>> ^shinyblurry:

Really, sift? This is what is you like? So it's not that you don't like evangelical videos, just that you don't like ones that disagree with your views. Pretty sad to think that you'd all be happy if we just disappeared. I guess that's the difference between us..Christians love atheists..just because we think you're wrong doesn't mean we don't love you. Atheists on the other hand seem to have nothing but hatred and derision for us..and I think this video proves your true feelings. Not even one downvote for this knee-jerk, emotionally manipulative tripe, the makers of it knowing full well this was a doomsday cult and not Christianity. Just pathetic.


ah, alright. all christians love atheists and all atheists hate christians. got it. atheists are also hate-filled and brutish, whereas christians have nary a bad thing to say about atheists! damn those atheists for being so emotionally manipulative. i've never known an emotionally manipulative christian! that's like saying there's an emotionally manipulative tv show or movie! ha! i thank you for your honesty. next up from shinyblurry: christians love fags; despite what their signs say!

Really, sift? This is what is you like? So it's not that you don't like evangelical videos, just that you don't like ones that disagree with your views. Pretty sad to think that you'd all be happy if we just disappeared. I guess that's the difference between us..Christians love atheists..just because we think you're wrong doesn't mean we don't love you. Atheists on the other hand seem to have nothing but hatred and derision for us..and I think this video proves your true feelings. Not even one downvote for this knee-jerk, emotionally manipulative tripe, the makers of it knowing full well this was a doomsday cult and not Christianity. Just pathetic.

@GenjiKilpatrick

Yes a catalyst. That can be many things. Seeing the images of the japanese Tsunami, of the violence in the Middle East. Being in a doomsday cult sure didn't help. But blaming religion for this is (as I already said) just like blaming violent videogames as the reason for school shootings. It's peddling simple answers to complex problems. Violent and crazy people do violent and crazy things in the name of _______.

I'll stop here because I'd just repeat what peggedbea already said best.

>> ^Trancecoach:
Christians actually believe this shit.


This isn't Christianity, it's a doomsday cult. If they were Christians they would follow scripture and know this couldn't be true, for two reasons. One is this verse:

Matthew 24:36

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Which means that anyone predicting a date for the end of the world is automatically wrong. Two is that the person who started this cult made a similar prediction in 1994 which didn't come true. If a prophet makes a prediction that even the smallest bit of did not come true, that means he is a false prophet.

I feel bad for these people..many of them sold their homes and quit their jobs. They are in for a rude awakening on the 22nd.

edit: I guess I should have watched the video before commenting..that's just awful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qojv1bR-S0


That was quite the wall of text just for that quip.

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I mentioned that though so it makes your statement kind of insulting.

I think Paul would be better than Bush, but far, far worse than Obama. You want to blame Obama for Gitmo, apparently, but you obviously haven't cared about the topic enough to actually follow the sequence of events. Congress passed a law barring Obama from bringing the detainees onto American soil, and before that New York City opposed bringing KSM to trial there because of security concerns. I think anyone who thinks Ron Paul is somehow going to overcome those obstacles is deluding themselves.

Apparently, you are wrong about my lack of care in this particular topic. Do not generalize. Congress did pass the law, and so? They passed it, if I am correct, in 2009? So he did close it in 2008 when he had a chance? No he did not. And who cares what New York City opposed? Many states opposed blacks being integrated with whites in public schools too—and we know where that went...

I don’t think Paul can overcome the obstacles that Obama has allowed in terms of Gitmo. However, there are ways, one would be leverage. But there are plenty more.

Would the Republican party line up and vote for legislation that would let the detainees come here for Federal trials if Paul tells them to? I doubt it.

Republicans would absolutely not line up behind Ron Paul for this or most other matters. In fact, they would go against nearly every policy he tries because they are corporate hacks and they hate a truly “free” market. Corporations enjoy too many hand outs, too many protections that our government gives them… Just look at how the Republican party speak out Paul...even while pretending to emulate him.

Would Paul make Gitmo his #1 priority? I doubt it.

#1? Maybe not. And? Second or third is fine. However, pointing against your suggestion that he would not give it his best to remove this unconstitutional bullshit, he has been major in his stand on habeas corpus…

Would Paul try to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I bet he wouldn't veto a repeal if Congress passed it...

And? Congress and the House would not have the votes for a repeal, so, like I said, this is a straw-man issue we have…

Would Paul try to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and health care reform? You betcha! Priority #1, even.

Um, now who doesn’t know what they are talking about? First, Paul stated that he would not, because it was infeasible (Social security and Medicare/Medicaid.) He said he would allow opt outs, and that we would need to fulfill our obligations to those who have already been promised their dues, somehow, to those currently in the program. Just watch the video I posted a link too.

Would Paul get impeached if he tried to rapidly withdraw our troops from everywhere, and then slash the military budget? Almost certainly.

I would be honored to be impeached for doing the right thing. Since when do people only do the right thing when it is easy? That's not the right thing, that convenient. And, actually, the clamor from most republicans citizens (Even those at the VFW I go to) is to cut the military (To a significant degree) because we are in a serious financial crisis. They also, with the actions in Libya and around, wonder if we can sustain our empire. A year ago, you would have been 100% right. We must admit, most Americans want our troops home, even from Iraq and Af-gan.

For the record, I totally agreed with what heropsycho said (the comment you said was 100% right). Paul and libertarians refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us, and dismiss (and decry as EVIL!) the idea that any new good could come from new regulation.

Agreed. Just make sure to note that certain people (Me and others) agree that some regulations need to be a federal issue.

Worse, they want to dismantle all the good, and absolutely forestall any more progress being made in this country on any major issue. Maybe he'd impotently try to deal with the war and associated civil liberties issues, but I doubt he'd even bother when there's still a New Deal to repeal.

He cares about bankruptcy first.

"If we made common sense about this yes I would cut all this militarism and not cut people off from medical care."

I don't see a problem with this. And his view that the dollar will go, some say is doomsday...and so they said that about the levies, and so they said that about 9/11, and so they say it till it happens.

I have a premonition about May 21st also:

On May 22nd we'll have yet another concrete example of the blazingly obvious fact to all but the most brainwashed death cult members that so-called religious experts and fanatics don't have any more of a clue where the fuck existence came from or where it is going.

This sadly won't stop them from miraculously finding a small mathematical error in their apocalypse algorithm that will allow them to re-compute doomsday.

>> ^RadHazG:

Wow. and here I thought I would have to wait until the end of 2012 to laugh in the faces of idiots like this.


O no, people are always claiming "IT'S COMING!!!" One of my first girlfriends in college, as a matter of fact, brought me, grudgingly, to church with her. Once there I was surprised to learn that her pastor was feeding these kids some garbage about the world coming to an end in roughly one week. (true story)

I broke it off with her after a fight about how idiotic it all was; but looking back I should have used it as an excuse to fuck like mad until fake doomsday. Damn.

Don't worry he'll rationalize it away when, yet again, his prediction fails to occur. 'Our prayers jesus'd away the doomsday I predicted would happen so I wasn't wrong, it was just adverted through the mercy of God and your donations, which I'll need more of to fuel my doomsday preventing prays.'

I'll say it again. People love using cliches like end times, end of days, the apocalypse, doomsday, reckoning, and it's the end of the world with the accompanying locust swarms, earthquakes, diseases, catastrophes, blah blah blah. Hollywood, the Bible and atomic weapons have turned people into excitable little drama queens. The earth will not end in some predicted scripted big bang, rather the natural forces of the universe will run their course over however many million years. "End of days", hahahahaha.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
And now imagine if he had no clip at all. That would be 100% fewer bullets. We'll just arm up our military and militarized police and get that under control. Heil Hitler! Godwined, bitches.

I'm still waiting for you to answer me on private ownership of nuclear weapons. Do you want that, or do you think there are reasonable limits on the level of weaponry that should be in the hands of an individual?


Your fighting a loosing battle there. It will only be a matter of time before doomsday level technology is smaller than a briefcase, and simple enough to make over the weekend, and sophisticated enough to erradicate entire populations. The problem about who gets what will be moot, as it already is...people have guns even where they are illegal. The real question is how do you keep humanity around and alive when a broken hearted teen can end all life in the solar system with a press of a button. That doesn't have an easy answer, and both lines of reason here fail to even cope with that, what I see as, inevitable eventuality. Weapons are only the symptom of a deep seeded violence in man, there is the problem, and only in addressing that problem will you find any true answers. Everything else is addressing leaves that blow in the wind.

Guess it depends on which zombie mythos you're using/hoping for... ; )

28 days later/rage virus style zombies could be starved out but are much more aggressive and more likely to spread infection. Incubation time is relatively short so it's not likely people on planes would be able to transmit intercontinentally.

Resident Evil zombies can have the virus spread via birds so transcontinental infection would be much faster. All in all, RE infection is basically the worst of the worst in terms of zombie invasions with the penchant for mutation in to super zombies/creatures.

Classic Romero dead that just rise up and start fucking the planet over? Much slower but much less likely to be stopped.

Remember, you also have to factor in things like:

a) high suicide rates from people believing there is no hope
b) infrastructure and services failing (power plants, water, food etc) which would lead to starvation etc
c) nutjobs deliberately spreading the infection (your standard doomsday cult sorta thing)

>> ^krazyety:

What could they possibly gain from that?


Fear is a very useful tool, distraction is also, while a sense of belittlement might help one control the masses. I´ve asked myself that question many times, but not so much governments I think, but more people with power. I don´t mean to sound paranoid or conspiratorial, but more skeptical; you look at various things like the disclosure project, history channel: UFO documents, etc, x files, etc... Not all, but most seem to be coming from right wing biased sources or military links or news corp: fox.

Like so many falacies without proof, from ghosts, the coming of christ to 2012 doomsday and stuff, people that have a reason to want to believe because it gives meaning to their lives for x or y reason, doesn´t mean its part of everyone´s reality. Although I still maintain an open mind.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I'm mostly in agreement with Napolitano on this, which is a rarity. I still don't see how any semi-intelligent politician can look at America without seeing that we're an empire. Newt Gingrich knows it, but he'll be damned if he'll admit it. And did you see how Gingrich tried to conflate the Iranian revolution with the war(s) we're fighting now? For him it must be one gigantic war against Islam.
The Crusades lasted 200 years. How long will our crusades last?


What I wonder is how humanity will survive when technology reaches a point where doomsday level destruction is a 7-11 away. How can we continue to exist when the brutal animal nature is only a mood swing away from the complete eradication of human civilization from the planet? Technology is always heralded as the great salvation of man, but it will only be so it the brutal nature of our nature is changed...or it will be our doom.

ETFs are flexible enough depending on the risk you want to take on. You could buy into a fund that literally holds the gold reserves for you remotely or you could buy into one that tracks the price through derivatives. Obviously the fund manager adds some kind of risk regardless of their discretion. I'm sure you probably know all this. Point is, I think it's hard to deny that buying into a fund rather than being an individual investor cuts down on transaction and obviously shipping cost. You say that you keep your holdings in a safe, and that adds an additional expense for the security you would otherwise not need.

As for liquidity, ETFs allow the liquidation of holdings on the appropriate stock exchange on the internet instantly. Comparatively for local storefronts, imagine if the price began dropping precipitously and on the assumption that they would be overpaying currently, those storefronts decided to temporarily stop buying. In that case you would have a far better chance finding a willing buyer in a deeper globalised stock exchange.

My point is, that kind of negative scenario is far more plausible than losing your holdings through stock market collapse.
>> ^dgandhi:

It's not just the doomsday scenario, it the mismanagement scenario. Any of the ETFs could be subject to abuse or mismanagement, whereas coins in my floorboard safe are much more in my control.
Since I got the whole minting cost of the coins I bought back, it's not as though it cost me any money to hold coins.
As to liquidity, How fast can you get cash in hand from liquidation of ETF shares? I can turn a 1oz coin to cash in 15min at any number of nearby storefront resellers.
>> ^RedSky:
Don't waste your money on a less liquid form of the same commodity investment based on the prediction of some highly unlikely doomsday scenario.

It's not just the doomsday scenario, it the mismanagement scenario. Any of the ETFs could be subject to abuse or mismanagement, whereas coins in my floorboard safe are much more in my control.

Since I got the whole minting cost of the coins I bought back, it's not as though it cost me any money to hold coins.

As to liquidity, How fast can you get cash in hand from liquidation of ETF shares? I can turn a 1oz coin to cash in 15min at any number of nearby storefront resellers.
>> ^RedSky:
Don't waste your money on a less liquid form of the same commodity investment based on the prediction of some highly unlikely doomsday scenario.