I think you need to slow down and attempt to understand what you are trying to say, what the articles you referenced say, and what I have said before you attempt to reply. I will offer some guidance for you so your not alone.
First, the post you pointed to does not say that France, Russia, India, and China's nuclear power plants are profitable, it says they don't need to be because the government and not the market decides what get placed where. Second, it talks about subsidies driving the nuclear power production in the US and states that there is no more standing for that then there is for solar subsidies. Finally, I said it would all be moot if the government weren't telling people what to do, if other people minded their own business, the government would not be subsidizing the building of nuclear power plants creating your complaint in the first place.
Ok, now that you are armed and dangerous, come back with a sound mind and we can discuss this more. I think you are not seeing things for what they are or somehow have impost some cloak over top of it in order to jam your ideology on it. However, I do no thing we are at odds in our opinions otherwise.
The government gets a legal opinion on almost everything it does which isn't already being done. This is a response to lawsuits over existing actions in the past. You may find it hard to believe, but there were actual legal opinions written before specific battles in both current wars. We are at war and needed or actually got a legal opinion to find if we were justified in engaging and killing the enemy.
Don't take the legal opinion to mean more then what it means. It's called cover your ass and this is not because they knew it to be illegal, it's to limit liability on what they know is legal.
As for being pessimistic, I think you crossed that line when ignoring other possible explanations. As you said, we don't know and it is all a guess at this point. Even the potential illegality is little more then a guess until such time it is adjudicated by a competent court of jurisdiction. You should also note a legal concept called necessity in which illegal actions are excused because the consequences would be worse. Examples of this in the past is where you run a red light or speed because someone in the car faces death without emergency medical treatment and not doing those things would have precedent the saving of their life. Another example is almost all self defense concepts that allow you to break a law within reason in order to save your life or the life of someone else. The most current example was with an escaped convict who was told by the warden that he would be murdered by a specific prisoner who was also transferred to his cell within the same week. He got excused for his crimes in breaking out of prison.
Firstly the guy I responded to was speaking about "the program"
I followed the parent links up, it seems as you were responding to me. I am the guy you responded to and yes, I meant what I said.
Secondly, do you understand plausible deniability? It's when you know that Z is illegal, but you come up with a PLAUSIBLE way of framing it so that you can then say "I thought Z was legal" when someone finds out what you did and says that you were wrong for it.
And unless someone specifically involved with the administration with insight into this, it is nothing more then speculation on your part. Because something could happen does not in any way mean it is what did happen. You are attempting to assert that through some sort of mind reading that the Bush administration knew it was acting illegally before he was told he was. I answered this in your other posts and I'm not sure why we are still on it.
The way these people did this typically was to have somebody tell them that it was ok, as in "yes your program is legal" "yes it's ok to torture people" "yes we think they have WMD's"
And here is where you are refusing to look at the facts. No legitimate source knew that WMDs were not in place until after the war, no major country with major inteligence operations knew that Iraq had no WMDs and in fact, believed that they did as well as that Iraq was confined and not a threat warranting oil. Of course the biggest protagonist against the war was also prime benefiters of secrete oil deals exploiting the UN sanctions for submarket deals causing the sanctions to be ineffective in requiring Saddam to completely verify his arsenal. Rumsfeld was correct in when he said there are unknown unknowns in which there are things we don't know we don't know about. You are attempting to assert that as if you have some insight into the situation yet you don't have anything more then your own biased opinion.
It would work like this in a practical though ridiculous example (assume that the legality of killing people is unknown). I want to kill Joe, but I think that killing is probably wrong. The thing is that I REALLY want to kill Joe, so I find an accomplice, particularly a lawyer. I have my accomplice tell me that killing is in fact ok. I kill Joe. Now, someone comes to me and says "killing is wrong" and I say "well I thought it was legal, see I even took the time to ask a lawyer and he told me it was ok." Now you might want to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, but their track record suggests you'd be quite foolish indeed to do so.
Lets put this into a better context. Suppose Joe wants to kill and harm you or your immediate family in your own home because you did some things he thinks is really bad. You want to kill Joe because of this in an effort to protect your family and ask a lawyer what you can do. The lawyer comes back and says you need to call the police and get a gun to protect yourself- kill him only as a last resort in your own defense. Someone then tells Joe you are getting a gun for your own and your family's protection and joe decides to act before you can learn how to use it. He comes over, kicks in your door, yells come profanities just before saying he was going to kill you all. You pull the gun and shoot him. Later, you are arrested because the cop says your self defense claim falls though because you antagonize the guy and elevated it.
Now here is the problem with your analysis. You are assuming that someone knew it wasn't legal rather then being blinded by ideology, ignorance and necessity. (BTW, necessity is actually a legal doctrine of defense too.) Everyone knows killing is bad and illegal but people are allowed to kill and get away with it legally, every damn day. Cops can shoot criminals, you can kill intruders posing an immediate threat to you or someone else, doctors kill people
There is this principle of reason behind actions. If you combine that with the mindset of ideology, you find some pretty fucked up reasoning. A drug dealer find a way to create a new (synthetic?) drug that mimics cocaine or methamphetamine but escapes all the current current laws prohibiting those drugs either by chemical composition or the lack of specific ingredients, it he acting legally when he finds that it isn't in violation of any laws or is he purposely subverting the law by acting illegally? Please note that in both cases, it would be a subversion of the law because the intent is more then the chemical compositions. OF course the answer is, you are acting legally because even though he got around the laws, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty and our government laws work in a way that you are allowed to act unless specifically prohibited from doing so. This isn't limited to Bush or the republicans or democrats, it's expanded to us all. Anyways, if because of a strong ideology, I think we should be able to do something, ask a lawyer if it is legal and of he returns a "yes" because he is of the same ideology, then you are not breaking the law in your intent but acting legally until it is otherwise found out. OF course if you are actually breaking the law, you are liable for those actions but we are talking of intent here.
There is ample evidence that ignorance, compounded by ideology and a misunderstood need are at play here rather then malice with the intent to violate the laws.
I think I already answered that. External costs are recovered through savings to everyone. IF you think you can make a list of ever conceivable impact, then start charging companies for it, then your measly pittance of a salary will be insufficient to live on. And yes, when I say measly, I have no idea how much you make a year, but I know that what most Americans make wouldn't be able to pay the costs covered and there would be no way to make it up as everything has external costs.
What subsidies are and what they are supposed to be are different. They are supposed to be temporary aid to get started or during hard tymes. What they are is a yearly hand out to the already wealthy. Cargill is one of the US's largest privately owned corporations yet it receives billions of tax dollars yearly. Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, is another large corporation that receives billions in subsidies. The Freemarket CATO Institute cites ADM in a case study of corporate welfare.
And the Cato institute would be short sighted, biased, and wrong. OR at least your take on it. Even your link to the CATO institute's policy analisis shows this. Their first gripe is about Ethanol which would not otherwise be productive enough to be used. Again, get people out of the business of telling others what to do and the government will not have a reason to give subsidies.
I knew it, I wonder why I post links when they are not read. If you had read at least the article from CATO I linked to you should have read how nuclear power plants are only built because government says to build them, that if it were up to the free market they would not be built that if it were up to the free market they would not be built. Here's the quote: "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
And what did I say? "the subsidies you are pointed out was because of government interference and requirements that wouldn't have been there in the first place." It sounds like you are trying to disagree with me by agreeing with me. Again, if people weren't telling others what to do, this wouldn't be there in the first place and no justification could be made.
I don't have to, I've already pointed out problems I have with Al Gore. I even pointed out how at least George Bush uses geothermal heating for his ranch in Crawford, TX while Gore built an energy hog of a home himself.
I'm not exactly sure where we are in disagreement then. Perhaps my statement should be taken more as an in general to everyone statement and not just to you. When I made it, I was more or less venting some steam.
If you pollute you are forcing people to do what they don't want to. And yes, burning fossil fuels is polluting. As is using nuclear power.
No it isn't. Only in some "you can control every aspect of everything" is burning fossil fuels and everything else pollution. It is unrealistic given our technology at present to hold those kind of standards when there is no adverse health risks to you or the environment unless you take up residence in the smoke stacks, exhaust pipes, or reactor chambers. Solar, wind, tidal, or anything else is not able to replace what we have, it isn't a matter of just building them, and at best, it will be several decades if not centuries before it can come close if it's even possible.
IT's kind of expensive to get water into space. If you think about it, the space shuttle can hold a payload of about 50k lbs. That would be roughly 5,995 gallons of water without any containment structure. Now the containers would probably have to consume 1/3 or more of that capacity because not only do you need to contain it, you need to make sure the containers will withstand the G-forces necessary for launch into orbit and because of that much water.
To give you an idea of how much water 5,995 gallons is, imagine a swimming pool in an oval shape of 12' by 24' and 6 foot deep (about 5,948 gallons). If you loose 1/3 or so because of the container, you are looking at something more like the amount of water in a 12 foot round pool at 6' deep which is about 2,975 gallons. At 15' round pool is close to 5,310 gallons.
Another problem with water floating in space, how would we keep it selective in only de-orbiting what is junk and not what is in use?
First of all, I do pay for all my costs. I also pay a hefty sum of taxes and have paid more in taxes to date in my life then some people will pay their entire life. Second, subsidies are not the government saying "your doing a good job, here is some money". It is where the government says do this and this will help offset the costs. In other words, the subsidies you are pointed out was because of government interference and requirements that wouldn't have been there in the first place. They help offset the losses of doing whatever the government asks.
So it would be just as easy or easier for me to go back to my original point and say quit forcing things onto others and poof, the subsidies would be gone and you wouldn't have to worry about a little of your tax dollars going to energy company that supplies my energy. And if you will note, if the people or government are not forcing people to do things that they want to do, then I will be paying for all my usages and you don't have to worry about your taxes going to me (which they do not).
As for the externalities, well, the ones that aren't made up by idiots thinking they are saving the world by nitpicking everything someone else does, those are paid off by the offset in prices at the market. The others are just ridiculous pissing contest between people with short dicks wanting to screw everyone with one that they think is bigger. Fuck, just look at Al "my mansion uses more electricity then a small city" Gore. HE right you know, the shit is going to run out some day and he won't be able to jet around the world as easily or drive in his armored limo while attempting to guilt fools into giving him money in made up offsets, or be the largest residential electric consumer in his market if we run out. Do what you want to do, just don't attempt to force me or anyone else into doing it unless they want to.
An apt description. I apply the same logic to my personal finances. My spending will outpace my income, so why bother pinching pennies when it's so much more convenient to blow my whole paycheck on the first shiny thing that catches my eye?
You are talking about personal problems and attempting to apply it to everyone. So answer me this, why should I have to save and not by the shinny things just because you can't control your finances? Do you see the problem there? You stay within _your_means_ not force me to stay within your means.
The same goes for health too. No matter what you do, you will die at some point. But you don't need vitamins or exercise when you're dead, so why bother with it now?
So you think everyone should be forced to take vitamins and exercise? There are plenty of people who don't do either, are healthy and will live a long life. Again, it's the what you want to impose on others based on your personal situation.
'm not going to waste my time trying to make the most of what I have, I'll just wait until they develop a way to put my brain into an ageless robot.
Wait, they can cryogenic freeze your head and presumably figure out how to revive it someday. Either way, you are making a personal decision where conservation require you making that decision for others. What if I want to leave the lights on in the stair well all night long in case someone comes over or I have to leave in a hurry- Your saying I can't because I have to conserve. What if I want a car that goes 200 mph and sounds like it's kicking your ass in the process, am I not a free man living in a free country that is part of a free world? Then why are "conservationist" attempting to take my freedoms away and impose their morality onto me? All of that you mentioned is a personal choice. None of it was a choice you are making for someone else.
Sorry, It was a combination of spell check and margaritas with a little sun shining through the windows screwing with my eyes with the newly moved in 19 year old neighbor girl laying out in the sun in what appeared to be a bikini made of dental floss.
Yea, I got distracted when composing that comment.
Not according to the Pope. And that's one thing I agree on with him.
That's only because religion places a guideline for people to strive for. Take that away, and it is all subjective. You can agree with the pope but the pop doesn't speak for everyone.
The difference is that governmental power (in our system) derives from compromise and consent; there is no reason why the compromise and consent should be moral.
There is no consent, I didn't consent to Obama or his health care plan or the cap and tax scam. You may willingly subject yourself but that doesn't mean others have. Your only saying "it's ok because I agree with it". Nothing more. That's not a proper difference.
No, I think Christianity is morally wrong because of the positions it takes on morality. Its actions, past and present, merely show that its faulty morality isn't just an abstract, theoretical problem.
You haven't shown any present actions. It's all in the past. As for morality, we just got done discussing that. And here is the thing with Christianity, it's a club, if your not a member, you don't need to concern yourself with it until you want to do something with a member. SO what it boils down to is that past.
I don't want to "impose" anything and I think hate speech legislation is a bad idea. I'm just saying that, in jurisdictions where hate speech legislation actually exists, it should apply to Christianity because Christian theology is intrinsically hateful, whether its followers actually act out that hate or not.
I started this thread shoot by asking what hate is presently preached. So far, no one has shown anything that wasn't a long time ago. They didn't even pull the race cards with the fringe elements who think they can justify their other beliefs by taking the bible out of context. You think that what you don't like is "hate" when it isn't. You brought up the catholic church as if it speaks for all of the 2000+ denominations out there proclaiming that their stances on birth control, family planning, sexuality, social order, and end-of-life decisions are morally wrong are morally wrong in an attempt to impose your own opinionated morals onto them. But you have yet to show hate.
And I gave you a clear answer: among many others, Catholicism does, and it has done so unchangingly for the past 2000 years.
See above. If you think morals or what you don't like is hate, then I would suggest it is being practiced by you more then who you are pointing the finger at.
Whats even easier is to quite buying and claim your quting smoking. People will pity your crave and give you a smoke.
Seriously, it is quite difficult to quite smoking sometimes. The worse part about it is just when you think everything is alright, someone blows smoke in your face and you almost start from the beginning. It can be done, I quite cold turkey and stayed away for 5 years but started again when I left the job. Cutting down gradually just seems to prolong it and make it harder too. Cold turkey is the way to go if you can.
It's probably a jurisdictional thing. Once someone represented NASA entered the community, they would be liable for the littering fine. Even if it's a contractor from the community operating in NASA's interest. If the fine wasn't imposed, they probably would have contracted with someone for the clean up just to examine wreckage.
As such, USA hasn't taken precautions in case war would some day hit them. There aren't much bunkers around and so on. There are some, of course, and some people have private bunkers but even still.
What? Did you forget about duck and cover? There are so many fall out shelters sitting around designed to handle a nuclear strike just miles away they they have been re purposed as stores and hotels and crap. I have two of them on my property that was capable of handling 80 people each ran by the civil air patrol. One is used as a farrowing house now and the other is just sitting there.
Almost every city has them. A lot of the cities even require a few to remain the way they were. You might look around and see a yellow triangle that says fall out shelter on it marking the entrance way to one inside of stores, government buildings and so on. When I was in school, we had one in the basement of the school large enough to pack the entire school in there for 2 weeks at a time without outside assistant. In our duck and cover instructions, we were given maps of the city with all the fallout shelter locations on them and even had pop quizzes over them.
Of course I live within 200 miles of 3 air force bases (one decommissioned) and an army base so we might have had a few more precautions. But you can about guarantee that are quite a few bunkers around in America. Besides, ever county in every state has a national guard armory that will have weapons (if you follow their orders) and bunkers larger enough to take civilians in. Maybe not all of them, but it isn't like a full scale war will last long in the US either. The second amendment and the structure of the US constitution made sure of that.
I live in a country that was bombed during the world wars and it can be seen in many little things. Most importantly, all apartment buildings here have bunkers large enough to house everyone in the building and strong enough to endure the whole building's weight falling on them (even though that would be impossible to happen). That's good and all, but you have to think about some things, we have over the horizon missile systems that can shoot down incoming aircraft before we can even see them with optical magnification. We have early warning systems in place and advanced warning systems that will function in the event of a nuclear EMP. The tactics of WWII will not be able to survive a war with modern defenses like what is scattered around Europe, Russia, the US and so on. Canada is even someone shielded by the US defense system and through a operation right of way, they enjoy the ability to rely on us to some degree and not keep as large of a military. Even Europe against the US will not be a war like WWII was. Nuclear weapons ensure that. As a last resort, or maybe even sooner depending on how scared out leader are, they will be the game changer. IF we ever get our missile defense systems fully operations and accurate, even that will be completely different in the future.
Lol.. No, I am doing what the poster was doing but instead of blindly and incorrectly stating rubbish as the main support, I'm pointing to the flaws in their accuracy, logic, and how they are doing the very same damn things they hate religions for doing.
In short, I'm pointing out their intolerance are little more then misunderstanding about what they don't know or lack understanding in and the mechanics to derive the faith is the same they/you use in order to reach many of your own deep beliefs. Religion verses science isn't a lesser person verses lesser person, It's little more then one being right and the other wrong but we will never know unless something happens to make it known in either.
You've got issues, bro. And I don't have time for this.
You have little time for me because I shot down your entire mis-beliefs about Christianity and put a few out of context things into context. You have little time for me because you know I actually know a little about the subject and aren't some "it's a good idea" so called when it's convenient christian who has probably never read the bible or understood it's context (like you). The issues I have seem to be knowing enough that you can't run roughshot into confusion in order to make your primitive point appear the way you want and that concerns you. You know, your view wouldn't even concern me if it was actually right. But it's riddled with just as many and if not more errors as you want to think the Christian religion is full of. I can tell that you don't like it when that gets pointed out, it's almost as if your entire worldview might be wrong.
Anyways, good like, god bless, allah be with you, peace and prosperity, and all that jive.
The Catholic stances on birth control, family planning, sexuality, social order, and end-of-life decisions are morally wrong and lead to widespread suffering. So, for that matter, do Christian missionaries who interfere in the cultural and social structures of other cultures. That is going on to this very day.
Morals are subjective to the life you live and want to live. They pretty much change for everyone depending on their own experiences. Are you saying that what you don't like is now hate speech? I mean because governments make it against the law to steal and will prosecute and imprison the bank robber who's life is suffering because he has no money or ability to otherwise immediately get some. Are government's doing hate speech now?
That's not moral authority, it's legal authority.
And the difference is that one actualy assert authority over you while the other requires you to subject yourself to it's authority. Or is your contention more to do with people thinking your not a good person because of the legal but immoral choices you make? It that your hate speech?
Something has changed: the people have removed religion from governmental authority, which is why, for example, the Pope can't willy-nilly torture and execute people anymore like he used to.
They never willy-nilly did anything. All their actions, although wrong, were reasoned and thought out and based around their own ignorance of what they proclaimed to adhering to. Sometimes that actually happened out of corruption and greed which was also a calculated decision. That did end up with the separation of church and state which the US attempted to do to some degree when it was formed. However, you have failed to demonstrate that any of the speech is hate speech unless what you don't like turns out to be your version of hate.
I don't "resent" Christianity, I just consider it morally wrong in an absolute and universal sense, and I'm also saying that, given the crimes its organizations have committed, we should never again let ourselves be governed by it.
Step back and examine your context here. Seriously, you think christianity is wrong because of something that happened centuries ago and that they sometimes attempt to impose their morals on people but you want to change them or eliminate them because of wanting to impose your own morals onto them. Isn't that a little hypocritical or do you have some inborn right that supersedes theirs?
BTW, ever heard the saying absolute power breed corruption absolutely? Most of what you describe to be actual hate happened when the churches had absolute power. This isn't the case anymore and I don't think anyone is attempting to make it so. Your fears of century old actions are misplaced if not purposely calculated for an effect.
Christianity isn't the only religion that is morally wrong and whose organizations have committed grave crimes against humanity, but it happens to be the most important one in this part of the world. And Catholicism isn't the only branch of Christianity that has done so, but it happens to be the biggest one and claims historical and theological continuity and absolute moral authority, so it is the easiest to make sound arguments against. In fact, in recent times, Catholicism has been one of the more benign denominations and Christianity has been less harmful than, say, Islam. However, that's not due to a change in theology, it's due to a secularization of the environment in which these religions exist.
Here is the problem I have. You are concentrating on the "has" as in the past. In most cases, those who "has" done something aren't even alive anymore. Yet you want to punish them as if it is happening right now, today, right in front of you. What is happening right now, today, and probably close to you if not in fr
The vast majority of American Christians seem to disagree with your analysis. Even the ones who voice "explanations" similar to yours generally don't really believe it. A typical conversation between such a person and myself will go like this:
Not all the rules were a bad idea. There is right and wrong and you can figure it out, just because the OT doesn't apply the rules doesn't mean they weren't a good idea.
I mean christ, if you think about it, the Old testament was years ahead of mankind in it's discovery or knowledge of germs and so on Check out Leviticus and some of the laws in there. It talked about being unclean and stated specific things to do to avoid it. Bathing often and washing your cloths was a rule in the old testament, do you think we should stop that or it doesn't apply today?
Me: The Bible is full of hate and violence. CH: But that's the old testament, and it doesn't apply any more! The new testament is full of hugs and love and bunnies and stuff, and THAT is the one we believe!
The new testament isn't full of love and bunnies but it is a transformation between a god who demanded patronage to a god who loves in return. That in and of itself should be significant.
Me: Oh, so the 10 Commandments no longer apply? CH: Uhh.. no, they still apply.
See above, good ideas can stick around. However, if you break any of the commandments, you can repent and ask forgiveness, you aren't damned anymore. The reasons they still do apply is because they are in the new testament too. In Matthew 19:17 Jesus said keep the commandments. And in Romans 13, Paul pretty much spells them all out. Again, new testament. But if you fail at keeping them, you can ask for and receive forgiveness if you truly want it. The only unforgivable sin is denying God after knowing his truth (in other words, if you know for sure god exists and deny him, you will never be forgiven by god).
But the ten commandments are still a good idea for any functioning society outside the having gods before him stuff. Even false idols is a good idea, otherwise you have mass suicices in their blue gowns and Nike Tennis shoes.
Me: But homosexuality is ok, then? CH: No, that's still a sin...
Romans 1:26-27 is in the new testament and speaks against homosexuality. It even talks of girl on girl action.
You need to also understand that at the time, and probably pretty much throughout civilization until recently, the idea was to increase population for the productivity and defense of the civilization. Being a homosexual or masturbating took away from the community good. These times have pretty much ended so a lot of people don't see it that way any more. Some still do and some Christians take the scripture to mean it is wrong.
Me: Abortion? CH: Sin.
Abortion is pretty much a sin for one main reasons. It's even rooted in the new testament with the birth of Jesus Christ. Christmas is not celebrated on Jesus' birthday as the man Jesus, it's celebrated on his birth as a soul inside marry. Jesus was actually born i the manger sometime around sept 22-28. Nine months before that was the end of December and surprise, when we picked a day to celebrate Jesus' birth, it wasn't the day he was sitting born in a stable but the day of conception.
However, I have to question why you would bring up the topic of abortion in the context of the old or new testament. Abortion is not mentioned in the bible, just the not murdering part and the doctrine clearly has spelled out that life begins at conception when the soul entered the womb and develops. Some people have found passages that they think even support abortion but they are mistaken and taking something out of context or reading into it.
Start with the old testament, and work your way to the new. It gets progressively less hateful, but still makes Mein Kampf look like a love-story in comparison.
The old testament is pretty harsh, but the purpose of the new testament is a little different. For one, you don't have to follow all the rules any more because Jesus is supposed to be your savior and you find salvation through him, not by following rules, rituals, and procedures like in the old testament.
I appreciated what you are saying, but you have to understand that in the christian religion, the old testament is there for context of the new testament. It's really no different then a history book saying X happened and this is how you understand Y that happened. The inclusion of the stuff in there isn't a Do this, or that, or hate, or believe this, it is a preface to the switch to the loving god in which you don't need all that anymore.
Or, if you have the attention span of a typical Christian, check out evilbible.com. It's a biased source, but includes direct quotations, and is easier to peruse than trying to wade through all the Christian holy books.
I just spent a brief time looking at it and I saw some serious flaws in it's logic already. If that is any indication in it's content then I would say it's completely useless as an accurate step. For instance, under the Jesus lied, number one which quotes Matthew 21:21-22. They say that is a lie yet there is no proof that it would be. Their assertion is just as valid or invalid as the bibles. Number 2, Matthew 7:7-8 is completely our of context, the wording is for people not to expect good things in life, they have to seek them and if they do, they will find them but you have to take care of your self and family. The very next verse asks what kind of a man would give his child rocks when he asks for bread. Number 3 is where I stopped, if a site can't get the first three listed in the correct context, there is no need to go further. I find it also somewhat amusing that they don't stay within one bible, but chose the wording between several (presumably in order to make their points appear to work). Anyways, number 3 quotes Matthew 18:19-20 Now this is assumed a lie simply because someone doesn't believe in heaven.
Lets look at it a little closer, Mathew 18:19-20 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." In context, he is talking about disagreements between people and if you can agree in life on earth, your agreements will be honored by god in heaven. If you can't agree and settle your differences, they won't be settled in heaven and God will know them. It then goes on to say for when two or more people gather in his name his is there. This has to do with the holey spirit and how the church actually is. The only way either of those could be a lie is if there was no heaven, no god, and no Jesus. However, the statement's itself doesn't show that and no one has shown either.
It's pretty remarkable in how people can see things by ignoring others things surrounding it and giving it context of by imposing their own unvalidated ideas on top of them to invalidate something. I'm going to spend a little more time looking around the site but so far, it has screwed the entire context of statements up and imposed it's on invalid ideals in order to make statements work. I doubt it is much useful. BTW, you don't need to believe in the bible or anything to see the context, you only have to follow it through. The chapter numbers and verse numbers aren't there to make each line a separate statement, those are an artifact of the transcription process used to make sure hand written copies (before the printing presses) and translations were the same and accurate. You shouldn't be taking something singled out without the context around it or else you risk the entirely wrong understanding of it.
This opinion of yours doesn't change the fact that I'm right.
That would be true if you presented evidence of it that rules out the stated facts when the programs were put into place or changed over the years. You can't ignore the causes for what you want to think they are. You may think you are insightful or something but you are not.
People need manufactured goods to live just as much as they need food. Do you know how to make steel, or even iron, to make a plow with? Or, how do you make so much as even a carved stick without tools.
No, you do not need manufactured goods to live. Without food, you die. Without manufactured goods, your life sucks but you are still alive. And yes, I know how to make steel and Iron, I know how to form them both, and I have the ability to if I wanted to. However, like I said, without food, that is all pointless because you will die waiting for your steel plow to cultivate the land so you can grow crops. Think about how long it takes for crops to grow and how long it takes for you to starve to death. As for farming and food, of course they will have the materials needed, that is what the damn subsidies programs are about, making sure there is farmers who can farm so you have food when something happens.
They are entirely the same. The farm program is a subsidy. It's a trade restraining redistribution of wealth.
No they are not. One is protecting an industry from others, the other is protecting your ability to live from natural disasters like drought, flood, and so on. The only reason you think they are the same is because you are trying to hard to impose your world view on it.
Well yes. Because, for most of that time, the North sought and got protectionism for manufactured goods, and turned the USA into a superpower. Just look at the difference between protectionist North in the civil war vs free trading South.
Lol.. You really think you are proving something but you aren't. Obviously, if after two centuries, you are just now claiming it is wrong, then you are the one with the problem, not what had happened. BTW, how much of what had happened is still happening today? I thought so.
Um, if there was free trade with food, it would be cheaper, just as free trade makes manufactured goods cheaper.
No it would not. You are a complete fool if you think so. First of all, the food is actually too cheap as it is. Farmers, even with subsidies, aren't making much more then it takes to live from. If this was a start from scratch market, you might be right but there are too many factors presently around. You are neglecting that without subsidies, most of the farms will go under. This creates a shortage in supply which causes prices to go up. Add to that a natrual disaster in the midwest and then all the sudden supplies are really short while demand is extremely high.
Now, unless you expect these farmers to operate at a loss somehow, they will not be in business without the subsidies. It only take a year of heavy losses to lose a farm to the bank. Food production is more of a utility that people need then something that should be a free market.
Uh, boy, that's a way to twist an example around. There are fat people because there are plenty of food to eat. My point is, if protectionism works so well with food, why not do it with manufactured goods?
Actually, no. Many fat people are effected by the types of food they eat way more then how much they eat. But even keeping with your example, that doesn't just mean that there is plenty of food, it means that it's affordable and people can afford it. Something that won't be happening if subsidies are gone and half the farms disappear or a natural disaster strikes and takes half the food off the table. I mean look at the
History very much pertains to the present because Christian authority and morality claims to be absolute and derive from God. So, if torture, murder, and slavery was OK with the church a millennium ago, then it must be OK today. Or else, the church was wrong a millennium ago, which means that it may also be wrong today.
Then show me which churches preach that today. Otherwise, I think your attempting to put things where they aren't. Obviously, if they aren't preaching it today, then someone must have realized something was wrong with the old ways. But I will take your word for it when you show me a church teaching that today.
Besides, I chose my words correctly: it is still going on today.
OK, I asked where and you could only bring things up from a century ago. Do you want to do that again?
What does that have to do with anything?
Lol.. IF you have to ask, you will probably never know. But I will attempt to explain. You see, if it is bad for one, it is just as bad for the other isn't it? Or does the christian religion have the only resented place in your heart? And it seems that according to your if they did it before they are still doing it doctrine, they would still be doing it right?
Furthermore, my government doesn't claim to have absolute moral authority or absolute truth, so it's not surprising when it gets things wrong.
Nope, It just claims to have moral authority and truth over you. Break a law and see what happens.
You bet I am. Christians murdered many of my ancestors because of their religion, and if it weren't for secular government, they'd try to do the same to me today.
And yet they havn't murdered you. Perhaps something has changed and your just holding a grudge. Perhaps your just loony, I don't know.
Nice how you still avoid the whole issue of Palin allowing an unwed daughter to fornicate in her home. Whatever happened to the admonishon to avoid even the appearance of evil? Doesn't apply to republicans with feet of clay? THAT is why we think fundies are stupid - they can't even see their own hypocrisy.
I didn't avoid the issue of palin and her daughter, her daughter was a grown girl at the time. I just don't think it was an issue at all. I'm sorry that you do.
As far as admonishing the appearance of evil, that seems to be done more by you liberals then anyone else. Just look at the democrat party, Barney frank ran a gay prostitution ring with under aged boys out of his own house... Opps, I guess he had no knowledge of it while his live in lover was running it and he was just living there. You or your side runs to his defense (and yes, pandering under aged prostitution is just wrong), yet you drive Senator Craig out of office for a few gestures in a bathroom that people want to claim was a proposition for gay sex. Never mind that asking someone for sex is not illegal and no claims to money or anything was made or that Then with this Palin incidence, your side believes it should be normal and that teens as your as 13 should be able to get pregnant and kill the baby off but when a 17 year old got pregnant, it's the worse thing ever. Hell, your still carrying on about it while your side is giving abortions you girls 5 years younger.
BTW - The King James Version is one of the least credible versions of the bible - it traces its' lineage through what are known as the Byzantine family of texts, which only go back to the 9th century.
That's ok, it's the most popular version in use today and bible scholars who don't get the context of passages wrong, don't seem to have a problem with it. BTW, the verses I quotes, I looked them up in every english version of the bible and while insignificantly different, the substance and context had not changed.
You'd at least want something from the Alexandrian or Cesarean lineages, which go back much further - but of course they weren't rediscovered until well after the fools who place so much import on "Thee and Thou" vs. "You", failing to realize that it's no more significant than "vous" vs. "tu" en francais. Or going on about how some parts were written in all-caps, not realizing that lowercase didn't even exist at the time, and that it was all caps.
You do know that the bible was translated and compiled in the King James version in the language that was spoken at the time. Your excitement about the thee and thou is a little pedantic on the times it was translated and compiled not the words itself.
Then again, anyone who couldn't parse out the NT from the greek would just shut their pie-hole, since they'd get a fail anyway.
You think? You have been wrong on it so far. But I guess I could refer you to the Dr. Strong's concordance which very much did that.
Unlike the bible, science allows us to construct a theory then test it by direct observation. We have a theory of evolution, it allows us to make predictions. Those predictions have been validated, so we have reason to believe in the theory of evolution.
Lol.. No they have not been validated. Some of them have but not the ones showing speciation. TYhe theory of evolution needs to be divided into two piles, micro and macro evolution. You are hiding behind the idea the lots of micro evolution equals a major macro evolution. And in doing so, you are using the exact same faith and logic the greeks did when the sun was a god riding a chariot across the sky. I have no idea why you are fine with that but think it's the worst think possible when someone else uses the logic.
Now come on and stomp your feet about how macro and micro evolution doesn't
"Hate speech" is speech that "attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation". It doesn't require an incitement to violence for something to be hate speech.
So saying his shoes makes him look like a fairy when fairies are part of another religion is hate speech because he is obviously gay right? Or is saying my religion offers a path to heaven and of your not part of it, your not going to my heaven- hate speech. I mean because of the guy wasn't gay, it all the sudden isn't hate speech according to you. And if your not part of my religion, they it really doesn't matter what my religion says about you because your not part of it right? But that is still hate speech hum?
Oh, stop the weasel words and read up on the history of the Catholic church and anti-semitism, as well as all the other crime against humanity and hate crimes Christian churches have committed.
Those aren't weasle words at all. When you say something, it conveys a message to others. IF that isn't what you wanted to say, then corect yourself but was is the past tense as if no more and does is the present tense as still happening right now. Was and does makes a big impact on the statement and the history doesn't pertain to the present unless it's something historical that is still going on today.
BTW, look at all the crimes against humanity and hate crimes government has done. Even your government.
What makes it hate speech is that it reduces people who the Christian church doesn't approve of to a sub-human status.
No it doesn't. It reduces them to an undesirable stasis. There is no subhuman going on there. I'm sorry you feel subhuman after hearing a sermon. The christian church has always treated people like humans, they just haven't always treated the well. And they always leave a path to salvation.
And the purpose is clear: it's for Christian churches to gain more power and influence and induce large donations.
Are you scared of the christian church or something? I thought the purpose was to save souls and make the world a better place. Hmm..
Christianity is intrinsically intolerant of others and it intrinsically preaches hate.
I think you are full of shit. But that's ok. I can let your ignorance slide.
New minor variations over a small period of years can obviously lead to major variations over millions of years - or do you believe that genes will somehow automatically return to some baseline if they change too much - because that's the alternative, and there's no evidence to support it.
But where is the proof that you need in order to not say this is a fairy tale like with religion? Evidence shows us that if could work this way, it might even do so, but there is no proof or test and we have not witnessed it. The point is, you have just as much faith in that evolution is right as any christian has in a god. You have just been able to reason the science side more then the religious side.
Or the biblical claim that the flood covered the entire face of the earth. There's no evidence of any flood covering all the surface of the earth simultaneously during mankinds' existence. A universal water coverage of the planet would have created a runaway global warming - we'd be like Venus today. And the freshwater fish would have died off after being mixed in the salty ocean for over a year - and you can't say they evolved, since you don't believe in that.
There isn't? Hmm. There isn't any evidence that there wasn't a flood and your Venus comparison falls a little short. The accounting of the flood only lasts 40 days or so. Once the waters subsided, poof the global warming stopped. However, what your failing to realize is that to rain for 40 days, cloud cover would have been all over the world decreasing the amount of sun radiating down to the earth. In fact, current schemes to fix global warming include placing reflective material in the upper atmosphere in order to slow the sunlight coming to earth. There are also sediment rings with fossils in different locations all around the world (including the black sea) suggesting flooding about 6000-7000 years ago and well within the range of error for carbon dating and the time frame of noah's flood.
However, I'm not saying that proves noahs flood. but it and not finding anything else doesn't disprove it, it just makes it more or less likely to be true or false. You are leaping to faith here too.
Or the treatment of disease: God's law for lepers: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. Do you really believe that works?
Are you sure you went to seminary school? First of all, In Leviticus 14, it is the priest who makes the leper clean by the will of god, not the ritual. The birds and so on were to show a devotion to god and to show they are repentent enough to allow him to be healed and admited back into the society. Read it again where it says several times that it is the priest who makes him clean when god removes the plague. The leper had to get those object and do the things in order for god to allow the priest to heal him. You can see this without the ritual in second king chapter 5 where the priest simply told the foreigner to bath in certain waters to heal his leprosy.
Or this: Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. God doesn't know that insects have 6 legs, not 4. What a moron.
Your posative you studied the bible in seminary? Because you are coming off more of a moron then you think God is. Christ, lets look at this in it's en
I find those things to be more excuses and rationalizations than causes. The forest for the trees is that the red states have pushed for an economic system that benefits them at the expense of the rest of the country.
Oh, so it's you against them and the only reason you care about is what will further your struggle. Well, when you get done tilting at windmills, start looking around.
Why should the failure of a farm be any more of an act of concern then the failure of a car company? Why should we have a national tariff to protect the production of sugar when we have no such protections against manufacturing of various goods? Isn't the ability to manufacture arguably more important than the ability to save joe farmer? Somewhere along the way, this country made the decision that the joes in the red states are entitled to federal subsidy and protectionism, but, the joe in the northern states are not.
Because you don't need a car to live where you do need food. And now your lumping tarriffs in with subsidies and the farm program. They aren't the same. But I will tell you what, how about you quit buying food and eating for a month but continue buying non food products. Then when that over, tell me how you liked it (if you can). I will then tell you why.
I mean seriously, try it. If you don't understand why food is more important then manufacturing cars or computers or TVs, you will afterward.
Our current economic policy is about red states looking to sell food at the highest prices and buy the goods to make them with at the lowest. It's the same economic game that they have been playing for almost two centuries (those states that have been states that long, at least). Thus we have subsidies and protectionism for agriculture, and free trade on manufactured goods.
Wow, almost two centuries and you think it is wrong. What makes you so much smarter then the generations of people and politicians who have came before you over a period of almost two hundred years? Your problem seems to be rooted in doing harm to red states, not in the programs itself.
My argument would be that, if farm subsidies and import protectionism have actually been good for farming, and they have been, since so many of us are fat, then, why not have the same protectionism for manufacturing?
SO now it's the fat people. Ok, I'm starting to get some insight into how your mind works. I don't believe you are right but now I see.
Free trade in the USA is a sham. I wrote a giant rant about this here:
Yep.. But there should be very little free trade when dealing with food. There is no reason for demand to drive the price out of the reach of the poorer citizens. You may think otherwise but you are completely wrong.
Yawn.. And in the middle of your analysis you have forgotten or totally missed the important parts, the why. Farm subsidies originally started after WWI as a way to combat the loss of farms due to falling cotton prices. This had a problem because demand drastically shrank after the war and as European countries started rebuilding, they started locking out imports in favor of domestic products. The government originally purchased excess crops at a minimum price with the expectation of being able to resell it later. This threw the market for a loop because farmers started switching to cotton for a guaranteed price making it impossible for the government to get our from under the excess. The added a few other crops to the mix because shortages were being found. This wasn't because of political support or anything of the sorts, it was because if the ability to grow cotton at the time was diminished by farms going under on a mass scale, it would have wrecked the economy (which ultimately happens by the same forces). You have to remember, there was no domestic alternative to cotton at the time and farming was labor intensive which is why the unemployment numbers were so high during the dust bowl and great depreciation.
After WWII, we sent a lot of food overseas and had to increase production in order not to artificially raise prices at home. Subsidies were once again used to increase production. Then as Europe started comming back into it's own, the subsidies turned from promoting farm growth to paying farmers not to produce but to keep the capacity. This turned around in the 70's and 80's drought in one area and flooding in another cause some shortages again. Now the focus is on either not producing crops at all or collecting in order to provide foreign aid. Either way, the idea is to have a reserve or reserve capacity that can't stabilize the food chain in the US.
All the problems with implementation that you have pointed out were in the implementation, not the motivation. You are essentially missing the forest for the trees.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you need to slow down and attempt to understand what you are trying to say, what the articles you referenced say, and what I have said before you attempt to reply. I will offer some guidance for you so your not alone.
First, the post you pointed to does not say that France, Russia, India, and China's nuclear power plants are profitable, it says they don't need to be because the government and not the market decides what get placed where. Second, it talks about subsidies driving the nuclear power production in the US and states that there is no more standing for that then there is for solar subsidies. Finally, I said it would all be moot if the government weren't telling people what to do, if other people minded their own business, the government would not be subsidizing the building of nuclear power plants creating your complaint in the first place.
Ok, now that you are armed and dangerous, come back with a sound mind and we can discuss this more. I think you are not seeing things for what they are or somehow have impost some cloak over top of it in order to jam your ideology on it. However, I do no thing we are at odds in our opinions otherwise.
The government gets a legal opinion on almost everything it does which isn't already being done. This is a response to lawsuits over existing actions in the past. You may find it hard to believe, but there were actual legal opinions written before specific battles in both current wars. We are at war and needed or actually got a legal opinion to find if we were justified in engaging and killing the enemy.
Don't take the legal opinion to mean more then what it means. It's called cover your ass and this is not because they knew it to be illegal, it's to limit liability on what they know is legal.
As for being pessimistic, I think you crossed that line when ignoring other possible explanations. As you said, we don't know and it is all a guess at this point. Even the potential illegality is little more then a guess until such time it is adjudicated by a competent court of jurisdiction. You should also note a legal concept called necessity in which illegal actions are excused because the consequences would be worse. Examples of this in the past is where you run a red light or speed because someone in the car faces death without emergency medical treatment and not doing those things would have precedent the saving of their life. Another example is almost all self defense concepts that allow you to break a law within reason in order to save your life or the life of someone else. The most current example was with an escaped convict who was told by the warden that he would be murdered by a specific prisoner who was also transferred to his cell within the same week. He got excused for his crimes in breaking out of prison.
I followed the parent links up, it seems as you were responding to me. I am the guy you responded to and yes, I meant what I said.
And unless someone specifically involved with the administration with insight into this, it is nothing more then speculation on your part. Because something could happen does not in any way mean it is what did happen. You are attempting to assert that through some sort of mind reading that the Bush administration knew it was acting illegally before he was told he was. I answered this in your other posts and I'm not sure why we are still on it.
And here is where you are refusing to look at the facts. No legitimate source knew that WMDs were not in place until after the war, no major country with major inteligence operations knew that Iraq had no WMDs and in fact, believed that they did as well as that Iraq was confined and not a threat warranting oil. Of course the biggest protagonist against the war was also prime benefiters of secrete oil deals exploiting the UN sanctions for submarket deals causing the sanctions to be ineffective in requiring Saddam to completely verify his arsenal. Rumsfeld was correct in when he said there are unknown unknowns in which there are things we don't know we don't know about. You are attempting to assert that as if you have some insight into the situation yet you don't have anything more then your own biased opinion.
Lets put this into a better context. Suppose Joe wants to kill and harm you or your immediate family in your own home because you did some things he thinks is really bad. You want to kill Joe because of this in an effort to protect your family and ask a lawyer what you can do. The lawyer comes back and says you need to call the police and get a gun to protect yourself- kill him only as a last resort in your own defense. Someone then tells Joe you are getting a gun for your own and your family's protection and joe decides to act before you can learn how to use it. He comes over, kicks in your door, yells come profanities just before saying he was going to kill you all. You pull the gun and shoot him. Later, you are arrested because the cop says your self defense claim falls though because you antagonize the guy and elevated it.
Now here is the problem with your analysis. You are assuming that someone knew it wasn't legal rather then being blinded by ideology, ignorance and necessity. (BTW, necessity is actually a legal doctrine of defense too.) Everyone knows killing is bad and illegal but people are allowed to kill and get away with it legally, every damn day. Cops can shoot criminals, you can kill intruders posing an immediate threat to you or someone else, doctors kill people
There is this principle of reason behind actions. If you combine that with the mindset of ideology, you find some pretty fucked up reasoning. A drug dealer find a way to create a new (synthetic?) drug that mimics cocaine or methamphetamine but escapes all the current current laws prohibiting those drugs either by chemical composition or the lack of specific ingredients, it he acting legally when he finds that it isn't in violation of any laws or is he purposely subverting the law by acting illegally? Please note that in both cases, it would be a subversion of the law because the intent is more then the chemical compositions. OF course the answer is, you are acting legally because even though he got around the laws, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty and our government laws work in a way that you are allowed to act unless specifically prohibited from doing so. This isn't limited to Bush or the republicans or democrats, it's expanded to us all. Anyways, if because of a strong ideology, I think we should be able to do something, ask a lawyer if it is legal and of he returns a "yes" because he is of the same ideology, then you are not breaking the law in your intent but acting legally until it is otherwise found out. OF course if you are actually breaking the law, you are liable for those actions but we are talking of intent here.
There is ample evidence that ignorance, compounded by ideology and a misunderstood need are at play here rather then malice with the intent to violate the laws.
I think I already answered that. External costs are recovered through savings to everyone. IF you think you can make a list of ever conceivable impact, then start charging companies for it, then your measly pittance of a salary will be insufficient to live on. And yes, when I say measly, I have no idea how much you make a year, but I know that what most Americans make wouldn't be able to pay the costs covered and there would be no way to make it up as everything has external costs.
And the Cato institute would be short sighted, biased, and wrong. OR at least your take on it. Even your link to the CATO institute's policy analisis shows this. Their first gripe is about Ethanol which would not otherwise be productive enough to be used. Again, get people out of the business of telling others what to do and the government will not have a reason to give subsidies.
And what did I say? "the subsidies you are pointed out was because of government interference and requirements that wouldn't have been there in the first place." It sounds like you are trying to disagree with me by agreeing with me. Again, if people weren't telling others what to do, this wouldn't be there in the first place and no justification could be made.
I'm not exactly sure where we are in disagreement then. Perhaps my statement should be taken more as an in general to everyone statement and not just to you. When I made it, I was more or less venting some steam.
No it isn't. Only in some "you can control every aspect of everything" is burning fossil fuels and everything else pollution. It is unrealistic given our technology at present to hold those kind of standards when there is no adverse health risks to you or the environment unless you take up residence in the smoke stacks, exhaust pipes, or reactor chambers. Solar, wind, tidal, or anything else is not able to replace what we have, it isn't a matter of just building them, and at best, it will be several decades if not centuries before it can come close if it's even possible.
But something has to hit orbit in order to get it there doesn't it?
Never mind, I just remembered how short range ICBMs work.
IT's kind of expensive to get water into space. If you think about it, the space shuttle can hold a payload of about 50k lbs. That would be roughly 5,995 gallons of water without any containment structure. Now the containers would probably have to consume 1/3 or more of that capacity because not only do you need to contain it, you need to make sure the containers will withstand the G-forces necessary for launch into orbit and because of that much water.
To give you an idea of how much water 5,995 gallons is, imagine a swimming pool in an oval shape of 12' by 24' and 6 foot deep (about 5,948 gallons). If you loose 1/3 or so because of the container, you are looking at something more like the amount of water in a 12 foot round pool at 6' deep which is about 2,975 gallons. At 15' round pool is close to 5,310 gallons.
Another problem with water floating in space, how would we keep it selective in only de-orbiting what is junk and not what is in use?
First of all, I do pay for all my costs. I also pay a hefty sum of taxes and have paid more in taxes to date in my life then some people will pay their entire life. Second, subsidies are not the government saying "your doing a good job, here is some money". It is where the government says do this and this will help offset the costs. In other words, the subsidies you are pointed out was because of government interference and requirements that wouldn't have been there in the first place. They help offset the losses of doing whatever the government asks.
So it would be just as easy or easier for me to go back to my original point and say quit forcing things onto others and poof, the subsidies would be gone and you wouldn't have to worry about a little of your tax dollars going to energy company that supplies my energy. And if you will note, if the people or government are not forcing people to do things that they want to do, then I will be paying for all my usages and you don't have to worry about your taxes going to me (which they do not).
As for the externalities, well, the ones that aren't made up by idiots thinking they are saving the world by nitpicking everything someone else does, those are paid off by the offset in prices at the market. The others are just ridiculous pissing contest between people with short dicks wanting to screw everyone with one that they think is bigger. Fuck, just look at Al "my mansion uses more electricity then a small city" Gore. HE right you know, the shit is going to run out some day and he won't be able to jet around the world as easily or drive in his armored limo while attempting to guilt fools into giving him money in made up offsets, or be the largest residential electric consumer in his market if we run out. Do what you want to do, just don't attempt to force me or anyone else into doing it unless they want to.
It's interesting how off you are.
You are talking about personal problems and attempting to apply it to everyone. So answer me this, why should I have to save and not by the shinny things just because you can't control your finances? Do you see the problem there? You stay within _your_means_ not force me to stay within your means.
So you think everyone should be forced to take vitamins and exercise? There are plenty of people who don't do either, are healthy and will live a long life. Again, it's the what you want to impose on others based on your personal situation.
Wait, they can cryogenic freeze your head and presumably figure out how to revive it someday. Either way, you are making a personal decision where conservation require you making that decision for others. What if I want to leave the lights on in the stair well all night long in case someone comes over or I have to leave in a hurry- Your saying I can't because I have to conserve. What if I want a car that goes 200 mph and sounds like it's kicking your ass in the process, am I not a free man living in a free country that is part of a free world? Then why are "conservationist" attempting to take my freedoms away and impose their morality onto me? All of that you mentioned is a personal choice. None of it was a choice you are making for someone else.
Sorry, It was a combination of spell check and margaritas with a little sun shining through the windows screwing with my eyes with the newly moved in 19 year old neighbor girl laying out in the sun in what appeared to be a bikini made of dental floss.
Yea, I got distracted when composing that comment.
That's only because religion places a guideline for people to strive for. Take that away, and it is all subjective. You can agree with the pope but the pop doesn't speak for everyone.
There is no consent, I didn't consent to Obama or his health care plan or the cap and tax scam. You may willingly subject yourself but that doesn't mean others have. Your only saying "it's ok because I agree with it". Nothing more. That's not a proper difference.
You haven't shown any present actions. It's all in the past. As for morality, we just got done discussing that. And here is the thing with Christianity, it's a club, if your not a member, you don't need to concern yourself with it until you want to do something with a member. SO what it boils down to is that past.
I started this thread shoot by asking what hate is presently preached. So far, no one has shown anything that wasn't a long time ago. They didn't even pull the race cards with the fringe elements who think they can justify their other beliefs by taking the bible out of context. You think that what you don't like is "hate" when it isn't. You brought up the catholic church as if it speaks for all of the 2000+ denominations out there proclaiming that their stances on birth control, family planning, sexuality, social order, and end-of-life decisions are morally wrong are morally wrong in an attempt to impose your own opinionated morals onto them. But you have yet to show hate.
See above. If you think morals or what you don't like is hate, then I would suggest it is being practiced by you more then who you are pointing the finger at.
I have quit smoking 5 times. It's easy.
Whats even easier is to quite buying and claim your quting smoking. People will pity your crave and give you a smoke.
Seriously, it is quite difficult to quite smoking sometimes. The worse part about it is just when you think everything is alright, someone blows smoke in your face and you almost start from the beginning. It can be done, I quite cold turkey and stayed away for 5 years but started again when I left the job. Cutting down gradually just seems to prolong it and make it harder too. Cold turkey is the way to go if you can.
It's probably a jurisdictional thing. Once someone represented NASA entered the community, they would be liable for the littering fine. Even if it's a contractor from the community operating in NASA's interest. If the fine wasn't imposed, they probably would have contracted with someone for the clean up just to examine wreckage.
What? Did you forget about duck and cover? There are so many fall out shelters sitting around designed to handle a nuclear strike just miles away they they have been re purposed as stores and hotels and crap. I have two of them on my property that was capable of handling 80 people each ran by the civil air patrol. One is used as a farrowing house now and the other is just sitting there.
Almost every city has them. A lot of the cities even require a few to remain the way they were. You might look around and see a yellow triangle that says fall out shelter on it marking the entrance way to one inside of stores, government buildings and so on. When I was in school, we had one in the basement of the school large enough to pack the entire school in there for 2 weeks at a time without outside assistant. In our duck and cover instructions, we were given maps of the city with all the fallout shelter locations on them and even had pop quizzes over them.
Of course I live within 200 miles of 3 air force bases (one decommissioned) and an army base so we might have had a few more precautions. But you can about guarantee that are quite a few bunkers around in America. Besides, ever county in every state has a national guard armory that will have weapons (if you follow their orders) and bunkers larger enough to take civilians in. Maybe not all of them, but it isn't like a full scale war will last long in the US either. The second amendment and the structure of the US constitution made sure of that.
Lol.. No, I am doing what the poster was doing but instead of blindly and incorrectly stating rubbish as the main support, I'm pointing to the flaws in their accuracy, logic, and how they are doing the very same damn things they hate religions for doing.
In short, I'm pointing out their intolerance are little more then misunderstanding about what they don't know or lack understanding in and the mechanics to derive the faith is the same they/you use in order to reach many of your own deep beliefs. Religion verses science isn't a lesser person verses lesser person, It's little more then one being right and the other wrong but we will never know unless something happens to make it known in either.
You have little time for me because I shot down your entire mis-beliefs about Christianity and put a few out of context things into context. You have little time for me because you know I actually know a little about the subject and aren't some "it's a good idea" so called when it's convenient christian who has probably never read the bible or understood it's context (like you). The issues I have seem to be knowing enough that you can't run roughshot into confusion in order to make your primitive point appear the way you want and that concerns you. You know, your view wouldn't even concern me if it was actually right. But it's riddled with just as many and if not more errors as you want to think the Christian religion is full of. I can tell that you don't like it when that gets pointed out, it's almost as if your entire worldview might be wrong.
Anyways, good like, god bless, allah be with you, peace and prosperity, and all that jive.
Morals are subjective to the life you live and want to live. They pretty much change for everyone depending on their own experiences. Are you saying that what you don't like is now hate speech? I mean because governments make it against the law to steal and will prosecute and imprison the bank robber who's life is suffering because he has no money or ability to otherwise immediately get some. Are government's doing hate speech now?
And the difference is that one actualy assert authority over you while the other requires you to subject yourself to it's authority. Or is your contention more to do with people thinking your not a good person because of the legal but immoral choices you make? It that your hate speech?
They never willy-nilly did anything. All their actions, although wrong, were reasoned and thought out and based around their own ignorance of what they proclaimed to adhering to. Sometimes that actually happened out of corruption and greed which was also a calculated decision. That did end up with the separation of church and state which the US attempted to do to some degree when it was formed. However, you have failed to demonstrate that any of the speech is hate speech unless what you don't like turns out to be your version of hate.
Step back and examine your context here. Seriously, you think christianity is wrong because of something that happened centuries ago and that they sometimes attempt to impose their morals on people but you want to change them or eliminate them because of wanting to impose your own morals onto them. Isn't that a little hypocritical or do you have some inborn right that supersedes theirs?
BTW, ever heard the saying absolute power breed corruption absolutely? Most of what you describe to be actual hate happened when the churches had absolute power. This isn't the case anymore and I don't think anyone is attempting to make it so. Your fears of century old actions are misplaced if not purposely calculated for an effect.
Here is the problem I have. You are concentrating on the "has" as in the past. In most cases, those who "has" done something aren't even alive anymore. Yet you want to punish them as if it is happening right now, today, right in front of you. What is happening right now, today, and probably close to you if not in fr
Not all the rules were a bad idea. There is right and wrong and you can figure it out, just because the OT doesn't apply the rules doesn't mean they weren't a good idea.
I mean christ, if you think about it, the Old testament was years ahead of mankind in it's discovery or knowledge of germs and so on Check out Leviticus and some of the laws in there. It talked about being unclean and stated specific things to do to avoid it. Bathing often and washing your cloths was a rule in the old testament, do you think we should stop that or it doesn't apply today?
The new testament isn't full of love and bunnies but it is a transformation between a god who demanded patronage to a god who loves in return. That in and of itself should be significant.
See above, good ideas can stick around. However, if you break any of the commandments, you can repent and ask forgiveness, you aren't damned anymore. The reasons they still do apply is because they are in the new testament too. In Matthew 19:17 Jesus said keep the commandments. And in Romans 13, Paul pretty much spells them all out. Again, new testament. But if you fail at keeping them, you can ask for and receive forgiveness if you truly want it. The only unforgivable sin is denying God after knowing his truth (in other words, if you know for sure god exists and deny him, you will never be forgiven by god).
But the ten commandments are still a good idea for any functioning society outside the having gods before him stuff. Even false idols is a good idea, otherwise you have mass suicices in their blue gowns and Nike Tennis shoes.
Romans 1:26-27 is in the new testament and speaks against homosexuality. It even talks of girl on girl action.
You need to also understand that at the time, and probably pretty much throughout civilization until recently, the idea was to increase population for the productivity and defense of the civilization. Being a homosexual or masturbating took away from the community good. These times have pretty much ended so a lot of people don't see it that way any more. Some still do and some Christians take the scripture to mean it is wrong.
Abortion is pretty much a sin for one main reasons. It's even rooted in the new testament with the birth of Jesus Christ. Christmas is not celebrated on Jesus' birthday as the man Jesus, it's celebrated on his birth as a soul inside marry. Jesus was actually born i the manger sometime around sept 22-28. Nine months before that was the end of December and surprise, when we picked a day to celebrate Jesus' birth, it wasn't the day he was sitting born in a stable but the day of conception.
However, I have to question why you would bring up the topic of abortion in the context of the old or new testament. Abortion is not mentioned in the bible, just the not murdering part and the doctrine clearly has spelled out that life begins at conception when the soul entered the womb and develops. Some people have found passages that they think even support abortion but they are mistaken and taking something out of context or reading into it.
The old testament is pretty harsh, but the purpose of the new testament is a little different. For one, you don't have to follow all the rules any more because Jesus is supposed to be your savior and you find salvation through him, not by following rules, rituals, and procedures like in the old testament.
I appreciated what you are saying, but you have to understand that in the christian religion, the old testament is there for context of the new testament. It's really no different then a history book saying X happened and this is how you understand Y that happened. The inclusion of the stuff in there isn't a Do this, or that, or hate, or believe this, it is a preface to the switch to the loving god in which you don't need all that anymore.
I just spent a brief time looking at it and I saw some serious flaws in it's logic already. If that is any indication in it's content then I would say it's completely useless as an accurate step. For instance, under the Jesus lied, number one which quotes Matthew 21:21-22. They say that is a lie yet there is no proof that it would be. Their assertion is just as valid or invalid as the bibles. Number 2, Matthew 7:7-8 is completely our of context, the wording is for people not to expect good things in life, they have to seek them and if they do, they will find them but you have to take care of your self and family. The very next verse asks what kind of a man would give his child rocks when he asks for bread. Number 3 is where I stopped, if a site can't get the first three listed in the correct context, there is no need to go further. I find it also somewhat amusing that they don't stay within one bible, but chose the wording between several (presumably in order to make their points appear to work). Anyways, number 3 quotes Matthew 18:19-20 Now this is assumed a lie simply because someone doesn't believe in heaven.
Lets look at it a little closer, Mathew 18:19-20 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." In context, he is talking about disagreements between people and if you can agree in life on earth, your agreements will be honored by god in heaven. If you can't agree and settle your differences, they won't be settled in heaven and God will know them. It then goes on to say for when two or more people gather in his name his is there. This has to do with the holey spirit and how the church actually is. The only way either of those could be a lie is if there was no heaven, no god, and no Jesus. However, the statement's itself doesn't show that and no one has shown either.
It's pretty remarkable in how people can see things by ignoring others things surrounding it and giving it context of by imposing their own unvalidated ideas on top of them to invalidate something. I'm going to spend a little more time looking around the site but so far, it has screwed the entire context of statements up and imposed it's on invalid ideals in order to make statements work. I doubt it is much useful. BTW, you don't need to believe in the bible or anything to see the context, you only have to follow it through. The chapter numbers and verse numbers aren't there to make each line a separate statement, those are an artifact of the transcription process used to make sure hand written copies (before the printing presses) and translations were the same and accurate. You shouldn't be taking something singled out without the context around it or else you risk the entirely wrong understanding of it.
That would be true if you presented evidence of it that rules out the stated facts when the programs were put into place or changed over the years. You can't ignore the causes for what you want to think they are. You may think you are insightful or something but you are not.
No, you do not need manufactured goods to live. Without food, you die. Without manufactured goods, your life sucks but you are still alive. And yes, I know how to make steel and Iron, I know how to form them both, and I have the ability to if I wanted to. However, like I said, without food, that is all pointless because you will die waiting for your steel plow to cultivate the land so you can grow crops. Think about how long it takes for crops to grow and how long it takes for you to starve to death. As for farming and food, of course they will have the materials needed, that is what the damn subsidies programs are about, making sure there is farmers who can farm so you have food when something happens.
No they are not. One is protecting an industry from others, the other is protecting your ability to live from natural disasters like drought, flood, and so on. The only reason you think they are the same is because you are trying to hard to impose your world view on it.
Lol.. You really think you are proving something but you aren't. Obviously, if after two centuries, you are just now claiming it is wrong, then you are the one with the problem, not what had happened. BTW, how much of what had happened is still happening today? I thought so.
No it would not. You are a complete fool if you think so. First of all, the food is actually too cheap as it is. Farmers, even with subsidies, aren't making much more then it takes to live from. If this was a start from scratch market, you might be right but there are too many factors presently around. You are neglecting that without subsidies, most of the farms will go under. This creates a shortage in supply which causes prices to go up. Add to that a natrual disaster in the midwest and then all the sudden supplies are really short while demand is extremely high.
Now, unless you expect these farmers to operate at a loss somehow, they will not be in business without the subsidies. It only take a year of heavy losses to lose a farm to the bank. Food production is more of a utility that people need then something that should be a free market.
Actually, no. Many fat people are effected by the types of food they eat way more then how much they eat. But even keeping with your example, that doesn't just mean that there is plenty of food, it means that it's affordable and people can afford it. Something that won't be happening if subsidies are gone and half the farms disappear or a natural disaster strikes and takes half the food off the table. I mean look at the
Then show me which churches preach that today. Otherwise, I think your attempting to put things where they aren't. Obviously, if they aren't preaching it today, then someone must have realized something was wrong with the old ways. But I will take your word for it when you show me a church teaching that today.
OK, I asked where and you could only bring things up from a century ago. Do you want to do that again?
Lol.. IF you have to ask, you will probably never know. But I will attempt to explain. You see, if it is bad for one, it is just as bad for the other isn't it? Or does the christian religion have the only resented place in your heart? And it seems that according to your if they did it before they are still doing it doctrine, they would still be doing it right?
Nope, It just claims to have moral authority and truth over you. Break a law and see what happens.
And yet they havn't murdered you. Perhaps something has changed and your just holding a grudge. Perhaps your just loony, I don't know.
I didn't avoid the issue of palin and her daughter, her daughter was a grown girl at the time. I just don't think it was an issue at all. I'm sorry that you do.
As far as admonishing the appearance of evil, that seems to be done more by you liberals then anyone else. Just look at the democrat party, Barney frank ran a gay prostitution ring with under aged boys out of his own house... Opps, I guess he had no knowledge of it while his live in lover was running it and he was just living there. You or your side runs to his defense (and yes, pandering under aged prostitution is just wrong), yet you drive Senator Craig out of office for a few gestures in a bathroom that people want to claim was a proposition for gay sex. Never mind that asking someone for sex is not illegal and no claims to money or anything was made or that Then with this Palin incidence, your side believes it should be normal and that teens as your as 13 should be able to get pregnant and kill the baby off but when a 17 year old got pregnant, it's the worse thing ever. Hell, your still carrying on about it while your side is giving abortions you girls 5 years younger.
That's ok, it's the most popular version in use today and bible scholars who don't get the context of passages wrong, don't seem to have a problem with it. BTW, the verses I quotes, I looked them up in every english version of the bible and while insignificantly different, the substance and context had not changed.
You do know that the bible was translated and compiled in the King James version in the language that was spoken at the time. Your excitement about the thee and thou is a little pedantic on the times it was translated and compiled not the words itself.
You think? You have been wrong on it so far. But I guess I could refer you to the Dr. Strong's concordance which very much did that.
Lol.. No they have not been validated. Some of them have but not the ones showing speciation. TYhe theory of evolution needs to be divided into two piles, micro and macro evolution. You are hiding behind the idea the lots of micro evolution equals a major macro evolution. And in doing so, you are using the exact same faith and logic the greeks did when the sun was a god riding a chariot across the sky. I have no idea why you are fine with that but think it's the worst think possible when someone else uses the logic.
Now come on and stomp your feet about how macro and micro evolution doesn't
So saying his shoes makes him look like a fairy when fairies are part of another religion is hate speech because he is obviously gay right? Or is saying my religion offers a path to heaven and of your not part of it, your not going to my heaven- hate speech. I mean because of the guy wasn't gay, it all the sudden isn't hate speech according to you. And if your not part of my religion, they it really doesn't matter what my religion says about you because your not part of it right? But that is still hate speech hum?
Those aren't weasle words at all. When you say something, it conveys a message to others. IF that isn't what you wanted to say, then corect yourself but was is the past tense as if no more and does is the present tense as still happening right now. Was and does makes a big impact on the statement and the history doesn't pertain to the present unless it's something historical that is still going on today.
BTW, look at all the crimes against humanity and hate crimes government has done. Even your government.
No it doesn't. It reduces them to an undesirable stasis. There is no subhuman going on there. I'm sorry you feel subhuman after hearing a sermon. The christian church has always treated people like humans, they just haven't always treated the well. And they always leave a path to salvation.
But where is the proof that you need in order to not say this is a fairy tale like with religion? Evidence shows us that if could work this way, it might even do so, but there is no proof or test and we have not witnessed it. The point is, you have just as much faith in that evolution is right as any christian has in a god. You have just been able to reason the science side more then the religious side.
There isn't? Hmm. There isn't any evidence that there wasn't a flood and your Venus comparison falls a little short. The accounting of the flood only lasts 40 days or so. Once the waters subsided, poof the global warming stopped. However, what your failing to realize is that to rain for 40 days, cloud cover would have been all over the world decreasing the amount of sun radiating down to the earth. In fact, current schemes to fix global warming include placing reflective material in the upper atmosphere in order to slow the sunlight coming to earth. There are also sediment rings with fossils in different locations all around the world (including the black sea) suggesting flooding about 6000-7000 years ago and well within the range of error for carbon dating and the time frame of noah's flood.
However, I'm not saying that proves noahs flood. but it and not finding anything else doesn't disprove it, it just makes it more or less likely to be true or false. You are leaping to faith here too.
Are you sure you went to seminary school? First of all, In Leviticus 14, it is the priest who makes the leper clean by the will of god, not the ritual. The birds and so on were to show a devotion to god and to show they are repentent enough to allow him to be healed and admited back into the society. Read it again where it says several times that it is the priest who makes him clean when god removes the plague. The leper had to get those object and do the things in order for god to allow the priest to heal him. You can see this without the ritual in second king chapter 5 where the priest simply told the foreigner to bath in certain waters to heal his leprosy.
Your posative you studied the bible in seminary? Because you are coming off more of a moron then you think God is. Christ, lets look at this in it's en
Oh, so it's you against them and the only reason you care about is what will further your struggle. Well, when you get done tilting at windmills, start looking around.
Because you don't need a car to live where you do need food. And now your lumping tarriffs in with subsidies and the farm program. They aren't the same. But I will tell you what, how about you quit buying food and eating for a month but continue buying non food products. Then when that over, tell me how you liked it (if you can). I will then tell you why.
I mean seriously, try it. If you don't understand why food is more important then manufacturing cars or computers or TVs, you will afterward.
Wow, almost two centuries and you think it is wrong. What makes you so much smarter then the generations of people and politicians who have came before you over a period of almost two hundred years? Your problem seems to be rooted in doing harm to red states, not in the programs itself.
SO now it's the fat people. Ok, I'm starting to get some insight into how your mind works. I don't believe you are right but now I see.
Yep.. But there should be very little free trade when dealing with food. There is no reason for demand to drive the price out of the reach of the poorer citizens. You may think otherwise but you are completely wrong.
Yawn.. And in the middle of your analysis you have forgotten or totally missed the important parts, the why. Farm subsidies originally started after WWI as a way to combat the loss of farms due to falling cotton prices. This had a problem because demand drastically shrank after the war and as European countries started rebuilding, they started locking out imports in favor of domestic products. The government originally purchased excess crops at a minimum price with the expectation of being able to resell it later. This threw the market for a loop because farmers started switching to cotton for a guaranteed price making it impossible for the government to get our from under the excess. The added a few other crops to the mix because shortages were being found. This wasn't because of political support or anything of the sorts, it was because if the ability to grow cotton at the time was diminished by farms going under on a mass scale, it would have wrecked the economy (which ultimately happens by the same forces). You have to remember, there was no domestic alternative to cotton at the time and farming was labor intensive which is why the unemployment numbers were so high during the dust bowl and great depreciation.
After WWII, we sent a lot of food overseas and had to increase production in order not to artificially raise prices at home. Subsidies were once again used to increase production. Then as Europe started comming back into it's own, the subsidies turned from promoting farm growth to paying farmers not to produce but to keep the capacity. This turned around in the 70's and 80's drought in one area and flooding in another cause some shortages again. Now the focus is on either not producing crops at all or collecting in order to provide foreign aid. Either way, the idea is to have a reserve or reserve capacity that can't stabilize the food chain in the US.
All the problems with implementation that you have pointed out were in the implementation, not the motivation. You are essentially missing the forest for the trees.