Hahaha...I'm pretty sure most Chicanos have more important things to worry about than attacking gays who decide to get married.

Look at California. There are plenty of Mexicans and plenty of gay people there, yet I haven't seen any lynchings.

Yeah that's partly what happened with blacks in California with prop 8. So how about we hold off on this plan until we get a supreme court decision that guarantees gays the right to marry. Sound good?

This is the first one of your debates I have agreed with Joe. You've stumbled upon a great idea. I have one addition though:

Since illegals apparently hate Mexico (they'd do anything to leave after all), we should get more Mexicans in the U.S. Now all we have to do is find a large number of Mexicans who want to live in the U.S. Any ideas where we could find that Señor?

Yeah...I guess I keep making the mistake of arguing against you seriously. You'd think I'd learn after 2 years.

You are looking at this at way too small a scale Joe.

More people means that you can produce more. Maybe in the short term a large influx of people could lead to some extra unemployment, but eventually the economy will return to it's long run equilibrium and natural unemployment.

The unemployment rate is a lagging indicator of the economy. In other words the economy will have to be doing well for about a year before jobs catch up.

The 13 trillion dollar debt (not deficit, the deficit is about 1 trillion) is a big issue, however it can't be addressed until we get the economy back on track. Who you should be blaming for the debt are those presidents that continued to run a deficit when our economy was expanding. Clinton did it right: he ran a surplus when we were doing well. There was an initial, relatively small downturn within the first year of his presidency, but after the economy recovered he should have begun running a surplus. What did he do? Continued running a deficit, exacerbating the situation and fucking us over now that we are both in a recession and have a tremendous debt.

I would be happy to debate you on any number of topics, go ahead and pick one. You are generalizing far too much. There are illogical liberals and logical ones, just as there are illogical conservatives and logical ones. Basing someone's intelligence on political views is...well, illogical I guess.

There is always about 5-6% of natural unemployment because of both frictional and structural unemployment, however the additional unemployment we are currently facing is because of business cycles. What Obama and other Democrats have tried to do is use expansionary fiscal policies to get us out of this recession quickly. This entails running a budget deficit: or in other words increased spending and lower taxes.

Although you might find welfare payments unfair, they do help to stimulate the economy by giving money to people who will likely spend all of it (when you're on welfare you don't have any room to save). The advantage to policies like progressive income tax and unemployment benefits is that it is an automatic way to work against business cycles. During times when the economy is doing poorly more people get unemployment benefits and less people are in the high tax brackets, meaning that the government is automatically expanding the economy. During times when the economy is expanding, less people need unemployment and more people are in the upper tax brackets, meaning that the government has automatically started running contractionary policies. In short: the government runs a deficit when the economy is doing poorly and a surplus when it is doing well....and that's what we are doing.

Your economics logic sucks. If more people meant less good jobs, then right now we'd be the poorest people on earth. More people means we produce more. How much the jobs pay is determined mostly by the amount produced.

More people, means more being produced means more real wealth, but about the same wealth per capita.

I could go on about other inconsistencies but I think at this point we know who's really illogical.

Classical micro-economics yes, however, before the 1930's no one really attempted to explain macro-economics basically at all. I'm not saying age has anything to do with its accuracy, I was just pointing out that these aren't new ideas.

Haha, not quite Sara. This idea is actually about as old as macro-economics itself, which really got started around the time that Keynes published The General Theory. In other words about 80 years old.

Well I'm sorry if that's how it sounded, but that is far from what I meant.

His policies, which were supported and voted on by other democratic leaders and probably crafted by economic advisors played a large role in helping expedite the recovery of our economy.

Happy?

He certainly hasn't helped the debt, however, were it not for his actions the economy would never have recovered and government revenue would be much lower than it will be, meaning we'd be in an even worse situation, because we'd still be in debt, but the government would be earning less money to pay it off with.

During times of economic recession, the government needs to run a deficit in order to stimulate the economy. This is all that Obama is doing. During times of economic expansion, the government should run a surplus and this is what Clinton did. Bush on the other hand is the person who you should put a lot of the blame for our current debt on. He ran a deficit while the government was expanding.

As soon as we are back to full output, and the unemployment rate is back to its natural rate then Obama will stop running a deficit and begin running a surplus and paying off our massive debt.

Well unless we're talking about the fact that he fixed the whole economy. That actually seemed to work out pretty well.

Joe I do seriously hope you were drunk when you created this (but it did make me smile).

Not really.

Communists have committed crimes, but other than that atheists actually have been pretty damn well behaved.

Social contracts are what we agree to in order for society to function. We give up a small amount of freedom to help everyone in society. We are fortunate to live in a society in which we can choose the extent to which we do this, and we are free to express our views on how this should be done.

Claiming that we put a gun to someone's head though is ridiculous. There are people who don't want to pay for public education, and probably people who don't want to pay for roads, but thankfully their not allowed to just opt out, otherwise our society would collapse.

There are better, very legitimate arguments for why we shouldn't have welfare (or at least reduce the amount provided) than just the whole "it's like stealing" thing.

Haha...sorry I'm not trying to let those people who have almost nothing to survive with die. I guess I'm just a bleeding heart.

I don't think your example is accurate. Allow me to give you a better one.

Let's say me and a group of 7 friends are walking and we see a little homeless girl on the street. 2 of the friends want to just leave but the other 6 decide that we should do something to help. So after a vote the group decides that we all need to help out. The two that didn't want to donate are a little bitter about it, however, but in the end we are able to help the girl with our combined efforts.

You see, the money that we are agreeing to donate isn't from other people, it is from us too. In addition your argument that only poor people vote for policies like this is BS.

You do realize that the economy has been improving for almost 6 months now, right?

Joe: love the comments but your debates are often retarded.

I know but some people choose not to (myself included) and this means less people participate.

Nothing would be wrong, I'm just saying that that's probably the reason. If you limit the people that can participate less will.

No one commented because you have to be part of your community to do so.

You see you've stumped me, but not because your arguments are convincing but that I actually don't know how to respond: there are way too many options!

I could argue that the link you posted about muslims in America deals primarily with African-Americans who have converted to Islam, and that this demographic is radically different from the muslims marching and protesting through the streets of European cities. Primarily this difference has to do with the fact that those muslims who converted have already gown up and adapted to American culture (most importantly the significance of freedom of speech) and therefore wouldn't be a threat unless you're just afraid of the Islamic religion in general.

On the other hand I might point out that, unless there is a mass exodus of muslims to the U.S. it would take many generations for them to even become even as significant a minority group as Asian Americans, much less African-Americans or Latinos (not to mention the fact that Latinos are the fastest growing minority group, and are mostly Christian).

I could also point out that muslims growing up in the U.S. for multiple generations are (once again) far less likely to be similar to the extremists in Europe.

Maybe I could ask for some actual statistics about birth rates of different demographics since you didn't actually provide any, but instead relied on unsubstantiated stereotypes. None of the muslims I know have 6 kids in their family so until you give me some evidence I'm gonna have to call bullshit.

I could go on, but I don't think that's necessary. Instead I'm going to ask you to stop being so alarmist...I mean the world's gonna end in 2012 anyway, right?

Islam will never gain the same political power as it has in Europe, so I wouldn't worry. People in this country are ridiculously prejudiced against muslims so any muslim that wants to be taken seriously has to jump through hoops in order to show that they aren't like the extreme muslims we see in Europe protesting against freedom of speech.

I assumed that you supported laws against sweatshops and child labor, and this wasn't to what I was referring. These laws, though necessary from an ethical standpoint, don't necessarily help the economy.

What I am talking about is regulation of financial institutions, and an active counter-cyclical fiscal policy.

I wish I had a scanner because there is this great graph in my Econ textbook which shows the U.S. growth rate from about the last 200 years. I can't find a similar graph online, but if you want an idea of what it looks like imagine someone drawing peaks and valleys around a middle line, and as they move toward the present the peaks and valleys become less extreme. What the graph is meant to show is how more recent monetary and fiscal policy (mostly based on Keynsian theory) has had a "smoothing" affect on GDP growth. What this means is, in the last half of the century we have had fewer, and shorter recessions and longer periods of sustained growth (especially in the last 30 years). A part of this has to do with increased regulations on the market.

Obviously we should allow the market to operate freely in most cases, but there are areas where regulation is necessary, because financial institutions often times will take risks. Often times these risks end up having negative consequences on the economy as a whole, causing the volatile changes in GDP and rises in unemployment characteristic of the pre-Keynsian economy.

Here is a point I feel like I need to make very clear:

No one is advocating socialism

Socialism sucks: not only does it severely limit freedom, it doesn't work. The only redeeming quality is that it promotes equality, but the result would only be a society where everyone is equally poor.

What I and others like myself are advocating is a mostly free economy with some necessary regulations to protect against serious economic downturns.

I don't have a problem with your point of view: I can understand and respect it. What I don have a problem with is the fact that you right off those who disagree with you as somehow delusional. I promise that I have good reasons for the opinions I hold whether you want to believe it or not.

But that doesn't matter, just right me off as an elitist lefty liberal who has no idea what he's talking about.

I recommend a course on European history. The crusades were begun by Christians when they invaded Jerusalem and slaughtered the Jews and Muslims who were living there (Jews and Muslims living peacefully together, surprising right?) at the Seige of Jerusalem in 1099 (a.k.a. the first crusade).

In addition, did you hear the phrasing you used: "expel the infidels." Doesn't that sound eerily similar to what we hear from muslim extremist terrorists today?

Anyway, you are also mistaken about the nature of Muslims back then. They were expanding there empire, but they were not the violent extremists we think of today. In fact, they preached religious toleration, and (as I mentioned earlier) lived in peace with Jews and Christians in their empire. It was the Christians who were acting intolerantly, and had been killing jews by the thousands in Europe.

...and the Muslims. I'm sure that if you look deep enough, you'll find that there are others that object to homosexuality.

I agree, but you asked about Christianity. Just because others are oppressing homosexuals as well doesn't make it any better that Christians are doing it.

From the wikipedia article about the English civil war:

One of the first events to cause concern about Charles I came with his marriage to a French Roman Catholic princess, Henrietta-Marie de Bourbon. The marriage occurred in 1625, right after Charles came to the throne.[5] Charles' marriage raised the possibility that his children, including the heir to the throne, could grow up as Catholics, a frightening prospect to Protestant England.[6]

So religion once again did play a part.

...was caused by the leader of a very warped form of Christianity.

I would argue that any war fought in the name of a religion is a warping of religious texts. It says "Thou Shall Not Kill" in the 10 commandments and yet we see all of this violence. I'm not arguing that Christianity always leads to war, I'm merely disputing your point that atheists have committed atrocities (in the name of atheism) that are far worse than Christians.

The dutch revolt was caused by a number of issues, but the oppression of Protestants by Charles V and Philip II played a significant role.

Many of the wars I mentioned had numerous causes but in all of them religion also played a part.

The cold war was not fought because of atheism. This is one of the stupidest things I've heard you say yet. As I've stated before, the only atheists that killed were communists: I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to understand. I am strongly opposed to communism in general and especially opposed to the actions that were taken by Stalin, Mau and other communists who have killed in the name of their ideology. Their atheism was a symptom of their communism not the other way around. They all also believed in gravity, but this likely didn't influence their decisions to kill people either.

So once again: any non communist, atheist mass murderers? Didn't think so.

The muslims began some of the crusades, definitely not all. In addition the crusades as a whole were begun by Christians invading Jerusalem and killing Jews and Muslims. Read about it here.

I never mentioned the conquest of Alexander the great, I mentioned the Alexandrian Crusade.

The French wars of religion were civil wars fought between French Catholics and Huguenots (French Protestants). The main conflict was religion.

Almost all of these wars were fought either because of Christianity, or had Christianity as a cover for some other reason (like money or power).

Damn, what's with all the hate?

I promise we're not that bad.

I kinda like my Christian, Jewish and Muslim friends and family. I actually don't know all that many atheists so I'd probably be pretty lonely.

(You know that you don't have to copy and paste my whole argument into yours, right? I mean I literally just wrote it, and it appears on top.)

I find your first statement kind of funny because it, is both incorrect, and misses the point. As I just stated, the crimes committed by atheists weren't because of their atheism but because of their communist ideology.

Name for me a few wars begun by Christians.

Almost every war in western history, because for the past 1,000 years almost everyone in Europe (and later the Americas) has been Christian.

But this isn't what you meant, right? You see I just did the same thing you did: I took all wars that Christians began, and then implied that Christianity was their cause. You obviously meant to say: "Name me a few wars begun because of Christianity."

I would be happy to:

The Crusades

The first crusade

The second crusade

The third crusade

The fourth crusade

The albigensian crusade

The fifth crusade

The sixth crusade

The seventh crusade

The Eighth crusade

The ninth crusade

The Northern Crusades

The numerous crusades against the Tatars

The Aragonese crusade

The Alexandrian crusade

The Hussite crusade

The swedish crusades

The European Wars of Religion

The French Wars of Religion

The first war

The second war

The third war

The fourth war

The fifth war

The sixth war

The seventh war

The war of the three Henrys

The war in Brittany

The war with Spain

Wars of Religion in Germany and Bohemia

The Schmalkaldic Wars

The thirty years war (one of the worst, killed 15 - 30% of all Germans)

The wars of religion in the Netherlands

The dutch revolt (eighty years war)

The wars of religion in England and Scotland

The Scottish Reformation

The English civil war

The scottish civil war

The Taiping Rebellion was the bloodiest civil war in history and resulted in the death of 20 million people. It was started by Chinese Christian Protestants over religion.

So there you go. It's more than a few, but it is not at all comprehensive, and could have been longer if I wanted to add more. I also did not include the numerous atrocities committed in the name of Christianity (killing of Jews, and witches) or the current worldwide oppression of of homosexuals in the name of Christianity.

So now I ask you: name even one war that was begun in the name of atheism, not just by atheists.

All atheists that have been mass murderers (like the ones you mentioned) have all been communists, whereas religious murderers have come from nearly every major religion, and have supported a wide variety of of ideologies.

Therefore, if you are an atheist, and not a communist then you're probably fairly peaceful.

I think it should be punishable by death.

What's the point in making a law that is unenforceable?

If there is a large enough spanish speaking population in the area, then it would probably make economic sense depending on the business, but I think a law would be unnecessary (except for maybe cases like pharmacies in which people may be seriously harmed.)

Joe now I know you're fucking around. You want to make life difficult on a very large group of people in our country so that you don't have to press one extra button?

"If we don't play God, who will?"

-James Watson (Co-discoverer of DNA)

Oh I can still consider you scientifically challenged, just not purely on the basis of your religion, or any other generalization. If you said, for example, that dinasours and humans roamed the earth together, and had no evidence to support this claim (The Flnstones don't count) I would still laugh at you.

Yes we can get into a debate about semantics, but if you ask him I can guarentee that he at the very least meant most liberals, and wasn't making a debate about why specifically some liberals resort to name calling.

Generalizing groups of people without much basis does tend to annoy me regardless of the side it's coming from, and I do think that it is a problem on both sides and would firmly stand against anyone who tries to make these generalizations, even if I do not fall into the catagory of generalization.

In this case the debate was more an attack on liberals than an actual debate, however, it was also mostly in jest because it was made by Joe, so don't think that I took it too seriously.

As for your question: because people are lazy. It's easier to assume that someone who disagrees with you is ignorant, or racist or uneducated or out of touch, than trying to consider that they may have a different world view than you, and that their view could be as valid as yours. This is the same with most generalizations, and is why I am so strongly against them.

See, I would never resort to name calling when I know that I have legitimate arguments to defend my positions.

Neither would I make broad generalizations about groups, because I know that in general they are not true. I don't call conservatives racists, or greedy. I am happy to debate any issue, however I know that name calling just makes me look immature.

Considering that's what basically every one of your debates are I kinda figured, but I'm sorta sick of people generalizing liberals so I figured this was a good a time as any to make a statement about it.

Why on earth do we keep getting these broad generalization over and over again. I don't care which side you are attacking, generalizations that deamonize your opponents are not helpful, and are in fact simple minded. Whether it's liberals or conservatives or independants doesn't matter. What's ironic is this debate is essentially complaining about name calling by labeling an entire group in a certain way: that's essentially name calling!

Joe, I have debated with you numerous times and I'm pretty sure I can't think of a gngle case where I name called in replacement for an argument. So according to you I must not be a liberal... does that sound right?

Well next time you're sick have the ambulance drop you off at a church and see what happens.

I'm not sure I understand this one Joe... are you saying that by warming the earth we are destroying some things, but giving oppurtunities to others? Cus that's kinda dumb.

Perhaps in you own delusional idea of reality, but the real world he would be countered by economists and politicians who understand why providing for those who are unable, for some reason, to support themselves and their family is beneficial to society. In addition, you would hear numerous personal stories of people who worked numerous jobs, yet still needed a little help to feed their kids.

As people who don't need welfare it's easy to argue that those people who need welfare are just freeloaders, but in reality they are people who need a little help to get by.

It's the same result they could come up with if special interests weren't involved, and there weren't people denying the overwhelming evidence of global warming.

See what clarity a little objectivity can bring to a situation?

Not if they did it in a smart way, like by spending money on alternative energy programs.

Anyway, in the long term Australia's economy will suffer more if the current warming trend continues.