So slavery is back on then, yes? Exodus 21.

*readacted-

After reading voodler's comments which seem reasonable enough, partisan politics are a charade and on this we may agree. What I fear is the border with Mexico and her people's pouring-in to dilute and cheapen the culture most of all, and our government's continued prohibition of narcotics and fear-mongering of terrorism and those who would that country collapse so they can run with the profits laughing(these are from both isle-sides, criminals all). A level of socialization must be reached before you can sell an exodus to the U.S. from the south, and I am disgusted that the Republic of Mexico has been hijacked by the assholes that have run that beautiful country into the ground, especially the cock-sucking Spaniards, those dirty bastards with their silly hats.

They wouldn't have learned about the Epic of Gilgamesh during the Babylonian Exile! The exiles were WAY later than the book of Genesis was written. They would have learned about it in Egypt or before. As I understand it, the book of Genesis was written during the Israelites' flight through the wilderness (what the book of Exodus is about).

But yes, I agree there are flood myths pre-dating the Hebrew scriptures and I'm eager to see what the Christian community does with this movie.

Also, I agree with charliem. There is evidence of localized flooding that could have given rise to the many flood myths among Ancient Near Eastern peoples. One fascinating theory is that a major flood happened when the Bosporus Strait collapsed and the water levels of the Mediterranean and Black Seas equalized. It's in the book "Noah's Flood" - http://amzn.to/1ieH4GX

Basically @RFlagg I see it happening in one of two ways. If Republicans continue to lose elections, especially the white house, if the political fallout from the shutdown is large enough, the Republicans will lose congress as well. Republicans will either: 1) fade into history. or 2) Republicans will whip their low information voters into a frenzy, playing the tyranny card and eventually there *will* be an attempt at an armed revolt, but since it won't have any real popular support, it will fail relatively quickly but it will have the additional effect that Republicans will be blamed for any deaths caused by this revolt and there will be a huge exodus from the GOP and they will be ostracized from American society. They'll still exist of course, but they'll have the same relevance as the KKK, or the people who still think the world is flat and it's just a huge conspiracy.

2016 is going to be an important election, If Dems can still retain the white house for another 8 years, it's going to be another huge blow to the Republicans, especially when their last stated singular goal was to make Obama a 1 term president and failed.

and quite honestly, I'm not sure it will happen like I was sure Obama would get re-elected. Hilary just...shouldn't run IMO, her time is past. Elizabeth Warren would have a good shot at it. But I also think Dems need to find a new voice. Someone who, like Obama, who actually did embrace the internet and social media and used it very much to his advantage.

If you win the internet, you win the vote. They've got to keep the pressure up. Quite honestly, the 2008 and 2012 elections were easy, It was easy to get the left riled up when clueless Sarah Palin or Robot Romney were running. But I suspect the right will eventually learn from their mistake and run someone who actually is semi-relatable

I just think it's very likely Dems will get cocky and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again. So.....don't get cocky kid.

This is a false or misleading statement. The reasons for some Canadians having to wait or not being able to have a doctor are different. Canada has had a terrible drain on it's medical system with doctors and nurses going down to the US, because they make more money there. This has lead to new programs to entice them to stay in Canada. It looks like they have been working, but it's a 10 year study and we need to see the numbers.

As a Canadian who has been though the healthcare system in Ontario, and had family members who've had been through health care in Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, Halifax and Newfoundland.Labradour, I can tell you the parts that work and the parts that don't.

I'm a type I diabetic and I've had cancer twice. I've had a sarcoma in my saliva gland and as a result of radiation therapy, I've had melanoma skin cancer crop up on my body as well. I've had four major surgeries on my body. Two of them were serious complicated nervous system surgeries or lymphatic resecctions. I've been through my fair share of Canadian health care.

First things first. It's not a national healthcare. Anyone saying national healthcare doesn't know what they're talking about. The provinces and territories have their own health care. Granted, the territories get a lot more help from the Federal Gov't, but the health needs of people in Ontario are different from those in Manitoba.

Let's get into the brass taxes. I've had the nerve surgery and radiation therapy that was done on my face evaluated at a hospital in West Virgina as part of a study to compare American HC vs. Canadian HC. For my first surgery, I got to choose my doctor, I was given a list. They recommended one doctor, who was an expert in North America for nerve surgery, but he was recovering from a surgery of his own. They suggested I wait for him to be ready, but if I wanted to proceed, I could wait if I wanted.

I waited and surprise, no facial paralysis. I then had to do 30 days of intense radiation therapy in my parotid bed, to make sure they got it all.

I paid a total of $300 dollars in parking. I also have private health insurance for diabetic supplies, which means any medication I had to get to deal with the after effects of radiation had an 85% payback.

Years later when the effects of radiation had settled and I had a tumour form from the radiation, I had gone to my family doctor, saw a specialist the next day and then within the week I had an excision done. It came back positive and within a week of that, I was given a sentinel node biopsy to see if it had spread.

It had.

Within a month of the first examination, I had a full lymphatic ressection of my left leg and groin done. This wasn't as complicated as the facial nerve surgery, so I got a list and a suggestion of who to do the surgery.

That came back clean, but I now deal with a lot of complications from that.

That surgery cost me nothing.

In West Virgina at a hospital (they didn't tell me which one they used.) The total for all the exams (CT, MRI, etc.) the surgery and the radiation therapy came out to $275,000. Give or take.

This is why it drives me nuts when I see people get things wrong about Canada. We have problems, oh yes we do. For example, don't be over the age of 65 in BC or Quebec. The diagnostics training in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland if pretty terrible. But, I got to choose my doctor, and I saw everyone really quick. Why? Because you don't fuck with melanoma.

So, I'm sorry Trancecoach, I saw that video you linked. The guy lost a lot of credibility at "Communist State of Canada." You're already skewing your message to say something. You are just plain wrong about health care in Canada, the way you talk about. I am living proof of how well it works.

I'm a self employed photographer and the most I've ever had to pay was for parking at the hospital. That was the $300 dollars. I paid my taxes and that paid for my health care. If I didn't, and if other Canadians didn't, I would not be here, as with many other Canadians.

Critique us for the things we do shitty, but I have yet to see anyone do that. I see talking points and misinformation from people just spreading false info.

Get your facts straight. I know how it works in Ontario the best. But, I also know for a vast majority of the other country. I can tell you Saskatchewan has had an exodus of nurses, but that's not bad health care system. That's a gov't system that can't keep nurses in the province. If we can keep doctors and nurses, the system works great.

The guy you linked to, most of his sources for data are absolute crap and he misleads a lot of his talking points. This stupid lottery doctor that happened was because it was an isolated town in the wilderness and there was only one doctor left after the other passed away. So yes, he had to do a lottery for people so he wouldn't get swamped, unless it was an emergency. It was a town, I believe about 10,000 people, but I'm not sure on that.

Would it be the one that condemns rape victims to death, or to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-29)?

Exodus 22:17

If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, she shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.

The father is the one who makes the decision and he was under no obligation to allow his daughter to be married to a rapist. The punishment was on the rapists side, that he would have to pay the bride price, and if the family agreed, to stay permanently married to the girl.

Or maybe it's the one that says you must stone disobedient children to death (Deuteronomy 21:18)?

"This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard"

It is not just a disobedient child, but a rebellious and morally depraved child. Yes, it is a harsh punishment, but God made the punishment harsh because Israel had a covenant with Him to be holy and they were to bring forth the Messiah.

Possibly you are referring to the correct method for beating your slaves (Exodus 21:20) ?

Exodus 21:20 details the punishment for beating a slave to death. The purpose of the law was to protect slaves.

How prisoners of war should be put to death (Deuteronomy 20:13) ?
Sorry, my bad, that's only male prisoners. You get to forcibly marry the women, unless they don't please you (at which point you can toss them out on their ear) Deuteronomy 21:11

Deuteronomy 21:11 wasn't commanded by God; it was an addition by Moses:

Mar 10:5 And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'
Mar 10:7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,
Mar 10:8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

I do so love being lectured on morals by the likes of you.

Most of the objections here have either been misinterpreted, or misapplied, and none of them are valid today. The civil and ceremonial laws given to Israel, and Israel only, were done away with when Jesus died on the cross. The total absence of any objection to what Jesus taught us about morality is what speaks volumes in the arguments you present, because there is nothing to be said about it except to praise it. If everyone followed the teachings of Jesus something like a utopia would dawn. If you want to understand the morality that comes from God, read what Jesus taught about it instead of playing the gotchya game with the Old Testament trying to find an excuse to ignore what Jesus said.

Which absolute moral law would that be?

Would it be the one that condemns rape victims to death, or to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-29)?

Or maybe it's the one that says you must stone disobedient children to death (Deuteronomy 21:18)?

Possibly you are referring to the correct method for beating your slaves (Exodus 21:20) ?

How prisoners of war should be put to death (Deuteronomy 20:13) ?
Sorry, my bad, that's only male prisoners. You get to forcibly marry the women, unless they don't please you (at which point you can toss them out on their ear) Deuteronomy 21:11

I do so love being lectured on morals by the likes of you.

Yahweh can't respect "free will" while answering prayers.
Yahweh can't respect "free will" while killing thousands, like in Exodus, for example.
Yahweh can't respect "free will" while knocking people off horses and altering their brains to suddenly be good people, like Saul --> Paul.

I know my Middle East history and have no illusions about who is and is not the aggressor. My point is that there is ALWAYS a double standard. That you took this as an attack on Israel's moral standing simply highlights your own double standard.

By the way, the extensive temporary exodus is now 65 years temporary with no talk about right of return, at least not to the people born in pre-Israel Palestine. And any talk of right of return by the Palestinian Authority has been used as grounds for abandoning peace/settlement talks by the Israeli government. Just a little fact check, not a sign of partisanship.

aaronfr and Kofi,

You both seem to have the notion that Israel is, has and always will be the aggressor in it's relationship with it's neighbours. If you want to talk about unjustified acts of aggression between Israel and neighboring arab states, you can't decide to only look at the time frame which supports your position.

What is your view on Israel's declaration of independence? Even Al Jazeera describes the events as the culmination of a civil war between Jewish and Arab Palestinians, in which the Jewish Palestinians were the minority. The Jewish Palestinians were largely victorious, and declared independence within the the territory they held. Immediately, all neighboring Arab states declared war on them and proceeded to promise a cleansing that would drive the Jews into the sea. They even encouraged an extensive temporary mass exodus of all Arab Palestinians for the expected short duration of the conflict. After all, each individual Arab state vastly outnumbered Israel by itself. To their great consternation, Israel survived and has been in constant conflict ever since.

Don't come out pretending that nobody ever attacks Israel when groups like Hamas and Hezbollah launch attacks into Israeli territory every week. Don't claim you support Syria's or Iran's 'peaceful', position in this when they promise the destruction of Israel and continually provide funding, training and weapons to groups directly launching attacks on Israel.

You cry double standard, and that Israel's attacks are unjustified. Where are you similar cries against Syria and Iran when weapons made by them, and deployed by people they have trained hit Israel?

The point is that violence against and from Israel has been a two way street since before it's declaration of independence, and demanding Israel just take it's lumps and do nothing but file complaints at the UN in it's own defense is naive in the extreme.

Wouldn't it be a trip if we were looking at a Russian repo man??

BTW-They used to do this in Detroit alla time before the money ran low....exodus.

Those are all good points. No "but" they're all just good points >> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^rottenseed:
Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.
This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).
It's sad really...
I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it
I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.

It's hard to disagree with much of this. But, being the intense competitor I am, I'll try.
Actually, there's only a couple of relatively small points.
First, Walmart is publicly traded, but it's wholly controlled by the Walton family...if they decide to pay livable wages and to change the culture of worker abuse, it can be changed. There is no conflict with any duty to maximize profits. Unless you're an investment bank, there really is no such duty. Even if there was, it's not unreasonable to consider a move like investing in your employee relationships to be a long-term method of maximizing profits. Especially when public sympathy for the company has been dropping for years.
Second, they used to operate on a much lower margin, they sold mostly made-in-the-USA products, and somehow still managed to make enough money to become huge. So it seems like they -could- share a tiny portion of the profits with those who make the stores run. Costco manages to pay significantly better and offer most of its employees insurance, and yet still be competitive.
If they don't stop offloading their employment costs onto the rest of us (remember that less than half of the employees at Walmart have health insurance, even now), society is well within its rights to charge them for the welfare the company gets, one way or another. It's probably better for the company to offer at least minimal cooperation with a union than to be at the mercy of public perception.
But overall, you're probably still right.

>> ^rottenseed:

Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.

This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).

It's sad really...

I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it

I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.

It's hard to disagree with much of this. But, being the intense competitor I am, I'll try.

Actually, there's only a couple of relatively small points.

First, Walmart is publicly traded, but it's wholly controlled by the Walton family...if they decide to pay livable wages and to change the culture of worker abuse, it can be changed. There is no conflict with any duty to maximize profits. Unless you're an investment bank, there really is no such duty. Even if there was, it's not unreasonable to consider a move like investing in your employee relationships to be a long-term method of maximizing profits. Especially when public sympathy for the company has been dropping for years.

Second, they used to operate on a much lower margin, they sold mostly made-in-the-USA products, and somehow still managed to make enough money to become huge. So it seems like they -could- share a tiny portion of the profits with those who make the stores run. Costco manages to pay significantly better and offer most of its employees insurance, and yet still be competitive.

If they don't stop offloading their employment costs onto the rest of us (remember that less than half of the employees at Walmart have health insurance, even now), society is well within its rights to charge them for the welfare the company gets, one way or another. It's probably better for the company to offer at least minimal cooperation with a union than to be at the mercy of public perception.

But overall, you're probably still right.

Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.



This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).



It's sad really...



I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it



I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.