"If a church is "public" or "private" could well depend on exactly how it is run. There certainly are churchs which operate as "private members clubs".
If they're operating as a "club", then its still outside the home, and as such, its a public performance - just that the "public" in this case is limited to members. Calling something "private" doesn't make it so. Your local movie theater is private property (unless you're in the soviet union, in which case property owns YOU), and admission is limited to those who pay, and not everyone - that doesn't give them the right to say that their screenings of movies or the super bowl aren't public performances.
... remember, jesus claimed that he and god were one, and paul claimed to be speaking for god, so its all supposed to be the same. They are all nutjobs. So, whether the original greek (which applies only to the new testament - not the old) speaks of homosexuality or not is irrelevant. Jesus, since he was supposedly god, has to bear the authorship of the old testament injunction to stone gays to death.
Like I said, wtf couldn't jeebus say "Hey, you can't own people. Slavery is wrong!"? Simple - that would have been an unpopular message, and reduced the number of potential followers. Money and power before principle - same as any other cult leader or politician.
Wasn't there something in that book about not coveting other people's shit? Why does the church covet the NFL's broadcast, which is theirs (the NFL) to do as they please?
"Come to church and watch the super bowl on our big-screen tee-vee!" What next - "Come to church as we "study" all that sinful porn on our big screen tee-vee! Free kleenex. Free trench coat! Free beer!"
And jesus said that he and god were one, and paul claimed to be speaking for god, so its all supposedly the same. Or is the bible full of errors and mistakes? Well, lets look at some other "biblical teachings" Premarital sex is supposed to be evil - except jesus was an illegitimate bastard and god cuckolded joseph. And gays and lesbians are supposed to be going to hell. And so are people who don't worship god. Also those who work on the "holy day". And anyone who doesn't "give their life to jeebus."
Nice how religions prey upon people when they are at their weakest (kids, adults going through crisis, etc) and promise to solve their problems if they only believe.
Watching the super bowl on an oversized tv should be the least of your worries.
As I point out elsewhere, jesus claimed equivalence to god - "I and the father are one" - and also claimed that what we know as the old testament was totally god's will. Kind of makes jeebus a wack-pack too, no? - That the church claims that the whole bible is god's word, complete with all its contradictions, also gives a LOT of material to bible-bash.
We are willing to pay any individual *$250,000 if they can produce empirical evidence which proves that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
...
Challenge Grant Update: Recently converted Pastafarians are adding matching reward funds to the Boing Boing Intelligent Design Challenge. Jason Kottke of kottke.org (Link) and Sean Bonner of metblogs (Link) have each offered an additional $250,000. We've been flooded with still more donations, and have decided to cap the purse at $1 million -- in part because the number contains a lot of pretty, round zeroes that resemble holy meatballs. But also because many of you offered sums payable in "whisky and wenches," or "ho's 'n' blow," neither of which really count. Thanks all the same.
The bible is as ridiculous as the flying spaghetti monster - but at least the FSM never told people to go forth and wage any sort of holy war.
Do you really believe isurance companies are going to do anything but try to throw a monkey wrench into any palns to excise them from their most profitable operations?
Public health care is just too important to involve insurance companies, who have a vested interest in seeing it fail, in the formulation of policy.
To that extent, Obama is not just an optimist - he's a fool.
Other countries didn't try to please everyone when they brought in public health schemes - they aimed to please only one group - the general population, the voters who put them into power and entrusted them with the mandate to fix it.
Do you go to the bathroom during commercials? Thief!
I'm an even bigger thief - I don't watch ANY of it, so I'm depriving them of the benefits of all their hard work. No commercials. No branding. No "eyeballs":-)
And, as a hard-line atheist (if I *were* religious, you'd say I was a calvanist), I don't go to church either, so I get the best of both worlds, I guess. Stealing from both the NFL *and* god!
I won't lose any sleep over sleeping in on Sunday, either.
He railed against the money-changers, but not the slave owners.
He said that the meek would inherit the kingdom, but he didn't exclude slave owners
He said that those who kept his commandments would be okay, not anyone else. Of course, slave-owners, as long as they did what he said, got a free pass... what an asshole.
He said "love thy neighbor as thyself" - but slaves, well, I guess technically, they're not your neighbour...
He ranted against premarital and extra-marital sex, but not against slavery.
He said "keep my commandments" - why couldn't one of them have been to not own people? Simple - he was a coward and a con artist. Same as Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Mike Warnke, and the rest of them... jesus was the original "Matchstick Man."
Remember - he said "I and my father are one." And we all know that god had no problem with "his people" enslaving others, raping them, committing genocide, etc. About King David - "a man after my own heart" - was also a murdering swine. Just like god himself, or so the so-called "good book" says.
How to become a "good" Christian in 20 easy steps.
Confess to all your friends, associates and church leaders that you love Jesus and intend to become His slave and that you will devote your life to Him. It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, just saying it will put you in a Christian mode.
Join a church, get baptized and attribute your conversion to the priest or minister. Gaze reverently into his eyes as he pontificates about the nature of God. Sighing every once and a while, or wiping a tear will guarantee their devotion. If you join a revival church, fall to the floor, shake your body, put up both hands and yell: JAYsus-ah! NEVER bring up the topic of sexual molestation to your priest, no matter how many boys or girls he may have poked.
Every Sunday, make sure you put a large sum of MONEY into the church's MONEY basket. Make sure that everyone in the congregation sees you giving MONEY.
When talking with your priest and religious friends, occasionally confuse something that they said with something that Jesus said. This will impress them and they will think more highly of you.
Read the Bible, but ignore the atrocities and concentrate only on what seems "good" to you. For instance, discard the parts where God kills firstborns, pregnant women, etc., and only keep verses such as "God is love." Its like taking a sugar coated bitter pill, but it will appear good and that's what counts here.
Learn a few basic Hebrew words and whenever you're in a religious discussion, mention them in the context of their original meaning and comparing them to the English version. This will impress others of your Biblical knowledge, even if you don't know squat about theology.
Rely on faith and believe in the Bible superstitions, regardless of how silly they may seem. Yes, even the talking donkey, unicorns, and the strolling on water part. Even if you don't believe in them, just pretend that you do; no one will be able to tell the difference.
Abandon all reason and critical thinking. This is imperative. You cannot become a good Christian if you question the Bible with reason or skepticism.
Smile a lot to everyone you see. Say you love them even when you hate their guts. You must pretend, at all costs, to love your worst enemies even if it kills them in the end.
Attempt to convert your unbelieving friends. Make an ass out of yourself to the point of getting them angry. Make sure you always keep smiling and tell them how much you love them. This will escalate their anger and leave you fully satisfied. If they persist, claim that they are in league with the Devil and only faith in Jesus can release them (make sure you keep smiling).
If anyone presents reasonable arguments against Christianity, simply go int
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous.... shall inherit the kingdom of God
Premarital sex? Jesus says "Go to hell!"
Gay? Jesus says "Go to hell!"
But owning other human being is okay? My turn to say "Go to hell, jeebus!"
So why don't you get off your ass like Ralph Nader did and start digging. He made a huge difference by taking on corporate interests and questionable legislation. Obama empowers people to do more than Ralph did. People just need to step up and stop hoping for a benevolent dictator.
I already did my share - ran 3 times, lost 3 times - and all funded 100% from my own pocket. Now if you want to appoint me as a benevolent dictator...
There's always a delay - even for "live" events. How else do you think they bleep out m*the*f*ck*ng c*cks*cking b*st*rds and c*nts, or just change to a different camera/mic?
"Jesus was a pretty rebellious and rock the boat sort of guy"
Guess that's why he banned slavery... oh, wait, he didn't.
Gays and lesbians, and premarital / extramarital sex (never mind that his mother got preggo outside of marriage) he'd condemn, but slavery? "Don't rock the boat!" Really, which is worse?
And now a word from our sponsors:
Wilson runs a nail factory and decides his business needs a bit of advertising on the Super Bowl. He has a chat with a friend who works in marketing and he offers to make a TV ad for Wilson's Nails.
"Give me a week," says the friend, "and I'll be back with a tape."
A week goes by and the marketing executive comes to see Wilson. He puts a cassette in the video and presses play. A Roman soldier is busy nailing Jesus to the cross. He turns to face the camera and says with a grin "Use Wilson's Nails, they'll hold anything."
Wilson goes mad shouting: "What is the matter with you? They'll never show that on the Super Bowl! Give it another try, but no more Romans crucifying Jesus!"
Another week goes by and the marketing man comes back to see Wilson with another tape. He puts it in the machine and hits play. This time the camera pans out from a Roman standing with his arms folded to show Jesus on the cross. The Roman looks up at him and says 'Wilson's Nails, they'll hold anything'.
Wilson is beside himself. "You don't understand: I don't want anything with Jesus on the cross! Now listen, I'll give you one last chance. Come back in a week with an advertisement that I can broadcast on the Super Bowl."
A week passes and Wilson waits impatiently. The marketing executive arrives and puts on the new video. A naked man with long hair, gasping for breath, is running across a field. About a dozen Roman soldiers come over the hill, hot on his trail. One of them turns to camera and says 'If only we had used Wilson's Nails!'.
"The churches are just seeking the same exemption that bars already have. (not that I see why anyone needs one.)"
Brewers subsidize the game with big ad buys. That's why they don't mind them showing the game in bars.
When churches start taking out big ad spots *that aren't offensive to viewers*, they'll get the same "consideration".
Churches have no right to a "free ride". Trading on the coat-tails of the popularity of someone else's product when you don't have an agreement or license is not right, and this is exactly what the church is doing - they admit they're trying to attract people by showing the game.
"Only public performances fall under the ambit of copyright law."
A couple of hundred people gathered in a church is a "public performance."
Especially since they're using it as an "outreach" to people who aren't regular church-goers. That makes it not only a public performance, but performance in return of expectation of a "good or valuable consideration".
The church is in the wrong here - like on so many other things.
Economists have been critical of Greenspans 2003 decision to cut interest rates which, they argue, helped create the housing bubble, the collapse of which provoked this summers banking crisis.
The damage from the overvalued dollar threatens to be even more dangerous. With President Bush largely maintaining the high dollar policy, the trade deficit and foreign debt have continued to rise at a rapid pace. The current account deficit hit an incredible $660 billion in the most recent quarter, more than 5.7 percent of GDP. This deficit will push total foreign debt to more than $3 trillion by the end of this year. On its current path, it will exceed $7 trillionapproximately 50 percent of GDPby 2009.
The deficit is actually $9 trillion, not $7 trillion, and that's a full year ahead of schedule. What ever happened to "the buck stops here?"
But I believe owning something is a part of the American Dream, as well. I believe when somebody owns their own home, they're realizing the American Dream. They can say it's my home, it's nobody else's home. (Applause.) And we saw that yesterday in Atlanta, when we went to the new homes of the new homeowners. And I saw with pride firsthand, the man say, welcome to my home. He didn't say, welcome to government's home; he didn't say, welcome to my neighbor's home; he said, welcome to my home. I own the home, and you're welcome to come in the home, and I appreciate it. (Applause.) He was a proud man. He was proud that he owns the property. And I was proud for him. And I want that pride to extend all throughout our country.
One of the things that we've got to do is to address problems straight on and deal with them in a way that helps us meet goals. And so I want to talk about a couple of goals and -- one goal and a problem.
The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it.
We now know that not everyone who wants a home should be able to get one just because they can fog a mirror.
We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.
this was the initial go-ahead by Bush for the private sector to eas up on lending standards for mortgages
And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.
so the mortgage industry came out with all sorts of snake-oil financial schemes, to extend the "dream" everywhere - ev
the story is about who will give the best support to S&T
And I pointed out that the best support for S&T is to fix the problems with the economy. And you don't do that by playing BS bingo, with buzz-words like "transparency". You do that with specifics, like saying "I am going to get rid of software patents because they stifle innovation." You let people know whose ox you're going to gore, so they can make a decision based on facts, not bafflegab.
You want transparency? This is transparent. It gives specific actions. Not "I will improve government by increasing transparency" or "I will help homeowners by waving my hands all over the place".
It addresses the deficit, with specific actions; also the housing bubble, the environment, dependence on foreign oil, science and technology, software patents, Iraq, the middle east peace process, hand guns, abortion, gay marriage, the federal minimum wage, health care, ending the war on drugs and reducing the prison population, electoral finance and other political reforms, illegal immigrants drivers licenses and taxes, lunar exploration, education, etc.
Fixing the finance crisis, even though it means some painful adjustments, is needed. So is patent reform, especially software patent reform, or you can kiss a large section of S&T development goodbye, as it moves off-shore to escape restrictions. All anyone is doing is promising to throw money willy-nilly at problems, without addressing the over $80 trillion dollar issues ($9 trillion in federal debt, plus another $$75 trillion in off-the-books future liabilities via social security and other entitlement programs).
It would be fun to hook every politician to a polygraph and ask them the specific details that they so often try to get us to ignore. And give them a shock every time they lie.
ets return to Robert Shiller. His research shows that house prices in America, in real terms, are remarkably stable. For 100 years - from 1890 to 1990 - they went nowhere. In real terms, they barely changed in the entire century. Then, suddenly after 1997, house prices shot up by 71% in real terms.
What this tells us is that housing prices are not likely to remain up so high for too long. Historically, they kept up with inflation, nothing more. America is still a big place; there is no obvious reason why all of a sudden housing should occupy a bigger percentage of the nations assets and earnings.
Most likely, the gains of the last 10 years will be given back. But the process is long, slow and hard.
Were talking about trillions of dollars, so much bigger than the losses weve seen from subprime so far, says Shiller. He is not talking about the losses in implied wealth by the write-down of Americas housing stock, but about the real losses to financial institutions and investors who have bet on continued housing price increases. As housing rose, ordinary consumers adjusted their spending habits to the increase of wealth they thought they had. Lenders extended them credit - also based on the increase in perceived housing wealth. And then, the mortgage credits were packaged into various derivative instruments and sold all over the world - eventually bankrupting everything from Norwegian fishing towns to French pension funds.
We're not just talking sub-prime here... a lot of ordinary people with good credit will also find themselves upside-down on their mortgages as houses continue to fall in value.
Jan Hatzius (right), chief economist at Goldman Sachs, made waves today with a note released last night that put possible credit losses from mortgage defualts at $2 trillion, due to leverage. Hatziuss anlaysis have drawn attention before: Back in March 2006, Hatzius said U.S. housing was overvalued by about 20%, based on historical relationships between monthly mortgage payments and median household incomes.
Of course, as interest rates rise, so do mortgage payments, changing the relationship between the monthly mortgage payment and median household income. According to that formula, we can expect that any house bought after 2001 will be upside-down before the decade is out, since, despite the feds best efforts, mortgage rates WILL rise, since they are now seen as a very risky investment unless the purchaser has at least 20% "skin" in the game.
sure they can. they can do it if they finance it, IE take loans, IE get into debt. and it's not impossible: they can return that debt within a year of two. we are talking about a company that profits a few billion EACH quarter.
Now THAT would really be a watershed event... and an indicator that all is really not well with the good ship VistaSoft.
Microsoft will never take out a loan. Ever. They'll issue more shares first.
Like I said, platitudes... being "for" something is easy - saying "this is the text of the law I'm pushing to pass, and these are the special interests whose oxes are going to be served on the bar-b-que if you vote for me" is a different kettle of fish. Also, much more transparent.
However, like all politicians, can't afford to offend any special-interest group. After all, they might give money to your opponent. Or sponsor dirty tactics. Or some people whose special interests you're gonna gut might vote against you.
Its like one person saying "I'm against the war" and another saying "I will push for a resolution to withdraw n troops by day x, and the rest by day x+y." One is just a politician talking, the other is specifics that people want to know. And much more transparent.
Mostly people who took out variable-rate loans when interest rates were at historic lows and housing prices at historic highs. This definitely sucks for them, but shouldn't stupidity have consequences sometimes?
I agree 100% - which is why all the candidates proposing any sort of solution that involves any "tinkering" are just making things worse by delaying the inevitable.
People who are under water should realize that they bet wrong, and face the music. They treated a house as an investment, and not a home. A home is where you "hang your hat" - and that can be either owned or rented. A house, on the other hand, is a pile of wood, plasterboard, bricks, stucco, etc., on some dirt.
We're going to see a huge increase in "jingle mail". Also foreclosures and bankruptcies will continue to increase. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they can start rebuilding their lives, and the sooner banks will have to bring those toxic loans back onto their books.
Its only once everyone (including potential investors in the rest of the world) know the true numbers, that a solution can be found. Yes, there was criminal behaviour on the part of lenders, brokers, and real estate agents. However, under the legal doctrine of "unclean hands" many of the people who got "taken" were no better.
Liar's loans, ninja loans (no income, no job or assets), purposeful mis-statements - if you lied to get that loan, you have as much right to complain as someone who got ripped off because they got short-changed buying a rock of crack.
Millions of people lied. The honest ones have recourse - the dishonest ones will have to suck it up, and be happy that they're not facing criminal fraud charges (yet), rather than blaming others.
How come no politician is saying this simple truth - that if you lied to get your mortgage, you should be happy you're not in jail, and there will be NO bail-out for you.
Please respond to the point I made earlier about S&T not being about who knows the right answers (or who can spout the most convincing ones at the time), but who can create the environment where the right answer can be determined.
We already know what the right answers are - without concrete action on the deficit, "Science and Technology" are useless... what good is S&T if you've got no money, and foreign investors refuse to lend, because they believe you'll inflate your currency to the point where its worth less than any return they can realize?
Will "Science and Technology" or "Greater Transparency"
raise federal taxes?
lower federal expenditures?
refuse bail-outs for homeowners, banks, etc. (Greed carries its own punishment.)
These are policy issues, not "transparency" issues.
This is not "rocket science" - this is about someone coming forward and saying "we can't afford to continue like this, we couldn't afford it at the time, the party's over, we're in for a huge hangover for the next 20 years, we're in hock past our eyeballs, and now we have to pay for it - and if you think this is painful, it'll be even more painful if we don't..."
Of course, anyone who actually says that is never going to be elected... so what is needed is someone who is willing to do that, but also willing to lie about it until they're elected. What is REALLY needed is less transparency, at least until they're in the White House. Promise them anything, but give them tax increases, lower expenditures, and a balanced budget.
Hopefully you're right. I just don't see any real solution to the budget + housing meltdown problem, beyond taking measures that would restore fiscal sanity, and which will be VERY unpopular, because they will involve a serious cut in the standard of living.
Is the US ready for a 5% "pay down the deficit" sales tax on every good sold? That would only raise a bit more than a trillion per year, but its a start.
Is the US ready for $4 - $5 / gallon gasoline?
Is the US prepared to end mortgage tax deductability?
Is the US prepared to change its drug laws so that they can start dealing with soft drugs as a social problem, rather than a criminal one, and cut the number of people in jail, and stop feeding the drug gangs' profits?
I don't see it. Everyone is going to go "Hey, I deserve to be an exception!" So, since people won't go for that, the only other solution is for someone to do a Kodos the Executioner? Because that's what its going to take - a couple million people foreclosed, a couple of big-name bank failures, and a couple trillion dollars of bad debt allowed to "work its way through the system.", or massive tax hikes, which are politically suicidal.
It was done in Canada - a 7% GST (Goods and Services Tax) on all sales. It had a brutal effect on the economy - the first "Made In Canada" recession - but it DID reverse the federal budget deficit.
From the second-highest to the lowest of the G-7, and for 2007, Canada posted a federal surplus of $11 billion, despite increasing expenditures by 6% to improve health care, etc. Only 13 more years to go, and net debt will be zero.
The deal is still below what Yahoo! was worth a year ago ($47 billion), and also, with Friday's rise, not much of a premium http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=YHOO
Now add in that Microsoft is only offering $21 billion in cash, and the rest in stock, and that's no longer much of a premium for buying out the whole business.
Yahoo! could also do a "poison pill" - buy Redhat. There's no way that Microsoft would be allowed to buy Yahoo! under such circumstances.
Unless the economic issue is addressed, all bets are off. For example, you can't offer tax incentives to compete with HMOs if you don't have any money and need every cent you bring in; after a decade of spending 103% of income, the US consumer is beyond broke. The government? Once you bring the off-the-books accounts for entitlements such as social security back onto the books, the US has a federal deficit of almost $80 trillion dollars. That's obligations of a million dollars per family.
There's no way that's getting paid, unless the US does some massive inflating of the currency, which carries its own problems. The question isnt "if" the US is going to default - its a question of whether the feds formally default, or just inflate their way out of debt.
Slashdot Mirror
"If a church is "public" or "private" could well depend on exactly how it is run. There certainly are churchs which operate as "private members clubs".
If they're operating as a "club", then its still outside the home, and as such, its a public performance - just that the "public" in this case is limited to members. Calling something "private" doesn't make it so. Your local movie theater is private property (unless you're in the soviet union, in which case property owns YOU), and admission is limited to those who pay, and not everyone - that doesn't give them the right to say that their screenings of movies or the super bowl aren't public performances.
Like I said, wtf couldn't jeebus say "Hey, you can't own people. Slavery is wrong!"? Simple - that would have been an unpopular message, and reduced the number of potential followers. Money and power before principle - same as any other cult leader or politician.
Wasn't there something in that book about not coveting other people's shit? Why does the church covet the NFL's broadcast, which is theirs (the NFL) to do as they please?
"Come to church and watch the super bowl on our big-screen tee-vee!" What next - "Come to church as we "study" all that sinful porn on our big screen tee-vee! Free kleenex. Free trench coat! Free beer!"
And jesus said that he and god were one, and paul claimed to be speaking for god, so its all supposedly the same. Or is the bible full of errors and mistakes? Well, lets look at some other "biblical teachings" Premarital sex is supposed to be evil - except jesus was an illegitimate bastard and god cuckolded joseph. And gays and lesbians are supposed to be going to hell. And so are people who don't worship god. Also those who work on the "holy day". And anyone who doesn't "give their life to jeebus."
Nice how religions prey upon people when they are at their weakest (kids, adults going through crisis, etc) and promise to solve their problems if they only believe.
Watching the super bowl on an oversized tv should be the least of your worries.
As I point out elsewhere, jesus claimed equivalence to god - "I and the father are one" - and also claimed that what we know as the old testament was totally god's will. Kind of makes jeebus a wack-pack too, no? - That the church claims that the whole bible is god's word, complete with all its contradictions, also gives a LOT of material to bible-bash.
I'm still waiting for someone to to try to collect the $1,000,000 reward:
The bible is as ridiculous as the flying spaghetti monster - but at least the FSM never told people to go forth and wage any sort of holy war.
Do you really believe isurance companies are going to do anything but try to throw a monkey wrench into any palns to excise them from their most profitable operations?
Public health care is just too important to involve insurance companies, who have a vested interest in seeing it fail, in the formulation of policy.
To that extent, Obama is not just an optimist - he's a fool.
Other countries didn't try to please everyone when they brought in public health schemes - they aimed to please only one group - the general population, the voters who put them into power and entrusted them with the mandate to fix it.
He railed against the money-changers, but not the slave owners.
He said that the meek would inherit the kingdom, but he didn't exclude slave owners
He said that those who kept his commandments would be okay, not anyone else. Of course, slave-owners, as long as they did what he said, got a free pass ... what an asshole.
He said "love thy neighbor as thyself" - but slaves, well, I guess technically, they're not your neighbour ...
He ranted against premarital and extra-marital sex, but not against slavery.
He said "keep my commandments" - why couldn't one of them have been to not own people? Simple - he was a coward and a con artist. Same as Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Mike Warnke, and the rest of them ... jesus was the original "Matchstick Man."
Remember - he said "I and my father are one." And we all know that god had no problem with "his people" enslaving others, raping them, committing genocide, etc. About King David - "a man after my own heart" - was also a murdering swine. Just like god himself, or so the so-called "good book" says.
How to become a "good" Christian in 20 easy steps.
He condemned others as well:
Premarital sex? Jesus says "Go to hell!"
Gay? Jesus says "Go to hell!"
But owning other human being is okay? My turn to say "Go to hell, jeebus!"
I already did my share - ran 3 times, lost 3 times - and all funded 100% from my own pocket. Now if you want to appoint me as a benevolent dictator ...
That's what the "chuck grip" is - Chuck Norris.
Remember, Chuck Norris' hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.
There's always a delay - even for "live" events. How else do you think they bleep out m*the*f*ck*ng c*cks*cking b*st*rds and c*nts, or just change to a different camera/mic?
"Jesus was a pretty rebellious and rock the boat sort of guy"
Guess that's why he banned slavery ... oh, wait, he didn't.
Gays and lesbians, and premarital / extramarital sex (never mind that his mother got preggo outside of marriage) he'd condemn, but slavery? "Don't rock the boat!" Really, which is worse?
And now a word from our sponsors:
"The churches are just seeking the same exemption that bars already have. (not that I see why anyone needs one.)"
Brewers subsidize the game with big ad buys. That's why they don't mind them showing the game in bars.
When churches start taking out big ad spots *that aren't offensive to viewers*, they'll get the same "consideration".
Churches have no right to a "free ride". Trading on the coat-tails of the popularity of someone else's product when you don't have an agreement or license is not right, and this is exactly what the church is doing - they admit they're trying to attract people by showing the game.
"Only public performances fall under the ambit of copyright law."
A couple of hundred people gathered in a church is a "public performance."
Especially since they're using it as an "outreach" to people who aren't regular church-goers. That makes it not only a public performance, but performance in return of expectation of a "good or valuable consideration".
The church is in the wrong here - like on so many other things.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2461415.ece
So Bush wasn't president at that time?
Or here back in 2004: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/overcoming_the_bubble_economy.php
The deficit is actually $9 trillion, not $7 trillion, and that's a full year ahead of schedule. What ever happened to "the buck stops here?"
And I guess Bush never said this back in 2002, which was the signal to lower loan standards http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020618-1.html - my comments in italics ...
And I pointed out that the best support for S&T is to fix the problems with the economy. And you don't do that by playing BS bingo, with buzz-words like "transparency". You do that with specifics, like saying "I am going to get rid of software patents because they stifle innovation." You let people know whose ox you're going to gore, so they can make a decision based on facts, not bafflegab.
You want transparency? This is transparent. It gives specific actions. Not "I will improve government by increasing transparency" or "I will help homeowners by waving my hands all over the place".
It addresses the deficit, with specific actions; also the housing bubble, the environment, dependence on foreign oil, science and technology, software patents, Iraq, the middle east peace process, hand guns, abortion, gay marriage, the federal minimum wage, health care, ending the war on drugs and reducing the prison population, electoral finance and other political reforms, illegal immigrants drivers licenses and taxes, lunar exploration, education, etc.
Fixing the finance crisis, even though it means some painful adjustments, is needed. So is patent reform, especially software patent reform, or you can kiss a large section of S&T development goodbye, as it moves off-shore to escape restrictions. All anyone is doing is promising to throw money willy-nilly at problems, without addressing the over $80 trillion dollar issues ($9 trillion in federal debt, plus another $$75 trillion in off-the-books future liabilities via social security and other entitlement programs).
It would be fun to hook every politician to a polygraph and ask them the specific details that they so often try to get us to ignore. And give them a shock every time they lie.
Housing prices have been out of whack since the dot.com bust of 2000.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.large.gif
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/house-prices-stable/2008/01/31/
We're not just talking sub-prime here ... a lot of ordinary people with good credit will also find themselves upside-down on their mortgages as houses continue to fall in value.
Of course, as interest rates rise, so do mortgage payments, changing the relationship between the monthly mortgage payment and median household income. According to that formula, we can expect that any house bought after 2001 will be upside-down before the decade is out, since, despite the feds best efforts, mortgage rates WILL rise, since they are now seen as a very risky investment unless the purchaser has at least 20% "skin" in the game.
Now THAT would really be a watershed event ... and an indicator that all is really not well with the good ship VistaSoft.
Microsoft will never take out a loan. Ever. They'll issue more shares first.
Like I said, platitudes ... being "for" something is easy - saying "this is the text of the law I'm pushing to pass, and these are the special interests whose oxes are going to be served on the bar-b-que if you vote for me" is a different kettle of fish. Also, much more transparent.
However, like all politicians, can't afford to offend any special-interest group. After all, they might give money to your opponent. Or sponsor dirty tactics. Or some people whose special interests you're gonna gut might vote against you.
Its like one person saying "I'm against the war" and another saying "I will push for a resolution to withdraw n troops by day x, and the rest by day x+y." One is just a politician talking, the other is specifics that people want to know. And much more transparent.
People who are under water should realize that they bet wrong, and face the music. They treated a house as an investment, and not a home. A home is where you "hang your hat" - and that can be either owned or rented. A house, on the other hand, is a pile of wood, plasterboard, bricks, stucco, etc., on some dirt.
We're going to see a huge increase in "jingle mail". Also foreclosures and bankruptcies will continue to increase. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they can start rebuilding their lives, and the sooner banks will have to bring those toxic loans back onto their books.
Its only once everyone (including potential investors in the rest of the world) know the true numbers, that a solution can be found. Yes, there was criminal behaviour on the part of lenders, brokers, and real estate agents. However, under the legal doctrine of "unclean hands" many of the people who got "taken" were no better.
Liar's loans, ninja loans (no income, no job or assets), purposeful mis-statements - if you lied to get that loan, you have as much right to complain as someone who got ripped off because they got short-changed buying a rock of crack.
Millions of people lied. The honest ones have recourse - the dishonest ones will have to suck it up, and be happy that they're not facing criminal fraud charges (yet), rather than blaming others.
How come no politician is saying this simple truth - that if you lied to get your mortgage, you should be happy you're not in jail, and there will be NO bail-out for you.
We already know what the right answers are - without concrete action on the deficit, "Science and Technology" are useless ... what good is S&T if you've got no money, and foreign investors refuse to lend, because they believe you'll inflate your currency to the point where its worth less than any return they can realize?
Will "Science and Technology" or "Greater Transparency"
-
raise federal taxes?
-
lower federal expenditures?
-
refuse bail-outs for homeowners, banks, etc. (Greed carries its own punishment.)
These are policy issues, not "transparency" issues.This is not "rocket science" - this is about someone coming forward and saying "we can't afford to continue like this, we couldn't afford it at the time, the party's over, we're in for a huge hangover for the next 20 years, we're in hock past our eyeballs, and now we have to pay for it - and if you think this is painful, it'll be even more painful if we don't ..."
Of course, anyone who actually says that is never going to be elected ... so what is needed is someone who is willing to do that, but also willing to lie about it until they're elected. What is REALLY needed is less transparency, at least until they're in the White House. Promise them anything, but give them tax increases, lower expenditures, and a balanced budget.
Hopefully you're right. I just don't see any real solution to the budget + housing meltdown problem, beyond taking measures that would restore fiscal sanity, and which will be VERY unpopular, because they will involve a serious cut in the standard of living.
I don't see it. Everyone is going to go "Hey, I deserve to be an exception!" So, since people won't go for that, the only other solution is for someone to do a Kodos the Executioner? Because that's what its going to take - a couple million people foreclosed, a couple of big-name bank failures, and a couple trillion dollars of bad debt allowed to "work its way through the system.", or massive tax hikes, which are politically suicidal.
It was done in Canada - a 7% GST (Goods and Services Tax) on all sales. It had a brutal effect on the economy - the first "Made In Canada" recession - but it DID reverse the federal budget deficit.
From the second-highest to the lowest of the G-7, and for 2007, Canada posted a federal surplus of $11 billion, despite increasing expenditures by 6% to improve health care, etc. Only 13 more years to go, and net debt will be zero.
The deal is still below what Yahoo! was worth a year ago ($47 billion), and also, with Friday's rise, not much of a premium http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=YHOO
Now add in that Microsoft is only offering $21 billion in cash, and the rest in stock, and that's no longer much of a premium for buying out the whole business.
Yahoo! could also do a "poison pill" - buy Redhat. There's no way that Microsoft would be allowed to buy Yahoo! under such circumstances.
Actually, no, they can't. They have "only" $19 gigabux on hand.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT
(* mrq: most recent quarter)Unless the economic issue is addressed, all bets are off. For example, you can't offer tax incentives to compete with HMOs if you don't have any money and need every cent you bring in; after a decade of spending 103% of income, the US consumer is beyond broke. The government? Once you bring the off-the-books accounts for entitlements such as social security back onto the books, the US has a federal deficit of almost $80 trillion dollars. That's obligations of a million dollars per family.
There's no way that's getting paid, unless the US does some massive inflating of the currency, which carries its own problems. The question isnt "if" the US is going to default - its a question of whether the feds formally default, or just inflate their way out of debt.