects The opposite is government entities who are
blackmailed to build sports stadium which mostly only really
benefit the sports franchise

Might make for an interesting cost-benefit analysis. A
sports stadium will encourage economic activity (think
increased tourism, travel and hospitality, or the influx of
a bunch of high-earning high-spending players) but whether
this is enough to outweigh the investment of several hundred
million is another issue.

That's interesting.

We need to spend more time going to the Moon or Mars, than we do
building sports stadiums for business entities.

... or funding the Olympic boondoggle every four years....

Olympics are an example of wasting tax revenues on a giant party. The
event should be privately funded, and have to apply for and conform to
permits like many other major events.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"And I will continue to love [these kittens] until they become cats."
-- Stephen Colbert (February 21, 2012)

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:34:18 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530151638.278d3c2446462a5bc78ce7ca@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:29:31 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530094917.e21da935d677cd85ce403381@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:02:40 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:29 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America
voted Thursday to end its controversial policy
banning gay kids and teens from joining one of
the nation's most popular youth organizations,
ditching membership guidelines that had roiled
the group in recent years. Over 61 percent of
Scouting's National Council of 1,400 delegates
from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes
votes, to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the
Boy Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what
you have between your legs? Or was it because of
what you don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls
trying to get into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on
around you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as
you're not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded
on discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the
psychological health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on
discriminatory ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Careful: this is a very wide and woolly definition indeed!
In Europe, this rationale can and indeed is being used to
fight anything that smacks of "elitism", including schools
and universities that try to be centres of educational and
scholastic excellence. Ditto organisaitons and institutions
that practise positive discrimination, say for women or
minorities: these, too, would fall under that
categorisation.

Indeed.
People who dive into such waters often fail to think ahead of
the unintended consequences of their beliefs and actions.

A little bit of Marxism can cure that "elitism" problem (as long
as the populace is willing to make an exception for the ruling
class).

Too bad you didn't study enough history to learn how that nonsense
usually turns out..
(Hint: Not well)

I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your assumption
that I "didn't study enough history" lacks credible justification.


Is "a little Marxism" like being "a littel bit pregnant" ?

No.

History also shows that "a little marxism" also has a tendency to
grow bigger over time.

How it grows depends primarily on the leadership. If they desire a
greater amount of control, then oppression will be retrofitted into
the social evolution. If they are more loyal to their followers,
then the social evolution will head in a very different direction.

Compared to alternatives like capitalist democracies, communism tends
to scale really well with larger populaces. Democracy, on the other
hand, tends to be less effective as the size of the populace grows.
It doesn't mean that one is better than the other, rather that the
ideologies are just better-suited to certain environments.

In addition to that, your concession that history isn't a reliable
guide, as implied by your use of the word "usually," has been
accepted.

Made no such concession
That is PURELY of figment of your fantasy
Nothing to do with reality
Now go look up the meaning of "usually" you dummy.

The word "usually," unlike "always," is not an absolute, so you
weren't specific enough to exclude your implication from being a
concession, even if that was only a partial concession.

Your inclusion of a fallacious ad hominem attack further reduces the
apparent credibility of your otherwise-reasonable response.

i'm a credibiltheist i don't belive in reasonble responses

In article 20130530211216.62301797baf369cdf79fd3c8@fidemturb are.com,
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 00:07:03 +0100
"Alex W." wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:01:10 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower
Interstate Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

Just look at another military funded project that is in common
PUBLIC use today
The Internet

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to
the moon"


What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of
such projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Got another one: the Hoover Dam. The construction cost at
the time was less than $50 million (around $800 million in
today's tax dollars). Benefits, however, are HUGE: from
providing water to 8 million people and irrigating a million
acres of farmland to an electricity-generating capacity in
excess of 2,000MW and creating commercial opportunities
(tourism and leisure activities).


Indeed
There are projects which when allied with a bit of vision, which is
far too rare in government, and the ability to finance over the
long term with no need for immediate profit, that are perfect for
government projects The opposite is government entities who are
blackmailed to build sports stadium which mostly only really
benefit the sports franchise

Might make for an interesting cost-benefit analysis. A
sports stadium will encourage economic activity (think
increased tourism, travel and hospitality, or the influx of
a bunch of high-earning high-spending players) but whether
this is enough to outweigh the investment of several hundred
million is another issue.

That's interesting.

We need to spend more time going to the Moon or Mars, than we do
building sports stadiums for business entities.

... or funding the Olympic boondoggle every four years....

Olympics are an example of wasting tax revenues on a giant party. The
event should be privately funded, and have to apply for and conform to
permits like many other major events.

I still take pride in how LA ran the 1984 Olympics. Ran it brilliantly,
convinced the people of the city to vary their working hours to relieve
traffic jams, AND ran a profit.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

Welp! I reckon it's time for me to chime in on this.....

{{{{{{BONG!!!}}}}}}

{{{{{{BONG!!!}}}}}}

{{{{{{BONG!!!}}}}}}

{{{{{{BONG!!!}}}}}}

Thank you. Thank you very much.

What note does a piano make, when it lands at the bottom of a mine shaft?
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Guv Bob" wrote in message news Welp! I reckon it's time for me to chime in on this.....

{{{{{{BONG!!!}}}}}}

{{{{{{BONG!!!}}}}}}

{{{{{{BONG!!!}}}}}}

{{{{{{BONG!!!}}}}}}

Thank you. Thank you very much.

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530210207.2e2ce1f09f91fd87b05e8ef2@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:34:18 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530151638.278d3c2446462a5bc78ce7ca@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:29:31 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530094917.e21da935d677cd85ce403381@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:02:40 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:29 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America
voted Thursday to end its controversial policy
banning gay kids and teens from joining one of
the nation's most popular youth organizations,
ditching membership guidelines that had roiled
the group in recent years. Over 61 percent of
Scouting's National Council of 1,400 delegates
from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes
votes, to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the
Boy Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what
you have between your legs? Or was it because of
what you don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls
trying to get into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on
around you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as
you're not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded
on discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the
psychological health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on
discriminatory ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Careful: this is a very wide and woolly definition indeed!
In Europe, this rationale can and indeed is being used to
fight anything that smacks of "elitism", including schools
and universities that try to be centres of educational and
scholastic excellence. Ditto organisaitons and institutions
that practise positive discrimination, say for women or
minorities: these, too, would fall under that
categorisation.

Indeed.
People who dive into such waters often fail to think ahead of
the unintended consequences of their beliefs and actions.

A little bit of Marxism can cure that "elitism" problem (as long
as the populace is willing to make an exception for the ruling
class).

Too bad you didn't study enough history to learn how that nonsense
usually turns out..
(Hint: Not well)

I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your assumption
that I "didn't study enough history" lacks credible justification.


Is "a little Marxism" like being "a littel bit pregnant" ?

No.


Actually, it is
There is no such animal in EITHER case
Both are binary conditions
Either you are pregnant or not
Eitehr you are a marxist or not


History also shows that "a little marxism" also has a tendency to
grow bigger over time.

How it grows depends primarily on the leadership. If they desire a
greater amount of control, then oppression will be retrofitted into the
social evolution. If they are more loyal to their followers, then the
social evolution will head in a very different direction.


Wrong again
Marxists accept the notion that they know better than anyone else what is
good for the "masses", It follows that marxists will try to impose their
beliefs by justifying it that it's for the good of all


Compared to alternatives like capitalist democracies, communism tends
to scale really well with larger populaces.

Line in the Soviet, China, East Germany, Romania
Funny how there was NO DIFFERNCE in the abusive results in ALL of those
cases, COMPLETELY INDEPENDANT of "scaling"..
The ONLY way they "scaled well" was in the degree of abuses of the
population..



Democracy, on the other
hand, tends to be less effective as the size of the populace grows. It
doesn't mean that one is better than the other, rather that the
ideologies are just better-suited to certain environments.


Funny how Democracies have not only scaled better but also have survived
better
Why do youthink that is ?



In addition to that, your concession that history isn't a reliable
guide, as implied by your use of the word "usually," has been
accepted.

Made no such concession
That is PURELY of figment of your fantasy
Nothing to do with reality
Now go look up the meaning of "usually" you dummy.

The word "usually," unlike "always," is not an absolute, so you weren't
specific enough to exclude your implication from being a concession,
even if that was only a partial concession.

Your inclusion of a fallacious ad hominem attack further reduces the
apparent credibility of your otherwise-reasonable response.


Stop pontificating to cover your ass
It just show you're an even bigger ass than you've proven so far.

On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:30:12 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530210207.2e2ce1f09f91fd87b05e8ef2@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:34:18 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:



I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your assumption
that I "didn't study enough history" lacks credible justification.


Is "a little Marxism" like being "a littel bit pregnant" ?

No.


Actually, it is
There is no such animal in EITHER case
Both are binary conditions
Either you are pregnant or not
Eitehr you are a marxist or not

Not quite correct.
Most of the hard-left political parties in Europe have now
accepted that they can only ever achieve their Marxist
paradise through democratic means. This differs markedly
from classical Marxism.

Other groupings use Marxism as the basis for trying to
introduce specific policies -- for instance on the economy
or in labour law -- without pushing for out-and-out Marxism.






History also shows that "a little marxism" also has a tendency to
grow bigger over time.

How it grows depends primarily on the leadership. If they desire a
greater amount of control, then oppression will be retrofitted into the
social evolution. If they are more loyal to their followers, then the
social evolution will head in a very different direction.


Wrong again
Marxists accept the notion that they know better than anyone else what is
good for the "masses", It follows that marxists will try to impose their
beliefs by justifying it that it's for the good of all


OK, but we can say pretty much the same about any ideology,
up to and including capitalism and democracy. How many
countries have we in the West actively meddled with,
sometimes to the point of illegal regime change or outright
invasion, because we are convinced that we know better than
the natives that our ways are correct?


Democracy, on the other
hand, tends to be less effective as the size of the populace grows. It
doesn't mean that one is better than the other, rather that the
ideologies are just better-suited to certain environments.


Funny how Democracies have not only scaled better but also have survived
better
Why do youthink that is ?

Survival isn't a good argument since modern democracies are
barely a century old. In historical terms, we're very much
youngsters.

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530210207.2e2ce1f09f91fd87b05e8ef2@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:34:18 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530151638.278d3c2446462a5bc78ce7ca@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:29:31 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530094917.e21da935d677cd85ce403381@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:02:40 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:29 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America
voted Thursday to end its controversial policy
banning gay kids and teens from joining one of
the nation's most popular youth organizations,
ditching membership guidelines that had roiled
the group in recent years. Over 61 percent of
Scouting's National Council of 1,400 delegates
from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes
votes, to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/184474
59-boy-scouts-vot e-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day,
the Boy Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is
it because you weren't allowed to join because of
what you have between your legs? Or was it because
of what you don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls
trying to get into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on
around you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long
as you're not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are
founded on discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit
to the psychological health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on
discriminatory ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Careful: this is a very wide and woolly definition indeed!
In Europe, this rationale can and indeed is being used to
fight anything that smacks of "elitism", including schools
and universities that try to be centres of educational and
scholastic excellence. Ditto organisaitons and institutions
that practise positive discrimination, say for women or
minorities: these, too, would fall under that
categorisation.

Indeed.
People who dive into such waters often fail to think ahead of
the unintended consequences of their beliefs and actions.

A little bit of Marxism can cure that "elitism" problem (as
long as the populace is willing to make an exception for the
ruling class).

Too bad you didn't study enough history to learn how that
nonsense usually turns out..
(Hint: Not well)

I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your assumption
that I "didn't study enough history" lacks credible
justification.


Is "a little Marxism" like being "a littel bit pregnant" ?

No.


Actually, it is
There is no such animal in EITHER case
Both are binary conditions
Either you are pregnant or not
Eitehr you are a marxist or not


History also shows that "a little marxism" also has a tendency to
grow bigger over time.

How it grows depends primarily on the leadership. If they desire a
greater amount of control, then oppression will be retrofitted into
the social evolution. If they are more loyal to their followers,
then the social evolution will head in a very different direction.


Wrong again
Marxists accept the notion that they know better than anyone else what
is good for the "masses", It follows that marxists will try to impose
their beliefs by justifying it that it's for the good of all



As opposed to Christians?



"I hope I live to see the day when we won't have any public
schools. The churches will have taken them over again and
Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"
- Jerry Falwell, America Can Be Saved, 1979



"I don't know that atheists should be considered
citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.
This is one nation under God."
George Bush, in Free Inquiry magazine, Fall 1988




"We have a biblical duty, we are called on by
God to conquer this country. We don't want
equal time. We don't want pluralism."
-- Randall Terry, found of Operation Rescue

On Thu, 30 May 2013 21:33:52 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article 20130530211216.62301797baf369cdf79fd3c8@fidemturb are.com,
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 00:07:03 +0100
"Alex W." wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:01:10 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower
Interstate Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

Just look at another military funded project that is in common
PUBLIC use today
The Internet

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to
the moon"


What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of
such projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Got another one: the Hoover Dam. The construction cost at
the time was less than $50 million (around $800 million in
today's tax dollars). Benefits, however, are HUGE: from
providing water to 8 million people and irrigating a million
acres of farmland to an electricity-generating capacity in
excess of 2,000MW and creating commercial opportunities
(tourism and leisure activities).


Indeed
There are projects which when allied with a bit of vision, which is
far too rare in government, and the ability to finance over the
long term with no need for immediate profit, that are perfect for
government projects The opposite is government entities who are
blackmailed to build sports stadium which mostly only really
benefit the sports franchise

Might make for an interesting cost-benefit analysis. A
sports stadium will encourage economic activity (think
increased tourism, travel and hospitality, or the influx of
a bunch of high-earning high-spending players) but whether
this is enough to outweigh the investment of several hundred
million is another issue.

That's interesting.

We need to spend more time going to the Moon or Mars, than we do
building sports stadiums for business entities.

... or funding the Olympic boondoggle every four years....

Olympics are an example of wasting tax revenues on a giant party. The
event should be privately funded, and have to apply for and conform to
permits like many other major events.

I still take pride in how LA ran the 1984 Olympics. Ran it brilliantly,
convinced the people of the city to vary their working hours to relieve
traffic jams, AND ran a profit.

And they did it almost completely with available infrastructure.

On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:46:13 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:39:22 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:04:50 -0500, Dakota
wrote:

On 5/29/2013 9:20 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:18:56 -0500
Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with
transgenders wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's
where I have a problem deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to
decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer
adult leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who
voted 61% in favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose
you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure
groups". Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really dumber
than a stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and
contribute to it while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes are
investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist
in both the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government
spends on such things the private sector cannot spend two. You
really are a dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.

Although it's not implausible for military projects to build or enhance
public areas (such as highways) that also benefit civilians. This, of
course, by no means vilifies the projects since they are paid for with
tax revenues and are of benefit to taxpayers -- it's a win-win.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

They're pushing an anti-government agenda. The fact is that government
employs a lot of competent people who do excellent work. If this
wasn't the case, then the government would fail. Sure, it's slightly
heavier on the paperwork side than most commercial organizations, but
there's an accountability factor there that many commercial entities
don't have to adhere to because they're structured differently.


What's astonishing is that they seem to think that building the
Interstate system or any other infrastructure project doesn't involve
the private sector. The government writes the check but nearly all of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the work is done by the private sector.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You must be on drugs! "You didn't do that."

And the people with businesses that rely on those roads did not do that,
the entire community as expressed in government did.

Yep, you lefties *ARE* on drugs.

On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:23:07 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:39:22 -0400
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:04:50 -0500, Dakota
wrote:
On 5/29/2013 9:20 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:18:56 -0500
Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with
transgenders wanting to be in the boy scouts?
That's where I have a problem deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to
decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer
adult leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who
voted 61% in favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose
you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure
groups". Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really
dumber than a stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and
contribute to it while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes
are investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments
exist in both the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government
spends on such things the private sector cannot spend two. You
really are a dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower
Interstate Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.

Although it's not implausible for military projects to build or
enhance public areas (such as highways) that also benefit
civilians. This, of course, by no means vilifies the projects
since they are paid for with tax revenues and are of benefit to
taxpayers -- it's a win-win.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't.
Most it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a
natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

They're pushing an anti-government agenda. The fact is that
government employs a lot of competent people who do excellent
work. If this wasn't the case, then the government would fail.
Sure, it's slightly heavier on the paperwork side than most
commercial organizations, but there's an accountability factor
there that many commercial entities don't have to adhere to
because they're structured differently.


What's astonishing is that they seem to think that building the
Interstate system or any other infrastructure project doesn't
involve the private sector. The government writes the check but
nearly all of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the work is done by the private sector.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You must be on drugs! "You didn't do that."

Actually, it's called "outsourcing to specialists."

That's exactly what business is doing. Outsourcing to countries who
want the business. ...yet you lefties whine incessantly about that,
too. Though it doesn't matter what happens, you lefties will whine.

On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:47:31 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
wrote:

On May 29, 5:53*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 23:41:52 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last









wrote:
On May 28, 7:53 am, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the non-existent

atheist goddess wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with transgenders
wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's where I have a problem
deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer adult leadership.

;
Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who voted 61% in
favour of it? *Yeah, in that case I suppose you're correct.

;
I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure groups". Idiot.

Really! *Sounds interesting.

Fact.

Also sounds as if you are more aware,
in depth, of the behind-the-scenes political
maneuvering than I have been able to find in the media
reports I've read.

You can't read. *That's no surprise.

So, spill the beans! *Tell us, by name, which pressure
groups were involved, and what was the exact nature of
the pressure they could bring against BSA representatives
(supposedly the embodiment of courage and truth) that
could force them to vote against their own principles?
;
;
Corporate America. *Intel had already dropped all support. *Many
others were threatening because of the threats they had had.

You mean the "treats" corporations got from millions like me
who signed petitions expressing our distaste with
anti-gay bigotry?

That's pressure, moron.

OK.

So, when it came time for Ellie Mae Peacher of
Turner's Holler, Kentucky -- twenty year den mother
and lifelong Baptist -- to cast her vote, she swallowed
hard, tried to shut out the voice of the preacher in her
head, held her nose, and caved in to "Corporate America"?

You really are an idiot.

bull**** snipped unread

On May 31, 10:05*am, wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:47:31 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last









wrote:
On May 29, 5:53 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 23:41:52 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last

wrote:
On May 28, 7:53 am, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the non-existent

atheist goddess wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with transgenders
wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's where I have a problem
deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer adult leadership.

;
Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who voted 61% in
favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose you're correct.

;
I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure groups". Idiot.

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:59:52 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:52:10 -0400
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:51:29 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman"
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so
why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way
NOT having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any
gods until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to make
you believe that gods are real. And of course, young children
are vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that there
must be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe
learning disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it was
explained to you how poorly this reflects on your ability to
debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Apparently at Troll University.

Another lefty liar. No surprise. With all of the religious zealots
in the group, it's to be expected.

Indeed, we do get more than our fair share of religious zealots and
religious right-wing-nuts here in this "alt.atheism" newsgroup. By the
way, your fallacious ad hominem assertion doesn't help your reputation.

Wat makes an arrogant ass like you come to the conclusion that I give
a rat's ass about my reputation among a bunch of religious zealots?

Now, no longer wasting my time.

You're lying again.

I challenge you to prove that accusation.

He's still reading. You lefty morons can't help yourself.

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:44:33 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:54:33 -0400
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 00:39:04 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:06:38 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:47:29 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:18:31 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:48:00 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:33:27 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of
1,400 delegates from across the country voted to lift
the ban, BSA officials said. The final tally was 757
yes votes, to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what you
have between your legs? Or was it because of what you
don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to
get into Boy Scouts? Boy Scouts has a much larger and
stronger organization, with more programs, camps, and
outings.

If girls really were trying to get into the Boy Scouts,

They are.

Can you prove that?

they'd most
likely be Catholic Girls coveting some new "experiences." If
their motives were purely to become Scouts, then your
suggestion seems ludicrous because there's another very
similar organization which is famously known as "Girl Scouts."

A poor imitation. But do pay attention (I know you're stupid,
but try). That's what the thread is about.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

Even after having it explained to you, you're to stupid to get it
and think you have to repeat yourself. What a dumb****!

Your fallacious ad hominem attack, which includes a spelling error,
doesn't help your credibility.

With regard to the Boy Scouts being a "stronger organization,"
that's just a reflection of the behaviour exhibited by those
who feel threatened by homosexuality (even though a person's
private sexual encounters really are none of their business).

Idiot.

Your unsubstantiated ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

See above, dumb****.

Ditto.

Completely irrelevant and wrong (but that's to be expected).

It is relevant because a fear of homosexuality has been a serious
hinderance to the reputation of the Boy Scouts as an organization.

There is no fear, dumb****.

It appears that 39% of the Boy Scouts might be homophobic.

The fear is in your remaining neuron, which is obviously getting
quite lonely.

What part of the concept of "non-existence" is it that's most
troubling for you?

Additionally, I contend that I am correct with regards to a
person's private sexual encounters being a matter that doesn't
concern the Boy Scouts, and I disagree with you that the inverse
is expected.

It never did. Only their public actions.

What public actions? Were they publicly engaging in sexual
intercourse while also representing the Boy Scouts? If not, then it
shouldn't be an issue for the Boy Scouts as an organization.

You really are stupid!

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your argument.

Sadly, our troop leader was a bitch who favored her daughter
and her buddies over the rest of the troop, so I dropped out
as soon as I was allowed.

You learned well.

That's not a matter of learning, rather it's a matter of
exercising judgement based on values of fairness.

Being a bitch? You should know. You're hers.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack confirms that you feel
threatened and angered, most likely because you know that you're
wrong. If you didn't feel intimidated by your error, the need to
respond ad hominem would be non-existent (that last word is
meaningful to me).

Not at all "fallacious" (you must have had mommy look that one up
for you). You really are her bitch, dumb****.

Can you substantiate your claim that I have a mommy and that she
looked up the word "fallacious" for me?

Your use of profanities to express your anger and frustration when
presenting fallacious assertions doesn't help your argument.

Do you feel intimidated when other people exercise judgement
based on values of fairness because it's not consistent with the
various religious delusions that many people suffer from?

Once again you show exactly how self-important you lefty loons are.

I did not claim to be important, and your fallacious ad hominem
attacks don't help your argument.

I bet your only grade is school was "present". What a dumb****.

Your implicit offer to engage in gambling is not accepted because
your fallacious ad hominem attack that follows in the next sentence
fails to add meaningful value to this social intercourse we're
engaging in.

Proving again what an absolute dumb**** you are.

You tried to start a bet, that's gambling, so your proof is refuted.

Showing once again your lack of reading skills. What an arrogant
dummy. Lefties always are.

wrote in :

On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:23:07 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:


Actually, it's called "outsourcing to specialists."

That's exactly what business is doing. Outsourcing to countries who
want the business. ...yet you lefties whine incessantly about that,
too.


And that is wrong?



GOP blocks Democrats' jobs outsourcing bill
Sept 29 2010

Washington (CNN) – Senate Republicans successfully
blocked a bill from coming to the Senate floor Tuesday
that Democrats claim would help keep American jobs from
going overseas. The Democratic bill would have ended
certain tax breaks for companies expanding overseas
while giving new tax incentives to businesses bringing
jobs home.
http://tinyurl.com/2am6blp

On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:33:04 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 00:07:03 +0100, "Alex W." wrote
in alt.atheism:

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:01:10 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:


Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

Just look at another military funded project that is in common PUBLIC use
today
The Internet

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to the
moon"


What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of such
projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Got another one: the Hoover Dam. The construction cost at
the time was less than $50 million (around $800 million in
today's tax dollars). Benefits, however, are HUGE: from
providing water to 8 million people and irrigating a million
acres of farmland to an electricity-generating capacity in
excess of 2,000MW and creating commercial opportunities
(tourism and leisure activities).


Indeed
There are projects which when allied with a bit of vision, which is far too
rare in government, and the ability to finance over the long term with no
need for immediate profit, that are perfect for government projects
The opposite is government entities who are blackmailed to build sports
stadium which mostly only really benefit the sports franchise

Might make for an interesting cost-benefit analysis. A
sports stadium will encourage economic activity (think
increased tourism, travel and hospitality, or the influx of
a bunch of high-earning high-spending players) but whether
this is enough to outweigh the investment of several hundred
million is another issue.

The problem is that something (stadium subsidies that will be hitting a
billion a pop soon) that is foolish in the aggregate may not appear to
be foolish locally and the folks running the teams know that. Rarely is
there a city like Los Angeles (where the NFL needs LA more than LA needs
the NFL). All of the professional team owners in the country (with the
exception of the owners of the Packers) could easily write a check for
an adequate stadium that holds the number of people they want. They
choose instead to demand a much more glorious one. If they pay
something, it will still be less than they would have paid had they had
to pay for it themselves.

Sure, cities want to have major league teams, but if they pay for a
major share of the cost of the business, shouldn't they have a vote on
the team equivalent to their investment?

They should, but I guess they are blinded by the glamour.

I do wonder, though, what the general economic benefits are
of being a "chosen city" of a NFL franchise. After all,
this will instantly give a city lasting nationwide
recognition and attention, something that they usually have
to laboriously build up over years of concerted PR and
advertising.



We need to spend more time going to the Moon or Mars, than we do building
sports stadiums for business entities.

... or funding the Olympic boondoggle every four years....

Many cities have used the funding to build capital infrastructure, eg
subways, improvements that have been badly needed, but others have ended
up with a huge amount of waste at the end.

I vote for holding them at Olympia the way the gods wanted.

Sound idea. Send the Games back to Greece. Fork out the
cash for a one-off construction of facilities, raise
maintenance and improvement funds through sponsorship and
media deals, and let's be done with the merry-go-round.

On Thu, 30 May 2013 21:12:16 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 00:07:03 +0100
"Alex W." wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:01:10 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:



We need to spend more time going to the Moon or Mars, than we do
building sports stadiums for business entities.

... or funding the Olympic boondoggle every four years....

Olympics are an example of wasting tax revenues on a giant party. The
event should be privately funded, and have to apply for and conform to
permits like many other major events.

I see your point, but I find myself in two minds over this.
Call me perverse, but as a viewer I find it immensely
refreshing to watch a sporting event that is not saturated
in advertising, much of it by highly inappropriate firms.
There is already a serious amount of advertising associated
with the Olympic Games, but at least inside the stadiums we
don't have to see athletes competing in kit praising
fast-food franchises, sugary snacks or alcohol.

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Thu, 30 May 2013 21:33:52 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article 20130530211216.62301797baf369cdf79fd3c8@fidemturb are.com,
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 00:07:03 +0100
"Alex W." wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:01:10 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower
Interstate Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

Just look at another military funded project that is in common
PUBLIC use today
The Internet

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to
the moon"


What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of
such projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Got another one: the Hoover Dam. The construction cost at
the time was less than $50 million (around $800 million in
today's tax dollars). Benefits, however, are HUGE: from
providing water to 8 million people and irrigating a million
acres of farmland to an electricity-generating capacity in
excess of 2,000MW and creating commercial opportunities
(tourism and leisure activities).


Indeed
There are projects which when allied with a bit of vision, which is
far too rare in government, and the ability to finance over the
long term with no need for immediate profit, that are perfect for
government projects The opposite is government entities who are
blackmailed to build sports stadium which mostly only really
benefit the sports franchise

Might make for an interesting cost-benefit analysis. A
sports stadium will encourage economic activity (think
increased tourism, travel and hospitality, or the influx of
a bunch of high-earning high-spending players) but whether
this is enough to outweigh the investment of several hundred
million is another issue.

That's interesting.

We need to spend more time going to the Moon or Mars, than we do
building sports stadiums for business entities.

... or funding the Olympic boondoggle every four years....

Olympics are an example of wasting tax revenues on a giant party. The
event should be privately funded, and have to apply for and conform to
permits like many other major events.

I still take pride in how LA ran the 1984 Olympics. Ran it brilliantly,
convinced the people of the city to vary their working hours to relieve
traffic jams, AND ran a profit.

And they did it almost completely with available infrastructure.

Yep. Some of it still there from the 1932 Olympics, which were also a
financial and athletic success.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:30:12 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

wrote in message
news:20130530210207.2e2ce1f09f91fd87b05e8ef2@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:34:18 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:



I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your assumption
that I "didn't study enough history" lacks credible justification.


Is "a little Marxism" like being "a littel bit pregnant" ?

No.


Actually, it is
There is no such animal in EITHER case
Both are binary conditions
Either you are pregnant or not
Eitehr you are a marxist or not

Not quite correct.
Most of the hard-left political parties in Europe have now
accepted that they can only ever achieve their Marxist
paradise through democratic means.


What you really mean to say, is that they are playing the "democratic means"
game until they can have enouhg power to do the rest in standard Marxist
ways
If you believe otherwise your are both naive and gullible.


This differs markedly from classical Marxism.


Actually it doesn't, since Classical marxism is quite open to ANY means to
achieve the end


Other groupings use Marxism as the basis for trying to
introduce specific policies -- for instance on the economy
or in labour law -- without pushing for out-and-out Marxism.


So you admit that the hard-liners have realized that one path will not
succeed, and that having decided to try a different path, they are less
marxist for it, even though the end objective is the same ??

Are you really that naive and gullible ?







History also shows that "a little marxism" also has a tendency to
grow bigger over time.

How it grows depends primarily on the leadership. If they desire a
greater amount of control, then oppression will be retrofitted into the
social evolution. If they are more loyal to their followers, then the
social evolution will head in a very different direction.


Wrong again
Marxists accept the notion that they know better than anyone else what is
good for the "masses", It follows that marxists will try to impose their
beliefs by justifying it that it's for the good of all


OK, but we can say pretty much the same about any ideology,
up to and including capitalism and democracy.

Capitalism is NOT an ideology.
Democracy also not an ideology


How many countries have we in the West actively meddled with,
sometimes to the point of illegal regime change or outright
invasion, because we are convinced that we know better than
the natives that our ways are correct?


Go ahead and answer your rhetorical question
I'm willing to be that I can show you to be wrong on all counts




Democracy, on the other
hand, tends to be less effective as the size of the populace grows. It
doesn't mean that one is better than the other, rather that the
ideologies are just better-suited to certain environments.


Funny how Democracies have not only scaled better but also have survived
better
Why do youthink that is ?

Survival isn't a good argument since modern democracies are
barely a century old. In historical terms, we're very much
youngsters.



When compared to all flavors of Marxist implementations which are ALL
younger than the (modern) democracies you try to disparage, your argument
fails abyssally.for being moot.

The ONLY thing the marxists systems have CONSISTENTLY achieved were a
litanny of horrendous results
1) MASSIVE abuses of civil and human rights
2) MASSIVE democides
3) MASSIVE ecological disasters
The scale is not even comparable when compared to Modern Democracies
Particularly when you consider how occurrences in those democraices were
addressed and resolved

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:56:02 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:30:12 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

wrote in message
news:20130530210207.2e2ce1f09f91fd87b05e8ef2@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:34:18 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:



I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your assumption
that I "didn't study enough history" lacks credible
justification.


Is "a little Marxism" like being "a littel bit pregnant" ?

No.


Actually, it is
There is no such animal in EITHER case
Both are binary conditions
Either you are pregnant or not
Eitehr you are a marxist or not

Not quite correct.
Most of the hard-left political parties in Europe have now
accepted that they can only ever achieve their Marxist
paradise through democratic means.


What you really mean to say, is that they are playing the "democratic
means" game until they can have enouhg power to do the rest in
standard Marxist ways
[snip - bifurcated fallacious ad hominem attack]

That's not how I understood Alex' comment. He merely pointed out how
some Marxist ideals are being achieved in a democratic manner.

This differs markedly from classical Marxism.

Actually it doesn't, since Classical marxism is quite open to ANY
means to achieve the end

That's an interesting point.

Other groupings use Marxism as the basis for trying to
introduce specific policies -- for instance on the economy
or in labour law -- without pushing for out-and-out Marxism.

So you admit that the hard-liners have realized that one path will
not succeed, and that having decided to try a different path, they
are less marxist for it, even though the end objective is the same ??
[snip - fallacious ad hominem attack]

No, rather that Marxist ideals provided [at least] some inspiration or
influence in the development of political policy.

History also shows that "a little marxism" also has a tendency to
grow bigger over time.

How it grows depends primarily on the leadership. If they desire
a greater amount of control, then oppression will be retrofitted
into the social evolution. If they are more loyal to their
followers, then the social evolution will head in a very
different direction.


Wrong again
Marxists accept the notion that they know better than anyone else
what is good for the "masses", It follows that marxists will try
to impose their beliefs by justifying it that it's for the good of
all


OK, but we can say pretty much the same about any ideology,
up to and including capitalism and democracy.

Capitalism is NOT an ideology.
Democracy also not an ideology

Both of these are, in fact, ideologies. Not in the same sense as a
religion is, of course, but they do qualify as ideologies none-the-less.

Ideology: A system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis
of economic or political policy: "the ideology of republicanism."

Source: http://www.google.com/search?q=define+ideology

How many countries have we in the West actively meddled with,
sometimes to the point of illegal regime change or outright
invasion, because we are convinced that we know better than
the natives that our ways are correct?

Go ahead and answer your rhetorical question
I'm willing to be that I can show you to be wrong on all counts

Why wait? Are you not willing to do that now?

Democracy, on the other
hand, tends to be less effective as the size of the populace
grows. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other, rather
that the ideologies are just better-suited to certain
environments.


Funny how Democracies have not only scaled better but also have
survived better
Why do youthink that is ?

Survival isn't a good argument since modern democracies are
barely a century old. In historical terms, we're very much
youngsters.

When compared to all flavors of Marxist implementations which are ALL
younger than the (modern) democracies you try to disparage, your
argument fails abyssally.for being moot.

The ONLY thing the marxists systems have CONSISTENTLY achieved were a
litanny of horrendous results
1) MASSIVE abuses of civil and human rights
2) MASSIVE democides
3) MASSIVE ecological disasters
The scale is not even comparable when compared to Modern Democracies
Particularly when you consider how occurrences in those democraices
were addressed and resolved

Democracy isn't over yet. Like Marxism, it comes with a great measure
of intent, and seeing democracy through to completion will make for a
more even-handed comparison down-the-road. Comparing the results of
one system with the intent of another leans toward being a false
dichotomy fallacy.

The fact that communism scales very effectively to larger populaces
than democracy does should be taken into consideration as well when
comparing these two ideologies.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Son... put down the crack pipe, place your hands over your head, and
back away s-l-o-w-l-y."
-- Harlow Victor Allen Campbell (a.k.a., Mr. HVAC; May 29, 2013, in
response to a serious misunderstanding about lawyers)

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:15:05 -0400
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:44:33 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:54:33 -0400
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 00:39:04 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:06:38 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:47:29 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:18:31 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:48:00 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:33:27 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning
gay kids and teens from joining one of the nation's
most popular youth organizations, ditching
membership guidelines that had roiled the group in
recent years. Over 61 percent of Scouting's
National Council of 1,400 delegates from across the
country voted to lift the ban, BSA officials said.
The final tally was 757 yes votes, to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the
Boy Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what you
have between your legs? Or was it because of what you
don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to
get into Boy Scouts? Boy Scouts has a much larger and
stronger organization, with more programs, camps, and
outings.

If girls really were trying to get into the Boy Scouts,

They are.

Can you prove that?

they'd most
likely be Catholic Girls coveting some new "experiences."
If their motives were purely to become Scouts, then your
suggestion seems ludicrous because there's another very
similar organization which is famously known as "Girl
Scouts."

A poor imitation. But do pay attention (I know you're
stupid, but try). That's what the thread is about.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

Even after having it explained to you, you're to stupid to get
it and think you have to repeat yourself. What a dumb****!

Your fallacious ad hominem attack, which includes a spelling
error, doesn't help your credibility.

With regard to the Boy Scouts being a "stronger
organization," that's just a reflection of the behaviour
exhibited by those who feel threatened by homosexuality
(even though a person's private sexual encounters really
are none of their business).

Idiot.

Your unsubstantiated ad hominem attack doesn't help your
position.

See above, dumb****.

Ditto.

Completely irrelevant and wrong (but that's to be expected).

It is relevant because a fear of homosexuality has been a
serious hinderance to the reputation of the Boy Scouts as an
organization.

There is no fear, dumb****.

It appears that 39% of the Boy Scouts might be homophobic.

The fear is in your remaining neuron, which is obviously getting
quite lonely.

What part of the concept of "non-existence" is it that's most
troubling for you?

Additionally, I contend that I am correct with regards to a
person's private sexual encounters being a matter that doesn't
concern the Boy Scouts, and I disagree with you that the
inverse is expected.

It never did. Only their public actions.

What public actions? Were they publicly engaging in sexual
intercourse while also representing the Boy Scouts? If not, then
it shouldn't be an issue for the Boy Scouts as an organization.

You really are stupid!

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your argument.

Sadly, our troop leader was a bitch who favored her
daughter and her buddies over the rest of the troop, so
I dropped out as soon as I was allowed.

You learned well.

That's not a matter of learning, rather it's a matter of
exercising judgement based on values of fairness.

Being a bitch? You should know. You're hers.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack confirms that you feel
threatened and angered, most likely because you know that
you're wrong. If you didn't feel intimidated by your error,
the need to respond ad hominem would be non-existent (that
last word is meaningful to me).

Not at all "fallacious" (you must have had mommy look that one
up for you). You really are her bitch, dumb****.

Can you substantiate your claim that I have a mommy and that she
looked up the word "fallacious" for me?

Your use of profanities to express your anger and frustration when
presenting fallacious assertions doesn't help your argument.

Do you feel intimidated when other people exercise judgement
based on values of fairness because it's not consistent with
the various religious delusions that many people suffer from?

Once again you show exactly how self-important you lefty loons
are.

I did not claim to be important, and your fallacious ad hominem
attacks don't help your argument.

I bet your only grade is school was "present". What a dumb****.

Your implicit offer to engage in gambling is not accepted because
your fallacious ad hominem attack that follows in the next
sentence fails to add meaningful value to this social intercourse
we're engaging in.

Proving again what an absolute dumb**** you are.

You tried to start a bet, that's gambling, so your proof is refuted.

Showing once again your lack of reading skills. What an arrogant
dummy. Lefties always are.

Your fallacious ad hominemistic conclusions indicate that you are
acutely aware that you have failed to prove your claims.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"It is sort of a text-based 'Space Invaders.'"
-- Don Martin (May 25, 2013; a reason for debating theists)

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:09:45 -0400
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:59:52 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:52:10 -0400
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:51:29 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman"
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism
is, so why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way
NOT having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any
gods until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to
make you believe that gods are real. And of course, young
children are vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that
there must be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe
learning disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it was
explained to you how poorly this reflects on your ability to
debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Apparently at Troll University.

Another lefty liar. No surprise. With all of the religious
zealots in the group, it's to be expected.

Indeed, we do get more than our fair share of religious zealots and
religious right-wing-nuts here in this "alt.atheism" newsgroup. By
the way, your fallacious ad hominem assertion doesn't help your
reputation.

Wat makes an arrogant ass like you come to the conclusion that I give
a rat's ass about my reputation among a bunch of religious zealots?

The fact that you're still having social intercourse with me here in
this "alt.atheism" newsgroup. (And my buttocks are not arrogant,
they're asthetically shaped with appropriate curvatures.)

Regarding your concern for your "reputation among a bunch of religious
zealots" (sic.), I can only assume that you're more vociferous than
many of the others. Perhaps you're purposely trying to stand out?

Now, no longer wasting my time.

You're lying again.

I challenge you to prove that accusation.

He's still reading. You lefty morons can't help yourself.

Who's he?

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"It's funny how religion tries so adamantly to say it's something
different than a cult ... then it puts on silly outfits, performs
ritual (sabbat), and requests prayer (mantra) en mass."
-- Runivis Roan (April 18, 2013)

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130601110702.5d603e929e42ccf1c3d93348@fidem turbare.com...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:56:02 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:30:12 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

wrote in message
news:20130530210207.2e2ce1f09f91fd87b05e8ef2@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:34:18 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:



I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your assumption
that I "didn't study enough history" lacks credible
justification.


Is "a little Marxism" like being "a littel bit pregnant" ?

No.


Actually, it is
There is no such animal in EITHER case
Both are binary conditions
Either you are pregnant or not
Eitehr you are a marxist or not

Not quite correct.
Most of the hard-left political parties in Europe have now
accepted that they can only ever achieve their Marxist
paradise through democratic means.


What you really mean to say, is that they are playing the "democratic
means" game until they can have enouhg power to do the rest in
standard Marxist ways
[snip - bifurcated fallacious ad hominem attack]

That's not how I understood Alex' comment. He merely pointed out how
some Marxist ideals are being achieved in a democratic manner.

This differs markedly from classical Marxism.

Actually it doesn't, since Classical marxism is quite open to ANY
means to achieve the end

That's an interesting point.

Other groupings use Marxism as the basis for trying to
introduce specific policies -- for instance on the economy
or in labour law -- without pushing for out-and-out Marxism.

So you admit that the hard-liners have realized that one path will
not succeed, and that having decided to try a different path, they
are less marxist for it, even though the end objective is the same ??
[snip - fallacious ad hominem attack]

No, rather that Marxist ideals provided [at least] some inspiration or
influence in the development of political policy.

History also shows that "a little marxism" also has a tendency to
grow bigger over time.

How it grows depends primarily on the leadership. If they desire
a greater amount of control, then oppression will be retrofitted
into the social evolution. If they are more loyal to their
followers, then the social evolution will head in a very
different direction.


Wrong again
Marxists accept the notion that they know better than anyone else
what is good for the "masses", It follows that marxists will try
to impose their beliefs by justifying it that it's for the good of
all


OK, but we can say pretty much the same about any ideology,
up to and including capitalism and democracy.

Capitalism is NOT an ideology.
Democracy also not an ideology

Both of these are, in fact, ideologies. Not in the same sense as a
religion is, of course, but they do qualify as ideologies none-the-less.

Ideology: A system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis
of economic or political policy: "the ideology of republicanism."

Source: http://www.google.com/search?q=define+ideology

How many countries have we in the West actively meddled with,
sometimes to the point of illegal regime change or outright
invasion, because we are convinced that we know better than
the natives that our ways are correct?

Go ahead and answer your rhetorical question
I'm willing to be that I can show you to be wrong on all counts

Why wait? Are you not willing to do that now?

Democracy, on the other
hand, tends to be less effective as the size of the populace
grows. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other, rather
that the ideologies are just better-suited to certain
environments.


Funny how Democracies have not only scaled better but also have
survived better
Why do youthink that is ?

Survival isn't a good argument since modern democracies are
barely a century old. In historical terms, we're very much
youngsters.

When compared to all flavors of Marxist implementations which are ALL
younger than the (modern) democracies you try to disparage, your
argument fails abyssally.for being moot.

The ONLY thing the marxists systems have CONSISTENTLY achieved
were a litanny of horrendous results
1) MASSIVE abuses of civil and human rights
2) MASSIVE democides
3) MASSIVE ecological disasters
The scale is not even comparable when compared to Modern Democracies
Particularly when you consider how occurrences in those democraices
were addressed and resolved

Democracy isn't over yet. Like Marxism, it comes with a great measure
of intent, and seeing democracy through to completion will make for a
more even-handed comparison down-the-road. Comparing the results of
one system with the intent of another leans toward being a false
dichotomy fallacy.


Democracy is not going to be over for quite a while
Marxism has been shown a failure for the reasosn stated above



The fact that communism scales very effectively to larger populaces
than democracy does should be taken into consideration as well when
comparing these two ideologies.


The only thing that communism has "scaled well" a
1) abuses of civil and human rights
2) democides
3) ecological disasters
Otherwise all of them were complete failures that kept their populations in
poverty during and after their collapse.

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:25:53 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130601110702.5d603e929e42ccf1c3d93348@fidem turbare.com...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:56:02 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:30:12 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

wrote in message
news:20130530210207.2e2ce1f09f91fd87b05e8ef2@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:34:18 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:



I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your
assumption that I "didn't study enough history" lacks
credible justification.


Is "a little Marxism" like being "a littel bit pregnant" ?

No.


Actually, it is
There is no such animal in EITHER case
Both are binary conditions
Either you are pregnant or not
Eitehr you are a marxist or not

Not quite correct.
Most of the hard-left political parties in Europe have now
accepted that they can only ever achieve their Marxist
paradise through democratic means.


What you really mean to say, is that they are playing the
"democratic means" game until they can have enouhg power to do the
rest in standard Marxist ways
[snip - bifurcated fallacious ad hominem attack]

That's not how I understood Alex' comment. He merely pointed out
how some Marxist ideals are being achieved in a democratic manner.

This differs markedly from classical Marxism.

Actually it doesn't, since Classical marxism is quite open to ANY
means to achieve the end

That's an interesting point.

Other groupings use Marxism as the basis for trying to
introduce specific policies -- for instance on the economy
or in labour law -- without pushing for out-and-out Marxism.

So you admit that the hard-liners have realized that one path will
not succeed, and that having decided to try a different path, they
are less marxist for it, even though the end objective is the
same ??
[snip - fallacious ad hominem attack]

No, rather that Marxist ideals provided [at least] some inspiration
or influence in the development of political policy.

History also shows that "a little marxism" also has a
tendency to grow bigger over time.

How it grows depends primarily on the leadership. If they
desire a greater amount of control, then oppression will be
retrofitted into the social evolution. If they are more loyal
to their followers, then the social evolution will head in a
very different direction.


Wrong again
Marxists accept the notion that they know better than anyone
else what is good for the "masses", It follows that marxists
will try to impose their beliefs by justifying it that it's for
the good of all


OK, but we can say pretty much the same about any ideology,
up to and including capitalism and democracy.

Capitalism is NOT an ideology.
Democracy also not an ideology

Both of these are, in fact, ideologies. Not in the same sense as a
religion is, of course, but they do qualify as ideologies
none-the-less.

Ideology: A system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the
basis of economic or political policy: "the ideology of
republicanism."

Source: http://www.google.com/search?q=define+ideology

How many countries have we in the West actively meddled with,
sometimes to the point of illegal regime change or outright
invasion, because we are convinced that we know better than
the natives that our ways are correct?

Go ahead and answer your rhetorical question
I'm willing to be that I can show you to be wrong on all counts

Why wait? Are you not willing to do that now?

Democracy, on the other
hand, tends to be less effective as the size of the populace
grows. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other,
rather that the ideologies are just better-suited to certain
environments.


Funny how Democracies have not only scaled better but also have
survived better
Why do youthink that is ?

Survival isn't a good argument since modern democracies are
barely a century old. In historical terms, we're very much
youngsters.

When compared to all flavors of Marxist implementations which are
ALL younger than the (modern) democracies you try to disparage,
your argument fails abyssally.for being moot.

The ONLY thing the marxists systems have CONSISTENTLY achieved
were a litanny of horrendous results
1) MASSIVE abuses of civil and human rights
2) MASSIVE democides
3) MASSIVE ecological disasters
The scale is not even comparable when compared to Modern
Democracies Particularly when you consider how occurrences in
those democraices were addressed and resolved

Democracy isn't over yet. Like Marxism, it comes with a great
measure of intent, and seeing democracy through to completion will
make for a more even-handed comparison down-the-road. Comparing
the results of one system with the intent of another leans toward
being a false dichotomy fallacy.


Democracy is not going to be over for quite a while
Marxism has been shown a failure for the reasosn stated above

So far, under democratic regimes, there have been:

1. Some abuses of civil and human rights (e.g., Rodney King beating)
2. Some democides (e.g., elimination of the middle class in the USA)
3. Massive ecological disasters (e.g., Exxon oil spill, FEMA problems)

The problem isn't the ideology so much as it is the people who are in
power who allow these problems to occur.

The fact that communism scales very effectively to larger populaces
than democracy does should be taken into consideration as well when
comparing these two ideologies.


The only thing that communism has "scaled well" a
1) abuses of civil and human rights
2) democides
3) ecological disasters
Otherwise all of them were complete failures that kept their
populations in poverty during and after their collapse.

Although I prefer living in a democratic/parliamentary system,
primarily because I'm familiar with it, I don't view communism as being
solely bad, for it has many qualities to offer as well. A few that
come to mind immediately a

1. the consistency within the ruling class so that larger projects can
be completed instead of getting shut down by a competing political
party that gets elected in the next term (e.g., the Three-Gorges Damb
in China that replaced a large number of coal-burning power production
facilities, which, if attempted in North America, most likely would
have been abandoned by a competing political party intent on doing
everything possible to discredit their competitors).

2. elimination of class divisions in society has a lot of merit, even
though it also isn't a perfect solution; under capitalism, which solves
some problems, there are other challenges that create a whole different
set of problems that communism can protect its citizens from.

3. the various problems you highlight are not exclusive to communism,
and are primarily a result of the decisions made by those who hold the
power; in India, which is often touted as the world's largest democracy,
there remains the Caste system which imposes class-based slavery on the
"untouchable" class that people are born into, which amounts to the
serious systematic violation of human rights based on a particular
arbitrary demographic that is reminiscent or racism

If you believe that democracy is the only solution, then you're kidding
yourself because the actions of those with power is incidental to the
political ideology that is used to impose restrictions on a populace.

Do I favour democracy? Of course, but not as a solution to the
problems that were observed during the runtimes of communist regimes,
rather because the system is fascinating because it adds depth to the
social psychological aspects of society when implemented in tandem with
constitutional protections for freedom (of thought, expression, etc.).

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice. ... It is a religion that
celebrates a single human sacrifice as if it were effective."
-- Sam Harris

In ,
belched:

Mr Williams (and others),
Can you please snip the crossposting to the other groups and help keep the
riff raff where they belong

Thank You

On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:35:00 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:

In ,
belched:

Mr Williams (and others),
Can you please snip the crossposting to the other groups and help keep the
riff raff where they belong

I post where the person I'm replying to posts. That's the way it
works. Bottom line: if you don't like the thread, learn how to use a
killfile.


Thank You

No thanks.

In ,
belched:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:35:00 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:

In ,
belched:

Mr Williams (and others),
Can you please snip the crossposting to the other groups and help
keep the riff raff where they belong

I post where the person I'm replying to posts. That's the way it
works. Bottom line: if you don't like the thread, learn how to use a
killfile.


Thank You

No thanks.

just did, bye bye

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 00:40:48 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:33:04 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 00:07:03 +0100, "Alex W." wrote
in alt.atheism:

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:01:10 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:


Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

Just look at another military funded project that is in common PUBLIC use
today
The Internet

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to the
moon"


What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of such
projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Got another one: the Hoover Dam. The construction cost at
the time was less than $50 million (around $800 million in
today's tax dollars). Benefits, however, are HUGE: from
providing water to 8 million people and irrigating a million
acres of farmland to an electricity-generating capacity in
excess of 2,000MW and creating commercial opportunities
(tourism and leisure activities).


Indeed
There are projects which when allied with a bit of vision, which is far too
rare in government, and the ability to finance over the long term with no
need for immediate profit, that are perfect for government projects
The opposite is government entities who are blackmailed to build sports
stadium which mostly only really benefit the sports franchise

Might make for an interesting cost-benefit analysis. A
sports stadium will encourage economic activity (think
increased tourism, travel and hospitality, or the influx of
a bunch of high-earning high-spending players) but whether
this is enough to outweigh the investment of several hundred
million is another issue.

The problem is that something (stadium subsidies that will be hitting a
billion a pop soon) that is foolish in the aggregate may not appear to
be foolish locally and the folks running the teams know that. Rarely is
there a city like Los Angeles (where the NFL needs LA more than LA needs
the NFL). All of the professional team owners in the country (with the
exception of the owners of the Packers) could easily write a check for
an adequate stadium that holds the number of people they want. They
choose instead to demand a much more glorious one. If they pay
something, it will still be less than they would have paid had they had
to pay for it themselves.

Sure, cities want to have major league teams, but if they pay for a
major share of the cost of the business, shouldn't they have a vote on
the team equivalent to their investment?

They should, but I guess they are blinded by the glamour.

I do wonder, though, what the general economic benefits are
of being a "chosen city" of a NFL franchise. After all,
this will instantly give a city lasting nationwide
recognition and attention, something that they usually have
to laboriously build up over years of concerted PR and
advertising.



We need to spend more time going to the Moon or Mars, than we do building
sports stadiums for business entities.

... or funding the Olympic boondoggle every four years....

Many cities have used the funding to build capital infrastructure, eg
subways, improvements that have been badly needed, but others have ended
up with a huge amount of waste at the end.

I vote for holding them at Olympia the way the gods wanted.

Sound idea. Send the Games back to Greece. Fork out the
cash for a one-off construction of facilities, raise
maintenance and improvement funds through sponsorship and
media deals, and let's be done with the merry-go-round.

Have you been to Greece lately? There's massive youth unemployment;
there's a national tendency to avoid accountability; and the
infrastructure around the 2004 Olympics is already crumbling (except
for the subway, which admittedly ought to be a tourist attraction all
on its own because it makes every other mass transit system in the
world immediately second-class).

Having the Olympics in Greece is a marvelous romantic notion, but what
do you do with the facilities in the other 3.5 years between Games?
Greece isn't big enough to support the Games and the attendant costs.

I like the current system a lot: spread all that pork-barreling
around, let the nationalistic jingoism run riot, and give host
countries the chance to trumpet their home-grown heroes. Putting it in
one place for the rest of time is not a viable option.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 00:44:20 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Thu, 30 May 2013 21:12:16 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 00:07:03 +0100
"Alex W." wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:01:10 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:



We need to spend more time going to the Moon or Mars, than we do
building sports stadiums for business entities.

... or funding the Olympic boondoggle every four years....

Olympics are an example of wasting tax revenues on a giant party. The
event should be privately funded, and have to apply for and conform to
permits like many other major events.

I see your point, but I find myself in two minds over this.
Call me perverse, but as a viewer I find it immensely
refreshing to watch a sporting event that is not saturated
in advertising, much of it by highly inappropriate firms.
There is already a serious amount of advertising associated
with the Olympic Games, but at least inside the stadiums we
don't have to see athletes competing in kit praising
fast-food franchises, sugary snacks or alcohol.

Point of dissent:

On American and Canadian networks, advertising runs riot during all
sporting events. The athletes themselves are obviously sponsored by
the major sporting goods companies, so there's complete focus on the
Nike swoosh and the Adidas 3-stripe for the duration of any given
event.

If you're following the sport, you end up tuning out the advertising.
My 12 year old son pointed out that banners along the edges of soccer
pitches are electronically changed as the game goes on, and I never
even noticed that.

I'm totally fine with advertising: in fact, great ads are often far
more memorable than the sporting events themselves.

Finally, didn't you also want Greece to be the permanent home of the
Olympics? Greece? Home of souvlaki, endless bakeries (and not even the
French can beat the magnificence of a first-rate zaharoplasteion),
Ouzo, Retsina, and Metaxa?

Pfft. Our entire lives revolve around advertising and marketing. The
question is... to what degree can it be subverted into individual
tastes?

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306