It's not just about dullness and being boring. Religious zealots confirmed in their beliefs and unswerving in their faith make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. It's kind of like the creepiness of the uncanny valley with robots. "Letting go and letting God" is an abdication of your humanity - and it shows on the outside.

Gay people, in my subjective experience, are often the opposite. Full of quirky, imperfect, damaged humanity - or maybe you could even call it the holy spirit. I think I will.

Allow me to quote GK Chesterton:

Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.

To live like Jesus is a taller order than you seem to realize, and of course as I am sure you realize, most of us have failed to do so. You seem to have this idea that Christians believe that they are perfect, but that is a joke. We are actually far more candid with eachother about our faults than would even be socially acceptable in secular culture. We don't think we are perfect, and even the most devout of the brethern runs into doubts. Letting go and letting God isn't in the bible. What we do is trust God with our lives, it isn't sitting back and doing nothing. To do what Jesus gave us to do is a lot of hard work.

This is what you don't understand: We love God. The tragic thing about you atheists is that you do too, in your own ways. You all love the Creation. You are fascinated and mystified by the Universe, in awe of its manifold complexity and endless wonders. That is, if there is nothing attached to the experience. You value and treasure your freedom from authority, and guard it jealously; after all you think you only have one life to live. I can understand that. You want to be in control.

Yet, you're not in control. Look at Steve Jobs, he had about everything you could ever hope to have, and none of it did him the least bit of good. In the end, he illustrated the truth of this verse:

Matthew 16:26

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?


There is no control to be had, because no one is in control on this planet except for God. What you consider happenstance and coincidence doesn't really exist. So, we give God back what He already has. We decide to stop fooling ourselves and believe that we can beat the system, because the issue has already been decided. What you do in this life matters, because at the end you will give account for every idle word.

Someone has to be God, this what you don't understand. I doubt many of you have thought this through very deeply. Let's play your game for a moment. Let's say the Universe really is 20 billion years old, and life is able to evolve spontaneously from nothing. This means that some lifeforms have had a lot more time to develop than others, and the ones who were successful early and have mastered physical reality are going to be more powerful than anyone else. If any of this is true you most certainly already have a self-proclaimed divinity, one that may look upon a lifeform like us like cockroaches. The position of absolute ruler of existence is a power vacuum that will be filled by someone, and it is almost certainly filled already.

If God isnt in charge, you should be scared of who is. It is a far better thing to have someone who loves us personally and cares about our lives. The alternative is far worse, and something that should worry any thoughtful person. Because if God isn't in charge, and it isn't you and it isn't me; it is going to be someone else. You might not think God is perfect, but again, you love His reality, you just don't want to play by His rules. What you're unwilling to do is take a long hard look at yourself and see that if you are going to be honest about it, the problem is with you and not with Him. You most certainly have some terrific sounding excuses for how you justify rebellion against God, but none of them will match up to your conscience.

>> ^dag:
It's not just about dullness and being boring. Religious zealots confirmed in their beliefs and unswerving in their faith make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. It's kind of like the creepiness of the uncanny valley with robots. "Letting go and letting God" is an abdication of your humanity - and it shows on the outside.
Gay people, in my subjective experience, are often the opposite. Full of quirky, imperfect, damaged humanity - or maybe you could even call it the holy spirit. I think I will.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, firstly, the Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, so Jesus will be here. When He returns He will judge the world, the living and the dead, and establish His kingdom. Secondly, righteousness is credited to you because of faith in God, not as in something that you earned, or because you're so great. It's all to Gods glory..I'm no better than anyone else.
Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
Three, people have this impression of sin as being fun and cool, and living a sanctified life as being dull and boring. Where ever God is will be the creative center of existence..there isn't going to be a lack of interesting things to do. Everyone seems to like the Creation, and this is just s ahadow of what is to come. It isn't going to be boring. Sin is temporary pleasure, flash in the pan, and it all leads to death, and it is the source of corruption in this world. There is nothing good about it at all.
>> ^dag:
I think I'd prefer to stay down here with the unrighteous. If you're only letting in the self-righteous and pious moralists - it's going to be pretty dull.
I think Jesus would rather stay down here with us too - to be honest. But you go on up with the righteous SB, save us a spot. We'll muddle on without you post-rapture.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So it's my fault you don't have any self-control? It doesn't matter what you think about me personally. The word of God is what is important:
1 Corinthians 6
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's never going to cease being a sin no matter how you dress it up. It is immoral and against the natural order of the Universe, as ordained by our Creator.

Oh fucking shut up already. No one here cares about your opinion on anything. Seriously.
I really wish the sift would completely remove you from my view when you're set to "ignore". Then I wouldn't be so fucking tempted to pop open your comments like the puss-filled, diseased boils they are.
Fucking troll.

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

It's not just about dullness and being boring. Religious zealots confirmed in their beliefs and unswerving in their faith make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. It's kind of like the creepiness of the uncanny valley with robots. "Letting go and letting God" is an abdication of your humanity - and it shows on the outside.

Gay people, in my subjective experience, are often the opposite. Full of quirky, imperfect, damaged humanity - or maybe you could even call it the holy spirit. I think I will.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, firstly, the Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, so Jesus will be here. When He returns He will judge the world, the living and the dead, and establish His kingdom. Secondly, righteousness is credited to you because of faith in God, not as in something that you earned, or because you're so great. It's all to Gods glory..I'm no better than anyone else.
Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
Three, people have this impression of sin as being fun and cool, and living a sanctified life as being dull and boring. Where ever God is will be the creative center of existence..there isn't going to be a lack of interesting things to do. Everyone seems to like the Creation, and this is just s ahadow of what is to come. It isn't going to be boring. Sin is temporary pleasure, flash in the pan, and it all leads to death, and it is the source of corruption in this world. There is nothing good about it at all.

>> ^dag:
I think I'd prefer to stay down here with the unrighteous. If you're only letting in the self-righteous and pious moralists - it's going to be pretty dull.
I think Jesus would rather stay down here with us too - to be honest. But you go on up with the righteous SB, save us a spot. We'll muddle on without you post-rapture.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So it's my fault you don't have any self-control? It doesn't matter what you think about me personally. The word of God is what is important:
1 Corinthians 6
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's never going to cease being a sin no matter how you dress it up. It is immoral and against the natural order of the Universe, as ordained by our Creator.

Oh fucking shut up already. No one here cares about your opinion on anything. Seriously.
I really wish the sift would completely remove you from my view when you're set to "ignore". Then I wouldn't be so fucking tempted to pop open your comments like the puss-filled, diseased boils they are.
Fucking troll.

Well, firstly, the Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, so Jesus will be here. When He returns He will judge the world, the living and the dead, and establish His kingdom. Secondly, righteousness is credited to you because of faith in God, not as in something that you earned, or because you're so great. It's all to Gods glory..I'm no better than anyone else.

Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

Three, people have this impression of sin as being fun and cool, and living a sanctified life as being dull and boring. Where ever God is will be the creative center of existence..there isn't going to be a lack of interesting things to do. Everyone seems to like the Creation, and this is just s ahadow of what is to come. It isn't going to be boring. Sin is temporary pleasure, flash in the pan, and it all leads to death, and it is the source of corruption in this world. There is nothing good about it at all.


>> ^dag:
I think I'd prefer to stay down here with the unrighteous. If you're only letting in the self-righteous and pious moralists - it's going to be pretty dull.
I think Jesus would rather stay down here with us too - to be honest. But you go on up with the righteous SB, save us a spot. We'll muddle on without you post-rapture.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So it's my fault you don't have any self-control? It doesn't matter what you think about me personally. The word of God is what is important:
1 Corinthians 6
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's never going to cease being a sin no matter how you dress it up. It is immoral and against the natural order of the Universe, as ordained by our Creator.

Oh fucking shut up already. No one here cares about your opinion on anything. Seriously.
I really wish the sift would completely remove you from my view when you're set to "ignore". Then I wouldn't be so fucking tempted to pop open your comments like the puss-filled, diseased boils they are.
Fucking troll.

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

I think I'd prefer to stay down here with the unrighteous. If you're only letting in the self-righteous and pious moralists - it's going to be pretty dull.

I think Jesus would rather stay down here with us too - to be honest. But you go on up with the righteous SB, save us a spot. We'll muddle on without you post-rapture.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So it's my fault you don't have any self-control? It doesn't matter what you think about me personally. The word of God is what is important:
1 Corinthians 6
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

>> ^Payback:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's never going to cease being a sin no matter how you dress it up. It is immoral and against the natural order of the Universe, as ordained by our Creator.

Oh fucking shut up already. No one here cares about your opinion on anything. Seriously.
I really wish the sift would completely remove you from my view when you're set to "ignore". Then I wouldn't be so fucking tempted to pop open your comments like the puss-filled, diseased boils they are.
Fucking troll.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^marbles:
The map is based on images from a 2002 study at MIT Lincoln Laboratory.
The notes in the study indicate that the map is based on NIMA/USGS data. This data is publicly (though not necessarily freely) available. This brings me back to my original comment on the map. If this is simply a projection based on topographic maps (as the notes from the study itself seem, to me, to imply), how is it honest for the video to say almost nobody could have known about the location of radar gaps?


You seem to be missing the point. Even if you were to somehow find out the location and range of the radar stations from NIMA/USGS, you still wouldn't know for sure where the gaps in coverage were. And you wouldn't know if there was other radar networks you were unaware of.

Even a so-called coverage map would only be an estimate. If my house was in a rural area, how would I know if I had cell phone service without actually having a cell phone to test it?

Seems like a lot of potentially fruitless work for a suicidal terrorist with box cutters to be planning for. Why bother messing with the transponder anyway? You've already succeeded if you actually managed to seize the plane using only box cutters. Seems like you wouldn't want to waste any extra time in the air and get to your target. But somehow the hijackers knew where the gaps were and coordinated the hijackings with precision.

I guess it's possible for air traffic controllers to be aware of locations where radar coverage is low and expect poor quality responses, but still this wouldn't necessarily be a consistent problem. And not something they would be focused on too much anyway as long as the plane was responding to commands.

The bottom line is none of this was investigated. So maybe the video is making a valid assumption based on what we do know. So how is it honest for you to say he's lying and hinge your whole criticism on one detail that you don't even know yourself to be false.

Unless you got something else?

eww thats not how the pigeons do it.
>> ^gwiz665:

Now kiiiisss hiiim.
>> ^blankfist:
The theater wasn't empty. You're again being disingenuous. And it played for a week. The theater screwed us and switched our HD projection to cheaper projection on the last night, and that's when you came out. But maybe I didn't want to discuss this here.
Like maybe you don't want to discuss personal things you told me not to mention. And I won't. But you're just trying your damnedest to hurt me. It's petty. I'll say this now. I lied above. Your score was actually damn good. I think you're talented. Very talented. It's a shame you've only scored one movie. I'm sure if you scored mine, it would've been fantastic. I refuse to be mean over your art, dude. I earnestly and honestly think you're a great composer. I do. Sorry things have gotten so shitty recently.
I am more confused over this than anything else.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
How am I supposed to argue with you when you say things that are kind and reasonable?

Now kiiiisss hiiim.
>> ^blankfist:

The theater wasn't empty. You're again being disingenuous. And it played for a week. The theater screwed us and switched our HD projection to cheaper projection on the last night, and that's when you came out. But maybe I didn't want to discuss this here.
Like maybe you don't want to discuss personal things you told me not to mention. And I won't. But you're just trying your damnedest to hurt me. It's petty. I'll say this now. I lied above. Your score was actually damn good. I think you're talented. Very talented. It's a shame you've only scored one movie. I'm sure if you scored mine, it would've been fantastic. I refuse to be mean over your art, dude. I earnestly and honestly think you're a great composer. I do. Sorry things have gotten so shitty recently.
I am more confused over this than anything else.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

How am I supposed to argue with you when you say things that are kind and reasonable?

The theater wasn't empty. You're again being disingenuous. And it played for a week. The theater screwed us and switched our HD projection to cheaper projection on the last night, and that's when you came out. But maybe I didn't want to discuss this here.

Like maybe you don't want to discuss personal things you told me not to mention. And I won't. But you're just trying your damnedest to hurt me. It's petty. I'll say this now. I lied above. Your score was actually damn good. I think you're talented. Very talented. It's a shame you've only scored one movie. I'm sure if you scored mine, it would've been fantastic. I refuse to be mean over your art, dude. I earnestly and honestly think you're a great composer. I do. Sorry things have gotten so shitty recently.

I am more confused over this than anything else.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966817.stm

When Ron Paul talks about Al Qaeda being explicit with their reasons for attacking the US, this is probably what he is talking about.

"Oh American people, my talk to you is about the best way to avoid another Manhattan, about the war, its causes, and results.

Security is an important pillar of human life. Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have proud souls, like the souls of the 19 people [killed while perpetrating the 11 September 2001 attacks], may God have mercy on them.

We fought you because we are free and do not accept injustice. We want to restore freedom to our nation. Just as you waste our security, we will waste your security.

I am amazed at you. Although almost four years have passed since the [11 September] incidents, Bush is still practising distortion and confusion.

He also continues to conceal from you the real reason [for the 11 September attacks]. Thus, the motives still exist for repeating what happened.

I will speak to you about the reasons behind these incidents. I will honestly tell you about the minutes in which the decision was made so that you will consider. I say to you that God knows that the idea of striking the towers never occurred to us.

But, after things had gone too far and we saw the injustice of the US-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I started thinking of that.

The events that influenced me directly trace back to 1982 and subsequent events when the United States gave permission to the Israelis to invade Lebanon, with the aid of the sixth US fleet.

At those difficult moments, many meanings that are hard to describe went on in my mind. However, these meanings produced an overwhelming feeling to reject injustice and generated a strong determination to punish the unjust ones.

While I was looking at those destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust one in a similar manner by destroying towers in the United States so that it would feel some of what we felt and to be deterred from killing our children and women... "

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NetRunner:
Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.
Do you mind if i interrupt to ask where he's said that?
This isn't a jibe or challenge. I just like a man who doesn't give fucking slippery answers and this dude seems to be the first politician i have seen in my life who doesn't give slippery answers. You're implying he's slippery, and i don't want to fall for it, so i would appreciate enlightenment.


I took that from this, starting around 0:53:

The more liberal stations some of them wouldn't dare want to talk to me because their agenda is Democratic party politics and they're not for liberty, they're just for Democratic party politics and big government. But even on those stations, you will have a few very honest people.

Which is followed by his comments about Stewart being "honest" because "when the left really messes up, he loves to go and get 'em." Because apparently it's rare that liberals ever deviate from just toeing the line on "Democratic party politics".

Because, you know, nobody like Olbermann, or Maddow, or Cenk Uygur, or Ed Shultz, or Lawrence O'Donnell, or Sam Seder, or Thom Hartmann, and nobody on blogs, or anywhere else has ever "gone after" Democrats for screwing up.

Granted, I didn't get my entire view of Ron Paul from this video alone. I've been listening to this guy off and on for years now.

I guess I know Paul best from the Campaign for Liberty e-mail list. See, way back in 2007, I used to think Paul was a different kind of Republican -- a softer, kinder, more honest sort, who would be willing to work with liberals on important issues, so I signed up for his e-mail list. Back then, the e-mail he sent out matched that first impression.

At least, they did right up until Obama became President. Ever since it's been 3 years of pure vitriol and hatred. Here's some highlights from one from earlier this year:

Fellow Patriot,

Big Government took a huge leap forward in 2010. And you and I will suffer the consequences unless we take action today.

You see, the statists look for every opportunity to gain more power over our lives – and they found another one in the ObamaCare scheme.

It is a huge step toward a full takeover of our personal medical decisions, as well as a massive tax increase and a huge loss of liberty. It will also cause further destruction to our already fragile economy.
...
Please read the email below from Campaign for Liberty President John Tate. Campaign for Liberty has a great plan to help me win this fight, but they are going to need every Patriot in our Revolution to join them.
...
[Letter from John Tate that Paul wants us to read]
Dear NetRunner,

The ObamaCare scheme is designed to do two things statists love more than anything else: vastly increase the size and power of government and give our federal masters more control over our personal business.

Power over our very lives.

It's getting harder and harder for them to conceal their true intentions - and people are waking up to it.

You and I saw the results of this in the recent elections, giving us an opportunity to take action.

Ron Paul has a plan to fight back and END THE MANDATE, but Campaign for Liberty needs your help today to get the battle really moving.

You see, the debate over nationalized health care isn't about what Congress wants to "give" Americans.

It's not even about health care at all.

It's about power.

It's about what THEY take.

It's always been about what they take.

And their "take" is staggering.

Delightful bunch of two-faced psychopaths, if you ask me.

>> ^NetRunner:
Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.

Do you mind if i interrupt to ask where he's said that?

This isn't a jibe or challenge. I just like a man who doesn't give fucking slippery answers and this dude seems to be the first politician i have seen in my life who doesn't give slippery answers. You're implying he's slippery, and i don't want to fall for it, so i would appreciate enlightenment.

Honesty has nothing to do with morals at all. If he attacks the left, and believes the programs are doomed to fail, then that is his preference. If I tell a woman, "Your children are fat, stupid and selfish," she will flip out--even if done nicely. Even if done to save the child's life and give the child a chance.

Honesty is a cruel thing, but is necessary. Ron Paul is honest, even when he doesn't know he is being honest (Which annoys me.)

America will burn as a nation so long as we remain overweight (You can buy soda with food stamps...lovely huh?) We will burn as long as we promote confidence over humility. We will burn as long as we think 9/11 just magically fucking happened. As long as we prop up corporations with corporate-friendly laws. As long as we think we deserve something for nothing. Our culture is useless and will falter, regardless of stimulus, universal healthcare, welfare, WIC, Unemployment insurance, etc. I favor most of these programs for the needy, but then in this culture it does not good, does it? Because we are entitled and greedy.

Paul admits to these--even if every other politician is to busy sucking every Americans cocks and teats to admit it.

Also, Paul supports liberal causes, just in personal choice. This is not dishonest; perhaps stupidity, but not dishonesty.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Why is he then best friends with Kucinich? Why does everything have to be personal? Can't he just respect Stewart's fascinating honesty? And with that, the part of Stewart's honesty that incorporates and shows off Paul's honesty?

Working backwards:

1. Paul isn't honest.
   
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.
   
3. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks Stewart is "honest" because he attacks the Democrats, which apparently Paul thinks is rare for the left to do.
   
4. Paul's "respect" for this "honesty" is further amplified by the fact that Stewart gives him a platform to spread his ideology unchallenged to a new audience.
   
5. Paul has the same "respect" for Kucinich -- Kucinich often attacks the Democrats from the left, and therefore Paul has "respect" for Kucinich's "honesty."
   

Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.
He's willing to cultivate "friendships" with these people because it serves his own nefarious agenda-driven hackery. The upshot of what he's saying to his fellow libertarians at Mises is "go out and cultivate friendships like this, to help further our side in the battle against liberalism."
On the surface, it sounds like he's saying nice things about Stewart. But if you really parse what he's saying, then it sounds pretty sick and twisted.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Why is he then best friends with Kucinich? Why does everything have to be personal? Can't he just respect Stewart's fascinating honesty? And with that, the part of Stewart's honesty that incorporates and shows off Paul's honesty?


Working backwards:

1. Paul isn't honest.
   
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.
   
3. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks Stewart is "honest" because he attacks the Democrats, which apparently Paul thinks is rare for the left to do.
   
4. Paul's "respect" for this "honesty" is further amplified by the fact that Stewart gives him a platform to spread his ideology unchallenged to a new audience.
   
5. Paul has the same "respect" for Kucinich -- Kucinich often attacks the Democrats from the left, and therefore Paul has "respect" for Kucinich's "honesty."
   

Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.

He's willing to cultivate "friendships" with these people because it serves his own nefarious agenda-driven hackery. The upshot of what he's saying to his fellow libertarians at Mises is "go out and cultivate friendships like this, to help further our side in the battle against liberalism."

On the surface, it sounds like he's saying nice things about Stewart. But if you really parse what he's saying, then it sounds pretty sick and twisted.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So, in other words you intuitively know right from wrong? This is what I have stated, that we all know right from wrong based on our God given conscience. Common sense doesn't tell you why something is right or wrong. For that you need a logical argument..do you have one?
1 Timothy 2:11-12
11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.
12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
That's in church, and between her and God.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Common fucking sense. Some people have it, some don't.
sizset="661" sizcache="2">>> ^shinyblurry:
tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?
>> ^shinyblurry:
What is the greater good and how do you determine it?
>> ^shinyblurry:
if you deny an absolute morality, what is your basis for determining right and wrong?


Honestly, if you don't know why killing another human being is wrong and you need "god" to tell you that then you have some wires crossed in your brain. I think that's called a "sociopath". My argument IS logic, that's why you don't get it.

What verse says "BTW, this is only in church. And it'll be our little secret." ?
Because what you said was "As far as women go, there isn't a single right that woman have today which is opposed in the bible." Are there not female priests today? Aren't the female priests teaching god's word? Isn't that verse in opposition of this fact?

The US's debt is only about 80% of GDP, I say only because Japan's is 200%. The fact of the matter is, even if the US does nothing, being the reserve currency and the most widely used currency for transactions means that yields on bonds are unlikely to spike so much as gradually creep up if nothing is done. It is going to cause an apocalypse tomorrow or even in 2 years time, but it will continue to hurt the economy more and more until something is done about it.

What's needed is a commitment now to moderate reduction in discrentionary/compulsory spending and moderate increases in taxes that will kick in 3 maybe 6 years down the track. It undoubtedly should be reduced in the long term but in the short term what the economy needs is fiscal stimulus.

The spending needed particularly right now is investment in retraining of workers to needed roles or subsidising apprenticeships/on the job training, because fact is the GFC created masses amounts of structural unemployment, people who with their skills, do not have the capacity to enter available employment. Infrastructure and R&D would also help to prop up a bearish economy.

The economy may return to growth with continued austerity but the cost would be an increase in the permanently unemployed as it has been clearly shown that substantial portions of people who stay unemployed for prolonged periods of time essentially become unemployable.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/29/ben-bernanke-embraces-obamas-reality-based-presidency/

This isn't a particularly good article but read the lines that he quotes from Bernanke. This is a concise, frank and objective opinion by an individual not bound to populist dogma or partisan slogans.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Previous comments notwithstanding, I actually believe that Ron Paul is a stand-up guy who says what he sees as the truth--and won't change what he says because of a poll. I could really get behind him if he would just embrace a rational, twenty-first century fiscal policy.

Problem Boise, who has had a sound fiscal policy?
We have how much in debt, 20 trillion? 30? 50? I don't know because they have hidden debt so well that it scares the fuck out of me. The fed could borrow and loan unlimited amounts, which is part of what we would owe...not to mention liabilities and such... Plus rotten infrastructure, half-assed programs that accomplish little, and so much more...
Is RP's policies worse than what has happened? I doubt it... But we will elect the same guys, just with different faces, who do this every time; because we vote on platform, not on actual people.
Here is a saying I made the other day while daydreaming about becoming a tyrant, I mean Congressman. "If you vote for an honest man you won't get everything you want. But if you vote for a liar you get what you deserve."