>> ^lantern53:

Any 'Occupy' event is protected by free speech as long as you are assembled in a lawful manner. When you 'occupy' an area in violation of the law, you risk arrest.
But meeting at the local church is out because these people don't like Christianity, and they won't meet any other legal place because it would not elicit the press coverage they desire.


you have no idea what you are talking about.
many of the rights you enjoy were hard fought by practices implemented by the OWS movement but they are in no way a "new" practice.
this is about clogging the cogs of the machinery of government and business and little to do with press coverage.
why?
because those in power will ALWAYS attempt to marginalize the voices of those who challenge said power.
as we speak the senate is voting on NEW restrictions which makes certain protest areas a felony and no longer a misdemeanor.
think that is a coincidence?
that the bill being passed just happens to coincide with the OWS protestor population rising?

and lets not forget st paul and the RNC convention in 2008 and the authoritarian practices implemented by the st paul police and the so-called "free-speech" zones set miles away from the actual events.

you can go all the way back to the early 1900's and find how protestors got their message across.the labor movement comes to mind.
or the civil rights.
vietnam protests.
there were deaths at the hand of police and hired security firms.
beatings and maimings.
intimidations and bullying.
but those protestors used the very same tactics being used by OWS...
hell,they perfected those tactics.
and they are extremely effective.

i could go on...
but you are obviously an authoritarian and the magnificent history of peoples movements in america are lost on you.
and the comment about the OWS movement disliking chritianity just seems fabricated,or at its best painted with an extremely broad brush.
it still smacks of you not knowing what you are talking about.

Phenomena such as Faith Healing, Glossolalia and Snake Handling existed in US christian movements as early as the 1800's. It seems like the video you replied with is more like one christian group trying to distance itself to the embarrassment that is evangelicals, and it's easy to rope in foreign adaptations of Pentecostalism to use as evidence.

Pentecostalism itself is a foreign adaption which is based on a heresay known as montanism (now neo-montanism). It got its start in the early 1800's by the "Irvingites", who followed an outcast pastor teaching heretical christology doctrines. The father of the modern movement (early 1900s), John Alexander Dowie, believed he was the prophet Elijah and the first restored apostle to the church. It also has links with free masonry.

Ultimately your embed is just commentary on internal strife in an overall larger movement that I don't care about, and is a distraction from the real issue. What all of these have in common is the fact that human beings have a fundamental inability to avoid large scale social misdirection, and that is observable through every aspect of our existence regardless of culture, religion, social structure, lifestyle, sports team, et al.

The embed is about the false spirit which has invaded the church, which is the same spirit working in the video above. It is highlighting the abberant behavior that people who don't know much about Christianity assume is normal for Christians. This is due to the proliferation of the pentecostal and charismatic churches. This is not a judgement against pentecostals or charismatics, it is simply to say that this spirit of disorder is not from God.

Yes, there is a herd mentality, which is why the bible tells us to discern all things. Human beings are fundementally vulnerable to spiritual deception. Only God can protect us from this delusion that society is steeped in.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you that the obsession over materialism, commercialism and sexuality as exploited by modern media, such as the original video portrays, is in many ways a poison to the human condition, there are many worse examples of this in every society. Least of which would be this exact scenario played out in Western culture when a pop-star pays a charity visit to support their government sanctioned killers in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Evil doesn't often come dressed in red skin and armed with pitchforks. Evil can be banal and mundane, and it will usually come camouflaged as something good. I don't condemn the good deed, but I think you have to admit there is something profoundly disturbing about seeing grown men, soldiers no less, lose their minds as if someone flipped a switch. And yes, there are worse things, but that isn't really the point. I was pointing out the strings so someone might notice the puppeteer.

I really feel like you come here to show other people your belief as a way to convince yourself. Having a personal crusade to publicly disclaim everything that you judge as contradicting to the beliefs you were raised with makes it easy to put the doubt you have about your own faith out of mind.

I grew up without any religion in my life. I was formally agnostic, and so I understand your perspective. You don't see any evidence of a spirit, and none of it adds up in your mind. To you it's all some kind of mass delusion or hysteria. That's what I used to think until God showed me He is very real, and very much involved in what is going on on Planet Earth. I found that material existence is but a veil to a much larger reality. I pray that God will give you that experience as well, and show you that Jesus loves you, and that He is the way, the truth and the life. I am not here to prove something, I am here to do the will of God and tell you that Jesus died for your sins so you can be reconciled to God and have eternal life. I am here to warn you that the wages of sin is death, and that if you die in your sins without Gods pardon, you face Gods judgement, and hell. I say these things out of love, because I care about what happens to you.

PS - have you ever seen Japanese tentacle porn?

Hell vomited up that garbage, there is no doubt. I find though that true corruption comes by 1000 cuts. By the time a child is six years old, they will have spent more time in front of the Television/media than they will have spent quality time with their dads in a whole lifetime. That is what is really disturbing, and no one is standing in the gap. Modern parenting is putting your kid in front of a TV and giving them whatever the TV programs them to ask for. Sadly, this is just scratching the surface.

>> ^artician

Cripes... Uninterpreted data shows a warming since early 1900s... To say the earth isn't slowly warming is ignoring the data entirely..

Air:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
Ocean:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/fig_tab/nature09043_F1.html
(From: Lyman, J.M., Good, S.A., Gouretski, V.V., Ishii, M., Johnson, G.C., Palmer, M.D.,
Smith, D.M., and Willis, J.K., Robust warming of the global upper ocean: Nature,
v. 465, p. 334-337.)

The only real thing debated (or that should be debated) is why it's warming up. we've got 2 basic reasons: it's because of human interaction or it's because of natural processes (hey the earth has been WAY warmer than it is now several times - http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)

Go check out a graph of CO2 emissions sometime, though, and tell me there isn't a correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Hell of a coincidence, especially considering how gradual natural temperature fluctuations are and how sudden this particular change is.

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp//Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/OverviewGraphics/1000YrRecords.jpg

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Ahh. Here we go:



>> ^dag:

I think it's a case of people not realising the benefit until it's an actual working product. If you asked people in 1900 what they wanted in a vehicle they would probably say a faster horse that eats less.
I'd love to see a video of that Golf in Hannover - does it exist?
>> ^radx:
Audi and VW could have started selling driverless cars as early as '09. Don't know about Mercedes Benz, my city is VW territory. The primary reason you can't buy one is the lack of a market for these cars. People are reluctant to hand over control to a machine, and safety regulations on their home market demand extensive testing under even the most unlikely conditions -- and rightfully so, if you don't mind me saying.
That said, when they let loose a driverless VW Golf convertible in the city of Hannover, it scared the living shit out of quite a few pedestrians and bikers.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think it's a case of people not realising the benefit until it's an actual working product. If you asked people in 1900 what they wanted in a vehicle they would probably say a faster horse that eats less.

I'd love to see a video of that Golf in Hannover - does it exist?

>> ^radx:

Audi and VW could have started selling driverless cars as early as '09. Don't know about Mercedes Benz, my city is VW territory. The primary reason you can't buy one is the lack of a market for these cars. People are reluctant to hand over control to a machine, and safety regulations on their home market demand extensive testing under even the most unlikely conditions -- and rightfully so, if you don't mind me saying.
That said, when they let loose a driverless VW Golf convertible in the city of Hannover, it scared the living shit out of quite a few pedestrians and bikers.

I want to repeat first your original claim is the US outproduced the rest of the world many fold from 1700 to 1900, which as I stated is absurdly false.

Percentage of increases is NOT total GDP. Just because we grew more doesn't mean we outproduced another country. Higher GDP = higher production.

Right now, China's economy is growing faster than the US economy. Does that mean their GDP is higher? According to you, apparently, the answer is yes, but it's not. US GDP is higher than China.

Of course, this also doesn't take into account that population impacts GDP, as the larger your population, the more labor resources you have to produce goods and services. GDP per capita also comes into play in factoring relative productivity.

Using your own link, Great Britain's total GDP was higher than the US all the way up to 1913. Therefore, sometime between 1870 and 1913, the US GDP surpassed Britain and every other country on earth in raw amounts, but to claim we did from 1820 - 1913 is by your own data patently false. We outgrew everyone else, this is true, but we did not outproduce everyone else that entire time. In fact, for most of that time, we were outproduced by several Western European countries in raw amounts.

Then there's the question of GDP per capita.

In 1913, US population is estimated to be about 100,000,000. 517,000/100000000=0.00517

In 1913, the British population is estimated to be about 45,000,000. 225000/45000000 = 0.005.

IE, RIGHT ABOUT around 1913 the US began to be more productive per capita than Great Britain, but for most of 1870 to 1913 (and prior), Great Britain outproduced the US per capita. Therefore, your assertion the US outproduced every other country on earth per capita is wrong, and Great Britain outproduced the US in raw amount in 1870.

As I said, most historians do not consider the US an economic superpower until at least WWI. There's ample explanation for this. Great Britain industrialized before the US did. The US also suffered a massive interruption in economic production due to the US Civil War in the 1860s. This is plain as day fact, even with your own data you're providing.

And btw, what were the contributing factors to the US surge in production? Industrialization coupled with massive immigration. To discount the role of immigration into the US as a key contributor and say it was all about free market economics is ridiculous. Are you suggesting we need to allow Mexicans and anyone else to immigrate into the US again?! We also cashed in on imperialist gains at the expense of Mexico, gaining a massive amount of natural resources in the Mexican Cession. You don't honestly think the US Industrial Revolution would have been as wildly successful as it was without that massive resource of various metals, do you? So we're supposed to start taking land from other countries because it's god's will?

And now, to my absolute favorite part of your analysis. You attempted to show the US's slowing economic growth in the 20th century compared to the previous century, because that central banking and regulation we got post 1913 apparently really hurt us.

1820 - 1870 = 50 years
1870 - 1913 = 43 years
1913 - 1950 = 37 years
1950 - 1973 = 23 years
1973 - 1998 = 25 years

So how much did we grow comparing 1870-1913 vs 1950 - 1998, over a comparable time span?

526% vs. (7394598-1455916)/1455916 = 407%

Considering how unproductive humans were before and after industrialization, improving on top of that another 407% is EXTREMELY impressive. On top of that, US economic output was severely reduced because of the Civil War in the 1860s and had not recovered from it by any stretch of the imagination, so simply recovering from that would fuel a massive percentage increase. By 1950, we had already recovered from the Great Depression, and we STILL managed to grow the US economy 4x in the next 50 years.

Now, on top of that, keep in mind that with smaller numbers, percentage growth gets exaggerated compared to bigger numbers. IE, it's easier to double when you start with 1 than 1,000,000.

From 1820 to 1913, US GDP went from 12,548 to 517,383. From 1913 to 1998, we went from 517,383 to 7,394,598! That's less successful?! OH POOR US!

Compared to the rest of the world, we didn't grow as fast percentage wise from 1950-1998. We did however grow the most in raw amounts. By your analysis, Mexico has done a better job growing their economy from 1973 to 1998 than the US did because of percentage growth. Uhh, seriously?! growing 279,302 to 655,910 is more impressive than 3,536,622 to 7,394,598?! Then WHY ARE MEXICANS TRYING TO IMMIGRATE HERE!?

Why is Africa, Asia, etc. growing so much faster than we did? Because they are industrializing, which results in percentage gains greater than the switch to info tech because they're starting from a very low number. That doesn't mean they're outproducing us. It means they have more low hanging fruit to improve their productivity than we do. You're also cherrypicking another historically convenient time. Europe and Asia in 1950 were still recovering from the destruction of WWII, where entire cities were leveled. Simply rebuilding from that would give a massive boost. US industrial capacity was never threatened during WWII. Therefore, we won't start suddenly artificially lower in 1950 compared to a Japan, China, Germany, Britain, France, or Russia.

Your historical analysis is laughable. I have never seen anyone claim that the US economy was better off from 1800-1900 than they have been from 1900-2000. Kudos for attempting to provide statistics for your crackpot retelling of American history.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf
We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.
In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.
From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.
Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%
And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.
But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.
Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Slvry

>> ^heropsycho:

Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?



Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf

We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.

In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.

From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.

Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%

And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.

But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.

Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


the US didn't become a world power until WWII really, and it became a SUPERPOWER during the 50's... check the taxation rate then

Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.

Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.

You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?

>> ^raverman:

... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...

Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.

Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

BONUS: Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power? Ha.


Second time of saying this to you - who has ever claimed to know the exact right temperature the earth is "meant" to be? It doesn't even make sense as a statement. "Meant" to be how, in what way? You must be quoting something a knowlessman has said.

Second time of saying this to you as well - you have the wrong target. The politicians are manipulating "climate change" into a money-spinner. But that doesn't mean that climate change is wrong, it means the politicians are wrong.

They and the oil barons are manipulating you and you owe it to yourself to go out and independantly educate yourself. The data is there qm, and it is abundantly clear that there is an anomalous spike in temperature which presents itself around mid 1900s. The only thing left to discuss is why it is happening, and david mitchell is suggesting that no rational human being would simply do nothing when there is even the vaguest chance that we are contributing to the anomaly.

Hate the politicians, not the science they use and abuse to manipulate you with. I hope you listen this time, but i know you won't.

Talk about rose colored glasses for the past. Some how the deadliest natural disaster and 2nd most costly hurricane in US history = A model of libertarian efficiency. What a ridiculous fallacious comparison. Maybe if the people had evacuated themselves or built a seawall and raised the island in anticipation of the storm rather than after ~8k people were killed and damn near every building on the island was wiped off it did they think, 'hey maybe we should be slightly concerned about hurricanes'. Further more, it was the Texas and Galveston governments that were responsible for the creation of the seawall. Its not like all the local residents and business banded together to create it.

I don't think anyone would argue that FEMA is a great agency, but to suggest its worthless is absurd (especially in offering the 1900 Galveston hurricane as comparison of how much better things were without FEMA).

Something many people forget is that urbanisation leads to more damage by natural disasters. I once heard about one theory in a geography lecture that the number or intensity of natural disasters and storms has not risen significantly, but the damage and therefore the perception has.

In the year mentioned in the video, 1900, the world-population was under 2 billion, today it is almost 7 billion.

In the U.S, the number has gone up from 76 million in 1900 to 312 million today (4,1 times more).

And most importantly, the areas at the gulf got more populated: Florida's population rank rose more than that of any other state, from 33rd to 4th place in state rankings from 1900 to 2000.

The denser you populate, the more effect it will have on more people and more houses when natural disasters happen.

1900-America's need for disaster-relief and today's America's disaster relief is not comparable without scientifically balancing a lot of factors first.