Open Questions For My Liberal Friends

#10 Every one is looking at the fact that the bellboy needs to split the $2 into fractions for the three men. In math it's close, but not right. It isn't $57 + $2 the other dollar is missing. It's that they were down to $57 joint ($19 apiece) the other $2 was to be subtracted not added $57 - $2= $55

This was a new one to me, Like the blog

Geihsler

Thanks you all for reading, and answering. I have really been busy this past week, and I will need some time to re-read your answers, and make some comments.

WITH ALL SINCERITY: I do appreciate you folks and our discussions.

One Question of Mikes I'd like to answer. I do think FDR was completely wrong to intern American Japanese. It was WRONG.

Holy freaking cow. Mike and I may have actually agreed on something. Now, the question is: Should the members of FDR's administration that approved the policy be charged and prosecuted?

I also forgot to answer Mikes question on the difference between tyranny and losing.

Later.

Well, I think the prudent thing to do is for Stuffanie to be rounded up and placed in a camp.

It may have been the 'prudent' thing to do, but it wasn't the right thing to do. In a free society, people cannot have their freedoms taken away for doing nothing illegal. It is a principal of free society that the government cannot take away your freedom without a legal cause. (which is why I'm glad we didn't round up all of the Muslim's in the country after 9/11.)

Truman actually did not first come with the magical number of one million, it was Churchill. We just covered this in my American History class. I honestly don't know if the decision to drop the bomb was right or wrong and the fact of the matter is one to claim right or wrong is one to claim what the deaths would have been and that's wrong.

Those numbers were simply estimates. By the time we dropped the atom bombs, Japan was already on its heels. It's Navy was destroyed and there probably wasn't a lot of fight left in the Army.

Just so you guys don't get all bunched up in class at the end I left it up to the student to do their own research and come up with their own conclusion as to whether they agree or disagree with the bombing.

As for successful societies, there are quite a few. One that comes to mind is the Mongols, perhaps the most prolific invaders in history. Their military was made up of homosexual men. As for your ultimate question about successful society is a loaded one, because there has never been a truly successful society. Every society at some point has come crashing down, a point I know has already been made, but that is fact and undebatable. There are actually just a handful of countries that define marriage between a man and woman or have some form of laws (ie state laws) banning marriage between homosexuals, two of them are the United States and Iran.

Questions 7 and 8 perfectly represent what I think to be the problem with conservatism today. You think there are only two possible answers. You only see black and white when there are countless number of shades of gray in between. So answering those two questions are impossible, other than for me to say on both questions I don't agree with either statement and neither statement comes close to what I believe.

Let me ask you this sam, how come right to privacy doesn't cover what a consenting man and woman, or man and man, or woman and woman do in their own bedroom?

Jefferson was partly right, the American government which took that phrase to only mean white land owning men were created equal, et al were wrong.

And finally it was neither Obama or the Clintons that played the race card. It was the media.

I am with you on abortion sam, but that's it unfortunatelly.

Truman's comment has been proven grossly inaccurate by military strategists.

No god would not be happy. But who are we to presume what god thinks? Isn't that blasphemy?

Didn't hillary play the gender card?

For the time, it is quite obvious that Jefferson was referring to wealthy white land owners. Jefferson had many many slaves, and was the illegitimate father to numerous slave children. History is all about perspective. Jefferson may have written well, but in no way is he a moral leader.

I am against gay marriage as well sam, but is that a serious question? The roman empire was pretty succesfull wasn't it? The greek's who first created democracy did things pretty well didn't they? While you may disagree with their morals, you cannot blame homosexuals for some kind of economic or nationalistic decline.

I find it ironic that many blue collar workers are angry w/ the bailouts. Yet they complain about being unemployed. If the auto industries went under, there would be even fewer jobs. And when you ask those people what we should do with the money they respond, "give me the money". So instead of a multi-billion dollar organization taking on debt, now the jobless individual will. People are greedy, wether they're ceo's or construction workers.

SOME ANSWERS

1. Legally speaking it depends on the state. Different states treat the murder of a pregnant woman in different ways.

Sam, I know your answer to this question would be 2 murders.

But let me answer your question with a question. A pregnant woman is driving during winter. The roads are very slippery. She stops at a red light, and so do you, but you skid on the ice and ram into the rear of her car. Not too bad, just a small fender bender. But her stomach is jarred into the wheel and she unfortunately has a misscarriage.

Are you guilty of manslaughter? Should you be prosecuted?

Is she guilty of negligence for not properly protecting her child in the car? Should she be prosecuted?

I know I'll be accused of being evasive if I don't just outright answer. So, I personally would not consider it two murders, but one. I understand that people would feel differently if it were THEIR wife and unborn child. But logically I don't think it's equivalent to an actual double homicide.

2. This is a very hard question. Over 100,000 CIVILIANS (not military personnel) were killed in these attacks. So please indulge me in asking a few more questions:

If you could save the life of all of our men and women serving in the armed forces by killing 100,000 innocent Iraqi citizens, would you do it?

If Germany had dropped the an atomic bomb on DC, killing hundreds of thousands of people, but they only did it so that no more Germans would die in combat with american troops, would they be justified?

Ultimately I think it was likely the hardest decision for any man to ever have to make, and I will not fault Truman for the decision. But I can't help but think there could have been another way. A way that didn't have to cost so many innocents their lives. We don't know and we can't know if it could have been different.

3. If you are right, and God does exist, I suppose it would depend on what time God actually gave the developing baby a 'soul'. If God gave them a soul when they were conceived (when sperm hit egg). I imagine he'd be pissed. And not just at abortion, but at the use of the contraceptive pill. However, 15% - 20% of all known pregnancies end in a misscarriage. So I imagine God would also be pretty frustrated with himself having created a reproductive mechanism that kills 2 out of every ten humans.

Of course, you could just say that those naturally occuring miscarriages were god's plan, so he didn't give THOSE babies souls. Of course, I could also ask about twins. Does the zygote get TWO souls (one for each future twin). Or what about chimeras (twins becoming one child), does each twin get HALF a soul for the impending result? Or does one twin have the soul and the other is soul-less?

This is why we don't make laws based solely on people's religious views. There are too many questions that only 'God' can answer. (oh, and the 1st amendment. That too).

4. I don't know. I don't remember who brought up race first. I'm sure there is enough video footage from (lengthy) primaries to argue it either way. But I think (generally) Clinton AND Obama handled the issue fairly well. It was inevitable for race to seep in to the election somehow, but I was glad that it didn't seem to be an all-consuming issue (during the primary).

5. Jefferson also said:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter."

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it"

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty."

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

"Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight "

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul."

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government"

etc. etc. etc.

Jefferson re-wrote the gospels of the Bible, removing Jesus's supernatural powers AND claims to his divinity as the son of God.

Jefferson also wrote the Virginia law that drew a solid line between church and state (the law on which the federal law was later based).

Was Jefferson right or wrong?

Could Jefferson be elected today?

The answer to the second question is, probably not. In fact, he would have had a hard time getting elected back then, if he had not been the famous Thomas Jefferson. During his election campaigns he was frequently attacked as an Atheist. Many mainstream Christians of that time were very harsh critics of Jefferson (especially when he granted sanctuary to noted anit-Christian author Thomas Paine).

Additionally, you'll find that the framers of the Constitution (the actual legal document upon which the country is founded) made no mention of God in the document. This was not an accident or an oversight. Many contemporary Christians were infuriated that the Constitution made no mention of God, and that the government was given authority by 'we the people'. There was even a christian resurgance movement in the first years of the 19th century which attempted to amend the preamble to the constitution. A movement which Jefferson and other secularists fought (curiously, with the help of contemporary evangelicals). There was another movement during the civil war that stated God was punishing America for leaving him out of the constitution. Abraham Lincoln politely dismissed this and concentrated on winning the Civil War. But allowed his Treasury Secretary to put God on the coinage to satisfy the movement.

5. Depends on what you mean by "successful". America is successful, and we allow sodomy. So does Canada, most of western europe, China, Japan, New Zealand, Austrailia and plenty more. Pointing to another civilization that allowed (and even encouraged) homosexuality, the Greeks. I mean, their civilization went away eventually, but they pioneered democracy, mathematics, philosophy, and generally formed the principals of reason and justice that the 'free world' was founded on. So I'd consider them successfull.

6. I will simply say that small analogies about individual expenses don't necessarily apply to macroeconomic issues that effect the entire country. The country owes much of the national debt to ITSELF, not a (assumably foreign) banker. I would also counter with the saying "you've got to spend money to make money", the idea being that we need to invest in ourselves now (by taking on debt to improve the country) so that we can prosper in the future (by making more money).

7. This is a gross oversimplification of ANYONE's views on taxes. It obviously depends on the case. For instance, is it fair that everyone pays for the interstate roads, yet UPS/FedEx/Truckers use them for their business (presumably) much more than any other business/person? Should they have to pay special taxes to maintain the roads? (do they?) Businesses who use off-shore offices and tax sheltes don't pay enough because they find ways not to pay.

Some people may pay too much, others may not pay enough.

But I think for me personally, it's a cost benefit analysis. I think I am paying too much in taxes when my tax rate is high, and I don't see any benefit to myself or society. But when my tax rate is high and I see genuine benefit personally or in society, I do not think I am paying too much in taxes, as I am enjoying the benefits of my spending.

I don't think Obama's proposition of raising the highest tax bracket rate from 36% to 39% was unreasonable (and certainly not socialistic). That is what the rate was during the Clinton years (and it was actually MUCH higher in the middle of the last century).

8. Again, an oversimplification of anyone's views. It depends on the specific area of the law you are talking about. I might think there are too many laws protecting copyrights and there are too few laws protecting us from environmental damage. Or someone might think there are too many laws that make the immigration system a disaster, but still think there are too few laws regulating personal travel from other countries. Another person might think there are too many labor laws, but not enough laws protecting small businesses from large corporations.

9. I don't know. Could you be more specific about your question?

10. Nothing happend to it. The men originally had $60. Now, the desk has $55, the bell boy has $2 and each man has $1.

55 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 60

Your trick accomplished by adding the wrong numbers together. It should not be $57 + $2 tip, it should be $57 + $3 refund.

I understand that I answered some of your questions with additional questions. They were meant to be hypotheticals to express my views on the subject. But feel free to answer them if you wish (anyone, not just Sam).

Cheers from the Caribbean.