You do not have a monopoly on spirituality or spiritual insight. You assume that your spirituality gives you the complete truth, and you jumped the shark to certainty of your beliefs. I don't have a problem with you believing you're correct. That's sorta why you came to that conclusion. It's the part where you're certain, and deny the mere possibility you could be wrong when debating others, and have the audacity to tell other people they have no spiritual insight.

Messenger is an atheist; by definition he knows nothing about the spirit. Further he explicitly denies that there is any such thing. Even if I wasn't certain about what I believe, what I said would still be factual.

Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life. He had the audacity not just to say He is right, but that He is truth itself. I believe Him and agree. If I had doubts about who Jesus is, I wouldn't follow Him. A Christian makes an audacious decision; that Jesus is the living God.

That's garbage, and the exact point I was making to Messenger when he assumed your religion was controlling your mind. It's this kind of thing that gives some religious people and atheists who refuse to acknowledge there's a possibility of a god a bad name.

Do you believe there is a God?

It doesn't depend on the question. There's a ton of things loaded into the question. What are you defining as god? Who are you defining as Jesus? What does it mean to be the "Son of God"? Etc. etc. etc. There are different ways to answer those questions, and depending on those answers, it radically changes what the meaning is of a yes or no answer. The different ways you answer it can provide useful insights.

Of course it depends on the question. If I ask, was the Universe created, that has a right answer and a wrong answer. If I ask, what is the Universe, that has many answers. Words have meaning, and if we agree upon those meanings, we can come to a point of fact. If we define God as the Creator of the Universe, and Jesus as the historical person, Jesus of Nazereth, then there clearly is a yes or no answer.

Although it is promising that you believe in absolute truth, you are still trying to make it relative. You are saying there is a truth, but you are also implying that no one can know what it is. If someone did know what it is, would they be arrogant for being certain about it? No. You just seem to believe no one can be certain about it. There are two scenerios in which you could know the truth absolutely: 1. You are an omnipotent being. 2. An omnipotent being reveals the truth to you. I fall under scenerio 2.

And to be honest, these are questions often thrown out there that cause more problems than they help solve. First off, it doesn't necessarily matter if Jesus is truly the son of God or not. Believing it still can provide a useful belief framework to help people make themselves better. Choosing to believe in the principle of "matter can not be created nor destroyed" can provide insights into the world even though we know that's not entirely true.

Regardless, you and your religion are not the final arbiters of spiritual truth. Period. It's conceited to think you are.

It absolutely matters whether Jesus is God because what you believe about Jesus determines where you spend eternity. If Jesus is God, He is the final arbiter of spiritual truth, and it is on His authority as God that I speak that truth. You think it's wrong to be certain of truth, yet absolute truth is exclusive truth. It is simply unreasonable for you to place the limitation of your uncertainty about truth upon others. If God came to you and gave you absolute and undeniable revelation, would you be wishy-washy about whether you believe it or not? Can you admit to yourself that God, if He wanted to, could give absolute revelation of the truth to anyone? If you can admit that, and you know that I believe that He has given such revelation, then you shouldn't be surprised that I claim to know what it is with certainty. That is exactly what you would expect from someone who has encountered the living God.

>> ^heropsycho:

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

What the hell is going on with their logo at the end?


Confusion and uncertainty.

Oddly appropriate.

Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.

Taxpayers on the hook for billions they'll never see recouped: NOT success. These same companies expecting the same bailouts again down the road? NOT success. While we're on the subject: Medicare fraud to the tune of 60 billion EVERY year? NOT success.

Bush was wrong and His Earness was wrong. These corporations should have filed for bankruptcy.

And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

SIGH.

These weak sauce "success" stories are nothing more than obamedia shills defending their king.


P.S. LIBERALS run Detroit and have for decades. Until that changes, it has NO chance.




>> ^heropsycho:

So are you admitting partisan vitriol is bad or not? If you are, then stop doing it yourself. Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.
And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...
Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.
...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

So are you admitting partisan vitriol is bad or not? If you are, then stop doing it yourself. Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.

And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...
Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.
...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

1) Of course, Bush did everything; after all, he collapsed the economy. Let's thank him for that too.
2) How can you say that "Obamacare" has cost us millions when it doesn't even go into effect until 2014?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Did you know that Ford has also received HUGE help from the federal government? Why is it wrong for the government to help domestic industry. It's not like it's a new practice in the US, and it's not like other countries don't give their industries a similar advantage.>> ^quantumushroom:

I'd like to have a domestic auto industry IF it deserves to stay in business and meets expenses with profits from building cars consumers--not Chicago Jesus--want, not 50K rolling fireplaces like the chevy volt.
Ford didn't take any bailout money and they're doing fine. Plus how 'bout all those foreign car companies with domestic plants, sans greedy unions, building cars un-rich people can actually afford...

>> ^longde:
QM, would you rather have a domestic auto industry or not? >> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

I'd like to have a domestic auto industry IF it deserves to stay in business and meets expenses with profits from building cars consumers--not Chicago Jesus--want, not 50K rolling fireplaces like the chevy volt.

Ford didn't take any bailout money and they're doing fine. Plus how 'bout all those foreign car companies with domestic plants, sans greedy unions, building cars un-rich people can actually afford...


>> ^longde:

QM, would you rather have a domestic auto industry or not? >> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...

Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.

...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

o let me confirm this... your answer is; yes, i know i am being rude, but it is an integral part of my religious viewpoint that i must be rude. Well, thank you for at least letting me know - i know now i can have no interest in your christianity. I am glad i have met other christians or i would leave this thread with a terrible viewpoint of your ilk.

My answer is, I believe the words of God over the words of man. I'm not sure why you expect me to compromise my beliefs and tell you something that I don't believe is true.

Do you realise that it is part of my viewpoint to see you as a silly, childish, scared and brainwashed fool? But do i accuse you of those things? No. Because i have respect for you (or at least i did), i accept that you may not conform to the mould. I choose my words extremely carefully sometimes even to the detriment of making my point clearly! All because i don't want to offend you.

I think it speaks volume that i, as an agnostic atheist, am more tolerant and polite than you, a theist. In the face of being called dishonest and insincere as well. You are not special, there is no excuse - you do not get special rules for calling people insincere; it makes you a bigot by definition (a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices). And your words confine your religion to bigotry. How can it not when you insult anyone who disagrees?

What possible respect could you have for someone that you believe is a "silly childish scared and brainwashed fool" except that which is empty and false? I prefer your honesty to your tolerance. You are incapable of offending me; I've heard it all.

If you cannot lay aside that bigotry, then we have nothing further to discuss.

I am obstinately and intolerantly devoted to the word of God. If it wasn't a scandal for you, you would be a perfect man.

The reason why i am not able to reply to certain parts of your posts is that you include bible quotes; these are utterly meaningless to me, and you may as well be reading me a vacuum cleaner instruction manual. Especially in a discussion pertaining to the validity of said document.

You virtually ignored everything I wrote, and looking back I count 3 scriptures.

I suspect that it is you who needs to go and study logic and maths - notice how i wait for you to demonstrate your ignorance of such subjects before i suggested this, a kindness you did not afford me. There are ways of solving uncertainties such as using occam's razor to demonstrate that evidence is required if you wish to propose a more complicated state of affairs. By suggesting that reality is changeable (from what i can understand of your loose grip on the subject, for example perhaps the gravitational constant changes depending on your position in the universe), you may as well suggest that gravity tastes like jelly - it has no basis and is rediculous to propose as a realistic alternative because it is utterly meaningless and offers an infinite spectrum of alternatives. You must have a reason to suggest it, otherwise it can only be considered as a philosophical exercise and as such is not scientific. If you have a scientific reason, then you're all good.

You entirely missed the point, and actually reinforced it with your assertion that it would be ridiculous to believe that law of gravity could change. The question is, why should there be a law-like order in the Universe in the first place? What evidence do you have that the future will be like the past? How do you explain the uniformity in nature? Where do you get the laws of logic from? These are things that you assume apriori without accounting for them.

If you think differently, then you are wrong; it is not a matter of opinion. Science (which is maths) is defined on those terms, something is either scientific or not. That is why many religious groups can't understand how outrageous it is to suggest intelligent design is taught in science classes; you may as well teach people how to read tea leaves to get to a solution in a maths class. Maths is a set of rules, and if you change those rules then it is no longer maths. Same goes for science. Your opinions do not count towards science.

There is good reason to believe that the Universe is designed, from the fine tuning of the physical laws, to the information in DNA. It is a better explanation of the facts. To rule it out I think is ridiculous and definitely not scientific. Ask Anthony Flew why he stopped being an atheist.

Finally i will say this; you rarely ever address my point or reply to a simple question. You seemingly always reply to an example rather than the point (which you did again even when i highlighted this oversight; the second reply was utter misdirection). You often subtly change the parameters. Perhaps it is not intentional, or perhaps that is also a necessary part of your religion.

I'm not sure i can make another polite reply, so i may make none at all; i have been insulted enough. I for one am absolutely certain that, if there is a god, god would not be happy with you walking around judging others. He or she is watching you right now, seeing you insult others in his/her own name.

I wouldn't call passive aggressive polite, would you? God isn't going to judge me for telling what His word says, which is what He commanded me to do.

Edit:
Actually, i saw you apologised for being rude. I'm sure in your mind you are forgiven by god. This must give you an incredible amount of freedom to be immoral. I am glad that i at least do not need a sword hanging over my head to be polite and fair. When i am rude to someone, it hurts me in my heart, and i can't just apologise and feel better; i carry it with me.

Everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong. Your guilty conscience is telling you that you've violated Gods standard of behavior.

>> ^dannym3141:

QM, would you rather have a domestic auto industry or not? >> ^quantumushroom:

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.


Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

@shinyblurry

So let me confirm this... your answer is; yes, i know i am being rude, but it is an integral part of my religious viewpoint that i must be rude. Well, thank you for at least letting me know - i know now i can have no interest in your christianity. I am glad i have met other christians or i would leave this thread with a terrible viewpoint of your ilk.

Do you realise that it is part of my viewpoint to see you as a silly, childish, scared and brainwashed fool? But do i accuse you of those things? No. Because i have respect for you (or at least i did), i accept that you may not conform to the mould. I choose my words extremely carefully sometimes even to the detriment of making my point clearly! All because i don't want to offend you.

I think it speaks volume that i, as an agnostic atheist, am more tolerant and polite than you, a theist. In the face of being called dishonest and insincere as well. You are not special, there is no excuse - you do not get special rules for calling people insincere; it makes you a bigot by definition (a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices). And your words confine your religion to bigotry. How can it not when you insult anyone who disagrees?

If you cannot lay aside that bigotry, then we have nothing further to discuss.

The reason why i am not able to reply to certain parts of your posts is that you include bible quotes; these are utterly meaningless to me, and you may as well be reading me a vacuum cleaner instruction manual. Especially in a discussion pertaining to the validity of said document.

I suspect that it is you who needs to go and study logic and maths - notice how i wait for you to demonstrate your ignorance of such subjects before i suggested this, a kindness you did not afford me. There are ways of solving uncertainties such as using occam's razor to demonstrate that evidence is required if you wish to propose a more complicated state of affairs. By suggesting that reality is changeable (from what i can understand of your loose grip on the subject, for example perhaps the gravitational constant changes depending on your position in the universe), you may as well suggest that gravity tastes like jelly - it has no basis and is rediculous to propose as a realistic alternative because it is utterly meaningless and offers an infinite spectrum of alternatives. You must have a reason to suggest it, otherwise it can only be considered as a philosophical exercise and as such is not scientific. If you have a scientific reason, then you're all good.

If you think differently, then you are wrong; it is not a matter of opinion. Science (which is maths) is defined on those terms, something is either scientific or not. That is why many religious groups can't understand how outrageous it is to suggest intelligent design is taught in science classes; you may as well teach people how to read tea leaves to get to a solution in a maths class. Maths is a set of rules, and if you change those rules then it is no longer maths. Same goes for science. Your opinions do not count towards science.

Finally i will say this; you rarely ever address my point or reply to a simple question. You seemingly always reply to an example rather than the point (which you did again even when i highlighted this oversight; the second reply was utter misdirection). You often subtly change the parameters. Perhaps it is not intentional, or perhaps that is also a necessary part of your religion.

I'm not sure i can make another polite reply, so i may make none at all; i have been insulted enough. I for one am absolutely certain that, if there is a god, god would not be happy with you walking around judging others. He or she is watching you right now, seeing you insult others in his/her own name.

Edit:
Actually, i saw you apologised for being rude. I'm sure in your mind you are forgiven by god. This must give you an incredible amount of freedom to be immoral. I am glad that i at least do not need a sword hanging over my head to be polite and fair. When i am rude to someone, it hurts me in my heart, and i can't just apologise and feel better; i carry it with me.

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive

Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Wow, I am a bit taken aback by your soft and somewhat flattering response. When I first saw the email that said you had quoted me I braced myself for the typical QM "both barrels" response. Thank you for surprising me.

As far as what social economic system is better than another I would suggest that pure capitalism would likely also fail. History has shown us that when too few have too much and too many have too little the many take drastic steps to redistribute the wealth themselves. Look at the history of Europe.

The human element adds uncertainty and chaos to any system and subsequently all systems are inherently flawed. That is why there are regulating bodies that are meant to enforce the will of the people. When the regulations or those who enforce them are negatively interfered with, society either in part or as a whole, must fail.

I pay about 32% income tax and from what I can figure that number rises to more than 50% when you factor in property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, etc. Despite this burden I do very well so if a portion of these taxes are going to help some person from a poor household to get a better education or it provides care for an elderly person who has no means to support themselves, or even if it goes to the rehabilitation of a young prostitute with a meth addiction I am okay with that. Better roads, better schools, better hospitals, law enforcement, fire protection, it is in support of these socialistically supported things and more that I accept the reduction of half of my earned income.

There will always be people who get what they don't deserve but for the sake of those that do deserve our help I think that we must accept that.
<Insert the clichéd “bad apples” quote here.>

If my contribution can give one person the chance to change their future like I did it is worth it to me.

>> ^quantumushroom:

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
Rich people can be quite ignorant. Oprah is, and Obama, also rich, doesn't seem to know anything about economics.

As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
That's not my viewpoint, however I am extremely skeptical of the so-called "Third Way". Socialism always fails, and capitalism fails when oversaturated with socialism. Look at Europe.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.
I salute your inspiring life story. The system worked for you, but you still did most of the work. The suggestion that you never would've made it without all the aid I do not believe. What about your neighbor who is perfectly happy living off of unemployment insurance, welfare, food banks, etc. forever? Are you willing to support those who won't--not can't--work as hard as you? Why should you have to raise his children with your taxes along with your own?
I'm not advocating Lord of the Flies, I'm saying the left needs to get its head out of the clouds. There are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.
>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

>>

>> ^quantumushroom:

The deliberate Uncertainty created by this corrupt regime is fking everything up. There's two trillion dollars in the hands of the people that is parked (you read that right, two TRILLION) waiting for two events: the Supreme Court's decision on obamacare and the election.

For the sake of argument, let's say your basic point is right and uncertainty about government is the only reason that $2 trillion is "parked," and the people who actually control what's done with that money bear zero responsibility for the damage their choices are wreaking on the economy.

Even if I, for the sake of argument only, stipulate all that as true, why does only Obama bear responsibility for that uncertainty? Using your own logic, if Republicans put the well-being of the country before their own ambition, they would restore certainty by a) dropping their suit against the ACA, and b) letting Obama run unopposed in the 2012 election.

Certainly that would restore "certainty" to the markets.

Now, if what you really meant was that the so-called "job creators" are intentionally fucking over the economy in order to a) put pressure on the SCOTUS to rule against the ACA, and b) try to get a Republican into the White House, why is Obama the villain in your story? Clearly if that's the case, then these people formerly known as job creators are actually terrorists who deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
>> ^quantumushroom:
It's certainly true that certain companies legally pay no taxes, and they grease the palms of BOTH parties. But why do these companies (as well as everyone else) NEED lobbyists? Because the government is too big and too powerful.

Right, if it weren't for the government, corporations would be free to collect their own taxes from people, and make their own laws directly without any need to go through the pretense of democratic process.

You know, Utopia!

Again, even if I accept your basic premise, your logic is still flawed. If I bribe a bank security guard to look the other way while I rob his bank, the right response to that is to say "that bank should be more careful about who it hires" not "the entire practice of banking should be abolished."

Same for you and government -- if you don't like corporations buying influence in our government, you should be trying to find a way to limit their opportunities to do so (like campaign finance reform), or voting for people who are a lot less cozy with business than the people you like to vote for.

As for "make government smaller," that's no solution. All that does is create a power vacuum, one corporations step in to fill themselves. It doesn't level the playing field, it tilts it even more towards the people who already run things now.

If you're interested in getting out from under the thumb of people with too much power, you need to focus your sights on trying to reduce income and wealth disparity, and help try to return us to a more egalitarian society, rather than going out and trying to help the rich and powerful fuck us all over.