I would like to confess that i am the sole person who put hate. I understand that this opens me to various forms of cat related attack in the future, however i must explain myself.

I am violently allergic to cats. I don't want them to die, but i have been almost killed by a bunch of kittens that i couldn't resist playing with. I have a theory that they are silently conniving creatures that can sense cat allergies. It's a bit like "I am number four"; they're put here to kill those who display allergies, and you cat owners are oblivious to it. They draw us weaklings in by being adorable and then release all their catness at once to cause an allergy spike, killing the victim. Kittens can do it in packs, there is a pheremone signal of some kind and they all kitten it up at once. I got lucky and survived.

For the record, a dog is the ideal human companion. They deserve to live longer to reflect this partnership, but as the kid says.. they don't need as long as us to learn how to be good.

Disease rates

"During the past two decades, an explosive growth in both the prevalence and types of sexually transmitted diseases has occurred. Up to 55 percent of homosexual men with anorectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80 percent of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15 percent of asymptomatic homosexual men, and up to one third of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2242700&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_Resul
tsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Higher rates of AIDS - 63 percent of new cases

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm


Drug use

Among homosexual men, ages 18 to 25: 79.2 percent have used marijuana; 75 percent have used psychotherapeutics for nonmedical reasons; 65.2 percent have used stimulants such as dexedrine and benzedrine; 62.5 percent have used inhalants such as amyl or butyl nitrate; and 50.2 percent have used hallucinogens such as LSD. Rates among lesbians: marijuana, 82 percent; psychotherapeutics, 58.8 percent; stimulants, 52.9 percent; inhalants, 41.2 percent; and hallucinogens, 41.2 percent. Comparing current usage to national usage, homosexuals were found to use drugs with greater frequency: "Among adults aged 18-25, 16.5 percent of men and 9.1 percent of women have used marijuana in the past month, compared with 37.5 per-cent of gay men and 23.5 percent of lesbians."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615476/

20 times higher rate of meth use (quoted from LA Times article)

http://www.narth.com/docs/methuse.html

Domestic violence

"Rates of battering victimization among urban MSM are substantially higher than among heterosexual men and possibly heterosexual women. Public health efforts directed toward addressing intimate partner battering among these men are needed."

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.92.12.1964

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/

Depression, suicide, mental health

LGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18706118

Findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associations being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10530626

Life expectancy of homosexuals

"In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871"

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

Statistics on Amsterdam

According to a study in the Netherlands where homosexuality has been accepted and mainstreamed for years, homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders, negating the mindset that society’s lack of tolerance of homosexual behavior and lifestyle produces these psychoses Youth are four times as likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11146762

That covers all of my claims. I think you'll find all of the evidence I have provided is from unbiased sources. This refutes the claim that homosexuality does not harm anyone. It clearly harms the individual, the community and society at large.

Here are some more statistics that I don't have direct links to. .

An Amsterdam study found that the average homosexual relationship lasts only 18 months and that "men in homosexual relationships, on average, have eight partners a year outside those relationships." By comparison, more than two-thirds of heterosexual marriages in America last longer than ten years. Maria Xiridou et al.,

"The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,"
AIDS 17, 7 (2003): 1029-1038.

Ricky Behaviors:

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.

"Some With HIV Aren't Disclosing Before Sex; UCSF Researcher's 1,397-person Study Presented During aids Conference," The San Francisco Examiner (July 15, 2000)"

A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners

Gay and Bi Men Less Likely to Disclose They Have HIV," GayHealth News (July 18, 2000).

Promiscuity

A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see alsoBell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981)

Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.

Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.[11]

M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991),

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 3.

>> ^curiousity:

Baaaaaa Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I saw an email notification that @shinyblurry had put that post referring to mine and thought 'Bah, I'm sick of responding to his bullshit attempts to turn everything into a religious slinging match'.

And yet look what happened. Others took the bait and ran.

Also, @alien_concept, this bit may be comedy, but his discussion with Marc on WTF isn't so much, and you really do get the feeling his views towards women were fucked up. Sad, but true. He always looked on them as having ulterior motives, always looked on relationships as a game to be played... he never got to the point of being comfortable in a relationship, feeling like a partnership at all. It was him trying to keep his ranking within the man-woman dynamic.

Sad.

Shiny... hats off to you sir to being able to stir the shit so well. I am past getting pissed off at your ranting because I know there is no reasoning, no true conversing with you. So now I watch on with amusement and don't even really read what goes on in these slinging matches. The ones where the religious side falls back on 'There is a God, I am right, my book says so.' as the only argument are not fun to talk to.

The regions of which you speak belong to another era. Villages out there take days to walk to along mountain trails in some of the highest mountain ranges in the world. Is similiar to a lot of terrain in Afghanistan. Natural forts.

They've never really been conquered or been part of established empire. People are still organized along tribal lines, with the tribes engaged in continuous inter-tribe warfare. Every kid is handed a gun as soon as he's old enough to shoot and raised to abide by the honour code (pashtunwali, yes they even have a name for it). When the tribe is under attack, you don't question right or wrong, you defend the tribe. They're no electricity, television, newspapers, literacy, or any other medium that counters this message. I know it sounds racist but those boys are like klingons, the Pakistani government has never really dared to take them on.

Couple that with the decades of training provided in the arts of guerilla warfare; including drug running, weapons manufacture, crude bomb manufacture, etc. by the CIA and ISI during the cold war and the Soviet invasion, means they are a force to be reckoned with as the US is finding out in Afghanistan.

Despite all of that they've never really bothered us until the "war on terror". They've always bbeen kind of our crazy cousins. We don't wanna be around them but they're family. Most of the country is similarly undeveloped (as in people still live like 3000 years ago undeveloped) and backwards. Bringing them into the modern era is a long term project but there's a 150 million more people on that waiting list.

Since the war on terror Pakistan has taken a serious beating. This was supposed to be our decade of growth instead the economy is in shambles. We've been through yet another round of Western supported, foreign policy obsessed, military dictator leaving our civil institutions in shambles. We've lost around 4 thousand soldiers another 8.5 wounded. 40 thousand civilians killed and 3.5 million internal refugees (dirt poor and starving variety).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_North-West_Pakistan

Those are big numbers, people are angry. The Americans are unlikely to win in Afghanistan. They're putting tribe against tribe. All this talk of democracy vs. extremism/terrorism is not something the average Afghan understands. The average Afghan is illiterate and does not understand complex ideas. He understands this: foreigners, christian army, my tribe has chosen this side because we always hated those other fuckers anyways. Americans will leave, leaving Pakistan with a mess. They did it before and we've been screwed since. There's a huuuuge (as in a small city big) Afghan refugee camp near where I live that's some thirty years old, from the last time American boys were in the region playing their geopolitical monopoly game. It's horrible.

From the Pakistani perspective the War on Terror has been a disaster. It's solved nothing and created tenfold the problem it aimed to solve. The Afghans are a primitive bunch (made more so by warfare) and need to establish a government, after which they will slowly over time, maybe a century, join the civilized world. Pakistan wholeheartedly supported the Taliban (as did the US) when they took control of the country and brought peace to it. Warfare is the real bitch not how "extreme" they are. Saudi's are equally nuts and there's not a single American president who doesn't go pay a visit right away upon taking office. Best friends.

Now the government/military of Pakistan is in a tricky situation, we have to play both sides, thus the lack of trust. Either side has the ability to seriously take Pakistan on and bring it to it's knees. The government the American's have propped up in Kabul wouldn't last a month without them, is corrupt, and allied to the Indians, with whom we see ourselves as being in a state of justified war. What to do!? What to do!? (in a indian accent).

I guess my point being, we're actually not a bad bunch. Just in a shitty situation. Come sometime and I can show you around. Most of the country is safe. Safer than mexico anyways.

Sorry that was a long post





>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^FermitTheKrog:
Thanks for having a more nuanced understanding of the matter... thought I'd share a Pakistani perspective:
-Yes, no arabs here. Lots of Muslims though as in loads of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
-Pakistani's despise the drone strikes for the same reason we despised the Bin Laden assasination. It is a terrible loss of sovereignity to have foreign soldiers killing with impunity, racking up civilian casualties, within your borders. It makes the matter worse, Pakistan is radicalizing tremendously fast and every time the US flattens another village in Afghanistan or our border regions, everytime American troops accidentally kill ours, that pace accelerates.
-An analogy: If Mexico had drones over the US taking out gang leaders in LA, the US would flatten Mexico in response. All we do is get angry.
-Things are not that bad: Liberals are not dying off. We are in government by popular vote. The Pakistani military is not some tinpot force, it is very much in control of itself and thus of it's nukes. We will deal with the militancy problem over time; education, economic opputurnity, writ of law; not bombs. We are a third world country, Afghanistan has been a war zone forever now, these things take time, most of us still shit in fields, out people are hungry, we have bigger problems to deal with than car bombs.
-In Pakistan, conservatives want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Palestine is the example. Amongst the ultra right (3-4% of the population, I'm sure you have them too, wherever you are) the "we" is Muslims and the "them" is a collaboration of Zionists and American bible thumpers.
Liberals want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Saudi Arab is the example. If they go away we can educate our people out of the mental cesspit they seem to be headed into. American bombs make us look like traitors to our people and weaken our stance.
Thanks for listening. Open to discussion


>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaire2ube:
well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.

The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.
I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.
The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.


Thank you for adding so much to the discussion, very much appreciated.
Yes, I do understand the sovereignty issue looms huge in the opinion of American actions within Pakistan's borders. I can really understand how that would enrage anyone with any manner of national pride. America is in a tough spot though too. The mountainous tribal regions along the Pak-Afghan border are not under the control of the Pakistani central government. On paper the border may run there, but in practice militants can relatively safely travel back and forth between the two. What's more, there still remain places within Pakistan's proper borders that are controlled by the local tribal leaders, and NOT the central Pakistani government. Those local tribal leaders are allying themselves to the Pakistani Taliban and providing them safe haven within Pakistan to launch attacks in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Afghan part does make it America's business. The Pakistani part in my humble opinion, should be a source of greater public outrage than it is.
I guess I find it worrying that extremists can be in de-facto control of large swathes of land within Pakistan's proper borders. So much so that it is still unsafe for the Pakistani police and even military to patrol there. To me, that seems like it is already an enormous sovereignty issue. America's attacks against militants in that region I can understand being a source of outrage. I don't understand why there isn't equal or greater outrage that those regions on the ground are no longer under the control of the Pakistani government at all and being used as a base of operations for launching attacks on the rest of Pakistan.
I think America's problem is knowing whom they can trust within Pakistan's power structure to work against rather than with extremists like the Taliban. Hamid Gul, former leader of Pakistan's ISI, scares the crap out of me. How many of his friends are still in the ISI that think like him? The JUI-F party declared Osama a muslim hero in Pakistan's National Assemblies. How much support has that party been able to hold onto within Pakistan still after taking that stance? Political parties like the PPP seem to share alot of moderate values, but have historically been ridden out of office by the military every few years.
Do you have good reasons that those fears are unfounded? From what I see and read(largely from "The News International") the moderates like yourself have always been in an uphill struggle against extremists and the opportunists willing to work with them.

>> ^FermitTheKrog:

Thanks for having a more nuanced understanding of the matter... thought I'd share a Pakistani perspective:
-Yes, no arabs here. Lots of Muslims though as in loads of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
-Pakistani's despise the drone strikes for the same reason we despised the Bin Laden assasination. It is a terrible loss of sovereignity to have foreign soldiers killing with impunity, racking up civilian casualties, within your borders. It makes the matter worse, Pakistan is radicalizing tremendously fast and every time the US flattens another village in Afghanistan or our border regions, everytime American troops accidentally kill ours, that pace accelerates.
-An analogy: If Mexico had drones over the US taking out gang leaders in LA, the US would flatten Mexico in response. All we do is get angry.
-Things are not that bad: Liberals are not dying off. We are in government by popular vote. The Pakistani military is not some tinpot force, it is very much in control of itself and thus of it's nukes. We will deal with the militancy problem over time; education, economic opputurnity, writ of law; not bombs. We are a third world country, Afghanistan has been a war zone forever now, these things take time, most of us still shit in fields, out people are hungry, we have bigger problems to deal with than car bombs.
-In Pakistan, conservatives want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Palestine is the example. Amongst the ultra right (3-4% of the population, I'm sure you have them too, wherever you are) the "we" is Muslims and the "them" is a collaboration of Zionists and American bible thumpers.
Liberals want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Saudi Arab is the example. If they go away we can educate our people out of the mental cesspit they seem to be headed into. American bombs make us look like traitors to our people and weaken our stance.
Thanks for listening. Open to discussion


>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaire2ube:
well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.

The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.
I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.
The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.



Thank you for adding so much to the discussion, very much appreciated.

Yes, I do understand the sovereignty issue looms huge in the opinion of American actions within Pakistan's borders. I can really understand how that would enrage anyone with any manner of national pride. America is in a tough spot though too. The mountainous tribal regions along the Pak-Afghan border are not under the control of the Pakistani central government. On paper the border may run there, but in practice militants can relatively safely travel back and forth between the two. What's more, there still remain places within Pakistan's proper borders that are controlled by the local tribal leaders, and NOT the central Pakistani government. Those local tribal leaders are allying themselves to the Pakistani Taliban and providing them safe haven within Pakistan to launch attacks in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Afghan part does make it America's business. The Pakistani part in my humble opinion, should be a source of greater public outrage than it is.

I guess I find it worrying that extremists can be in de-facto control of large swathes of land within Pakistan's proper borders. So much so that it is still unsafe for the Pakistani police and even military to patrol there. To me, that seems like it is already an enormous sovereignty issue. America's attacks against militants in that region I can understand being a source of outrage. I don't understand why there isn't equal or greater outrage that those regions on the ground are no longer under the control of the Pakistani government at all and being used as a base of operations for launching attacks on the rest of Pakistan.

I think America's problem is knowing whom they can trust within Pakistan's power structure to work against rather than with extremists like the Taliban. Hamid Gul, former leader of Pakistan's ISI, scares the crap out of me. How many of his friends are still in the ISI that think like him? The JUI-F party declared Osama a muslim hero in Pakistan's National Assemblies. How much support has that party been able to hold onto within Pakistan still after taking that stance? Political parties like the PPP seem to share alot of moderate values, but have historically been ridden out of office by the military every few years.

Do you have good reasons that those fears are unfounded? From what I see and read(largely from "The News International") the moderates like yourself have always been in an uphill struggle against extremists and the opportunists willing to work with them.

Thanks for having a more nuanced understanding of the matter... thought I'd share a Pakistani perspective:

-Yes, no arabs here. Lots of Muslims though as in loads of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

-Pakistani's despise the drone strikes for the same reason we despised the Bin Laden assasination. It is a terrible loss of sovereignity to have foreign soldiers killing with impunity, racking up civilian casualties, within your borders. It makes the matter worse, Pakistan is radicalizing tremendously fast and every time the US flattens another village in Afghanistan or our border regions, everytime American troops accidentally kill ours, that pace accelerates.

-An analogy: If Mexico had drones over the US taking out gang leaders in LA, the US would flatten Mexico in response. All we do is get angry.

-Things are not that bad: Liberals are not dying off. We are in government by popular vote. The Pakistani military is not some tinpot force, it is very much in control of itself and thus of it's nukes. We will deal with the militancy problem over time; education, economic opputurnity, writ of law; not bombs. We are a third world country, Afghanistan has been a war zone forever now, these things take time, most of us still shit in fields, out people are hungry, we have bigger problems to deal with than car bombs.

-In Pakistan, conservatives want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Palestine is the example. Amongst the ultra right (3-4% of the population, I'm sure you have them too, wherever you are) the "we" is Muslims and the "them" is a collaboration of Zionists and American bible thumpers.

Liberals want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Saudi Arab is the example. If they go away we can educate our people out of the mental cesspit they seem to be headed into. American bombs make us look like traitors to our people and weaken our stance.

Thanks for listening. Open to discussion




>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^vaire2ube:
well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.

The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.
I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.
The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.

>> ^vaire2ube:

well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.


The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.

I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.

I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.

The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.

Devon NHS children's services set for privatisation

Outcome of tendering process for core services for vulnerable families could provide foretaste of NHS break-up, critics fear Core children's health services in Devon may be about to be privatised in a move that critics have warned is a foretaste of the breaking up of the NHS that will take place when the government's health and social care bill becomes law.

The Guardian has learned that NHS Devon and Devon county council have shortlisted bids led by two private, profit-making companies – Serco and Virgin Care – to provide frontline services for children across the county, including some of the most sensitive care for highly vulnerable children and families, such as some child protection services, treatment for mentally ill children and adolescents, therapy and respite care for those with disabilities, health visiting, and palliative nursing for dying children.

Also on the shortlist for the £130m three-year NHS contract is Devon Partnership NHS trust, bidding along with Barnardo's and other local charities. But a source close to the process, which is now in its fourth and final stage, has told the Guardian that one of the two commercial companies' bids looks likely to win the tender.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/15/devon-nhs-childrens-services-privatisation

I wish the term "conservative" was properly used. Today's so called conservatives are right wing extremists who have abandoned any sort of conservatism in favor of what is essentially a fascist state - a partnership between concentrated capital and government.
Secondly, this leaves the democrats off the hook. It was Clinton who ultimately signed off on de-regulating the banks and dispensing with Glass-Steagal - a law that prohibited banks from also being investment banks. A law put in place after the Great Depression
Clinton also ushered in a new era of "globalization" - policies that really only favored the wealthy. True globalization would allow free movement of money, goods, AND labor. However, the free movement of labor has been excluded, meaning that corporations country-shop for the cheapest labor- thereby speeding the process of exporting our industry.

thanks for the response my friend.
you need to realize something,for it will save you a huge amount of time.
i am already aware of your theosophy so you dont have to reiterate every time we converse.
more practical that way.

Sure, always a pleasure my friend. I didn't get notification of your reply, otherwise I would have replied to this sooner. If I am reiterating anything it is to respond to bold claims and assertions about Jesus or the word of God that you're making.

I understand that in your eyes you have dissected the scripture for its "true" meaning, and that in comparison, you think I am rubbing two sticks together. Before I became a Christian and had gnostic beliefs, that is the way I approached scripture as well. I am not ignorant to your point of view, or your methodology. What I am trying to tell you is that by searching for the "true" meaning you have lost the true meaning.

i knew you would have a strong disagreement with not only my take on sin but how i dealt with those in a crisis of faith.
was to be expected. please remember that condensing 40 years down in to a few paragraphs much will be lost. so the answer would be:
no hell (not the version given by the church)
nor satan (again,not the version given by the church)
but i do not teach that salvation is a solo job.christ was the way and the light.
the path has been lit we need but to follow.
love and forgiveness are the first step towards that goal.

John 10:1

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.

The first step is to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. What we need foremost is Gods love and forgiveness; that is how we are validated as human beings. This is the reason I am disagreeing with you, because you are distorting what Jesus said. You're teaching people to make up their own gospel, and thus, their own Jesus. This is what is called idolatry. You're teaching people to make Jesus into a false idol. Don't like the idea of eternal punishment? No problem! Jesus didn't really mean that..He loves you and accepts you just the way you are. Don't like the idea of Satan? No problem! Evil is just a state of mind..you don't really have an enemy trying to destroy you. God would never allow that, He loves you!

What you're doing is divesting Jesus and His word of its authority and teaching people to be a judge over scripture. Instead of conforming to Gods standards, you're teaching people to make God conform to their standards, and showing them how they can justify it. It's wrong, and you're doing them more harm than good, because what you're teaching them is in fact in opposition to everything Jesus taught us to do.

i dont really understand your disagreement with my internalization/externalization example

because then you turn around and kind of make my point and even back up MY perspective.
that was interesting.

I disagree because it is all the work of the Holy Spirit. No, it is not what I happen to call the Holy Spirit and you call something else. I am talking about the literal Spirit of God, who has a mind and is God Himself. I am talking about the Spirit who searches the deep things of God, and leads into all truth. It isn't a metaphor I am using. This is where we're disagreeing. The Holy Spirit is the one who transforms us into the image of Christ, and apart from the Spirit we are chasing our own tails.

You say the Holy Trinity = body mind spirit. This is the problem with gnosticism, that it makes all sorts of connections that aren't really there. By making these kinds of associations you are actually divesting it of its true meaning. The Holy Trinity is God, there is nothing to compare God to, or associate God with. God is God and no one and nothing is like God. The equation isn't body mind and spirit in any case, it is body soul and spirit.

http://bible.org/seriespage/man-trinity-spirit-soul-body

nor do i understand your reticence to being called a baptist.it is what most closely aligns to your theosophy.sometimes we need labels to help us relate.thats why i use gnostic.
ah well.not a big point really..was just curious.

They are closer to what I believe than other denominations but what they believe doesn't represent what I believe. That's why I reject the label. I am simply a follower of the Way, a disciple of Jesus Christ.

i was thinking of a long line of questions but feel they not express the revelation i desire.
so.let me ask you this ONE question:
did god create us so he could be worshiped?

God created us to be in relationship with Him, which includes love, worship, fellowship, and service. He didn't create us because He needed anything, He created us out of the abundance of His goodness.

Let me ask you a question. Do you feel God isn't worthy of worshipped, or that He doesn't want to be worshipped?

This is something people bring up, that they don't feel they should have to worship God. My position is, if you don't feel like worshipping God then you clearly don't know Him. He is worthy of all honor, all praise, and all glory.

i have to admit being a bit tickled by some of your responses.they actually fit quite well from a gnostic perspective.i know you didnt mean them that way..hence me getting the giggles.
so i agree in spirit.we ARE all ONE.
this is why i end many of my letters with:namaste
what a great word.

2 Corinthians 6:14

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

We are one when we are joined together in Christ. The body of Christ is the unity that God has set apart for Himself, separate from the world. We are all made in the image of God, true, but the spirit apart from Christ is dead in its sins and is incapable of pleasing God. The family of God is made up of adopted sons and daughters, and outside of that, there is no fellowship or unity.

OH.almost forgot (because "someone" keeps using bullet form responses)
when it comes to the bible the only thing i really give any authority to is the ministry of jesus.
the old testament is the old covenant and lets be honest.god is kind of a huge dick in that book.jesus made it irrelevant.and i have read all the gospels i could get my hands on,researched the meanings,the mistranslation,other theologians hypothesis and came to two conclusions:
1.jesus was most certainly here.
2.the bible is an incomplete text,fascinating as it may be.(boring to most though,but im a dork).

It might have skipped your attention but Jesus verified the Old Testament as the truth. He verified Genesis, Noah, Jonah, and many other things. It most certainly is not irrelevent for that reason, and for the reason that it is the prophecies in the Old Testament that predict the coming of Christ, prophecies which Jesus literally fulfilled. You can read the entire OT as being a type of the Messiah to come:

http://videosift.com/video/True-and-Better

However you might see the actions of God, He was dealing with a stubborn and evil people, who defied Him at every turn. Remember when He brought Moses up on the mountain? What is the first thing the israelites did? They made a golden calf and worshipped it saying "here is the god who brought us out of egypt." This was after God had done all of these mighty miracles before them. If anything, God was way too lenient.

I'm glad we can at least agree that Jesus was here. So let me ask you two 1/2 questions:

1: why don't you think Jesus is literally God (not someone who attained it, but is the literal creator of this reality)?
1a: was He raised from the dead, and if yes, by whom and for what purpose?
2: why is the bible "incomplete"? What do you think is missing?

ps:great book for ya right here.
http://frimmin.com/books/cosmicchrist.php

I've actually seen and read similiar books to these. They attempt to turn Christianity into a universalist enlightenment religion. The 12 steps to being as God is. It is to believe everything in general without believing anything in particular. It is the same thing the serpent said to Eve:

"ye shall be as gods"

Saying, we have to become as Christ to fix the Earth. That isn't what Jesus taught. He taught us that we are servants serving in His house, and that He has been given all authority under Heaven and Earth. He said in very plain language that He is the judge of the living and the dead, and that He is going to return to this fallen world and establish His Kingdom.

There is only one Jesus Christ, and we're not it. Why do you ignore the scripture that talks about His Lordship over Heaven and Earth but then embrace everything else?

and look up christ conciousness.
thats where my general theosophy lays.

It is indeed true that we need to have the mind of Christ, but again we can't do that without the Spirit of Christ. I think it is a noble pursuit to want to be like Jesus, but you can't do that by just emulating Him. You need His Spirit, the one that raised Him from the dead. We don't get the Spirit of Christ unless we are born again and confess Jesus as Lord. It is all a work of God, and apart from Him we can do nothing.

Galatians 5:22-23

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

I hope you don't see my reply as being too harsh, because I am stating the truth of what I believe, just as you are. If you have taken any offense, please accept my apology. I don't compromise on truth, and I am only meeting you with it at the places where you have drawn the lines. Take care my friend.

>> ^enoch

I just wish they let the gays marry already, because honestly it really doesn't effect anything beyond some people being offended. And I could really give a damn. As long as they don't take gay marriage as some sort of sign to be out all public display of affectioning every chance they get, don't care at all. And that's not even a bash against two guys/girls PDAing, I just don't like seeing massive PDA stuff going on in public locations. You really don't need to be making out, grab assing and trying to head to second or third base while everyone watches. It's not even the grab ass, it's just they are in the way or moving too slowly because they are too busy trying to stick their tongues down each others throats. Same opinion on cell phone addicts, put it away or move out of the way so you stop holding everyone up.

Plus, if they allow gay marriage, Im hoping we can finally stop hearing about it. If they want to marry a lamp, let em marry a damn lamp. Besides I see "marriage" as a religious institution backed by government, they could just as easily have partnerships or bonded pairs or ball and chain mean the same thing as marriage in the view of the law. And while it wouldn't technically be marriage in the religious sense, they'd still have all the rights for insurance coverage etc. Because if these religions supported gay marriage we wouldn't have all these "Christians" running on a platform of stopping gay marriage, so bypass religion, get your rights under another name refer to it as marriage because in the eyes of the law it would be the same.

Marriage to me means you need a piece of paper and a ring to say you care, but I do recognize that having legal bonds might be beneficial for ownership, insurance, and medical emergency choices. They should focus on their legal bonds, stop referring to it as marriage to appease these ignorant assholes and then after it's in place call it whatever the hell they want. And then promptly stop talking about it, it's important to them I realize but man.....both sides are beating that drum like it's a very important topic that has long lasting ramifications. It doesn't unless you want it to.

Besides the way I see it, more gays married. Less Maury "You ARE the father" shows. And I think that's a win for everyone.

Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).

They most certainly are pushing their way of thinking on America, and that in every aspect of life. In California young children must now learn about gay history:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488/california-brings-gay-history-into-the-classroom

The normalization of homosexuality is also leading to the normalization of transgenders. There is now a law in California which states that transgenders have a protected right of gender expression which means they have to be allowed to cross dress at work:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/california-transgender-laws_n_1004109.html

Which leads to this:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348033

Before you say it has nothing to do with gay rights, these were the sponsors:

The bill was authored by Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and sponsored by Equality California, Transgender Law Center and Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

Here is the bill California vetoed but it shows the agenda:

Brown vetoed the Survey Data Inclusion Act, which required the state to include questions about LGBT identities, including sexual orientation and domestic partnership status among others, on state surveys.

The truth is, gays are pushing their lifestyle on this culture, and trying to gain a protected minority status. They won't stop until they are fully integrated into every aspect of our culture, including indoctrinating our children.

Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.

I just demonstrated the causal relationship by my example. There are also many studies which state there is a connection:

From the Archives of Sexual Behavior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archives_of_Sexual_Behavior

A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 'eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.'

The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2.4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles

"Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality ... Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%."

A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that '... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality

You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted.

To advocate for that would be to encourage homosexuals to continue breaking Gods law and end up in hell. I don't want homosexuals to go to hell, therefore I will continue to tell them it is immoral and that they need to repent.

Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral.

God decides what is moral, and it is the preoccuption of Christians to obey God and warn those who are perishing.

Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?

Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you are still accountable to Him. And even if I wasn't Christian, I still have a right to say homosexuality is immoral. That is my right and is guaranteed by the constitution, just as it is your right to say what you like about my religion. You would like to have it one way and stifle my right to free speech, which is ironic considering the position you're taking about equal rights.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).
Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.
You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral. Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.
It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.
There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

This is what they did by calling same-sex marriage "Civil Partnerships" in the UK, do avoid offending those who wanted to keep the term 'marriage' for straights. Which is odd, because straights have done more to sully the name of marriage than gay people will. Equal my arse.

Jim is probably trying to get over the April, 2010 split from his long-time partnership with Jenny McCarthy.

Just a few stats:
Emma Stone is 22.
Jim (49) has a 24 year old daughter, Jane Carrey, and an 8 month old grandson, Jackson Santana.

He is dating (or has dated) a 24-year-old "America's Next Top Model" contestant.

@westy

Yes nearly every business tries to game the system that's the point of capitalism and that's why it will always fail ( im not on about simply ballencing your books and deprecaiting assets and playing that sytem , evan though that is gamed in the same way) I'm on about the system at large , surely you can see the difference between a butcher and a company that offers high interest loans to desperate people , when instead of offering the loan the ethical thing would be for them to tell them to contact citizens advice ?

I don't think capitalism (by which I mean a regulated but moderately free market) will fail as (at least so far) it's provided the best manner of funneling people's naturally selfish/nepotistic tendencies in a productive way.

Let's be clear here, generally brokers were responsible for writing subprime loans with botched (or outright false) assessments of income and capacity to pay. These brokers were essentially gaming the investment banks (like Bear Sterns) into buying fraudulent securitised loans. Bear Sterns along with Lehman Brothers didn't survive and many other banks got taken over. There was clear motivation for them to perform more due diligence and they paid for their mistakes by going bankrupt or being taken over. The credit rating agencies and the insurers who backed CDOs also had poor judgement. My point is, the people who benefited from writing these bad loans weren't the banks.

thats the piont im making , you can have companies that game the system but also privde a service but the people that have caused this economic crisis are people that are at the pinicale of gaming the system and do not care to provide a service and purely participate to game the system purely exist to make money at whatever cost to society.

They're not gaming the system if they're going bankrupt. You know as well as I do that banks borrow money from those with savings and selectively lend them out to generally good investments thus creating economic growth and jobs. Let's not get carried away with populism here.

luckily we have people that are ethical and don't just think of the profit bottom line , but in general you will see that a good proportion of those successful at business and profiting are ones that couldn't give a shit about other people or there effect on the environment.

The difference between the butcher and a large financial institution is size. If this was a national specialty chain business, you can bet that they would be lobbying their congressman and receiving favors and payouts. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for crony capitalism and I understand that banks weild considerable leverage over the economy and politicians. They should be more regulated commensurate to their significance and intractability with the economy, particularly shadow banking system (securitisation of loans and credit derivatives) should be regulated to prevent crises. This is a failure of regulation though, not a failure of banking in general. As I mentioned, every large industry/corporate body curries favors.

"Either way they are both pretty beneficial to a functioning economy"

so the bankers that turned a blind eye to the toxit assits were beneficail to the econimy ?

how about the lobiests and deregulation that made it possable ?
what about the real estate agents that knew the people they were selling the houses to could not maintain the mortgage?

What about the marketeers that designed the sales materail to obscure the mortgage rates to hide the fact that they would increase and specifcaly designed the brouchers and trained the sales teams to exploit unknowlageable people ?

No they weren't and many of their businesses went out of business. These are all issues of regulation. Corporations (as opposed to say partnerships) are by legal design geared towards maximising profit. If you come in with expectations that any corporation will not do this, you are making flawed assumptions.

"hedge funds don't gamble shares, they trade them based on discrepancies between actual price and fundamentals"

Defanitoin of Gambling from Wikipedia - "Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods."

something doesn't have to have unfavourable odds to be considered gambling for example there are many professional gamblers that make a living of horse betting , and in that exact same way there are many people that profestinaly gamble on the stock market , and I would argue that they are themselfs not providing a use to socity. I would however contrast that against sum-one that invests in a company because that company is doing good or employs many people or is developing beneficial technpligy.

the problem is in general capitalism in its current form is fucked , and i belive we need to move towards something that is what I would describe as a

"democratic socialist capitalist system" where we have as free a market as possable and that is achived through democratic regulation guided by socialist princapels. so you try to give every citizen as equal a chance as possible at having free will and succeeding in what they want to do.

the current system allows the top 10% fantastic freedom and chances but at the expense of the majorty of people.

It's not a wager of value, it's a transfer of value. Which is critically what makes it different from gambling. If you have agricultural produce and you want to hedge the risk that your harvest will go down in value when it comes to fruition, it's typically an investment bank/hedge fund/commercial bank that takes the counterparty position. Without someone taking that counterparty position, you couldn't eliminate your risk of a fall in prices. If someone buys a newly listed share of your company, they're contributing to your capacity to invest and pay wages. During the process of gambling before someone is declared the winner, there is no value being created. That's a pretty crucial difference. The main point is though that banking creates value, hopefully I've already illustrated that beforehand.

I don't disagree with what you're saying at the end, but as far as I'm concerned you should be resentful towards campaign finance rules. Instead, it's like trying to treat the symptom not the cause.