Atheist same as Agnostic?

[BigPapaVol]

It's called a joke. If I don't embellish the facts a little bit then the joke doesn't work.

You might lighten up and have a laugh every now and again, it makes life much more enjoyable.

I assure you that I enjoyed making my comments much more than your joke.

The liberal nature, from multiple angles, just kept the joke from being even remotely funny.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[CaedmonVol]

I assure you that I enjoyed making my comments much more than your joke.

The liberal nature, from multiple angles, just kept the joke from being even remotely funny.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

That was a "liberal" joke? Wow, I didn't realize that. Thank you. Maybe I'm so brainwashed by our liberal media and our liberal government that I don't even realize how freaking liberal I am.

When is the last time we had a truly conservative govenrnment, if ever? By truly conservative I mean a truly limited and prudent government that doesn't spend money that it doesn't have, and doesn't engage in unnecessary military adventures.

 

[MG1968]

That was a "liberal" joke? Wow, I didn't realize that. Thank you. Maybe I'm so brainwashed by our liberal media and our liberal government that I don't even realize how freaking liberal I am.

When is the last time we had a truly conservative govenrnment, if ever? By truly conservative I mean a truly limited and prudent government that doesn't spend money that it doesn't have, and doesn't engage in unnecessary military adventures.

I don't know the specific date, but you can rest assured it was before Woodrow Wilson and the infection of the "progressive" movement into American politics.

 

[therealUT]

When is the last time we had a truly conservative govenrnment, if ever? By truly conservative I mean a truly limited and prudent government that doesn't spend money that it doesn't have, and doesn't engage in unnecessary military adventures.

That definitely depends upon what you consider "conservative" and what you consider "unnecessary".

I, for one, am an advocate of a Constitutionally conservative philosophy of government. Therefore, a government that seeks first and foremost to defend the Constitution that is the foundation of our country. So, considering the fact that our country was actually born in debt (to the French), I would say that "spending money it doesn't have" does not actually go against the Constitution. As long as this money is spent appropriately for the benefit of trade and defense.

Now, for "unnecessary military adventures", I would again have to look at the entire history of our nation, starting with the founding years. While we were still in debt to the French for their aid in the Revolutionary War, we went ahead and started the Indian Campaigns in 1790. We fought the Barbary Wars from 1801-1805 and again in 1815. Fought, be it limited, in the Stockton Expedition in Liberia in 1821. In 1835 and 1836, the US sent aid in support of the Texas Revolution. From 1837-1840, the US fought again with Canada. We sent another military expedition to Liberia in 1843, and sent Walker's Expedition to Nicaragua for five years from 1855-1860.

I could continue further, but I think you get the point. From the founding of our Nation, we were extremely militant and sent our boys all out in what people today would most likely deem "unnecessary military adventures". Thanks to those adventures, America thrived and boomed and became a true world superpower by 1915.

 

[CaedmonVol]

That definitely depends upon what you consider "conservative" and what you consider "unnecessary".

I, for one, am an advocate of a Constitutionally conservative philosophy of government. Therefore, a government that seeks first and foremost to defend the Constitution that is the foundation of our country. So, considering the fact that our country was actually born in debt (to the French), I would say that "spending money it doesn't have" does not actually go against the Constitution. As long as this money is spent appropriately for the benefit of trade and defense.

Now, for "unnecessary military adventures", I would again have to look at the entire history of our nation, starting with the founding years. While we were still in debt to the French for their aid in the Revolutionary War, we went ahead and started the Indian Campaigns in 1790. We fought the Barbary Wars from 1801-1805 and again in 1815. Fought, be it limited, in the Stockton Expedition in Liberia in 1821. In 1835 and 1836, the US sent aid in support of the Texas Revolution. From 1837-1840, the US fought again with Canada. We sent another military expedition to Liberia in 1843, and sent Walker's Expedition to Nicaragua for five years from 1855-1860.

I could continue further, but I think you get the point. From the founding of our Nation, we were extremely militant and sent our boys all out in what people today would most likely deem "unnecessary military adventures". Thanks to those adventures, America thrived and boomed and became a true world superpower by 1915.

As to your first point, I agree that there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires us to be in the black (hence the frequent calls for a balanced-budget amendment, as many states have), but you have to admit that having a huge increasing debt (especially if owed to hostile foreign powers like China, the Saudis, etc.) is a poor way to run anything, including a government. If we had a truly conservative government, we would pay down debts as soon as possible, and additionally have some sort of emergency fund reserved for emergencies (just as we have a petroleum reserve). Then, when faced with a national crisis as we have currently, we would have money to tap into until the emergency ends.

As to your second point, I don't know as much about military history as you, but did any of those military operations cost as much as the Iraq War? Recent estimates put the final tab of the Iraq War at about $3 trillion, which is roughly the size of the annual budget of the United States. Did any of those military operations cost an entire year's worth of the tax dollars? When I say "unnecessary military adventures," it implies that some military operations are unnecessary in part because of their cost. If the Iraq War cost $100 million, I wouldn't be complaining as much.

 

[therealUT]

As to your first point, I agree that there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires us to be in the black (hence the frequent calls for a balanced-budget amendment, as many states have), but you have to admit that having a huge increasing debt (especially if owed to hostile foreign powers like China, the Saudis, etc.) is a poor way to run anything, including a government. If we had a truly conservative government, we would pay down debts as soon as possible, and additionally have some sort of emergency fund reserved for emergencies (just as we have a petroleum reserve). Then, when faced with a national crisis as we have currently, we would have money to tap into until the emergency ends.

I agree that we should spend wisely. However, we see differently as to what "wisely" represents. I would like to see the US spend only on what is necessary to provide for efficient trade and the defense of our national interests.

As to your second point, I don't know as much about military history as you, but did any of those military operations cost as much as the Iraq War? Recent estimates put the final tab of the Iraq War at about $3 trillion, which is roughly the size of the annual budget of the United States. Did any of those military operations cost an entire year's worth of the tax dollars? When I say "unnecessary military adventures," it implies that some military operations are unnecessary in part because of their cost. If the Iraq War cost $100 million, I wouldn't be complaining as much.

Real dollar costs?
Iraq War: $405 B
WWII: $2 T

Cost as percentage of GDP?
Iraq War: 1.06%
WWII: 15.52%
WWI: 3.33%
Korea: 2.15%
Vietnam: 1.77%
Civil War: 1.7%

War Cost as % of Total Federal Expenditures?
Iraq War: 18.3%
WWII: 238.6%
Civil War: 197.8%
WWI: 123.01%
Korea: 60.6%
Spanish-American: 52.1%
Vietnam: 36.7%

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1866005/posts

Granted, these numbers are a year old. I would be willing to bet that the past year has not made a material difference in these figures though. I would have to say the most telling figure though is that the Iraq War is only responsible for 18% of our total federal expenditures since 2003. Going out on a limb, I am going to say that the Iraq War does not meet your criteria, fiscally, for an "unnecessary war".

 

[orangeblooded2]

Don't waste your time, therealUT. I kept slapping my forehead when this guy didn't know the difference between agnostic and gnosticism. NO CONNECTION TRY AGAIN PLZ!!!

This is a place that lets some people who have no clue about anything have a say at everything.

I new the difference when I wrote my first post on this thread.
These forums and the debates that follow allow for the opponent to engage people and their thoughts,their believes, from many different angles.
Their are those who are far more proficient than I,from whom I have learned much.That engage in this practice.
For instance The gentlemen whom I was debating through out this thread,intelligent well read and stubborn.A little to fanatical for me,but hey that's just my opinion.That is not to say he didn't have a well thought out opinion.
Then their are those such as yourself who don't really have an opinion.Other than to agree or disagree with the ones debating.Or to jump on the band wagon of your choice.
Like the man says rational thought allowed.:salute:

 

[WA_Vol]

A friend of mine told me the other day that sense I am Agnostic then I'm no different than an Atheist...I explained to him I believed in a God,but he wanted to argue his point.
Do you think their the same cause I know their not.

My understanding is:
An atheist believes God does not exist.
An agnostic believes it is unknowable.

An agnostic believes it is not possible for humans to know for certainty if God exists or not, so it is unknowable.

 

[therealUT]

My understanding is:
An atheist believes Obama is the Messiah.
An agnostic believes Obama might be the Messiah.

eft