I'll make this fast, paragraph by paragraph:

Don't quote your fairy tales at me.

Baseless assertion.

Don't quote your fairy tales at me.

Sex isn't an idol. Sex happens to be one of the best things a human can experience. If it weren't we would die out. Otherwise, yes, I agree. If something feels like the right thing in my heart, then I do it.

I'm not a sinner. Your lot invented the concept either to claim superiority and power over others, or as a device to beat yourselves up with, and I simply don't accept your judgement. If God existed, then yes, I would have broken his laws many times. But he doesn't (see, that's my own assertion), so there's nothing to break. You certainly don't know better.

It's not nihilism. It's just nature. Nothing's more natural than that. I know what wrong sex is. I don't do that. I am well in control, or certainly more than Mr. O'Neal appeared to be. And why would I limit myself simply because it's enjoyable? I like bacon, beer, ice cream and riding my bicycle. They all give me extreme pleasure and no suffering. Should I stop doing them simply because they give me pleasure? That makes no sense. No more sense than giving up sex would, considering I don't accept your assertions about God, and so neither do I accept your judgement of me.

Don't quote your fairy tales at me.

Your religion is controlling your mind. I too am at rest in terms of my morality. As I've probably said to you in other threads, I'd love to know of some God-type thing, but just choosing to accept one religions's dogma isn't the way.

Any misery I have caused by violating God's laws are violations against my conscience as well -- things I knew deep down were wrong. Everything else I've done that is against God's laws has had no miserable consequences. Assertion. Assertion. Assertion...>> ^shinyblurry:

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death
That's your version of history, but it isn't the correct one. In the beginning, God made them male and female. I also understand that you're incapable of seeing sex except through the lens of your own gratification.
Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
You said it yourself, it's as close to God as you get in life; it's an idol for you. The law your idol gives you is the pleasure principle, and whatever seems right to you, that's what you do. You don't think you're doing anything wrong because it makes you feel good.
The very last thing anyone wants to hear is that they're guilty, especially when it involves something they enjoy. You don't like to think of yourself as a sinner, even though you have undoubtably broken Gods laws thousands of times. It's the front that people maintain, as if they are white as snow; how dare you accuse me! I know better; all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Your conscience is burdened by your secret sins, and Gods knows, even if you pretend they never happened. God will forgive you, if you repent and ask Him into your life. If not, you will answer for all of them at the judgement seat.
Your moral relativism is nothing more than nihilism. Man brought sin and evil into the world, and he knows that some things are absolutely wrong. Everyone understands this at an intrinsic level, but the reasoning is corrupted by carnality. The mind will do anything, believe anything, to justify its own sin. It will lash out, dismiss, reason away, mock or flatly try to destroy anything which sheds light on its misdeeds.
John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
I know what's going on in my own mind, and my mind is at rest. God gives me peace, and I am free. Do you control your thoughts or do your thoughts control you? You see religion as a crutch, and to some it is, by Jesus takes away crutches. Everything the world needs to get by, I can do without. All I need is Jesus, and He is my sufficiency. In that is hope, joy and love.
Sin always has consequences. Maybe you're not honest enough to admit to yourself the consequences sin has brought into your life, but I guarantee you, if you looked at everything in your life that you have done which is against the law of God, you will see quite a bit of misery that you could have avoided. You might even think it was worth it, but you don't see the flip side of it, of what you have lost that you never knew you had. God has a plan that is better than your plan, to give you a hope and prosper you, but you choose to do it your way, and you reap what you sow. You cannot see the pitfalls that are ahead of you. You have blinders on, because you love your sin more than the truth.

Proverbs 14:12

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death

That's your version of history, but it isn't the correct one. In the beginning, God made them male and female. I also understand that you're incapable of seeing sex except through the lens of your own gratification.

Romans 8:7

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

You said it yourself, it's as close to God as you get in life; it's an idol for you. The law your idol gives you is the pleasure principle, and whatever seems right to you, that's what you do. You don't think you're doing anything wrong because it makes you feel good.

The very last thing anyone wants to hear is that they're guilty, especially when it involves something they enjoy. You don't like to think of yourself as a sinner, even though you have undoubtably broken Gods laws thousands of times. It's the front that people maintain, as if they are white as snow; how dare you accuse me! I know better; all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Your conscience is burdened by your secret sins, and Gods knows, even if you pretend they never happened. God will forgive you, if you repent and ask Him into your life. If not, you will answer for all of them at the judgement seat.

Your moral relativism is nothing more than nihilism. Man brought sin and evil into the world, and he knows that some things are absolutely wrong. Everyone understands this at an intrinsic level, but the reasoning is corrupted by carnality. The mind will do anything, believe anything, to justify its own sin. It will lash out, dismiss, reason away, mock or flatly try to destroy anything which sheds light on its misdeeds.

John 3:19

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

I know what's going on in my own mind, and my mind is at rest. God gives me peace, and I am free. Do you control your thoughts or do your thoughts control you? You see religion as a crutch, and to some it is, by Jesus takes away crutches. Everything the world needs to get by, I can do without. All I need is Jesus, and He is my sufficiency. In that is hope, joy and love.

Sin always has consequences. Maybe you're not honest enough to admit to yourself the consequences sin has brought into your life, but I guarantee you, if you looked at everything in your life that you have done which is against the law of God, you will see quite a bit of misery that you could have avoided. You might even think it was worth it, but you don't see the flip side of it, of what you have lost that you never knew you had. God has a plan that is better than your plan, to give you a hope and prosper you, but you choose to do it your way, and you reap what you sow. You cannot see the pitfalls that are ahead of you. You have blinders on, because you love your sin more than the truth.


>> ^messenger:
You're wrong. Sex predates both marriage and religion. Sex wasn't designed by God (except in that if you believe in intelligent design, creatures evolved to be able to do it, and to enjoy it, which makes all kinds of sense, from that perspective). Picking and choosing things essentially at random from the world and putting them into categories of bad and good, and describing all the "good" things as things that God designed and intended, and things that are "bad" as things that Satan designed (sins) is naive and puerile.
Sex is absolutely wonderful, and when I'm having sex within the bounds of a solid committed relationship, there's pretty much no better feeling in the world. That's about as close to God as I get. But even sex outside a committed relationship is awesome and life-affirming too. If nobody told you there was something wrong with extramarital sex, it would never occur to you that it was bad (unlike rape and murder, which we instinctively know is wrong). Taking beautiful things and calling them sins, and calling people who do them sinners is wrong. That's something else my conscience tells me. It creates people who believe they are bad and that God is unhappy. Religion invented evil and sin, and probably with the best intentions. But just the same, without religion, there would be no concept of evil or sin, just social mores, people who do things that we don't like, or don't approve of. And sex is by far the strongest case I can think of because outside a religious framework, sex is just pure wonderful.
Your fourth paragraph nearly perfectly applies to you. I hardly have to change a word, just remove the sentence specifically referencing Christians: Religion is superstitious garbage. You put it in a mind, and garbage like your absolutist and arrogant judgements and views on morality come out. When you opened the door to religion (as you constantly encourage us to do), boy oh boy did it ever enter and create a stronghold in your mind. The enemy (I wouldn't use such strong terms) has conquered you and now exerts nearly complete control over your life. You're so close to the problem you can't even see that it's a problem. It takes someone further away from it (non-faithers) to let you know. You're welcome.>> ^shinyblurry:
This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.
Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.
I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.
Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.
You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.

At 0:46 I started being nervous for this guy. His landing was clearly very sketchy and he nearly lost it. You only get one mistake like that, and that time he got lucky that he recovered from the mistake. As has been said though, that will eventually catch up with you.

That said, absolutely incredible talent I just hope for his sake he learns from the scares he gives himself and keeps himself alive a long time to come.

you seem to be advocating a theocracy based on biblical principles to establish a religious based government.
the idea of something like that frightens me more than dealing with any single despot or tyrant and history has shown that theocratic rule is anything but righteous,fair or benevolent.
see:
dark ages.
the inquisition.
the crusades.
even as recent as ireland in the 70's and 80's.
when the church dominated the politics of europe,before the reformation,there was more :murder,rape,torture,oppression under an iron-fisted authoritarian rule than any despot could even HOPE to match.
all in the name of god.

I am advocating a theocratic kingdom, headed by Jesus as King, and nothing else. No government run by human beings is trustworthy. I prefer a capitalist democracy to a dictatorship any day. Unfortunately, that is where we are headed with the one world government.

freedom of religion is one the best and all encompassing tenants of american society because not only does it give you the RIGHT to worship how you choose but gives your neighbor the RIGHT to either worship under a different doctrine,or not at all.
the LAW is the great equalizer (and one of the things that is being corrupted and a main reason for OWS).

I agree, everyone should have a right to choose what they believe. That is a God given right, which the founders supported. We also have the right to deal with the consequences of those beliefs. I agree this is being corrupted in modern society (mostly because the moral framework provided by the bible is being pulled out from under us)

what about me?
you already know that i would considered an apostate to the christian church.
would you watch them burn me?
would you watch in horror as my flesh fell of me like melted ice cream and made yourself feel better by reminding yourself that it was gods will and if only i had accepted the "right" way to be a christian? why did i have to be so stubborn and not see god the way that you did.read the gospel the way you did? believe in the way you did?
would you watch?

Of course not. If they were murdering you, I would be the first one to jump in and try to save you from that madness. We are not judges of one another. Only God is the judge of our lives

and i have to say that i dont fully believe your sincerity when you say jesus would not choose sides,because you know full well that christ walked,talked and ministered to the underbelly of his society at the time.he broke bread with pagans,oracles,the diseased and unwanted.he railed with a savagery against the dominance of the church in his time,the aristocracy and the money makers.
he offered a hope and a freedom.a salvation from those who oppressed.
he pointed to the hill of those in power and told the disenfranchised "my father does NOT reside on that hill.you are NOT forsaken.it is THEY who pretend to hold the key that are lost...but YOU can be found.but not through them but rather through me".(paraphrasing of course).he was the way and the light.

I agree with everything you say here, and it is well put, but that was His first coming, where He came to live on Earth as one of us, and to ultimately suffer and die for our sins. On His second coming, He is returning with power and great glory as sovereign King over this world and as judge of the living and the dead. This is the equation He left us with:

Matthew 12:30

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

And this is the question on His mind:

Luke 18:8

I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of
Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

what makes jesus even more intriguing is that,contrary to a common misconception perpetrated by the church (of course).jesus came from an affluent family.
yes..he did.dont argue.
a carpenter now may be seen as common labor but back in jesus's day a carpenter was a craftsman.the ability to build things not only was held in high regard but was usually someone of affluence,wealth and influence.
how humbling is that?
jesus walked away from wealth,power and influence to bring truth to the poor,oppressed and enslaved and started a movement of his own 2000 yrs ago that slowly and totally underground became one of the most powerful messages even to this day.

I'm not sure about His material wealth, but Jesus certainly was rich..and it humbles me that he gave it up to take on the lowly status of a human being:

Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.”

Philippians 2:7-9 Jesus “made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name” that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the glory of God the Father

now of course over the years those who sought power and influence saw the potential of jesus's message and took it over,perverted it and sold it as somehow being divine. so not only do i think jesus would stand with those at OWS (and all over the world for that matter) i think he would rebuke the church as well.

I think He would rebuke both. However, this conspiracy theory of yours doesn't make any sense. If you think the bible has been altered since the 1st/2nd century, that isn't true. We have the early manuscipts and they all match up. If you're talking about the disciples, all but one were all martyred for the gospel. This is very good evidence for the facts of the gospel, because they certainly wouldn't all willingly die for something they knew to be a lie, especially when they could have recanted at any time. The gospels were also written in the memory of living witnesses. So, I'm not sure how you fit your conspiracy in there..because the early church is filled with martyrs who were direct witnesses and felt the evidence was good enough to die for.

The claims of Jesus are unequivocal..He said he was the Messiah who was from Heaven, Gods very Son, and that He was there to take away the worlds sin, and after His resurrection, to take a position at the right hand of power..and to return as King and judge over the whole world. You can't really get great teacher or hero for social justice out of any of that. He was all of those things, but foremost He is Gods Son.

oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

Anytime bro. It's always enjoyable to engage with you. And it *will* happen, so you need to be ready for it..the signs are all there, especially with the reformation of Israel in 1948.


>> ^enoch:
@shinyblurry
BR>
oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

@shinyblurry
thank you for your response..though in bullet form (blech).
i still find your premise a bit flawed but at least now i have a much clearer understanding where you are coming from,which is the nugget is was searching for.

the debate/discussion concerning politics can be boiled down to one simple question:what should we do as a society?
thats it.
i could go in to much further detail but that would make a comment in to a small novel and i am much more interested in your concluding statements.

you seem to be advocating a theocracy based on biblical principles to establish a religious based government.
the idea of something like that frightens me more than dealing with any single despot or tyrant and history has shown that theocratic rule is anything but righteous,fair or benevolent.
see:
dark ages.
the inquisition.
the crusades.
even as recent as ireland in the 70's and 80's.
when the church dominated the politics of europe,before the reformation,there was more :murder,rape,torture,oppression under an iron-fisted authoritarian rule than any despot could even HOPE to match.
all in the name of god.

freedom of religion is one the best and all encompassing tenants of american society because not only does it give you the RIGHT to worship how you choose but gives your neighbor the RIGHT to either worship under a different doctrine,or not at all.
the LAW is the great equalizer (and one of the things that is being corrupted and a main reason for OWS).

but you propose a theocratic government.
ok.
lets think about that for a moment shall we?
what about the hindus? or buddhist?
are they allowed to worship and pray as is their custom?
or will their be forced chrsitian worship and force them to behave one way in public and worship in secret and private under fear of...what?
what would be the government sanctioned punishment for not adhereing to christian dogma?
death? prison?banishment?
would you REALLY support the criminalization of differing religious beliefs?
is the irony lost on you that early christians had to do hide and skulk in fear of reprisal,even death,for even having the gospel in their midst?worshipping in dark caves in the middle of the night.

and what about catholics?
people banter about the word "christian" as some kind of badge of honor but what about differing theologies?
what if those "christians" are not the right kind of "christian"?
do we segregate the right kind from the 'wrong"?
or are those "wrong" christians just ostracized like a social stigma and we give birth to a new kind of racism.one not based on skin color but rather religious theosophy.

what about me?
you already know that i would considered an apostate to the christian church.
would you watch them burn me?
would you watch in horror as my flesh fell of me like melted ice cream and made yourself feel better by reminding yourself that it was gods will and if only i had accepted the "right" way to be a christian? why did i have to be so stubborn and not see god the way that you did.read the gospel the way you did? believe in the way you did?
would you watch?

and i have to say that i dont fully believe your sincerity when you say jesus would not choose sides,because you know full well that christ walked,talked and ministered to the underbelly of his society at the time.he broke bread with pagans,oracles,the diseased and unwanted.he railed with a savagery against the dominance of the church in his time,the aristocracy and the money makers.
he offered a hope and a freedom.a salvation from those who oppressed.
he pointed to the hill of those in power and told the disenfranchised "my father does NOT reside on that hill.you are NOT forsaken.it is THEY who pretend to hold the key that are lost...but YOU can be found.but not through them but rather through me".(paraphrasing of course).
he was the way and the light.

what makes jesus even more intriguing is that,contrary to a common misconception perpetrated by the church (of course).jesus came from an affluent family.
yes..he did.dont argue.
a carpenter now may be seen as common labor but back in jesus's day a carpenter was a craftsman.the ability to build things not only was held in high regard but was usually someone of affluence,wealth and influence.
how humbling is that?
jesus walked away from wealth,power and influence to bring truth to the poor,oppressed and enslaved and started a movement of his own 2000 yrs ago that slowly and totally underground became one of the most powerful messages even to this day.

now of course over the years those who sought power and influence saw the potential of jesus's message and took it over,perverted it and sold it as somehow being divine.
so not only do i think jesus would stand with those at OWS (and all over the world for that matter) i think he would rebuke the church as well.

oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

As to the video itself, I think Penn may have poorly stated the part about the unification of Christians, but he's still on to something. The different sects used to be less cooperative than they are now. Just look at the mistrust of JFK during his election. Now, clearly it wasn't too strong or he'd have lost, but you don't see that sort of thing as much now. It's still there; just look at the statements about Mormons by other Christians during the last and current election cycles; but most of the churches stand more or less together now.

The thing I really disagree with in this video is the Hitchens quote; the part about this being the death throes of religion. If anything, I see a power surge in religion since 9/11. Yes, the critics are louder now than ever and they are growing in "power", if you will, but I think religion is growing in power just as much. The balance is not shifting, we just have lots of previously neutral people picking sides.

If anything, I feel we're well on our way to a new Crusade with a not-insignificant portion of US Christians calling for the extermination of Muslims and a small but not-insignificant portion of Muslims calling for the extermination of Americans.

Depending on how things pan out, I would not rule out a major religious war in the next 50-100 years. Depending on how that goes, it could destroy or embolden religion in the US. If it's a long, hard-fought war, I could see people becoming disillusioned. If, as I suspect, the United States of Christianity simply blot out the "heathen uprisings", then I could see this being taken as an affirmation of the faith.

>> ^packo:

>> ^marbles:
Let me get this straight. MoveOn.org, a lobby group for the Wall Street financed Obama administration that is funded by Wall Street billionaire and financial criminal George Soros, has a problem with political spending? That's rich, Ha.
Oh and the "tax the rich" plan MoveOn and other groups are trying to push are widely supported by Wall Street oligarchs. Why is that? Hmmm....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650
932556900.html
"Roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires."
It is the middle class – not Warren Buffett or Wall Street corporations – who will be most hurt by the very policies the "tax the rich" crowd are calling for.

did you actually read that article? the only thing you got right is the 90% of tax filers wouldn't be millionaires... if you think the 99% is made of people making 200k+ / yr... you are living in a world where pigs fly and Nickelback rocks
and to defend the 200k+/yr statement against the fact that anyone with half a brain knows that the 99% make an avg wage/salary FAR FAR lower than that, the article defends itself by saying these "200 thousandnaires" might only make this level of pay for a few years of their life... wow! how will they ever get by when a few thousand is obviously so much more large a number to them than people making millions
woops, i guess cold hearted conservatism kinda blinds one to the ironic nature of the difference someone making 30-50k/yr might figure a few thousand is proportionally
cry, cry for the 200 thousandnaires... because the American Dream no longer works as a carrot on a stick when dealing with millions... while you may not be able to become a millionaire, you might be able to still become a 200 thousandnaire... so you better not mess with them
the irony that most won't become a 200 thousandnaire is probably lost on you as well
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


Thanks for confirming what I've already said.

The "tax the rich" legislation is mostly a tax on the middle class and small business owners and NOT on millionaires and corporations.

By the way, it ignores the crux of the problem anyway. ie: Financial fraud and corruption.

>> ^marbles:

Let me get this straight. MoveOn.org, a lobby group for the Wall Street financed Obama administration that is funded by Wall Street billionaire and financial criminal George Soros, has a problem with political spending? That's rich, Ha.
Oh and the "tax the rich" plan MoveOn and other groups are trying to push are widely supported by Wall Street oligarchs. Why is that? Hmmm....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650
932556900.html
"Roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires."
It is the middle class – not Warren Buffett or Wall Street corporations – who will be most hurt by the very policies the "tax the rich" crowd are calling for.


did you actually read that article? the only thing you got right is the 90% of tax filers wouldn't be millionaires... if you think the 99% is made of people making 200k+ / yr... you are living in a world where pigs fly and Nickelback rocks

and to defend the 200k+/yr statement against the fact that anyone with half a brain knows that the 99% make an avg wage/salary FAR FAR lower than that, the article defends itself by saying these "200 thousandnaires" might only make this level of pay for a few years of their life... wow! how will they ever get by when a few thousand is obviously so much more large a number to them than people making millions

woops, i guess cold hearted conservatism kinda blinds one to the ironic nature of the difference someone making 30-50k/yr might figure a few thousand is proportionally

cry, cry for the 200 thousandnaires... because the American Dream no longer works as a carrot on a stick when dealing with millions... while you may not be able to become a millionaire, you might be able to still become a 200 thousandnaire... so you better not mess with them

the irony that most won't become a 200 thousandnaire is probably lost on you as well

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Thanks to this vote, Ohioan taxpayers are now BACK on the hook for 66 billion dollars in government union pensions. That's JUST the pensions, nothing else.

Times will be tough, but it will be tougher on those who choose to take advantage of the working class.

This is how the people who control the emotional state of left-wingers fool you.

"We're losing a hand, but that's OK, because the Rich Guy is losing an arm!"







>> ^jcf79:

You don't get this type of turnout with this type of a percentage voting "no" on an issue with a failure to understand simple text (sorry you couldn't understand it) And I'm not happy, by the way, if that makes you feel better. We won this fight, but I'm sure that Kucinich has plan B in effect to make the working class feel the hurt, however... Times will be tough, but it will be tougher on those who choose to take advantage of the working class. We know struggle, we know sacrifice, we are the 99% and we have shown that we can prevail.
>> ^quantumushroom:
I read the link. It explains NOTHING of what the amendment does or does not do.
I lost nothing, you're the one who got screwed; at least you're happy.
>> ^jcf79:
Dear Quantum Mushroom, as an Ohioan who votes and knew the issues fully going into the election, and who voted against SB5 aka issue 2 (Also, here's a link to the "tricky" wording of the bill. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2011/2-language.pdf I was glad I could take a few weeks to fully comprehend the wording, especially the part that read "A 'yes" vote means you approve of the law. A 'no' vote means you reject the law" I mean, what does "yes" and "no" reaaaallly mean here. Please, QM, if you could help straighten this out you'd be doing a great service to us all. Anyways...) I guess what I really want to say is.... Nyah nyah nyah We win, you lose. Pffffffffff.

You don't get this type of turnout with this type of a percentage voting "no" on an issue with a failure to understand simple text (sorry you couldn't understand it) And I'm not happy, by the way, if that makes you feel better. We won this fight, but I'm sure that Kucinich has plan B in effect to make the working class feel the hurt, however... Times will be tough, but it will be tougher on those who choose to take advantage of the working class. We know struggle, we know sacrifice, we are the 99% and we have shown that we can prevail.
>> ^quantumushroom:

I read the link. It explains NOTHING of what the amendment does or does not do.
I lost nothing, you're the one who got screwed; at least you're happy.
>> ^jcf79:
Dear Quantum Mushroom, as an Ohioan who votes and knew the issues fully going into the election, and who voted against SB5 aka issue 2 (Also, here's a link to the "tricky" wording of the bill. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2011/2-language.pdf I was glad I could take a few weeks to fully comprehend the wording, especially the part that read "A 'yes" vote means you approve of the law. A 'no' vote means you reject the law" I mean, what does "yes" and "no" reaaaallly mean here. Please, QM, if you could help straighten this out you'd be doing a great service to us all. Anyways...) I guess what I really want to say is.... Nyah nyah nyah We win, you lose. Pffffffffff.

I read the link. It explains NOTHING of what the amendment does or does not do.

I lost nothing, you're the one who got screwed; at least you're happy.

>> ^jcf79:

Dear Quantum Mushroom, as an Ohioan who votes and knew the issues fully going into the election, and who voted against SB5 aka issue 2 (Also, here's a link to the "tricky" wording of the bill. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2011/2-language.pdf I was glad I could take a few weeks to fully comprehend the wording, especially the part that read "A 'yes" vote means you approve of the law. A 'no' vote means you reject the law" I mean, what does "yes" and "no" reaaaallly mean here. Please, QM, if you could help straighten this out you'd be doing a great service to us all. Anyways...) I guess what I really want to say is.... Nyah nyah nyah We win, you lose. Pffffffffff.

@NetRunner

"I'm always puzzled when people respond to a misunderstanding this way. When someone misunderstands me, I generally consider that a failure on my part to make myself understood.

For some reason, some people who debate me seem to think failing to make themselves understood means they've scored some sort of victory over me."

^Assine bullshit. I was pretty damn clear about my POV. When I fail to convey my message, I look back and admit it every single time--unless the person I am debating is an obvious troll. But when I am clear I don't need to feel like I made the mistake.

What chaps my ass is that you considered me so damned inept as to totally fuck up the whole premise of a simple-to-understand movie (American History X.) In fact, I would have had to get the whole concept backwards entirely--a truly magnificent feat of stupidity!

And the worst part? You did it unintentionally, which only makes things worse, because if you had done it on purpose at least I could have considered you just trolling. But accidentally? You honestly believed me that retarded, that monolithically brain damaged. Perhaps I am wrong, but have I ever interpreted your comments in such a manner? That even apparent concepts are lost on you?

You may think it overreacting but that isn't your choice to make. It's mine.

I am no longer mad--and I do understand where you were coming from, but know where I was coming from too.

"1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs."

The point is there are a small group of people that have a large amount of welth and are using that wealth to control the political and legal system and have basicly hijacked the democracy. That is what the 99% ers are protesting.

until You remove control from people who have a compleat conflict of interest then you cannot address the core aspect of job creation.
If these protests have the desired effect , the knock on result would be that government and industry can rationally approach things in a way that might work and would in the end result in a better quality of life for more people and most likely more jobs.

"2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, "

They blame fox news because it is a media outlet owned by the small % of super rich people and a part of there method of using wealth to control the nation. fox news is also entirely disingenuous and presents its self as a news station and fair and balanced when in fact it solely exists to push the agenda of the very rich in society.

They blame republicans more so than democrats because republican policy benefits the super rich more so than the democrats policy , having said that I think most people don't even see this as a republican or democrats issue the fact is both governments are largely as bad as each other. Fact is if you have enough money you can simply lobby things into existence evan if they are a detriment to the society at large.

"3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan"

there game plan and what they want is ridiculously clear and simple they want wealth to be more evenly spread and for policy and laws to be made based on what is good for the majority of people in the country not a select few that happen to be super wealthy.

The reason why they are having to protest and kick up a fuss how they are is because democracy is so fundimentaly broken and tilted towards wealth deciding things that unless you are rich or in a high up cooperate position you cannot have any influence to gain traction.







>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Sorry but I don't think I missed your point. Also I am not playing ignorant. I didn't think those points needed recognition.
I recognize unemployment is at an all time high.
I recognize a large percentage of those are college graduates.
I believe everything you said. I pretty much agreed with your idea, sorry if I'm misinterpreting is that, jobs are hard to get these days even for college students and there is a definite issue with over qualifications.
I don't understand what I said that would induce a statement from you encouraging a response from me in the terms "You are right, and I was wrong". I re-read what I wrote and don't think that there was any blanket statement made, let alone one that has an extreme contradiction to what you said. So sorry if I'm a little lost. If you could quote the statement I made that you clearly disagree with I would be happy to discuss.
One of my points I feel like you may of missed, is that College is graduating more people in fields then there are jobs for that field. Which isn't helpful because people end up "throwing away" their degrees and getting jobs in other fields and now have to pay off student loans making it hard to get by.
I do recognize the issue with Entry Level Jobs. In programming I see job offerings all the time that say "Entry Level Position" then on it "2-4 years experience" I already have a job so I every time I see that I've started e-mailing those companies "2-4 Years expierience" !== "Entry Level" (!== means not equal, nerd joke).
Also their is a difference between Lying and omission from a Resume. I guess I shouldn't of used "Lie". My bad. Their is nothing wrong with not putting in PHD and rather just putting in BA. You don't have to put everything on a resume, I mean I've seen some with people with Dog Watching on their resume. A lot of job consultants will tell you not to make one generic and use it for everyone. Tweak it to what's important to the company you are applying for. Not lying.
My issue with this whole "99%":
1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs. These people don't have a game plan, they are just screaming. Wall Street guys are huge douche bags, but at the same time I still have money in the market and my portfolio is still doing well. It's growth has definitely slowed over the past few years but it is still more then 3 years ago. Mainly I diversified. All these people who lost all their money had all their eggs in one basket. Which there is a saying for that.
2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, and for a period Democrats held House and Senate and President. During these times They still blamed Fox News / Republicans for everything. Dems had all the power at a time and didn't do shit with it. I just want to know when they are going to start holding Obama accountable. Obama is a terrible president. The problem is when I say that people think I'm defending Bush or some crap. Fuck Bush. Fuck Obama. Give me another Option. I though Clinton did a fine job. So did Bush Sr.
3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan. If they had Action Items Examples "Fire This Person", "Pass This Bill", "something" I could possibly get behind their ideas and message. But they don't so I don't even know what they want. They just go "I don't like the economy and the job situation". Nobody does. Hell even Rich do, the higher employment is, the more money Ford, Chevy, Coca Cola, other big companies make. So they are not against jobs.
To quote Lewis Black "Republicans have Bad Ideas, Democrats have No Ideas".
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
I am slightly frustrated (annoyed) that you missed my point, given that I think I made it very clear.
Not everyone who is having trouble finding a job is undereducated, not willing to explore labor jobs, educated in something that is not useful, or self-entitled.
In fact, quite the opposite. Most people I know who are having trouble finding work are unemployed because they lack industry experience, which they can't get because no one is hiring entry level positions. Thus, your reductive and simplistic rant is an naive interpretation of the current economic situation. As such, your blanket statements about people who can't find a job are simply false.
I gave a specific example that demonstrated empirically (a concrete example of) my point. To reiterate (repeat), highly educated people are unable to obtain labor jobs due to their credentials, because companies like Safeway, Wholes Foods, Walmart, etc fear these employees will not stay long enough to recoup any investment in training.
The fact that you persist in clinging on to your beliefs and cant say simply "You are right, and I was wrong. Good point, I should not have made a blanket statement" indicates to me that you are willfully ignorant (intentionally making an effort to not understand).
I look forward to your reply.
Here are the specific answers to your questions:
1) I am an experimental physicist and my wife is a biologist.
2) At research universities (Harvard, Stanford, etc), Professors hired based on research. Typically they are pioneers in their field and have numerous high profile publications.
3) My position is based on merit. As I said, I received numerous awards based on my academic and research performance.
4 & 5) non sequiturs (off topic).
6) You advice is to LIE! What is she supposed to say she has done for employment in the last 6 years? Are you kidding me?
>> ^ptrcklgrs:
1) My first question is what is your PHD in.
2) College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.
3) IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit.
4) I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book... I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers.
5) I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.
6) I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.

Sorry but I don't think I missed your point. Also I am not playing ignorant. I didn't think those points needed recognition.

I recognize unemployment is at an all time high.
I recognize a large percentage of those are college graduates.
I believe everything you said. I pretty much agreed with your idea, sorry if I'm misinterpreting is that, jobs are hard to get these days even for college students and there is a definite issue with over qualifications.

I don't understand what I said that would induce a statement from you encouraging a response from me in the terms "You are right, and I was wrong". I re-read what I wrote and don't think that there was any blanket statement made, let alone one that has an extreme contradiction to what you said. So sorry if I'm a little lost. If you could quote the statement I made that you clearly disagree with I would be happy to discuss.

One of my points I feel like you may of missed, is that College is graduating more people in fields then there are jobs for that field. Which isn't helpful because people end up "throwing away" their degrees and getting jobs in other fields and now have to pay off student loans making it hard to get by.

I do recognize the issue with Entry Level Jobs. In programming I see job offerings all the time that say "Entry Level Position" then on it "2-4 years experience" I already have a job so I every time I see that I've started e-mailing those companies "2-4 Years expierience" !== "Entry Level" (!== means not equal, nerd joke).

Also their is a difference between Lying and omission from a Resume. I guess I shouldn't of used "Lie". My bad. Their is nothing wrong with not putting in PHD and rather just putting in BA. You don't have to put everything on a resume, I mean I've seen some with people with Dog Watching on their resume. A lot of job consultants will tell you not to make one generic and use it for everyone. Tweak it to what's important to the company you are applying for. Not lying.

My issue with this whole "99%":
1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs. These people don't have a game plan, they are just screaming. Wall Street guys are huge douche bags, but at the same time I still have money in the market and my portfolio is still doing well. It's growth has definitely slowed over the past few years but it is still more then 3 years ago. Mainly I diversified. All these people who lost all their money had all their eggs in one basket. Which there is a saying for that.
2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, and for a period Democrats held House and Senate and President. During these times They still blamed Fox News / Republicans for everything. Dems had all the power at a time and didn't do shit with it. I just want to know when they are going to start holding Obama accountable. Obama is a terrible president. The problem is when I say that people think I'm defending Bush or some crap. Fuck Bush. Fuck Obama. Give me another Option. I though Clinton did a fine job. So did Bush Sr.
3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan. If they had Action Items Examples "Fire This Person", "Pass This Bill", "something" I could possibly get behind their ideas and message. But they don't so I don't even know what they want. They just go "I don't like the economy and the job situation". Nobody does. Hell even Rich do, the higher employment is, the more money Ford, Chevy, Coca Cola, other big companies make. So they are not against jobs.

To quote Lewis Black "Republicans have Bad Ideas, Democrats have No Ideas".

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

I am slightly frustrated (annoyed) that you missed my point, given that I think I made it very clear.
Not everyone who is having trouble finding a job is undereducated, not willing to explore labor jobs, educated in something that is not useful, or self-entitled.
In fact, quite the opposite. Most people I know who are having trouble finding work are unemployed because they lack industry experience, which they can't get because no one is hiring entry level positions. Thus, your reductive and simplistic rant is an naive interpretation of the current economic situation. As such, your blanket statements about people who can't find a job are simply false.
I gave a specific example that demonstrated empirically (a concrete example of) my point. To reiterate (repeat), highly educated people are unable to obtain labor jobs due to their credentials, because companies like Safeway, Wholes Foods, Walmart, etc fear these employees will not stay long enough to recoup any investment in training.
The fact that you persist in clinging on to your beliefs and cant say simply "You are right, and I was wrong. Good point, I should not have made a blanket statement" indicates to me that you are willfully ignorant (intentionally making an effort to not understand).
I look forward to your reply.
Here are the specific answers to your questions:
1) I am an experimental physicist and my wife is a biologist.
2) At research universities (Harvard, Stanford, etc), Professors hired based on research. Typically they are pioneers in their field and have numerous high profile publications.
3) My position is based on merit. As I said, I received numerous awards based on my academic and research performance.
4 & 5) non sequiturs (off topic).
6) You advice is to LIE! What is she supposed to say she has done for employment in the last 6 years? Are you kidding me?
>> ^ptrcklgrs:
1) My first question is what is your PHD in.
2) College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.
3) IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit.
4) I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book... I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers.
5) I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.
6) I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.

>> ^Fade:

You could always ask structural engineers and architects.
http://videosift.com/video/9-11-Explosive-Evidence-Experts-Speak-Out But hey you must be a tinfoil hat wearing moron to get all them degrees.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^hint: Iran Contra was foiled with evidence.

Who needs evidence when we can ask our government what happen?

Or better yet, we could watch a bunch of videos made by disingenuous tin foil hat wearing mororns on the internet! That's the equivalent of science, right?



Someone made a really good point in the WTC 7 video the other day where they pointed out that just because they're scientists/experts doesn't mean they're immune to a good conspiracy. Surely it's not lost on you that you are taking their word for it and ignoring the "experts" who debunk it?