Uh huh, the have's sharing their wealth with the have nots (ie. charity, something strongly encouraged by one Mr. Jesus Christ) is a sure sign of the end times.

Ya know, I don't particularly believe in much of anything but I'm going to laugh my ass off if Christianity is right because I get the very strong feeling that "our Lord and Saviour" is going to be a tad pissy with these morons who use his name to justify their bigotry and fear.

Roll on the rapture imo.

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

Yes, I would love Jesus to come back and smite all these bozos.

Too many people are Christian but are not Christ like.

Except when he starts talking about prophecy, he actually seems quite lucid.

Magic is real.

What a load of steaming hot crap.

People have been predicting "end times" forever and more specifically, this has been a christian tradition from the beginning. Hell, people at the time of christ thought the end was just around the corner.

Oh and tell that Jerry Jenkins guy to shut the fuck up - can't get a word in edgewise!

>> ^ObsidianStorm:
What a load of steaming hot crap.
People have been predicting "end times" forever and more specifically, this has been a christian tradition from the beginning. Hell, people at the time of christ thought the end was just around the corner.
Oh and tell that Jerry Jenkins guy to shut the fuck up - can't get a word in edgewise!


I don't think it is a Christian tradition, I think this is a more general phenomenon, it is just that the instances where this happens while Christianity is involved are more noticeable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_times#non_Abrahamic_traditions

It is that need of some people to feel that the times they live are historically important, so they grab onto whatever bullshit gives them an easy anwser. Of course, this just shows how ignorant they are of history.

Mauz15 -

Agreed.

Anyone pining for the end of the world is, in my opinion, mentally ill, and as such shouldn't be given any respect in a rational society.

Luckily for them the US is far from a rational society.

Ha, "people are looking for answers because the world is in a state of change."
WOW, that's a first, I had no clue the world was changing !

and as far as Ms.. Maddow's comment: "none of us have the right to judge anybody elses religious beliefs"
my retort: BULLSHIT lady. when those crazy ass fundies are try to dictate U.S. policy and influence laws based upon what they read in their bibles then people need to challenge those beliefs and judge that religion based upon the merits of reason.

This video perfectly demonstrates my problem with Ms. Maddow. In her opening on the subject she says, with much scorn:

"Global warming doesn't exist. The media is full of liberals! Someboday wants to take away you guns. And, of course, the refrain of the moment... Obama is a socialist!"

As if reading those statements aloud in a mocking tone of voice will somehow make them either more or less true than they were previously? She provides zero backup for 95% of her disparaging opinions. She also seems to automatically correlate, the word 'socialist' with 'communist'. (This really bothers me.)

And it's not that I don't agree with some of the stuff she says either! Perhaps she really has good reasons for feeling the way she does, but she does a terrible job of communicating her reasoning to others. As it is, I can't tell if she just likes to hear herself talk, or if she really has a point there.





...on the other hand, maybe she's just a blithering idiot. It's so hard to tell these days.

Although, I do have one nice thing to say about her:

She's not a horrible cunt during interviews. That puts her a big step up from many of her medai counterparts. (i.e. Bill O'Reilly...)

>> ^Asmo:
Uh huh, the have's sharing their wealth with the have nots (ie. charity, something strongly encouraged by one Mr. Jesus Christ) is a sure sign of the end times.

For the record, the guy's not slamming charity. He's slamming government taxes being used to help poor people. Social programs are not charity. Charity is a direct donation from an individual or organization to a charity group.

That said, my two rebuttal comments are that a Christian shouldn't object to those less fortunate being helped; and that if he's concerned about the country, he should understand that social programs strengthen countries by giving them a stronger, happier, healthier workforce. By his words I'm not sure what he could mean by "the country" other than the rich and the GNP, but both are helped significantly by social programs. Rich individuals pay higher taxes now so that rich people in the future can get even stinking richer because there's that many more healthy educated workers.

I hope Obama DOES lead us to socialism! I'll take the health care system of Canada, the penal system of Finland, the worker's rights of France, the roads and rails of Germany and the elder care system of Sweden.

>> ^StukaFox:
I hope Obama DOES lead us to socialism! I'll take the health care system of Canada, the penal system of Finland, the worker's rights of France, the roads and rails of Germany and the elder care system of Sweden.


We wouldn't need any of that stuff if this country wasn't full of so many lazy people busting their ass to make enough to survive on, while they're CEO's spend 11 months on vacation only going in occasionally to deny pay raises and pick up their bonus checks.

>> ^StukaFox:
I hope Obama DOES lead us to socialism! I'll take the health care system of Canada, the penal system of Finland, the worker's rights of France, the roads and rails of Germany and the elder care system of Sweden.


Unfortunately, you wouldn't get any of that as a military coup would happen long before.

^ Because the military certainly wouldn't stand for government provided health care. Wait... what? It's one of the most touted benefits of service?

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/healthcare/Military_Health_Medical_Care.htm
"Military Health & Medical Care. Consistently voted the number one benefit concern among military members."

>> ^Payback:
>> ^StukaFox:
Unfortunately, you wouldn't get any of that as a military coup would happen long before.


And why would that be?

>> ^rougy:
>> ^Payback:
>> ^StukaFox:
Unfortunately, you wouldn't get any of that as a military coup would happen long before.

And why would that be?


Indeed, they let the place get pretty far towards fascism an never once threatened to step in .

1: I love how all these christians have taken 'rapture' as strait out Jesus' mouth when it's just taken from a writing of FICTION in the last century. It's just so funny that all these people think this is going to happen when clearly it never will.

2: Once again I'd like to point these guys to any book (non-fiction) on the dark ages. Go ahead and read that and if you still think we are nearing the 'end times' now, your strait up either lying to yourself or a sensationalist. Because if Armageddon wasn't happening in the dark ages it certainly as fuck isn't taking place today!

3: I cant believe how ape shit crazy the 'religious right' and conservatives are going after just a TWO MONTHS out of power. If they keep going this way and just getting more and more hardcore while they war with one another over either sticking as hardcore conservative as they can get or changing with the times and making one of the two black guys the leader of the party, with a 'you da man!' to back it up.... they won't see another republican president for 20 years.

It really is funny to see this huge battle between the republicans and the conservatives going on. That and the whole last 8 years seemingly never existed. The debt, thats all Obama. The ecconomy, a mess directly caused by Obama, and lets not forget Obama is either 1: the antichrist or 2: Hitler's extended twin.

It's just to funny.


Edit (again): I somewhat agree that nobody has the right to judge peoples religions. I think nobody should judge anyone's personal beliefs (unless they are causing undo harm to others of course.) However it is our RESPONSIBILITY to judge religions as a whole and popular religious belief.

I am so glad the world as a whole is slowly waking up to realize the harm this world has endured I in the name of religion. It just isn't happening fast enough.

>> ^soulmonarch:
She also seems to automatically correlate, the word 'socialist' with 'communist'. (This really bothers me.)

You really would be surprised just how many people do the same. Socialism is such a dirty word in this country that many people not only don't know what it even means, but basically think it = communism.

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but obviously the conservatives just see communism as the opposite of capitalism, with socialism about halfway between.

http://www.conservative-resources.com/capitalism-vs-socialism-vs-communism.html

I know what socialism means and I don't like it! Our founding fathers designed our government to be a republic. Do you know what that means? It means the rule of law. Government is inherently evil, if not now, it will be. Government must be limited and kept within boundaries, or else the liberties of the people will be infringed upon. The problem that this country has is that our laws are not being enforced. What ever the government does, it should ask if the Constitution allows this. I don't want a nanny state, I can take care of myself just fine. But, it looks like I will also be taking care of the lazy and undeserving.

>> ^adambomb42x:
I know what socialism means and I don't like it! Our founding fathers designed our government to be a republic. Do you know what the means? It means the rule of law. Government is inherently evil, if not now, it will be. Government must be limited and kept within boundaries, or else the liberties of the people will be infringed upon. The problem that this country has is that our laws are not being enforced. What ever the government does, it should ask if the Constitution allows this. I don't want a nanny state, I can take care of myself just fine. But, it looks like I will also be taking care of the lazy and undeserving.


Wow. Where do we start?

Do you really know what socialism is? Or do you think you do based on what the right wing bobble-heads say about it? Because, those of us that really do know what socialism is, are not afraid of it, and are working diligently to push this country towards it.

Also, a republic is a system of government, wherein the populace exerts its power on the government via elected representatives. It's because of this that we can choose representatives that will lead us toward a socialist state, if that is the will of the majority, which it seems to be given recent election results.

Government isn't inherently evil, it isn't inherently good either. It is what we make of it, we choose the people that make up our government. Maybe we should be choosing a better class of people to represent us. Don't like your choices? There's nothing stopping you from running for office. I can't guarantee that you'll get elected, but you can still run.

There's nothing in the constitution that says that the government can't tax the citizenry to pay for anything and everything it wants. Point of fact, it would be completely constitutional for the Congress to impose a 100% tax on all earnings, and then turn around and disburse that money to everyone as they see fit.

As for your final two sentences, it never fails to amaze me when people show such selfishness. Where you see "individual responsibility", we see uncaring people. You see socialism as a way for you to have to take care of "lazy and undeserving", we see it as a means to improve the quality of life for everyone. If you look at the costs of living in socialist countries, it's well below the cost for the average American. Yeah they have higher taxes, but we pay a larger share of our incomes to health care, and utility companies than they ever do. And yes, there will be some people that abuse a socialist state, but those same people already abuse our current system, so why fear a better system?

Socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Republic is a latin word, Res Publica literally means public issue, and the public issue is referring to the law. So a Republic is the rule of law.

I have many other points to make, but this is not the proper place. I invite any who wish to discuss politics to join me at http://www.voicingopinions.com/forum/ .

I think you'll find this guy falls under the term

"Religious Fanatical"

Just because it's based on Christianity doesn't make it any different from the radical hate mongering that happen in an Islamic madras.

This guy is effectively preaching religious based hate and terrorism against his own country and leadership.

"Nobody has the right to judge another person's religious beliefs."

YES I DO.

I have to disagree with Rachel on one point:
We do have the right to judge other people's beliefs. We just don't have the right to persecute people for their beliefs. We have an intellectual duty to think critically about every idea.

It's all a question of freedom vs equality. Absolute freedom is anarchy and mob-rule. Absolute equality is communism/totalitarianism. I'm not a fan of either extreme. I think the only reasonable place to stand firm is leaning toward freedom, with compassionate exceptions. For example, an individual's freedom ends where another's freedom begins (i.e. no slavery). Most people can agree up to this point.

Socialism tends to focus on lifting up the lowly at the expense of the rich. Welfare is the most obvious example, but there are many others (public schools, universal healthcare, regulated utilities, subsidized industries, to name a few).

The question is where you feel the proper balance is. Just keep in mind that the more "freedom" you demand, the more people will suffer for it. Your desire to be free of taxes means fewer services. Fewer services means more people with no access to the necessities of living.

I definitely have some libertarian tendencies, but I remind myself frequently that in a libertarian society, there will be people starving to death on the streets. Many others will die because they can't afford medicine. And many, many more people will be illiterate and good for nothing more than manual labor.

I'm not willing to accept that kind of callousness in myself. Though I would love to see a smaller, more efficient government, I will not allow it to be slashed at the expense of the unfortunate.

I believe that the proper amount of government should only ensure that the personal liberties of the individual are not infringed upon.

I find it unsettling that many people think that government is the only one who can help people in a rough time. This is not true at all, their are many charities that are far more efficient than government bodies. And for those who think that I am not compassionate or "selfish", I contribute money to charities of my choice. Statics have shown that conservatives contribute on average 30% more that liberals. I fully understand that people hit hard time, because I have gone through my hard times and needed help. I did not turn to the government, but rather looked to family and friends.

The problem that I see with government filling this role is that people become dependent on the government and many will abuse the system. Is it fair for people to sit at home living off of government handouts while being fully capable of providing for themselves? The answer that I come to is no, it is not fair. I work very hard and money that I am compensated should be mine, because I have earned it.

Max, I disagree with a couple of thing that you have stated. I do not believe mob-rule is absolute freedom. If the mob decides to infringe upon an individual freedom, them who is to stop them? I also do not believe that a libertarian society would have people starving in the streets. Their would be more incentive for people to be self sufficient and charities would still exist because people would still hold compassion.

Another point that I would like to make is a government who provides basic necessities can also take them away.

Again, I invite all who wish to further debate to join me at http://www.voicingopinions.com/forum

I will never understand that "people will abuse the system" argument. Of course they will. There are people who abuse any system. Currently, we have people who are taking untold millions of dollars from the government and pocketing it. I'm a little less concerned about people who manage to game the welfare system. Ultimately, that is about writing the laws intelligently and enforcing them, not the system itself.

I do not believe that government should be the only resource for people to fall back on. Firstly, people should get help from their family and friends. Secondly, charity organizations might be of assistance. But as a last resort, government is the only organization that can make sure nobody slips through the cracks. It's not working very effectively right now, but it has that potential. That can't be done by a charity. If there is a charity that provides food, shelter, health care and job training to everybody nationwide, please let me know because I would like to support them.

>> ^adambomb42x:
I do not believe mob-rule is absolute freedom. If the mob decides to infringe upon an individual freedom, them who is to stop them?

That's kinda my point. Absolute freedom means there is no police to stop you or others from doing whatever you want. If someone wants to take something from you, you would have to defend yourself. If a group wants to take something from you, you would have to form a group for defense. At that point, whoever forms the strongest group would be able to do whatever they want to anybody else. There is no guarantee that the strongest group would be benevolent. That's called Ochlocracy, or mob-rule. That's why most libertarians still want some form of government, if only to maintain the peace and enforce contracts. Just be aware that is not "absolute freedom".

By the way, I looked at voicingopinions.com, and it's one of those message boards where the images in the signatures are ten times larger than the posts themselves. I wouldn't be caught dead on a message board like that.

Rachel should have blown their minds and invited a Navajo medicine man, a Zen Buddhist monk, and maybe a witch doctor from the South Seas to balance things out.

I can't believe people actually believe in all these rapture/anti-christ fables. Is this 2009 AD or BC?

>> ^soulmonarch:
This video perfectly demonstrates my problem with Ms. Maddow. In her opening on the subject she says, with much scorn:
"Global warming doesn't exist. The media is full of liberals! Someboday wants to take away you guns. And, of course, the refrain of the moment... Obama is a socialist!"
As if reading those statements aloud in a mocking tone of voice will somehow make them either more or less true than they were previously? She provides zero backup for 95% of her disparaging opinions. She also seems to automatically correlate, the word 'socialist' with 'communist'. (This really bothers me.)
And it's not that I don't agree with some of the stuff she says either! Perhaps she really has good reasons for feeling the way she does, but she does a terrible job of communicating her reasoning to others. As it is, I can't tell if she just likes to hear herself talk, or if she really has a point there.


...on the other hand, maybe she's just a blithering idiot. It's so hard to tell these days.


I think you're kind of missing the point. She's making fun of conservatives who confuse "socialist" and "communist" and freely throw them around interchangeably. She has a degree in Public Policy and a Doctorate in Political Science. I'm sure she knows the differences between Socialism and Communism, probably better than you. And they don't just hand out Rhodes Scholarships, ya know - she was the first openly gay Rhodes scholar.

There's no point in disputing the other ideas both you and she pointed out (global warming, gun rights, the liberal media myth) because her audience is smart enough to realize those arguments are ridiculous and legitimizing them with debate is beneath her and her audience, aside from being outside the scope of the topic at hand.

I started the first book in this series because I thought it might be interesting SciFi. It SUCKKKKKED!!!! Couldn't read through the second chapter. Promptly returned it to the library.