The most consistent thing about the roads themselves is that there are cars on them. More so with parking lots. The Gas Station had way more than enough roof area to cover it's electricity usage, no need for putting panels underneath parked cars.

A light coat of dust on panels can decrease their efficiency by up to 50%... there would have to be a CONSTANT fleet of road washers, slowing down traffic. At least with roof/road mounted panels they can be tilted to shed most of the dust/pollen that accumulates, though they do have to be washed monthly.

And then there's the question of what happens with accidents. Sure, the tensile strength might be as strong as steel, but it's because of the enormous pressure it's under. it only takes one flaw in the surface to make the glass susceptible to shattering... just the thing to make car accidents more hazardous.

*related=http://www.dockwise.com/page/fleet/fleetdata.html

@radx No problem on the short comment, I do the exact same thing

I find your question hard to address directly because it is a series of things I find kind of complexly contradictory. IE, market forces causing undesirable things, and the lack of market forces because of centralization causing undesirable things. Not to say you are believing in contradictions, but rather it is a complex set of issues that have to be addressed, In that, I was thinking all day how to address these, and decided on an a round about way, talking about neither, but rather the history and evolution as to why it is viewed the way you see it, and if those things are necessarily bad. This might be a bit long in the tooth, and I apologize up front for that.

Firstly, reactors are the second invention of nuclear. While a reactor type creation were the first demonstration of fission by humans (turns out there are natural fission reactors: Oklo in Gabon, Africa ), the first objective was, of course, weapons. Most of the early tech that was researched was aimed at "how to make a bomb, and fast". As a result, after the war was all said and done, those pieces of technology could most quickly be transitioned to reactor tech, even if more qualified pieces of technology were better suited. As a result, nearly all of Americas 104 (or so) reactors are based on light water pressure vessels, the result of mostly Admiral Rickover's decision to use them in the nuclear navy. This technological lock in made the big players bigger in the nuclear field, as they didn't have to do any heavy lifting on R&D, just sell lucrative fuel contracts.

This had some very toxic effects on the overall development of reactor technology. As a result of this lock-in, the NRC is predisposed to only approving technology the resembles 50 year old reactor technology. Most of the fleet is very old, and all might as well be called Rickover Reactors. Reactors which use solid fuel rods, control rods, water under pressure, ect, are approved; even though there are some other very good candidates for reactor R&D and deployment, it simply is beyond the NRCs desire to make those kinds of changes. These barriers to entry can't be understated, only the very rich could ever afford to attempt to approve a new reactor technology, like mutli-billionaire, and still might not get approved it it smells funny (thorium, what the hell is thorium!)! The result is current reactors use mostly the same innards but have larger requirements. Those requirements also change without notice and they are required to comply with more hast than any industry. So if you built a reactor to code, and the wire mesh standards changed mid construction, you have to comply, so tear down the wall and start over unless you can figure out some way to comply. This has had a multiplication effect on costs and construction times. So many times, complications can arise not because it was "over engineered", but that they have had to go super ad-hawk to make it all work due to changes mid construction. Frankly, it is pretty amazing what they have done with reactor technology to stretch it out this long. Even with the setbacks you mention, these rube goldbergian devices still manage to compete with coal in terms of its cost per Kwh, and blow away things like solar and wind on the carbon free front.

As to reactor size LWRs had to be big in the day because of various reasons, mostly licencing. Currently, there are no real ways to do small reactors because all licencing and regulatory framework assumes it is a 1GW power station. All the huge fees and regulatory framework established by these well engineered at the time, but now ancient marvels. So you need an evacuation plan that is X miles wide ( I think it is 10), even if your reactor is fractionally as large. In other words, there is nothing technically keeping reactors large. I actually would like to see them go more modular, self regulating, and at the point of need. This would simplify transmission greatly and build in a redundancy into the system. It would also potentially open up a huge market to a variety of different small, modular reactors. Currently, though, this is a pipe dream...but a dream well worth having and pushing for.

Also, reactors in the west are pretty safe, if you look at deaths per KWH, even figuring in the worst estimates of Chernobyl, nuclear is one of the best (Chernobyl isn't a western reactor). Even so, safety ratcheting in nuclear safety happens all the time, driving costs and complexity on very old systems up and up with only nominal gains. For instance, there are no computer control systems in a reactor. Each and every gauge is a specific type that is mandated by NRC edict or similar ones abroad (usually very archaic) . This creates a potential for counterfeiter parts and other actions considered foul by many. These edicts do little for safety, most safety comes from proper reactor design, and skillful operation of the plant managers. With plants so expensive, and general costs of power still very competitive, Managers would never want to damage the money output of nuclear reactors. They would very much like to make plant operations a combination of safe, smooth, and affordable. When one of those edges out the other, it tends to find abuses in the real world. If something gets to needlessly costly, managers start looking around for alternatives. Like the DHS, much of nuclear safety is nuclear safety theater...so to a certain extent, some of the abuses don't account for any real significant increase in risk. This isn't always the case, but it has to be evaluated case by case, and for the layperson, this isn't usually something that will be done.

This combination of unwillingness to invest in new reactor technology, higher demands from reactors in general, and a single minded focus on safety, (several NRC chairmen have been decidedly anti-nuclear, that is like having the internet czar hate broadband) have stilted true growth in nuclear technology. For instance, cars are not 100% safe. It is likely you will know someone that will die in a car wreak in the course of your life. This, however, doesn't cause cars to escalate that drastically in safety features or costs to implement features to drop the death rate to 0. Even though in the US, 10s of thousands die each year in cars, you will not see well meaning people call for arresting foam injection or titanium platted unobtanium body frames, mainly because safety isn't the only point of a car. A car, or a plane, or anything really, has a complicated set of benefits and defects that we have to make hard choices on...choices that don't necessarily have a correct answer. There is a benefit curve where excessive costs don't actually improve safety that much more. If everyone in the USA had to spend 10K more on a car for form injection systems that saved 100 lives in the course of a year, is that worth it? I don't have an answer there as a matter of fact, only opinion. And as the same matter of opinion on reactors, most of their cost, complication, and centralization have to do with the special way in which we treat reactors, not the technology itself. If there was a better regulatory framework, you would see (as we kind of are slowly in the industry despite these things) cheaper, easier to fabricate reactors which are safer by default. Designs that start on a fresh sheet of paper, with the latest and greatest in computer modeling (most current reactors were designed before computer simulations on the internals or externals was even a thing) and materials science. I am routing for the molten salt, thorium reactors, but there are a bunch of other generation4 reactors that are just begging to be built.

Right now, getting the NRC to approve a new reactor design takes millions of dollars, ensuring the big boy will stay around for awhile longer yet. And the regularly framework also ensures whatever reactor gets built, it is big, and that it will use solid fuel, and water coolant, and specific dials and gauges...ect. It would be like the FCC saying the exact innards of what a cellphone should be, it would be kind of maddening to cellphone manufacturers..and you most likely wouldn't have an iPhone in the way we have it today. NRC needs to change for any of the problems you mentioned to be resolved. That is a big obstacle, I am not going to lie, it is unlikely to change anytime soon. But I think the promise of carbon free energy with reliable base-load abilities can't be ignored in this green minded future we want to create.

Any rate, thanks for your feedback, hopefully, that wasn't overkill

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Jinx:
I don't rly think Obama is as bad as Yogi thinks...

Cause you don't know anything.

Ur cute. :3
You might have an easier time making your argument if you didn't take/make everything quite so personal. Just a thought.

Yeah don't take the deaths of people you don't know so personally, it only matters when they're killing white people.


I respect your analysis and position Yogi but the fact is someone is going to be running the battle station. You have a binary choice here, do you think Romney will be BETTER at standing up to the Complex? Obamas probe droids are (from his POV at least) preferable to myopic & masochistic puritan invasions and total genocide.. imagine a standoff betwen nuclear fleets in the South China Sea.. who would you rather have calling the shots?

>> ^00Scud00:

TIE Defenders were, I remember flying those in TIE Fighter, they were just sick, you could put a chimp in the cockpit of one of those and Captain Bananas would take out the entire Rebel fleet singlehandedly and earn more medals than Michael Phelps.


or was it the missile boat?

TIE Defenders were, I remember flying those in TIE Fighter, they were just sick, you could put a chimp in the cockpit of one of those and Captain Bananas would take out the entire Rebel fleet singlehandedly and earn more medals than Michael Phelps.

The thing was an hour long, and believe it or not, I've seen lots of TV shows of people giving their stories of wacky supernatural/mystical things that happened to them, and I was pretty sure seeing one more wouldn't tip the balance, just like watching another Donald Trump stump speech would lead me to think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. My first comment was about what you had said about God having patience. My second comment was about my own theory of the link between mental trauma and mystical experience. Neither required me to spend an hour watching it. I'm sure you're probably sick of people lumping you in with all the crazy religious people we see in the world, so why do it to me? I mentioned that I hadn't watched it just in case my prediction was wrong (seems it might have been -- still haven't watched it), in which case you could ignore it or politely tell me so.

The reason young people and atheists (I'm not young, BTW) might not be interested in seeing a show like this is that it's utterly unreliable. Young people in the West are more skilled in critical thinking today than ever before, and atheists are a self-selecting group of people who require reliable evidence for things. To both groups, an anecdotal testimony recreation on TV is one of the least reliable sources of evidence. Your story, SB, as you've presented it here, is more credible than this one, and I've spent many, many hours reading, thinking and commenting about it, so cut me a little slack, will ya? No promises, but I do now intend to watch it all and comment at some time. Relatively busy the next several weeks

Sorry to lump you in, and yes I do understand that time is fleeting. I am not exactly jazzed to watch many of the videos I see here on the sift, but I will if there is potential for a good conversation. It's just a frustration that I encounter that many people are unwilling to consider what you're saying, or indeed even read it. It's probably just a cultural thing. I think more and more people have ADD and we are programmed in the culture to need instant gratification. In any case, I do not say you are like that. You have engaged me and considered what I have said, if not only to falsify it, but that's okay. I have enjoyed our conversations.

I'm not operating in any way towards any god. I don't believe in them, remember? Your specific God cannot exist as described, and I am so sceptical of any other gods that I live as if they don't exist either. You are operating under the faulty premise that I will accept something other than empirical evidence as the foundation of anything I believe. What makes you think I (or any other sceptic) would suddenly change my approach now, when it comes to arguably the single most important fact of my existence? Why would I lower the bar of acceptable evidence when the stakes are the highest? Even if I took a "just-in-case" approach, and did all the things the Bible said, I wouldn't believe in any of the things I was doing. In fact, as I consider that Christianity would make me a worse person, it would be selfish of me to choose to definitely hurt people on the off chance it might save my hide.

I agree that my God, as you currently understand Him, could not exist. Neither am I expecting you to lower your standards; I am only asking you to consider the issue rationally. If God exists, the entire Universe is empirical evidence of His existence. Is this not the case? So logically, trying to find empirical evidence of God is as easy as looking outside, or in a mirror. You happen to think its plausible that this is all happenstance, which I think requires quite a bit more faith than belief in a supernatural creation. I am sure you will disagree because you're a materialist, but your material had to come from somewhere. The main point is, trying to test for God is a fairly absurd idea. How would you do that?

I don't think you should take a "just in case" approach either. Becoming a Christian for fire insurance and nothing else is almost never a genuine conversion. You need to be born again, which is a supernatural transformation of your entire being. Anything short of that and you have no salvation.

When I was a young teen, and I was losing my faith (which had been absolute as a child). It was a bit distressing, and I used to pray that fairly often. I got no answer, and eventually forgot about God. I've always been interested in the concept of faith, but I've never again believed.

This happens to quite a number of catholics. The reason being, catholicism is very nearly a pagan religion, and it's an actual miracle if any Catholics do find God. There are more than a few that are saved, but I wouldn't hazard a guess as to percentages. Only God knows their hearts.

I am. And for me, truth is borne out by empirical evidence and personal experience, not preachers, or ancient fantasy books of dubious origin. I see exactly zero evidence for God. It's not even an interesting theory for me because it only explains, and doesn't predict.

God predicts the future. That's part of what makes the bible credible, is the literal fulfillment of prophecy. The nation of israel, for example, being reformed after 2000 years was predicted by prophecy. Such a thing has never happened before, that a people retained their racial purity and cultural heritage after being scattered all over the world, and then brought back to the same spot to form their own country again. The destruction of Jerusalem was also predicted in advance. As was the coming of the Messiah. There are many of these.

If God makes a box, he doesn't have to live inside the box. He can be eternal, but the word "eternal" itself is bound in time. Maybe you meant "omnipresent?" I'm particular about definitions.

He is omnipresent, yes. Eternal is timelessness..what it means to have no beginning and no ending.

OK. I've done it. I've put my money where my mouth is, and I actually got on my knees next to the computer, put my hands together, and prayed for God to reveal himself. I also told him that I was more interested in truth than in comfort, and if he revealed himself to be true, that I would use his guidance to find and follow the best path I could take in life. I used no biblical terms like "saviour" or "lord" because this is about me and God. If he wants to lead me to the Bible, he can do that. I asked him to be clear -- a double rainbow won't cut it. I was sincere. Any predictions?

My prediction is that God will honor your prayer if you are sincere in your desire to know Him, and the truth about Him. I think He will probably test the genuineness of your prayer. To God, talk is cheap. Anyone can say those words, but only those who mean them will find Him. He may offer you a choice that requires you to soften your heart and do something you wouldn't normally do. So be aware of that in the days to come. If you want my ultimate prediction, I believe that He will save you. God bless.

Sadly prescient, I fear. I'd hate to be in a warzone when they weaponize all those autonomous flying drones everyone's making now...

Not to mention when someone has the bright idea of strapping pipe bombs on them and flying fleets of GPS-guided flying bombs into crowded places.

And I'd be surprised if smugglers weren't already using those to get contraband across borders. From what I can tell, currently you can get a kit for a couple of thousand dollars that includes GPS and autopilot with waypoints, with half an hour of flying time and a top speed of about 80 kilometres per hour...

I think the game systems change between 1 and 2 didn't allow for a similar system, and thus the level 1 reset. ME2 and ME3 are closer, so it starts you out where you left off from ME2, pretty much.

Also, this might help you - http://social.bioware.com/project/8005/
>> ^VoodooV:

The only thing you get to keep across the games is your decisions. Many of which I had forgotten from when I played ME1. Sure I remembered the big stuff, but then you'd get an NPC from one of the more forgettable missions and it's just....uhh...ok.
And yes I know they gave an in game explanation for it, but still, for me it just cheapens it going from a level 60 character in ME1 back to level 1 in ME2
>> ^CrushBug:
>> ^VoodooV:
The Reapers are supposed to be this super hyper-advanced threat that has wiped out entire civilizations on multiple occasions, but simply because Shep gathers a big enough fleet that will magically take them down? Bull.
[snip]
What I really wanted was a game similar to the whole Pool of Radiance trilogy back in the day where your characters really did truly continue from game to game and not start over like they do in ME.

For the first part, I think once you play the game, it will make more sense.
For the second, I would like to hear more about what you mean. Characters import from game to game. You have the option to make certain changes like class and appearance, but everything else comes across. I am probably just missing something in what you are saying.

The only thing you get to keep across the games is your decisions. Many of which I had forgotten from when I played ME1. Sure I remembered the big stuff, but then you'd get an NPC from one of the more forgettable missions and it's just....uhh...ok.

And yes I know they gave an in game explanation for it, but still, for me it just cheapens it going from a level 60 character in ME1 back to level 1 in ME2

>> ^CrushBug:

>> ^VoodooV:
The Reapers are supposed to be this super hyper-advanced threat that has wiped out entire civilizations on multiple occasions, but simply because Shep gathers a big enough fleet that will magically take them down? Bull.
[snip]
What I really wanted was a game similar to the whole Pool of Radiance trilogy back in the day where your characters really did truly continue from game to game and not start over like they do in ME.

For the first part, I think once you play the game, it will make more sense.
For the second, I would like to hear more about what you mean. Characters import from game to game. You have the option to make certain changes like class and appearance, but everything else comes across. I am probably just missing something in what you are saying.

>> ^VoodooV:

The Reapers are supposed to be this super hyper-advanced threat that has wiped out entire civilizations on multiple occasions, but simply because Shep gathers a big enough fleet that will magically take them down? Bull.
[snip]
What I really wanted was a game similar to the whole Pool of Radiance trilogy back in the day where your characters really did truly continue from game to game and not start over like they do in ME.


For the first part, I think once you play the game, it will make more sense.

For the second, I would like to hear more about what you mean. Characters import from game to game. You have the option to make certain changes like class and appearance, but everything else comes across. I am probably just missing something in what you are saying.

now that trailer has me at least a little bit excited for ME3

I gotta say it though, they really fucked up. ME1 was a hit, it was actually something unique. Then instead of improving on it, they turned ME2 into another chest-high cover shooter and instead of delving deeper into the Reaper Mythos, they distract us with the collectors which was a waste of time and now they're going to play catch up to finish the story

The Reapers are supposed to be this super hyper-advanced threat that has wiped out entire civilizations on multiple occasions, but simply because Shep gathers a big enough fleet that will magically take them down? Bull.

It's the same sad story I've heard countless times. They did it to the Borg. They created this insanely powerful enemy, but then realized, oops, we can't make them too powerful because then how will the good guys win? So then they proceed to dumb em down. They didn't learn their lesson and did the same thing with the Dominion, but that time they literally did do a Deus Ex Machina and had the prophets intervene to knock the Dominion down to a more manageable size. The Clans from Battletech was the same thing. They create a force with unbalanced technology so they have to dumb them down and make them act like idiots to balance it out.

I'm going to play this game and I'm sure im going to enjoy it, but still...it just really honks me off that they dumbed the game and the enemy down and meddled with something that was a hit

What I really wanted was a game similar to the whole Pool of Radiance trilogy back in the day where your characters really did truly continue from game to game and not start over like they do in ME.

Right, so..

1.) I never said Ron Paul is some panacea for the world's troubles.

2.) I even admitted that Paul is more or less a racist homophobic religious cuke.

3.) I don't think Paul or any single person should have that much power to begin with.

The fact that we're still stuck with a two-party system in which we vote for one president "in charge of everything"..

..as opposed to 50 governors and local communities making their own decisions for their own goddamn selves is mind-numbing.

Point is:
The immediate effects and sincere discussions that would take place in the wake of such a radical candidate becoming president are the best thing that could happen for the American political process at this conjunction in our history.

For fuck's sake, YOUR AVATAR & GALAXY STAR ARE A GUY FAWKES MASK! You should support a grassroots underdog upheaval like the one Paul represents more than anyone on this site.

Ron Paul represents the chance to reclaim our Foreign Policy from Warmongers; our Economics from Speculators; our Health, Safety, Labor, and Ideas from Robber Barons.

But then again, he did stereotype blacks as fleet-footed so.. I guess you make a good counter-point.
>> ^NetRunner:

Hah. No. Of course not.

I'd liked to remain as status quo-y and entrenched in my beliefs as the Conservative Republicans I like to gripe about.

But it's okay cause I wear & cheer lead for the blue team while I do so.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
You got any solutions, bro?
Or just more fallacious arguments?

Introducing the new Apple iPerson complete with multi touch and volume control, doesn’t it feel good to touch, doesn’t it feel good to touch, doesn’t it feel good to touch.

My world is so digital, I have forgotten what that feels like.
It used to be hard to connect when friends formed cliques, but now it’s even more difficult to connect now that clicks form friends.

But who am I to judge…

I face Facebook more than books face me hoping to book face to faces, I update my status 420 space to prove Im still breathing; failure.
To do this daily means my whole web wide world would forget that I exist. But with 3000 friends online only 5 I can count in real life, why wouldn’t I spend more time in the world where there are more people that LIKE me. Wouldn’t you?

Here it doesn’t matter if I am an amateur person, as long as I have a pro-file, my smile is 50% genuine and 50% genuine-HD, you will need blu-rays to read the whites of my teeth, but im not that focused.

Ten tabs open, hoping, my problems can be resolved with a 1600 x 1700 revolution, this is a problem with this evolution, doubled over, we used to sit in tree tops, till we swung down and stand up right, then someone slipped a disc, now we’re doubled over at desktops.

From the Garden of Eden, to the branches of Macintosh, Apple picking has always come at a great cost.
iPod, iMac, iPhone, iChat, I can do all of these things without making iContact.

We used to sprint to pick and store Blackberries, now we run to the Sprint store to pick Blackberrys, it’s scary.
I can’t hear the sound of mother nature speaking, over all that Tweeting, and along with it is our ability to feel as it’s fleeting.

You would think these headphone jacks inject in the flesh the way we connect, the disconnect, power ON. So we are powerless, they got us love drugged. Like e-pills, so we e-trade, e-mail, e-motion like e-commerce because now money can buy love, for 9.95 a month – click!

To proceed to checkout – click! To X out where our hearts once were – click!
I’ve uploaded this hug, I hope she gets it – click!
I’m making love to wife, I hope she’s logged in – click!
I’m holding my daughter over a Skype conference call while shes crying in the crib in the next room – click!

So when my phone goes off in my hip, I touch and I touch and I touch, because in a world where there are voices that are only read and laughter is never heard or I’m so desperate to feel that I hope the technologic in reverse the universes so the screen can touch me back, and maybe it will, when our technology is advance enough to make us human again.

Did you even read what I said? I said people should use their wealth to do the Lords work and help the poor. God gives people material blessings to do those things, but many are enslaved to their love of money and don't do them. I know exactly what the word says about money, and my statement matches it precisely. I am not a republican nor am I a gung-ho capitalist. The early church was very socialist, in that the members all sold what they had and shared the proceeds with eachother as they needed. I support that, but I also recognize that in a fallen world, without the hand of God directly involved, socialism can very easily become totalitarian.

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^shinyblurry:
That isn't an indictment against money, it is an indictment against greed. God doesn't care if you have money, but He does care what you use it for. He made Solomon the richest person on the planet. I think those who are rich should be using their money for the Lords work and giving heartily to the poor, so I do not support the aquisition of wealth for wealths sake. I think that is sinful. However, that is their choice, and it is not up to me, but it is between them and God.

Typical christian, thinks he knows what his god wants but ignores what he says... Just think about how much good works those stashed millions could be doing for the poor. Dare I say it, the 'God' conservatives put so much stock in is a gasp socialist...
"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered."
-Proverbs 21:13
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
-Proverbs 31:8-9
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
-Matthew 6:24
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"
-Matthew 19:23-24
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"
-Matthew 25:41-45
"He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished."
-Proverbs 17:5
"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty."
-Proverbs 22:16
"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"
-Matthew 19:21
"He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses."
-Proverbs 28:27
"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
-1 Timothy 6:9-10
"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."
-1 Timothy 6:17-19
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
-Ezekiel 16:49
"Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all."
-Proverbs 22:2
"He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God."
-Proverbs 14:31
"A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor."
-Proverbs 22:9
"Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a rich man whose ways are perverse."
-Proverbs 28:6
"A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished."
-Proverbs 28:20
"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."
-Proverbs 29:7
"Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death."
-Proverbs 11:4
"Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the LORD will take up their case and will plunder those who plunder them."
-Proverbs 22:22-23
"Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle."
-Proverbs 23:4-5
"Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless."
-Ecclesiastes 5:10
"A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold."
-Proverbs 22:1
"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land."
-Deuteronomy 15:11
"Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have."
-Hebrews 13:5
"You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the Lord is their refuge."
-Psalm 14:6
"He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for what he has done."
-Proverbs 19:17
"A rich man may be wise in his own eyes, but a poor man who has discernment sees through him."
-Proverbs 28:11
"A fortune made by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapor and a deadly snare."
-Proverbs 21:6
"The wealth of the rich is their fortified city; they imagine it an unscalable wall."
-Proverbs 18:11