see that press conference yesterday? It was a doozy. let me summarize (quotes paraphrased):

He starts with a detailed outline in his propaganda commercial video 'yes we knew about it in January and how dangerous it was, then we did absolutely nothing for the entire month of February, and then we declared an emergency in March'

reporters - 'you say you bought yourself a month's time, why didn't you do anything in February?'

and then what follows is pretty insane

I have never heard someone sound so much like a dictator. 'all the information needs to come from me and everyone knows all of you are fake (talking to the room). I have all the power. The president's powers are limitless.'

A lot of explanation about how he has the ultimate authority and can choose to do whatever he chooses;
Governor's of states should have known this was coming and stockpiled their own ventilators

Is pressed again: What did you do during this time yo help lower the number of cases ?
'YOU ARE FFFFFAAAAKEeeeeeeeeeeeeeee NHHHEEEEWWZZZ'


Edit: I almost forgot the best part where he gets called on his "absolute power" and the 10th amendment is brought up

This is an exact quote "WHEN YOU SAY MY AUTHORITY? THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY. WHEN SOMEBODY IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE AUTHORITY IS TOTAL AND THAT IS THE WAY IT'S GOT TO BE. " from that cspan transcript, you can click the play next to it to hear him say it.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?471160-1/white-house-coronavirus-task-force-briefing

So, because one guy, Noah, sucked hard as a proselytizer, God murdered everyone else?
It must have been his failing since his message was so true and undeniable, yet it was denied and ignored, right? Why not just kill him and prove the message by miracle? Better, why not make everyone KNOW, not guess or believe, he exists and go from there. Using unverified middle men to spread your message is just plain stupid when you don't have to, and downright evil when you then torture those who don't accept it from those con men.

Like I said, complete incessant obedient subservience and worship of himself and his son under threat of eternal torture for any found lacking. That's narcissistic insecurity with absolute power, not love. Edit:part of love is accepting or at least tolerating disagreement, even disagreeable behaviour, and murdering people you find unsavory is not tolerance, sending them to hell is far closer to hate than love.
You don't threaten people into "loving" you out of love. (and worshiping out of fear isn't love)
You don't murder millions because you love them, even when they're being naughty.

I believe in a guy named Jesus, he could walk on water when it freezes, and turn water into wine using his vineyard, but his mom was no virgin and his dad was a human being. Am I good?

@harlequinn

i have witnessed many of my more right leaning friends on social media ask a very similar question,but ignore that the attorney general is first,and foremost,an agent of the court.

sally yates did nothing illegal.she simply was upholding a lawful injunction passed down from ninth circuit court federal judge william orrick.(who is a republican,for what it is worth).

what yates DID do was ignore an executive order commanding her to challenge the injunction,which she refused and told her subordinates to do the same.which is considered gross insubordination,and the reason she was fired,but she had every right and legal cover to ignore that EO.

the DOJ,and subsequently the attorney general,are not their for the presidents leisure.they are part of the judiciary branch,which is separate from the executive.though every president has replaced the current attorney general with one that most aligns with their politics.

the fact that so many diehard rightwingers see what yates did as anti-patriotic is a stance that i find very disturbing.that somehow by disobeying the president,she crossed some imaginary line,and therefore should be punished for her disobedience.

which she was! she was fired.

but to imply that disobeying an executive order is tantamount to treason,goes against the very ideology of our constitutional republic.the president is not KING.he does not wield absolute power.

and to pretend what yates did as illegal,and treasonous, for disobeying the president.... is fascism 101.

What I get as the "point" of the One Ring is
A) backup / fallback plan in case Sauron is killed so he won't be completely destroyed (containing some of his soul / essence)
B) a trap to facilitate his control of the other races by tempting and corrupting them

And I think your take on the reason for the invisibility is correct according to the way Tolkien intended it. But it still doesn't sit real well with me. To me it feels better to imagine the whole ring story as a take on "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

The other rings of power are interesting. The three for the elves are largely free of the influence of the one, because Celebrimbor was already very suspicious of Sauron / Annatar when he made them. So the elves can and do continue to use them, though warily.

The seven for dwarves aren't discussed a lot, but hinted that they help corrupt the dwarves natural appreciation for gems and gold into a darker greed for those things. That dovetails into stuff in The Hobbit pretty well. So, while they don't corrupt dwarves in the same way they do men, they DO lead to isolation and and factionalization of the dwarves, which I suppose could have been Sauron's intent.

The nine for humans seem to work quite well as judged by Sauron's intent for them.


I guess that overall, I just feel like temptation and corruption of wearers of the one ring seems like a very elegant way to achieve Sauron's goals when he made it. A ring that grants the wearer the single ability that they most desire but also will be most tempted to abuse would be very difficult for people (and elves or dwarves or whoever) to resist. Gandalf and Galadriel are directly offered the ring but refuse only because they both *know* that they would be corrupted by it. I don't see invisibility as enough of a game-changing ability for either of them to be so confident that they couldn't handle it.

Lol, you're joking right?

We're only seeing more of it now because cameras are everywhere. Portability and minaturisation are pulling back the veil, but police brutality has always been a thing. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that.

It might be more frequent now but it's not a new thing.

Obama was a cleverly created product.
made solely to appeal to a disenfranchised and apathetic voter base.
and it succeeded brilliantly.
obama was a corporate owned subsidiary from day one and if anyone had paid attention to his campaign speeches they would have known and not been so shocked when he acted,politically,exactly how he said he was going to act.

instead they focused on the emotional and inspirational rhetoric because the american people were incredibly desperate for that kind of message (8 yrs of bush will do that to ya).

warren,unlike obama,has been speaking this language for twenty years,and while i cannot begin to guess what kind of president she would be,or if even that is her desire (though many are trying to compel her),i will say she has been relentless in regards to wall street and big finance.her senate record is pretty consistent with her message.

but i get your reference "absolute power corrupts blah blah....."
you are probably right.

Jews have the old testament.
Christians have the old testament and new testament.
Muslims have the old testament, new testament, and yet a newer testament.

All 3 share the old testament.
The 'violence promoting' scriptures are found in the old testament - which all 3 have in common.

Reza is right.
If people want peace, the religious of them simply ignore the violent edicts of their religions.
If they want to be violent, the religious of them legitimize it with excuses from their religions.

He's also right about the national hypocrisy. Al-Qaeda at the time of 9/11 was a pet organization of members of the Saudi royal family.
But instead of going after the Saudis (who also today finance ISIS), we go after 2 countries that are unrelated to the attack.

Look at today's irony. Assad in Syria (who we wanted deposed because he was friendlier to Russia than the U.S., and allowed Russian bases on Syrian soil [in the middle east]) is now fighting ISIS, while we ally with the Saudis who are supporting ISIS.

We also didn't mind supporting the Mujahedin (Jihadi fighters) in Afghanistan when they were fighting our enemy. We had no problem throwing Afghanistan into the dark ages when it suited us.

Ultimately, extremist Islam is a foil, meant to rouse western people's emotions. As national policy, we don't _actually_ do anything to stop it, we just use it as an excuse to do whatever else is of national interest.
Who would be the boogey man if extremist Islam was gone? We need a boogey man if we want to keep excusing and paying for a large military. People simply don't have the foresight and patience to maintain a strong military without someone scaring them into support. Particularly now, when we don't have the manufacturing capacity to quickly build a large military.

However, Reza is ignoring Turkey's and the Pacific islander's Muslim problems. Indonesia and the Philippines have extremist Muslim organizations doing attacks home (Philippines also has Christian terrorists). Turkey is a large source of Muslim fighters pouring into Syria.



The various related religions also have historical developmental differences.

Jews were for a long time in such minorities that they did not have the political capability of waging any campaign of violence. They were either too small, or too busy being occupied by European powers (Rome, etc).

Christians did have a long period of majority, starting around 400ad when Rome decided that a good way to control/pacify any dissent within the empire was to make the empire 1 religion and make Rome the head of that religion. They elected Christianity as the state religion, forced everyone in the Roman empire to convert, and you had a continent's worth of Christians.
This included north Africa and Middle East - and is when Jews (by now called Palestinians) were forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity (**and few hundred years later forced to convert from Christianity to Islam).

Although, Christians had the benefit of the Inquisition(s) to temper their enthusiasm for Christianity. A large part of the population was killed for consorting with the devil. Once it got so bad that everyone knew someone who had been convicted and killed - and everyone was sure that those killed were innocent, it cast a large doubt on Christianity as whole. People questioned if the devil even exists, or if it's all a sham. The distrust and resentment paved the way for the eventual birth of Deism and Empiricism. A time when the scientific method and physical observation started to take over.

Islam is still a young religion. They still have to experience their religion becoming all powerful, and the inquisitions that inevitably come from absolute power. The one good thing about Islamic extremism is that it makes the people living under those conditions more likely to suffer. Once the suffering becomes so pervasive that everyone is suffering, the people will start to dislike/distrust their religion, and the extremism will resolve itself from the inside out - like it did with Christianity.

The bigger problem would be if things are 'too tolerable', and the religion grows more extreme (no one is inclined to say 'no'). The biggest problem would be if the religious leaders 'solve' the balance issue, and manage to stabilize the oppression at a level that is as extreme as it can be while still being permanently sustainable. Then the religious leaders can live the life of power without the threat of deposition.

-scheherazade

I had low expectations (dunno why exactly), but I liked the movie quite a bit. I know very little about the comic book Superman, only stuff I've picked up from other sources -- so I don't know if or how extensive any backstory alterations were.

One thing that I've always thought about Superman is that it sure seems like it would be more likely that an "alien" in his situation would turn out pretty evil; absolute power corrupting absolutely and that sort of thing. I thought this movie did a better job than the (limited) other versions that I've seen of having him face down those temptations.

On a website with so many video examples of nut-job police officers abusing their power and showing an extreme lack of good judgement, I find it ironic that so many are willing to give them ABSOLUTE power by surrendering our rights. The constitution and the bill of rights are meant to protect us from abusive governments.

Almost anytime power shifts from the people to the government, it's scary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms

They'll tolerate it and even support it as long as this kind of reporting stays out of the mainstream media. Information isn't just power, these days, controlling information means near-absolute power.

massive upvote. We need to be watching Egypt closely. This is the point where the nations direction will be chosen. Morsi has effectively given himself absolute power to pass whatever constitution he wishes and if he's not stopped now, Egypt may become yet another dictatorship/theocracy.

>> ^Sagemind:

I'm sorry Shinyblurry,
You seem like a genuine person who believes strongly what has been given to you.
BUT...
Really?
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities?
Those whom resist authority, will incur judgement from God?
That sounds a lot like Authority trying to rule over it's subjects.
Obey the government and all that it makes you do or you will incur the full wrath of our police force and military.
I have respect for myself and I have respect for others, but I don't need to respect authority that hasn't earned my respect. If we just comply with every command we are given, without question, then we condemn ourselves to be ruled and subjugated by the very power that is evil. Absolute Power is but Evil indeed.
If everyone bowed down and gave their power away, then there would be nothing left but mindless drones (sheep) serving the ruling class. This is something I WILL NEVER DO. No one person shall have power over me. Not one power should ever have power over any free mind.
Because you have bowed and given yourself away, (which I feel is a weak-minded action - sorry, no offense intended, that's just how I feel,) doesn't mean it's a good idea. This would only work if power didn't corrupt absolutely.
Antiquated rules by an antiquated idea of governance.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Romans 13:1
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.



No offense taken and I appreciate your sincerity. I will elaborate here and say that to submit to the authorities doesn't mean unquestioning obedience. Anything commanded by the authorities which is contrary to what God has commanded should be disobeyed, because we should obey God rather than men. In general, though, it is to understand that God is the ruler of the nations, and He has established the authorities for His purposes, and that their authority ultimately derives from Him.

I won't bow down to corrupt human institutions, but I do give them the respect that they are due. You are right, in that we could never completely submit to an authority because they are all corrupt, but there is one authority that is not corrupt, which is God, and ultimately that is the authority we submit to when we obey the lesser authorities. I think you're hitting on the main issue that some have, which is that they don't want to give up total control to any authority; as you said, with humans it isn't warranted, but with God it is warranted, not only because He is worthy of it, but because in the context of His sovereignty the control we have is actually just an illusion.

To follow Jesus is not weak minded; if you look at American Christians, the rarest ones are those who are living sanctified lives which reveal the love of God. Rare, because following Jesus is not an easy thing, but a very difficult thing which takes a fullness of virtues, and this can only be done with Gods help. The weak Christians are the ones who are living as the world does and slandering His good name.

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

I'm sorry Shinyblurry,
You seem like a genuine person who believes strongly what has been given to you.

BUT...
Really?
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities?"
"Those whom resist authority, will incur judgement from God?"

That sounds a lot like Authority trying to rule over it's subjects.
Obey the government and all that it makes you do or you will incur the full wrath of our police force and military.

I have respect for myself and I have respect for others, but I don't need to respect authority that hasn't earned my respect. If we just comply with every command we are given, without question, then we condemn ourselves to be ruled and subjugated by the very power that is evil. Absolute Power is but Evil indeed.

If everyone bowed down and gave their power away, then there would be nothing left but mindless drones (sheep) serving the ruling class. This is something I WILL NEVER DO. No one person shall have power over me. Not one power should ever have power over any free mind.

Because you have bowed and given yourself away, (which I feel is a weak-minded action - sorry, no offense intended, that's just how I feel,) doesn't mean it's a good idea. This would only work if power didn't corrupt absolutely.

Antiquated rules by an antiquated idea of governance.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Romans 13:1
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

I'm glad you enjoyed the video and I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I'll reply by saying that if you accept meaninglessness as a fact, then there are many implications to such a belief. For instance, if it true that life is meaningless then it is also true that there is no such thing as justice. It means that any truly terrible things that happen to you will never be adequately recompensed, and that frequently, the purveyors of such will get away with it scott free. It means that ultimately, might does make right, and he who has the gold makes the rules. If you are smart enough to get away with it, or powerful enough to avoid the consequences, you will never face any justice for any evil that you've done.

It also means that everything you have worked for and dreamed about could be randomly taken away from you at any moment, and so could all the people you love and care about. One moment you are an eternal optimist, the next, you get into a car accident and become a parapalegic. Now, you can say that this could happen to you even if there is a God, since it obviously happens to people all the time. This is true, but, if this life is all you have then it means that the hope you have is a very limited and fragile commodity. Hope is not a limited commodity for a Christian. For instance, the closer you are to death the less happy and hopeful you will become. When you're young, you don't concern yourself with it as much, even though it could happen at any time. As you get older, you start to realize how little time you have left to accomplish your goals. Your mobility starts to decrease, the sharpness of your intellect and your beauty fades. You become less desirable to others and to society in general. What this means is that your happiness is always situational. Eventually, when enough tragedy happens to you, you will break down and the future will become more and more like a millstone around your neck.

Yes, some people are able to squeeze some happiness out of desperate circumstances, and more power to them, but they have no real hope. A meaningless universe provides you with zero hope in the end. Many people believe they will achieve some lasting legacy but think about all the people you remember from the last century. Shockingly, a poll done by college age kids from America and Germany showed that many of them had no idea who Hitler was. If no one can remember Hitler, they probably won't remember you either. Where does that leave you? Your best case scenario is that you lead a completely pointless life where you hopefully experience a modicum of pleasure before expiring prematurely, never having reached anything near your true potential, with all your love and dreams being cruelly erased from existence forever.

People become depressed because of a lack of hope. If you look at the world today, and constrast it to our history, you will see that nothing has really changed on planet Earth. For all of our so-called progress, humanity is just as sick and depraved as it always has been. Evil is increasing, not decreasing, and mankinds destructive appetites will never be satiated. There is no hope in man, but there is in God. I think you know that.

Now, you make an argument about following your bliss, but if what is good to do is simply what makes you feel good, then you could excuse some of the worst crimes in history. People murder, rape, cheat, steal, etc because it makes them feel good. I'm sure Hitler took a lot of pleasure in what he did, and was following his bliss for aquiring absolute power. You can't use what feels good as a compass for what is right. Now, I think you're trying to insert the caveat that we shouldn't do what causes harm to people, but what if it is someones bliss to harm people? You would be stopping their bliss and thus violating your own rules. In short, there is no way to impose any absolute standard of morality when you are determining it by a completely arbitrary standard. In a meaningless Universe there is no right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

For myself, what led me to start thinking about what was true was to notice how much this world was going down the tubes, and with seemingly no one in the drivers seat. I noticed the love I felt from this world being slowly drained away, year by year. I saw that humanity was on a collision course with ultimate destruction if nothing changed. If life is meaningless then it doesn't matter. But deep down, you don't really believe its meaningless, and neither did I. That's probably another reason why you're depressed. Your head says its meaningless but your heart tells you that this is a lie. Until the two reconcile you will never be happy and you will never be truly free. It's only Christ that can reconcile them, because He knows the reason that you're here, and only He can point you in that direction. It is only by discovering the meaning of your life, the reason that you're here, that will lead your mind and heart to agree with one another.

>> ^messenger