Defaulting on our national debt would be a disaster that hurts the poor and middle class the most, and hence will hurt the Tea Party the most. They just don't realize it.
I guess that's why they've been hoarding gold, guns, and disaster food packs from Glen Beck for some time now. Personally I think they were expecting, possibly even planing, for this to happen, and have prepared for it.
So if Apple is fronting the money to build these factories, and gets exclusive rights to the output for several years, does that make Apple responsible for the treatment of the people who work in these factories, and who commit suicide by jumping off these factories? What about the impact these factories have on the environment?
It's kind of that true now a days "Christians are not giving excessive violence a thumbs-up as an acceptable lifestyle," but nobody can argue that the Iraq war (and George Bush for that matter) would have been anything but impossible without the solid support of the Christians in America. Also, I think much of European History would beg to differ with that claim, and more than a few Inquisitors would probably place you on the rack, in the name of Jesus, for such a statement if you had lived in their time. Anyways, while I appreciate your attempt to articulate why you "favor" violence over nudity, I would like to respectfully say that I think you're wrong regardless of the religion you were assigned. Mainly because viewing violence and nudity affect the brain differently. Observing violence has the ability to induce trauma because, among other things, humans have a natural tendency to empathize. Depending on the level of trauma it can lead to what is known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's why the passion plays of the middle ages and Mel Gibson's latest take employ such a gratuitous amount of it. They're attempts at using extreme images of violence to change a person''s neurology; because, if you can place suggestions in a person's mind at a time like that you have a very good chance of getting your suggestions to stick with them in their subconscious, but I'm getting off the subject. Observing nudity can be stimulating to be sure but, by its self it's certainly not trauma educing. This is true unless an individual has been imprinted (usually by their family and social circle) to associate nudity with trauma educing stimulus, like thoughts of rejection from "god" and one's social circle, uncleanliness, shame, "sin" and on and on. As it happens, Christianity, and other religions have worked tirelessly for thousands of years to create this association. I would argue, that to a person with a mind clear of religious indoctrination, observing violence is the greater of two evils so to speak; and since not everyone is religious, nor should we want that for our society if we value peace, stability and modernity, we should move to regulate our society based on a more clear or "default" version of the human mind.
It's a nice hypothesis till you consider that you're talking about Sara Palin. If anybody is in no danger of not sufficiently making herself look bad, continuously it's her. From getting caught with crib notes, to spending over 150,000 dollars on clothes while on running for vice president, to putting gun sights on Gabrialla Gifford's district, to "I read all the news papers" etc, etc, Why would anybody go through the trouble of trying to make her look bad. It'd be like putting pig slop on a dirty pig.
..."and a little boy stood staring in shock at the nut case waddling like a penguin with his pants around his ankles waving his jacket in a circle over his head."
Shocked you say? I take it you don't go to a Catholic church.
Man, you have such cynical dystopian view of America. I had the great pleasure of traveling in America just last month, down the East Coast and a bit of California, and I can tell you Americans are far from the blood thirsty savages, thieves and killers in need of a "Cop or two on every bus" that you make them out to be. Of course, it's anecdotal but time and again I was amazed by the Americans I met who treated me very warmly, and acted genuinely kind and friendly. As for space, Perhaps it's cramped where you live ( there's a "in you're mother's basement" joke there that I will refrain from going for) but it appears to me that America is absolutely awash in open space. Every American City I've ever seen with the exception of New York seems to have been built in forest or park of some kind. There's so much open underutilized space everywhere you look, there's more than enough space to build trains, monorails and trolleys if people so desired.
The mewling idiots complain about "religion" being a danger. And, within the past 100 years, we've seen that ATHEISTS rank among the cruelest, most inhuman monsters on earth
Of course it only looks like you have a pretty good argument as long as you don't look back further than the last 100 years because before that, it's almost entirely religious people killing, enslaving, indoctrinating, dehumanizing, terrorizing, and generally making life a living hell for themselves and everyone else on the planet since prehistory. One has to wonder, were the atrocities of the last 100 years the result of "ATHEISTS" and their immorality or was it the result of Humanity's historical trajectory?
Whatever the case, we can also look at what secularism and religion have bestowed on humanity. In the last 100 years Science done mostly by "ATHEISTS" has advanced humanity more than religion has in the last 200 thousand years combined. It's not even close. So, for the love of "God," give those "Mewling Idiots" a break, you might even want to say a little thanks to atheism.
I agree, and would add one more point. America's rapidly growing population. In about a hundred years the US will have a population of around 1 billion, at that point it won't matter if your cars is carbon negative if you can't drive it anywhere, and we won't need to hit a Billion people before we start to have day long traffic jams especially if we have no other means of rapid, convenient transportation. I think Obama should also set an equal amount aside to start commuter rail lines within the cities. We're going to need it, and with the housing market being as low as it is now, this might be the best time to start buying the necessary land.
Sometimes religion is the direct cause of wars, more often than not it is the proximate cause. For example, do you seriously think Bush could have gotten elected without Christians? About how much of the atheist vote do you think he got?
"On the other hand, the non-conformists may have been the big innovators, and were probably more flexible in the face of change, like changing climate conditions, or exploring new terrain. "
Exactly, and being successful would have rewarded such individuals with access to all the best wenches. Which would have spread their genes into the religious population getting us to where we are now.
The problem with today's society is that there is no sexual reward for being a science oriented non-conforming innovator.
Therefore, I suggest that anyone who demonstrates high aptitude or innovation in one of the sciences gets to sleep with any religious girl they choose, no condoms of course. How about one girl for every article you get published.
Can't say if it's actually an evolutionary advantage, because in the short term your religious gene might out compete secular people, but in the long term it might lead to culturally regressive societies that become practically void of education like Saudi Arabia; or a situation where the culture is too regressive to protect itself from itself like in the case of Louisiana Mississippi, and Alabama. Or even more likely, religious people, who seem much more inclined to warfare like Bush for example, wind up killing us all. Actually, I'm guessing it will be probably all three at once.
When I heard the words Video games, tunnels and crime, my first thoughts were that someone had physically entered the internet via a series of tubes. That, and also I think there might have been some Tron thrown in there.
"Case in point is all the dark horse instigators the left places at right-wing events with the sole intention of causing an "incident" that might reflect badly on the organizers."
I think you need a citation for that.
I did a quick Googleing of your claim and came back with nothing. Even after trying to reword it in different ways in an attempt to get better results. So, I tried reversing it, and glaringly, the opposite understanding of what you're claiming seems to be the actual case.
I thought about listing several of the ones I found, but it actually became overwhelming, These two are just more recent cases, sorry but I don't have time to go all the way into it, but from the looks of it, this has been going on for a really long time. You might want to revise your understanding after going over this. Here's some additional reading if you have time.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the size that matters, it's how you use it.
Defaulting on our national debt would be a disaster that hurts the poor and middle class the most, and hence will hurt the Tea Party the most. They just don't realize it.
I guess that's why they've been hoarding gold, guns, and disaster food packs from Glen Beck for some time now. Personally I think they were expecting, possibly even planing, for this to happen, and have prepared for it.
So if Apple is fronting the money to build these factories, and gets exclusive rights to the output for several years, does that make Apple responsible for the treatment of the people who work in these factories, and who commit suicide by jumping off these factories? What about the impact these factories have on the environment?
It's kind of that true now a days "Christians are not giving excessive violence a thumbs-up as an acceptable lifestyle," but nobody can argue that the Iraq war (and George Bush for that matter) would have been anything but impossible without the solid support of the Christians in America. Also, I think much of European History would beg to differ with that claim, and more than a few Inquisitors would probably place you on the rack, in the name of Jesus, for such a statement if you had lived in their time. Anyways, while I appreciate your attempt to articulate why you "favor" violence over nudity, I would like to respectfully say that I think you're wrong regardless of the religion you were assigned. Mainly because viewing violence and nudity affect the brain differently. Observing violence has the ability to induce trauma because, among other things, humans have a natural tendency to empathize. Depending on the level of trauma it can lead to what is known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's why the passion plays of the middle ages and Mel Gibson's latest take employ such a gratuitous amount of it. They're attempts at using extreme images of violence to change a person''s neurology; because, if you can place suggestions in a person's mind at a time like that you have a very good chance of getting your suggestions to stick with them in their subconscious, but I'm getting off the subject. Observing nudity can be stimulating to be sure but, by its self it's certainly not trauma educing. This is true unless an individual has been imprinted (usually by their family and social circle) to associate nudity with trauma educing stimulus, like thoughts of rejection from "god" and one's social circle, uncleanliness, shame, "sin" and on and on. As it happens, Christianity, and other religions have worked tirelessly for thousands of years to create this association. I would argue, that to a person with a mind clear of religious indoctrination, observing violence is the greater of two evils so to speak; and since not everyone is religious, nor should we want that for our society if we value peace, stability and modernity, we should move to regulate our society based on a more clear or "default" version of the human mind.
Great point in my opinion. Wish I had mod points today.
It's a nice hypothesis till you consider that you're talking about Sara Palin. If anybody is in no danger of not sufficiently making herself look bad, continuously it's her. From getting caught with crib notes, to spending over 150,000 dollars on clothes while on running for vice president, to putting gun sights on Gabrialla Gifford's district, to "I read all the news papers" etc, etc, Why would anybody go through the trouble of trying to make her look bad. It'd be like putting pig slop on a dirty pig.
thanks, I I realized that right after I clicked, I was so excited by the fact that I thought I might make First Post.
Well, the Greek word for wonderer is planitis. Seems even more appropriate in light of this report.
..."and a little boy stood staring in shock at the nut case waddling like a penguin with his pants around his ankles waving his jacket in a circle over his head."
Shocked you say? I take it you don't go to a Catholic church.
Man, you have such cynical dystopian view of America. I had the great pleasure of traveling in America just last month, down the East Coast and a bit of California, and I can tell you Americans are far from the blood thirsty savages, thieves and killers in need of a "Cop or two on every bus" that you make them out to be. Of course, it's anecdotal but time and again I was amazed by the Americans I met who treated me very warmly, and acted genuinely kind and friendly. As for space, Perhaps it's cramped where you live ( there's a "in you're mother's basement" joke there that I will refrain from going for) but it appears to me that America is absolutely awash in open space. Every American City I've ever seen with the exception of New York seems to have been built in forest or park of some kind. There's so much open underutilized space everywhere you look, there's more than enough space to build trains, monorails and trolleys if people so desired.
Thanks. Are you serious? Do you really have a geiger counter? Do you have a website I can check for updates?
The mewling idiots complain about "religion" being a danger. And, within the past 100 years, we've seen that ATHEISTS rank among the cruelest, most inhuman monsters on earth
Of course it only looks like you have a pretty good argument as long as you don't look back further than the last 100 years because before that, it's almost entirely religious people killing, enslaving, indoctrinating, dehumanizing, terrorizing, and generally making life a living hell for themselves and everyone else on the planet since prehistory. One has to wonder, were the atrocities of the last 100 years the result of "ATHEISTS" and their immorality or was it the result of Humanity's historical trajectory?
Whatever the case, we can also look at what secularism and religion have bestowed on humanity. In the last 100 years Science done mostly by "ATHEISTS" has advanced humanity more than religion has in the last 200 thousand years combined. It's not even close. So, for the love of "God," give those "Mewling Idiots" a break, you might even want to say a little thanks to atheism.
Mod up.
Yeah, because going to Mars will be a horrendous wast of money just like the Louisiana Purchase and "Seward's Folly" aka Alaska.
No, Sorry you're wrong. Star Wars is actually a Documentary!
I hate to see you languishing at zero right now, I wish I had some mod points...
Oh, I didn't realize that while the sun's life is finite, there exists an infinite number of fish. Or that fish can live without the sun.
I agree, and would add one more point. America's rapidly growing population. In about a hundred years the US will have a population of around 1 billion, at that point it won't matter if your cars is carbon negative if you can't drive it anywhere, and we won't need to hit a Billion people before we start to have day long traffic jams especially if we have no other means of rapid, convenient transportation. I think Obama should also set an equal amount aside to start commuter rail lines within the cities. We're going to need it, and with the housing market being as low as it is now, this might be the best time to start buying the necessary land.
Sometimes religion is the direct cause of wars, more often than not it is the proximate cause. For example, do you seriously think Bush could have gotten elected without Christians? About how much of the atheist vote do you think he got?
"On the other hand, the non-conformists may have been the big innovators, and were probably more flexible in the face of change, like changing climate conditions, or exploring new terrain. "
Exactly, and being successful would have rewarded such individuals with access to all the best wenches. Which would have spread their genes into the religious population getting us to where we are now.
The problem with today's society is that there is no sexual reward for being a science oriented non-conforming innovator.
Therefore, I suggest that anyone who demonstrates high aptitude or innovation in one of the sciences gets to sleep with any religious girl they choose, no condoms of course. How about one girl for every article you get published.
Can't say if it's actually an evolutionary advantage, because in the short term your religious gene might out compete secular people, but in the long term it might lead to culturally regressive societies that become practically void of education like Saudi Arabia; or a situation where the culture is too regressive to protect itself from itself like in the case of Louisiana Mississippi, and Alabama. Or even more likely, religious people, who seem much more inclined to warfare like Bush for example, wind up killing us all. Actually, I'm guessing it will be probably all three at once.
When I heard the words Video games, tunnels and crime, my first thoughts were that someone had physically entered the internet via a series of tubes. That, and also I think there might have been some Tron thrown in there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJROk4Q08Tw
One Day, they will make a printer that is capable of printing a fully functional replica of its self.
I bet there's a soviet Russia joke in there....
"Case in point is all the dark horse instigators the left places at right-wing events with the sole intention of causing an "incident" that might reflect badly on the organizers."
I think you need a citation for that. I did a quick Googleing of your claim and came back with nothing. Even after trying to reword it in different ways in an attempt to get better results. So, I tried reversing it, and glaringly, the opposite understanding of what you're claiming seems to be the actual case.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/81376642.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071701287.html
I thought about listing several of the ones I found, but it actually became overwhelming, These two are just more recent cases, sorry but I don't have time to go all the way into it, but from the looks of it, this has been going on for a really long time. You might want to revise your understanding after going over this. Here's some additional reading if you have time.
http://scholar.google.co.jp/scholar?q=police+agitators+infiltration+of+anti+war+protests&hl=ja&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart