@Winstonfield_Pennypacker Thanks for displaying this website's bias expressed via a blatently crazy conspiracy theory - presented as one of the first things you can read on that page, no less.

"The plan was a simple one. The path to Obama’s second term requires that enough voters forget that our current economic woes are the fault of a failed President who enjoyed two years of having every single item on his wish-list passed by Congress. And so the idea was to create Occupy in order to give the MSM the cover they desired to spend every single day up until the election talking about greed and income inequality in order to blame both for the stagnant economy.

The hope was that by repeating this message incessantly, enough voters could be convinced that Wall Street, and by extension, evil Republicans, were to blame for our chronic unemployment, record deficits, and stillborn economic growth. President Obama who?"

.....what??

I think my biggest problem with solutions to smoking (which have a partial answer, if you slave their addiction to patches), being fat (which CAN be caused by medical problems and medications--obviously that isn't the primary cause), or any other self-abusive scenario which may indeed need psychological help to truly treat them; the problem is that we functionally still do not understand both the on and off switches to their medical woes or the self-inflicted ones. A "cure" is absent. I do however, see ways you can help. As in having a dietitian play a key role in the reversal of patients outcomes, rather than throwing them out of the clinic with no help. Much like the work of social workers; let us not be afraid to create a new job if it's needed. The question I meant to ask earlier is: Do you wish to be your brother's keeper or did you simply lose your hope?

This is for anyone that sees that our system simply need not be there to help everyone, or help someone more than once, twice, and no matter how long. Some can't even find a doctor that can diagnose them until perhaps that fifth or sixth try...

We inhabitants of the other side of the pond watch and laugh... until our own countries inevitably follow in the USofA's footsteps. Woe unto us. Woe.

Better read again, because the articles do discuss equivalent jobs. But – because I anticipate (and compensate) for your laziness in advance…

http://blog.american.com/2011/07/the-value-of-public-sector-job-security/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/19/group-says-ill-state-workers-paid-more-than-private-sector-peers/
http://www.dispatch.com/content/downloads/2011/09/BRT-Public-Sector-Comp-Study.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-01-1Apublicworkers01_ST_N.htm
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-10-05/news/fl-jscol-pensions-salaries-public-smith-1005-20111005_1_private-sector-government-workers-salaries
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-5.pdf

I implore that just once you attempt to penetrate the callus of propaganda that buries your free-thought. Public workers are not underpaid. They are – in fact – paid notably more than private sector equivalents.

The thing that really amazes me about your fight to screw people out of their promised wages

So the public should have to pay for the bad deals made in bad faith by unelected union scalps collaborating with politicians behind closed doors to arrange unrealistic benefits packages in exchange for power, labor dues, and votes? Nope. Not buying it. The public had no say in these deals, and therefore the public has no obligation to pick up the tab when those lousy deals made by crooks go belly up. Public workers should get mad at thier union mafiosos and the lefties that connive with them - not the private-sector citizens who had nothing to do with it.

77 Billion dollars?

That’s just for federal employees. It deals in no way with the many other areas where the Federal government vastly overspends – defense included.

77 Billion dollars is what you're saying is going to bring this country to it's knees? That's your "silver plated budget?" What a crock

The 77 billion is just one example out of literally thousands of areas where government overspending is indeed bringing the country to its knees. But – I never said that alone was the reason for the federal government’s budget failures. On the federal level the blame lies almost entirely on entitlement spending – of which federal employees are a significant portion but certainly not all. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the primary offenders there. However, you are ignoring the Illinois example. Illinois’ budget woes are almost entirely due to paying its employee burden of wages, benefits, retirement, and health care. They offer gold plated packages, but don’t have two pennies to rub together.

As an American, you should be ashamed of yourself

Back atcha, Clyde. A real American wouldn't have anything to do with the commie BS crap you are cheerleading. The fault of everything you’re whining about lies at the feet of the liberals who ran these unions and governments into the ground. And you have the temerity, audacity, and gall to complain about grown-ups and other good folks that have to come in and clean up the filthy mess made by your philosophies? Leftists deserve to be pilloried, tarred and feathered, and then run out of the country on a rail for their bullcrap policies because it is leftists that have ruined these people’s lives. It is leftists who end up crushing the ‘little people’ all in the name of big government socialist policies. Leftists do more to squash human dignity and push more people into poverty, ruin, and oppression than any other philosophy in history. For leftists to gripe about conservatives who have to fix stupid liberal screw-ups in order to save the system from collapse is pretty rich. What's your solution? Oh yeah - tax and spend. The same level of stupid that got us here in the first place. The solution is conservatism which means cutting back - and yes that means on stupid contracts made with evil unions that put unrealistic burdens on the private sector.

If I recall, Bush pushed for the bailout. Here is the Fox News article.

Yes, I am aware of this. It's a disgrace, more so than if a Democrat president initiated it. Bush was a liberal with a few conservative tendencies.

I've never been offered a job by a poor man, have you? Unless you're a vote-buying politician, you shouldn't overly concern yourself that someone else has more than you, nor blame them. Economics is not a zero-sum game.

I don't see your point at all here. People do not want to tax the rich more, they just want repeal the tax breaks that Bush implemented.

You may not want to tax the rich more, the socialists dream of nothing else. And raising taxes on the middle class and poor too. I'm here to tell you that repealing the rather modest Bush tax cuts will do nothing--NOTHING--to help the economy nor fill government coffers.


Unless you know otherwise, over the ENTIRE lifespan of these tax breaks, the economy has been on a downhill. How can you justify them then?

The problem goes back to spending more than we have, always will. I don't see how you can single out the tax breaks as being the single source for economic woes.


Remember this is tax breaks over income only, if the rich invest their money into their businesses, they are never taxed on that money anyways.

The profits are taxed. What I mean by 'zero-sum game' is this: socialists believe in order for someone to win at economics, someone else must lose. It's balderdash. Wealth is created not when the slices of pie are "more balanced" but when the pie itself grows larger.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

1. Adam and Eve had a limited knowledge of good and evil by what God had informed them about..they knew enough to know it was wrong to disobey God.

2. God isn't merely good, like He is living up to some sort of standard. He is goodness itself. So when I call God good, I am not judging His character, I am describing it. I call God good because that is what He is, inherently. I am, like you, incapable of judging God, but I can describe Him. It's not a value judgement, it's really the definition of what good is and where it comes from.

>> ^acidSpine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sorry acidspine, I missed your question here.
1: When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in a state of innocence. The creation at that point was declared by God to be good. So Adam and Eve enjoyed a fellowship with God without any contamination of evil. However, God had to offer them a choice. If He didn't, they would have no more than puppets. He desired a loving relationship with them, but it would not be love if they had no choice. God wanted them to choose love and trust Him. The only way to give them a choice would be to command something that was not allowed.
So He gave them one rule, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan was allowed to tempt them, saying that God was a liar and that the knowledge of good and evil would be a good thing, and that they would even be equal to God. The knowledge was this; to know the difference between good and evil. Before they gained this knowledge, they relied on God to tell them the difference. They enjoyed a state of innocence because of this. God wished them to be free of evil and to teach them step by step. They decided to betray God, however, and believe the devil..and when they ate of the fruit, the knowledge of evil brought to them fear and shame. Their innocent relationship with God was ruined. Their corruption meant they could no longer enjoy direct fellowship with God, so He cast them out of the garden. They also lost their immortality and began to die. Their sin brought death into the world. Obviously, it wasn't a good thing.
2: Well, first, all human beings are hypocrites. God is perfect and Holy. Ultimate justice could only be decided by a perfect being..all else would be hypocripsy and injustice. So our judgement will always be imperfect and unjust. If God broke His own laws, yes we could point the finger at Him. If He broke even one, it would mean He was imperfect and unqualified to judge us. We however are stained by our sins. It isn't rare to have broken almost every commandment even at a young age. If a murderer pointed the finger at you because he didnt like your behavior, would you take him seriously? God said if we even hate anyone we have committed murder in our hearts. So, pointing the finger at God when we ourselves are stained by sin is fairly ridiculous. We are born into this world with nothing, and life is a gift, but somehow we feel entitled to say God owes us something, as if God is our debtor. With sin on our minds, and corruption in our hearts, we say to God..what right have you to judge us! Well, He has every right..He is sovereign over His creation.
Isaiah 29:15-16
Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"
You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?
>> ^acidSpine:
Hey shiny, I know you like evangelasing so I have two simple questions for you that shouldn't take much time to answer. Here goes
1. What was the knowledge Adam and Eve supposedly gained by eating the forbidden fruit?
2. As human beings are we capable of judging god's moral character?
As a sweetener, if you answer both questions succinctly I will upvote this vid re-sifting it as it were (unless the recent downvote didn't remove a star point in which case I have nothing to offer)


Thats ok
I'll be breif. Your answer to the first question was that in the bible Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil after eating the fruit. But if they had no knowledge of good and evil how would they know doing the wrong thing was bad?
I'm not really sure that you answered the second question but I will just say if I'm not allowed to judge god as (non-existant) evil then you aren't allowed to judge him as good.
Thanks for the reply

>> ^shinyblurry:

Sorry acidspine, I missed your question here.
1: When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in a state of innocence. The creation at that point was declared by God to be good. So Adam and Eve enjoyed a fellowship with God without any contamination of evil. However, God had to offer them a choice. If He didn't, they would have no more than puppets. He desired a loving relationship with them, but it would not be love if they had no choice. God wanted them to choose love and trust Him. The only way to give them a choice would be to command something that was not allowed.
So He gave them one rule, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan was allowed to tempt them, saying that God was a liar and that the knowledge of good and evil would be a good thing, and that they would even be equal to God. The knowledge was this; to know the difference between good and evil. Before they gained this knowledge, they relied on God to tell them the difference. They enjoyed a state of innocence because of this. God wished them to be free of evil and to teach them step by step. They decided to betray God, however, and believe the devil..and when they ate of the fruit, the knowledge of evil brought to them fear and shame. Their innocent relationship with God was ruined. Their corruption meant they could no longer enjoy direct fellowship with God, so He cast them out of the garden. They also lost their immortality and began to die. Their sin brought death into the world. Obviously, it wasn't a good thing.
2: Well, first, all human beings are hypocrites. God is perfect and Holy. Ultimate justice could only be decided by a perfect being..all else would be hypocripsy and injustice. So our judgement will always be imperfect and unjust. If God broke His own laws, yes we could point the finger at Him. If He broke even one, it would mean He was imperfect and unqualified to judge us. We however are stained by our sins. It isn't rare to have broken almost every commandment even at a young age. If a murderer pointed the finger at you because he didnt like your behavior, would you take him seriously? God said if we even hate anyone we have committed murder in our hearts. So, pointing the finger at God when we ourselves are stained by sin is fairly ridiculous. We are born into this world with nothing, and life is a gift, but somehow we feel entitled to say God owes us something, as if God is our debtor. With sin on our minds, and corruption in our hearts, we say to God..what right have you to judge us! Well, He has every right..He is sovereign over His creation.
Isaiah 29:15-16
Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"
You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?
>> ^acidSpine:
Hey shiny, I know you like evangelasing so I have two simple questions for you that shouldn't take much time to answer. Here goes
1. What was the knowledge Adam and Eve supposedly gained by eating the forbidden fruit?
2. As human beings are we capable of judging god's moral character?
As a sweetener, if you answer both questions succinctly I will upvote this vid re-sifting it as it were (unless the recent downvote didn't remove a star point in which case I have nothing to offer)



Thats ok

I'll be breif. Your answer to the first question was that in the bible Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil after eating the fruit. But if they had no knowledge of good and evil how would they know doing the wrong thing was bad?
I'm not really sure that you answered the second question but I will just say if I'm not allowed to judge god as (non-existant) evil then you aren't allowed to judge him as good.

Thanks for the reply

Sorry acidspine, I missed your question here.

1: When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in a state of innocence. The creation at that point was declared by God to be good. So Adam and Eve enjoyed a fellowship with God without any contamination of evil. However, God had to offer them a choice. If He didn't, they would have no more than puppets. He desired a loving relationship with them, but it would not be love if they had no choice. God wanted them to choose love and trust Him. The only way to give them a choice would be to command something that was not allowed.

So He gave them one rule, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan was allowed to tempt them, saying that God was a liar and that the knowledge of good and evil would be a good thing, and that they would even be equal to God. The knowledge was this; to know the difference between good and evil. Before they gained this knowledge, they relied on God to tell them the difference. They enjoyed a state of innocence because of this. God wished them to be free of evil and to teach them step by step. They decided to betray God, however, and believe the devil..and when they ate of the fruit, the knowledge of evil brought to them fear and shame. Their innocent relationship with God was ruined. Their corruption meant they could no longer enjoy direct fellowship with God, so He cast them out of the garden. They also lost their immortality and began to die. Their sin brought death into the world. Obviously, it wasn't a good thing.

2: Well, first, all human beings are hypocrites. God is perfect and Holy. Ultimate justice could only be decided by a perfect being..all else would be hypocripsy and injustice. So our judgement will always be imperfect and unjust. If God broke His own laws, yes we could point the finger at Him. If He broke even one, it would mean He was imperfect and unqualified to judge us. We however are stained by our sins. It isn't rare to have broken almost every commandment even at a young age. If a murderer pointed the finger at you because he didnt like your behavior, would you take him seriously? God said if we even hate anyone we have committed murder in our hearts. So, pointing the finger at God when we ourselves are stained by sin is fairly ridiculous. We are born into this world with nothing, and life is a gift, but somehow we feel entitled to say God owes us something, as if God is our debtor. With sin on our minds, and corruption in our hearts, we say to God..what right have you to judge us! Well, He has every right..He is sovereign over His creation.

Isaiah 29:15-16

Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"

You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?

>> ^acidSpine:
Hey shiny, I know you like evangelasing so I have two simple questions for you that shouldn't take much time to answer. Here goes
1. What was the knowledge Adam and Eve supposedly gained by eating the forbidden fruit?
2. As human beings are we capable of judging god's moral character?
As a sweetener, if you answer both questions succinctly I will upvote this vid re-sifting it as it were (unless the recent downvote didn't remove a star point in which case I have nothing to offer)

"...but surely you're not just saying that the world economic woes that we're looking at at the moment are all down to a bank bonus, are you?"

What a moronic reaction. Either that or she's seeking a position with an American news organization.

rubber ducky, you're the one....

edited for shameful shameful grammar. woe is me

A Pyrrhic 'Victory'
By Thomas Sowell
8/10/2011

In Don Marquis' classic satirical book, "Archy and Mehitabel," Mehitabel the alley cat asks plaintively, "What have I done to deserve all these kittens?"

That seems to be the pained reaction of the Obama administration to the financial woes that led to the downgrading of America's credit rating, for the first time in history.

There are people who see no connection between what they have done and the consequences that follow. But Barack Obama is not likely to be one of them. He is a savvy politician who will undoubtedly be satisfied if enough voters fail to see a connection between what he has done and the consequences that followed.

To a remarkable extent, he has succeeded, with the help of his friends in the media and the Republicans' failure to articulate their case. Polls find more people blaming the Republicans for the financial crisis than are blaming the President.

Why was there a financial crisis in the first place? Because of runaway spending that sent the national debt up against the legal limit. But when all the big spending bills were being rushed through Congress, the Democrats had such an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress that nothing the Republicans could do made the slightest difference.

Yet polls show that many people today are blaming the Republicans for the country's financial problems. But, by the time Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, and thus became involved in negotiations over raising the national debt ceiling, the spending which caused that crisis in the first place had already been done -- and done by Democrats.

Had the Republicans gone along with President Obama's original request for a "clean" bill -- one simply raising the debt ceiling without any provisions about controlling federal spending -- would that have spared the country the embarrassment of having its government bonds downgraded by Standard & Poor's credit-rating agency?

To believe that would be to believe that it was the debt ceiling, rather than the runaway spending, that made Standard & Poor's think that we were no longer as good a credit risk for buyers of U.S. government bonds. In other words, to believe that is to believe that a Congressional blank check for continued record spending would have made Standard & Poor's think that we were a better credit risk.

If that is true, then why is Standard & Poor's still warning that it might have to downgrade America's credit rating yet again? Is that because of the national debt ceiling or because of the likelihood of continued runaway spending?

The national debt ceiling is just one of the many false assurances that the government gives the voting public. The national debt ceiling has never actually stopped the spending that causes the national debt to rise to the point where it is getting near that ceiling. The ceiling simply gets raised when that happens.

Just a week before the budget deal was made at the eleventh hour, it looked like the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives had scored a victory by getting the President and the Congressional Democrats to give up the idea of raising the tax rates -- and to cut spending instead. But now that the details are coming out, that "victory" looks very temporary, if not illusory.

The price of getting that deal has been having the Republicans agree to sitting on a special bipartisan Congressional committee that will either come to an agreement on spending cuts before Thanksgiving or have the budgets of both the Defense Department and Medicare cut drastically.

Since neither side can afford to be blamed for a disaster like that, this virtually guarantees that the Republicans will have to either go along with whatever new spending and taxing that the Democrats demand or risk losing the 2012 election by sharing the blame for another financial disaster.

In short, the Republicans have now been maneuvered into being held responsible for the spending orgy that Democrats alone had the votes to create. Republicans have been had -- and so has the country. The recent, short-lived budget deal turns out to be not even a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans. It has the earmarks of a Pyrrhic defeat.

>> ^Januari:

When it comes to Ron Paul what always really turns me off is the idea that regulation is the cause of all our woes... and that the free market cures all.
For everything i love to hear him say... ending wars... foreign occupations... basses overseas... etc... there is something that just makes me go... Yikes... really?...


Think about it this way. If he was elected, he'd have the executive power to end all the wars. He'd have a hard time affecting the market in any profound way. To me it's about priorities. And I think cutting defense spending is the most important step in the right direction.

I doubt VERY much that is what 'they' believe... but then they are your friends. I'm really ok with his personal believe in marriage being between a man and a woman because i believe he makes it fairly clear that it's simply his personal belief... I have a hard time seeing him doing anything to preventing Gay or Lesbian couples from marrying or obtaining a civil union.

When it comes to Ron Paul what always really turns me off is the idea that regulation is the cause of all our woes... and that the free market cures all.

For everything i love to hear him say... ending wars... foreign occupations... basses overseas... etc... there is something that just makes me go... Yikes... really?...

@gorillaman

Yes. We get it. You're a misanthrope. Woe is the planet for all the stupidity of humanity.

Now back to the main point.

Maternity leave was implemented to ensure that the offspring of workers are healthy and happy.

You know, time and money spent now to ensure the next generation isn't dumber and poorer than the previous.

But you wouldn't understand that concept or give a damn since you're too busy wankin' your angsty misanthropic hipster boner.

Maybe you can help humanity out with the whole "babies are dumb and useless" thing if you..

went back in time and gave your mother an abortion. =]