Sunday Open Thread

Haven’t had a true open thread for a while. So what’s on your mind? As for me, I am amazed at how Obama continues to escape responsibility for the anemic economy, persistent high unemployment, continued high gas prices, and a foreign policy that resulted in the death of an Ambassador.

Tell us what’s on your mind and please keep it civil.

Advertisements

140 thoughts on “Sunday Open Thread

  1. neocon01 February 17, 2013 / 12:36 pm

    Rep. Paul Broun: I was the first to call Obama a socialist
    The Hill ^ | Jonathan Easley

    Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) boasted in a fundraising letter that he was the first member of Congress to call President Obama a “socialist who embraces Marxist-Leninist policies,” according to text acquired by the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

    I wear it as a badge of honor when I’m accused of being a strict constitutionalist who doesn’t bend or break when it’s tempting to do so,” he wrote.

    • j6206 February 17, 2013 / 12:45 pm

      This is what’s wrong with the republicans now. Calling Barry a socialist was so effective in voting him out in 2012. This dope Broun is what helps the democrats hammer the republicans. By constructing this Socialist, Muslim, Kenyan, Usurper that 25% of the republican base believes is the actual president, taints the sane republicans with a broad brush as a not serious party.

      Keep doing this at your own peril.

      • Cluster February 17, 2013 / 12:51 pm

        J6206,

        What’s your favorite part of Obama’s governance? The high gas prices, the high unemployment, the record number of people on food stamps, disability and welfare, the record number of people out of the work force, the anemic GDP growth, the higher taxes, the debt that has nearly doubled, the trillion dollar deficits, or the cover ups?

      • neocon01 February 17, 2013 / 12:52 pm

        j1369

        Keep doing this at your own peril.

        LOLX1000,
        useful idiots voting for santa claus,& OPM, illegal criminals,racists on the plantation voting for the color on a mans skin….yup you sure must be proud of the God hating, baby murdering, sodomizing, bunch of wackos who pay no taxes yet suck off another mans labor. CPUSA = DNC.

        good luk wit dat!

      • neocon01 February 17, 2013 / 12:58 pm

        If bathouse barry had a son……….

        Disgusting Leftist Mark Lamont Hill Compares Cop Killer to a ‘Super Hero’
        Townhall.com ^ | February 17, 2013 | Doug Giles

        Nothing really stuns me anymore about the Left and their lunacy. That was until this week when soulless Columbia professor Mark Lamont Hill appeared on CNN and got giddy about cop killer Chris Dorner. Hill said Dorner’s murderous revenge spree was “exciting,” and was like Jamie Foxx’s character in Tarantino’s latest flick, D’jango Unchained.

        Hill doubled down on his stupidity during the same interview by stating Chris’ homicidal orgy was akin to the exploits of a “super hero.” I was speechless when I heard such vomit roll off that quack’s tongue.

        http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2013/02/17/disgusting-leftist-mark-lamont-hill-compares-cop-killer-to-a-super-hero-n1514149?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) February 17, 2013 / 1:06 pm

        Calling Barry a socialist was so effective in voting him out in 2012.

        “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” — George Orwell

    • 01canadianobserver February 18, 2013 / 2:49 pm

      neocon01
      February 17, 2013 at 12:36 pm #

      ———————————————————————————
      Neocon, any idea why the Israelis would want to bestow such an honor on a Socialist/Muslim/Commie President? I thought they detested the man as much as you do. What in blue blazes happened?

      http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/18/on-israel-trip-obama-to-get-medal/

      • neocon01 February 19, 2013 / 5:26 pm

        kanuckunobserver

        as I recall even hitler was presented with medals. NEXT?

      • 01canadianobserver February 19, 2013 / 10:58 pm

        neocon01
        February 19, 2013 at 5:26 pm #
        ————————————————————————–

        If Hitler did receive medals, neocon, I doubt that he was given them by members of the Jewish community. According to y’all, the President is considered to be an enemy of Israel and yet he will be receiving this honor from them. Don’t you find that rather strange?

    • neocon01 February 17, 2013 / 1:01 pm

      in his adopted hometown of Chicago to West Palm Beach, Florida, for the weekend getaway at the Floridian in Palm City

      ***** while his wife and daughters are on a ski vacation.*******

      Thanks SUCKERS!!!!

    • j6206 February 17, 2013 / 3:02 pm

      What I like about Barry’s presidency, to answer Cluster is as follows: averting a great depression, saving the american auto industry and the millions of jobs connected thereto, ending an irresponsible war of choice, killing OBL, passing a flawed but real health care act that will provide coverage to millions of uninsured, not kowtowing to our “greatest ally” Israel when their actions are not always aligned with ours, passing the Lilly Ledbetter Act for equal pay for equal work, ending torture as a US practice, passing a flawed but real financial regulation bill, ending don’t ask don’t tell, coming out against DOMA. I also like his willingness to try to work with a party who are acting like crazed banshees with no thought to country but to party base.

      Since I’m a liberal these are things i like and you will mostly not like. But, he campaigned twice on most of these things and has done them and won twice. America agrees with me more than they agree with you. Is he perfect, no. Has he done things I don’t like, sure. Do I wish there was no unemployment and gas was $0.35 a gallon yes.

      Do you agree with my previous statement that what Rep. Broun is harping on is not helpful to your side?

      • neocon01 February 17, 2013 / 3:14 pm

        rbp

        Do you agree with my previous statement that what Rep. Broun is harping on is not helpful to your side?

        the TRUTH is always helpful to “our side”

      • j6206 February 17, 2013 / 3:18 pm

        Also, Cluster the debt is a problem but it is a long term problem. This debt crisis business shouted by the likes of Paul Ryan et. al. is phony. They scream about it because they want to dismantle entitlement programs, that is their and appears your ideology. That is fine. But these are popular and effective programs that need to be changed to ensure their longevity, in my opinion and other more learned people than me.

        When Ryan talks about revenue and cuts when it comes to the debt then he and his ilk are serious, until then they can tell their story walking.

      • neocon01 February 17, 2013 / 3:34 pm

        brownpants

      • Amazona February 17, 2013 / 5:41 pm

        “….he debt is a problem but it is a long term problem…”

        Really? How “long” is your “long term”? How about till the interest rates go up and our debt service doubles? How many trillions are we supposed to pump into the economies of other nations in interest payments on the debt they own, instead of into our own economy, before it becomes our problem?

        “…averting a great depression..” Or having the Complicit Agenda Media go along with carefully avoiding defining our ongoing recession as a depression.

        “…saving the american auto industry and the millions of jobs connected thereto,…”

        One of the silliest of claims, as the auto industry was not “saved” by the actions of Obama, nor were those jobs. GM still went into the same bankruptcy we encouraged them to take, but only after its investors were stripped of their equity in the company and control was turned over the unions. The jobs were not lost in the bankruptcy and they would not have been lost if the company had declared bankruptcy before the feds got into it.

        “….ending an irresponsible war of choice, …”

        …by using exactly the strategy devised by his predecessor—–that is, by using the strategy he “INHERITED” from Bush.

        “…killing OBL..” though in fact he did not “kill OBL” but was Commander in Chief at the time the intelligence gathered through the efforts and policies of George W. Bush allowed us to find him. OBL was killed by Navy Seals, who were finally ordered in by the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, after much dithering and going back and forth between approving of the plan and then nixing it, depending on his latest spanking by Valerie Jarrett.

        And while the death of OBL has not significantly lowered the threat of attack by militant Muslims, Obama did put our covert operations at risk by revealing secret information, in an effort to pump up his image and gain glory for what other people did. You must be proud of this, too.

        “….passing a flawed but real health care act that will provide coverage to millions of uninsured…” and which is already adding to the number of uninsured as the cost of insurance and medical care rise thanks to this misbegotten bill, which was presented to Congress by the union which wrote it, passed by legislators who didn’t even read it, and which is still revealing defect after defect.

        “…ending torture as a US practice…” while hypocritically still allowing rendition, which just means the U.S. can pull a Pontius Pilate routine and wash our hands of the responsibility for what happens, sending prisoners off to nations where they might experience REAL torture instead of the relatively mild discomfort imposed by our own techniques, which are so benign our own interrogators volunteer to undergo them so they will have an understanding of what they are like.

        “…passing a flawed but real financial regulation bill,…” which has the effect of putting a tourniquet on the lifeblood of small business, which is available credit. To call it “flawed” is much like calling Hurricane Sandy a thunderstorm.

        “….ending don’t ask don’t tell,…” although this is a false statement as the bill did not just “end DODT” which would have made it illegal for homosexuals to serve in the military, but which was a whole new bill specifically making it legal. Not arguing the merits of the bill, just pointing out the foolish parroting of the careful misrepresentation fed to the lemmings about what the bill really was.

        “I also like his willingness to try to work with a party who are acting like crazed banshees with no thought to country but to party base.” This is the craziest of your litany of delusions and kool-aid chugging. If you define “willingness to work with a party” as being the same as telling that party it can attend meetings but will have to “sit in the back of the bus”, then you have a point.

        The Obama administration knows its base so it knows that as long as it has loud voices declaiming that it is “willing to work with” Republicans that sheeple base will ignore the slights, the insults, and the obdurate refusal of the Left to compromise on anything. You swallow what you are told and ignore what you see, like good little brain-dead foot soldiers.

  2. rustybrown2012 February 17, 2013 / 2:56 pm

    To Mark from the last thread,

    It’s probably more appropriate to address this here. Aquinas was indeed a brilliant man, but even he struggled with and never resolved the problem of theodicy – the problem of evil. Theodicy remains a bedrock argument against and omniscient, omnipotent god.

    • neocon01 February 17, 2013 / 3:13 pm

      rustybrownshorts

      Psalm 14:1-3 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God

    • Jeremiah February 17, 2013 / 4:03 pm

      To Rusty Brown 2012,

      A short excerpt from Augustine on cause and effect of evil in our world.

      “Greed, for example, is not something wrong with gold; the fault is in a man who perversely loves gold and for its sake abandons justice,

      8. Ps. 19, 12 (‘Who can detect his failings?)

      which ought to be put beyond comparison above gold. Lust is not something wrong in a beautiful and attractive body; the fault is in a soul which perversely delights in sensual pleasures, to the neglect of that self-control by which we are made fit for spiritual realities far more beautiful, with a loveliness that cannot fade. Boasting is not something wrong with the praise of men; the fault is in a soul which perversely loves the praise of others and cares nothing for the witness’ of conscience’. Pride is not something wrong in the one who loves power, or in the power itself; the fault is in the soul which perversely loves its own power, and has no thought for the justice of the Omnipotent. By the same token, anyone who perversely loves the goodness of any nature whatsoever, even if he obtains the enjoyment of it, becomes evil in the enjoyment of the good, and wretched in being deprived of a higher good.”

      (Source: City of God by Saint Augustine)

      So, as you can see, the presence of evil is not the absence of a Creator, but the creature is created with a free will of its own; and any evil that exists is only as a direct result of the choices made by the creature. Man chooses to be evil. Therefore there is evil.

      God will one day wipe out evil.

    • Amazona February 17, 2013 / 5:17 pm

      “Theodicy remains a bedrock argument against and omniscient, omnipotent god.”

      No it doesn’t. It baffles a few who seem to think that the purpose of God is to make everything hunky-dory peachy keen for everyone, and it frustrates the arrogant who seem to think they are owed an explanation for every single thing, and it makes a handy hook for the intolerant to hang their bigotries on. But a “bedrock argument” Hardly.

      It is not an issue for people who believe that our purpose in life is not just comfort and ease but redemption and salvation. Redemption and salvation are often found in the overcoming of obstacles.

      If a person is evil, he has failed the test. If we cannot respond to evil in a way that produces development of faith and character, we have failed the test. But it all comes back to free will.

      And many who believe in a Higher Power, in a God no matter what the name might be, also believe that we choose our lives and our fates to give us the opportunities to develop and grow and become better people.

      The demand that we know and understand everything is childish and not a part of faith.

      • rustybrown2012 February 17, 2013 / 6:28 pm

        Ama, stop with the straw men – there is no “demand that we know and understand everything”. Nobody “think(s) that the purpose of God is to make everything hunky-dory peachy keen for everyone”

        Theodicy however, IS a bedrock argument against an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god, no question. Erecting straw men will not change that. In light of the three commonly understood qualities of god mentioned above, explain to me why innocent infants are tortured and killed. There are untold millions who are and have been born into horrors we cannot comprehend. There are people who microwave their babies. Explain that to me.

      • Cluster February 17, 2013 / 6:40 pm

        FREE WILL Rusty. Pretty simple concept. Don’t know why you can’t wrap your mind around that one.

      • rustybrown2012 February 17, 2013 / 7:04 pm

        Cluster,
        Nope, free-will doesn’t cut it. For one thing, it’s not proven that we have free will. For another, even if you believe in the “fall of man” story, your still left with the specter of a supposedly all-good god willfully condemning untold millions of innocent children to the most horrible sufferings imaginable. Wrap your head around that.

      • Cluster February 17, 2013 / 7:41 pm

        It’s not proven that we have free will? You might want to think that one through.

        God doesn’t micro manage Rusty. Therefore he is not a liberal.

      • Jeremiah February 17, 2013 / 8:05 pm

        Rusty Brown,

        God did not condemn anyone.

        Jesus said, “It’s not my will that any should perish but that all would come to repentance.”

        God sent His Son Jesus Christ that man might turn from his sinful, wicked ways.

        Man chose, and continues to choose his destiny. The choices he makes have direct or indirect consequences upon the lives of others. Ultimately, however, it comes down to the individual consequence regarding his own soul.

        Just like death came through the first Adam, Life came through the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Through Jesus Christ we have restored fellowship to be one with our Creator. No more barriers. No more sacrifice of bulls and goats. We now surrender self (our old ways) to be like Christ.

        The young rich man asked Jesus, “Lord, what must I do to enter the kingdom of heaven?” And Jesus said to him, “Go shell everything you have and come follow me,” and the young rich man went away said. And Jesus turned to His disciples and said, “I tell you it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven.”

        So I would say to you Rusty, evil abounds in the world in many forms, and most if not all of these evil acts are demonically initiated acts of hatred. In old testament times, in the valley of Gehenna there were apostate Israelites who sacrificed their children to the god of Moloch. They threw their children alive into blazing furnaces whole and alive, and these were demons that they were sacrificing to. Therefore God brought judgment on them for their crime.

        So we clearly have choices to make, we can choose to believe and follow, or we can choose to continue in disobedience ( i,e. wicked deeds) and forfeit the many good promises that God has placed before us.

      • Norma Stitz February 17, 2013 / 8:10 pm

        I have to say the Mr. Brown brings up a very important point, one with which I struggle often. I’m not familiar with the term “theodicy” but I think it refers to the notion that a good and loving God could not permit some of the evils seen.

        It would seem clear to most that an act that kills 250,000 men, women and children must be evil. And that is exactly what happened in the great tsunami a few years back – on Christmas Day no less.

        While we may never know God’s design it seems beyond any discussion of design to have a quarter-million people killed for the sake of their geography.

        I do not know the answer to this but,as a very religious person in both word and deed, I do struggle with this concept. I would very much like to hear any reasonable thought to allay such doubt.

      • Cluster February 17, 2013 / 8:23 pm

        Norma, the Higher Power does not micro manage. And there is simply no possible way any of us know His plan, or our origin, and anyone who pretends to think otherwise is full of sh*t. Rusty being a good example of that.

      • Jeremiah February 17, 2013 / 8:42 pm

        Mrs. Norma Stitz,

        It’s because of sin. Because of Adam and Eve’s direct defiance of God’s command, and as retribution for that sin.

        Just like if we are doing something against the law, and the police catch us, we may tell them not to take us to jail, or say to the Judge we are sorry and ask for forgiveness, we still have to do the time, pay a fine, or whatever the punishment may be.

        All men are born with the Adamic nature, so was passed on to all of us through birth, so we all need salvation, in spite of the fact that we have to deal with the consequence of sin.

        To me, it seems more understandable to look at it this way….we have natural disasters, and these natural disasters are as a sign that the whole earth/creation groans for a release from man’s sinfulness, because the whole Creation was corrupted because of sin. Then we have intentional man induced traumatic evil.

        I think we all have a hard time with seeing bad things happen to people that are otherwise good-natured peaceable people. I know I have had the same feelings from time to time and ask the question “why did that have to happen to those innocent children at Sandy Hook elementary school?” “Why would God allow such a horrible thing?” But it always comes back to this….and something we must remember in order to have a complete understanding of this conundrum of sorts….

        Someone once asked Ravi Zaccharia, Ravi why do you believe the Bible? and he answered, “Do you know of a more compelling and life engaging story by which to anchor your soul? How wonderful it is to find the lines from the Author of Life to be able to understand what your life is all about.”

        And God’s Justice…remember this, “Judgment is different from wrath, wrath is God’s destruction against sin, judgment is God’s righteous discipline bringing redemption and restoration, God’s wrath destroys, but His judgements redeem.” (See: Sodom and Gomorrah).

        So, that kinda makes a little more sense of these things that we have a problem understanding sometimes.

      • Amazona February 17, 2013 / 10:24 pm

        Norma, I could not disagree with you more.

        Starting with your comment that “It would seem clear to most that an act that kills 250,000 men, women and children must be evil.”

        Evil? Hardly. Sad, tragic, distressing, but evil? Evil is the presence of malignance. A lightning strike that kills a golfer is not evil. A stroke or heart attack is not evil.

        We will die, all of us. So who is to say that one kind of death is normal, decent, and another is “evil” if it is not at the hands of a malignant human being? And even then it is not the death that is evil but the malignant person.

        I don’t understand how a person can claim to be “very religious” and at the same time assume the ability to determine that some manners of death are “evil” just because many die at the same time. Take any one of the people who died in the tsunami and have that person drown in the bathtub after a heart attack—would that be “evil”? Take a family of five out fishing that drowns when their boat springs a leak. “Evil”? A pilot misjudges his altitude and crashes his private plane into a mountain peak. Evil? What if he is a commercial pilot and the plane is carrying 264 people? Evil?

        “While we may never know God’s design it seems beyond any discussion of design to have a quarter-million people killed for the sake of their geography.”

        What an odd comment—-“…killed for the sake of their geography.”

        No, they died because it was their time to die. They were in a place struck by a natural disaster, just as are people caught in earthquakes, forest fires, etc. A man was killed in Washington a few years ago when Mount Saint Helens erupted—was the volcano evil? A woman stops to tie her shoe while her friend proceeds across the street, and the friend is hit by a car in the intersection. Is the car evil? The driver?

        My husband died very suddenly, within about 24 hours of appearing to be ill. Evil afoot? Of all the reactions I could have had, I chose to look at this event, which was very tragic for me, as a challenge to learn what I could from it—about myself, about our relationship, about life, about what is important. I believe that he had accomplished what he was sent here to accomplish, and just because I didn’t understand that, or like it, was irrelevant—then it was my job to learn what I could from being with him and then losing him.

        And it would have been the same if he had been hit by a car, or caught in the tsunami, or was a passenger on that plane.

        I just don’t understand why some people think they are owed explanations and excuses and justifications. That is not what faith is about.

      • Norma Stitz February 17, 2013 / 11:51 pm

        I’m surprised that some responders cannot fathom my questions and even call into question my self-description as being very religious.

        Cluster – stating that God does not micro-manage is counter to the very concept of having a personal relationship with Jesus and with God. If the divine has personal relationships with one of billions of people, that is the definition of micro-management. Jesus loves us all and cares about us all, regardless of how many of us there are.

        Jeremiah – saying sin of Man explains the deaths of the tsunami is much like Pat Robertson – who is an abomination of Christianity in my opinion – blaming sin for the deaths from hurricane Katrina. Surely among the quarter million who died in the tsunami was one – and likely many more than one – baby too young to have committed any sin.

        Amazona – I must say your dismissive answer was a disappointment. Perhaps you are surprised a so-called “very religious” person such as myself might question these things but, like I said, this question has troubled me for a long time. I have spoken to several priests, theology professors and a Cardinal and none of them felt my curiosity unfit for a religious person.

        The point wasn’t that death is evil. It is that, while indiscriminate death on a massive scale makes perfect sense scientifically, it is hard to fathom that a loving God that controls everything created such a result.

      • Cluster February 18, 2013 / 12:21 am

        Cluster – stating that God does not micro-manage is counter to the very concept of having a personal relationship with Jesus and with God. If the divine has personal relationships with one of billions of people, that is the definition of micro-management. Jesus loves us all and cares about us all, regardless of how many of us there are. – Norma

        Having a personal relationship with Jesus is our choice, hence free will. You can also choose not to have that relationship, and I will wager to say that He will not be present. Jesus will only be an influence in your life if you ask Him and allow Him, and follow Him.

        He also doesn’t micro manage nature. Being killed by “geography” is not evil and Amazona’s response to you was exactly what you deserved by asserting such a ridiculous notion.

      • Cluster February 18, 2013 / 12:25 am

        Norma,

        I also must that your notion that a loving God would not allow for natural disasters is a very childish notion, and I think your priests and spiritual advisors were simply being kind in saying that that concern was valid. Any rational adult realizes that we all die, and that the planet is a living organism with natural occurrences that can be fatal to other living organisms.

      • M. Noonan February 18, 2013 / 1:15 am

        Norma,

        There are no totally innocent human beings – with the exception of our Blessed Mother, who was conceived without sin, all of us are children of wrath. We all have Original Sin – we all need redemption.

        But that doesn’t even cover why a tsunami happens – we live in a Fallen world. It doesn’t work quite right. It is a world where death has been introduced, by us. So, yes, when a horrible natural disaster happens, it is due to our sins.

      • Norma Stitz February 18, 2013 / 2:26 am

        Cluster

        Sorry for the childishness of my questions but how is one to differentiate between a tsunami that kills 250,000 and a flood that covers the Earth for 40 days killing all but one family and a group of animals?

        I guess I’m not as smart as you and all the wise people I’ve discussed this with were just kindly to the feeble-minded. Silly me thinking those many long discussions and letters, discussions that went far deeper and more profoundly into the topic than the jello you regard as a response, were just meant to keep me at arms length.

        Thank you, Cluster, for straightening me out. Perhaps you should evangelize, such is your silver tongue and swift intellect. Christianity needs talent such as yours, perhaps somewhere that no one speaks English. Have you considered Antarctica?

      • pelirrojito February 18, 2013 / 2:56 am

        Just had to drop a commentin here since I always find this discussion interesting 😛

        I find the whole loving god thing interesting. The same arguments always seem to apply. “earthquakes arent evil” etc. Thats true, theyre not since they cannot think and thus cannot plan to do harm. But in a similar way, a bomb is not evil, but the person who plants it with the intention of killing is evil.

        Two problems I see with the idea of calling the christian god thing loving:

        1. He could have created perfect beings. Effectively we are in a simulation (the universe is a computer) and thus he could have created us as immortal beings, with a knowledge of right and wrong, and a strong desire to do no evil. Problem solved.

        2. Where exactly in the bible is god loving? I discussed this with someone who was telling me I should “just try believing in god” the other day. They said, as all christians do, that god is pure love blah blah. So I asked what about the genocide etc in the bible. Their response was that it didnt exist…..Honestly, I dont want to anger anyone here, but the christian god is not loving. He is cruel, and if he were human we would call him a psychopath.

      • Norma Stitz February 18, 2013 / 3:11 am

        Pelorojito

        God is loving throughout the New Testament. Look it up.

      • pelirrojito February 18, 2013 / 3:19 am

        I wouldn’t say he was “loving” in the new testament, his morality was revolutionary for the time though doesn’t come close to modern morality. And saying he was loving in 1 part is like saying “well hitler had did some good things”.

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 3:20 am

        Norma,
        I appreciate the thoughtfulness you bring to the table. Keep questioning, hopefully it will lead you to greater understanding. Your take on the meaning of theodicy is correct. What you seem to understand and grapple with, and what others on this blog seem to ignore, is the indictment of a god overseeing the unspeakable evil in our world. I don’t think ama, for example, is grasping the concept that while the tsunami was slaughtering countless innocent babies, her all-loving god was permitting it. You could very well argue that god was INITIATING it, since god is supposedly all-knowing, all-seeing, etc. According to the faithful, this is HIS world. This is HIS design. These are HIS intentions. Except when confronted with the unspeakable acts of violence against the innocent. Then, all of a sudden, it’s nature. Well, folks, god is nature. God is everything, remember? I still haven’t an answer for reconciling how a beneficent god can constuct a baby being boiled alive, because god constructed all, right?

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 3:32 am

        Norma,
        Your response to Cluster is dead-on:
        ” stating that God does not micro-manage is counter to the very concept of having a personal relationship with Jesus and with God. If the divine has personal relationships with one of billions of people, that is the definition of micro-management. Jesus loves us all and cares about us all, regardless of how many of us there are.”

        You’ve hit the bone of the philosophical argument here: if god is answering our prayers then he should certainly be obliged to alleviate the the suffering of innocent children.

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 3:54 am

        Ama@10:24,

        What is your understanding of your god’s role in this world? Do you pray? If so, I assume you expect your god to have some influence on this temporal plane. If so, how do you reconcile a disease that condemns an innocent child to a tortuous death? Nature? Shit happens? Remember, this isn’t after the fact, this is your all-powerful god DEEMING this to happen. How do you reconcile this?

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 4:00 am

        Mark,
        You said: “But that doesn’t even cover why a tsunami happens – we live in a Fallen world. It doesn’t work quite right. It is a world where death has been introduced, by us. So, yes, when a horrible natural disaster happens, it is due to our sins.”

        I find this to be a very sad and jaded description of our time on this planet.

      • Cluster February 18, 2013 / 10:07 am

        Norma, you have a soul mate in Rusty, congratulations. Both of you are knee deep in stupid.

        A personal relationship with God through Jesus must be sought after and earned. Many people including Rusty do not seek a relationship with God, therefore he does not have one and continues to think of himself larger than the Higher Power. Because of that, God has no influence in his life, nor does God seek an influence in Rusty’s life in my opinion.

        In regards to natural disasters, on this issue, I guess I am more scientific than Rusty. I believe that our planet is a living organism and that God allows all events to unfold naturally. Does he have the ability to protect those that seek after Him, of course, and that has been demonstrated many times. But Norma, you continue to over think it, and allow people like Rusty to urge you on.

      • Cluster February 18, 2013 / 10:14 am

        What is your understanding of your god’s role in this world? Do you pray? If so, I assume you expect your god to have some influence on this temporal plane. If so, how do you reconcile a disease that condemns an innocent child to a tortuous death? Nature? Shit happens? Remember, this isn’t after the fact, this is your all-powerful god DEEMING this to happen. How do you reconcile this? – Rusty

        Easy. God allows events to unfold naturally. The natural sin of man has disturbing consequences, but that doesn’t mean that that child’s soul will not be embraced by God. This life here on this planet is temporary by design and those who seek more joy or pleasure from the flesh, will never experience the pure joy of the spirit. Your words Rusty are from someone desperate to deny His existence, and that’s sad. Your mind is polluted.

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 1:20 pm

        It’s revealing that this discussion began with great umbrage to the notion that the faithful lack critical thinking skills, and here comes Cluster, dutifully calling people “stupid” for asking questions. I cant imagine a better example of ignorance and intolerance.

        Cluster, your shopworn “fall of man” myth is archaic and unconvincing. Your view of god as a neglectful, dispassionate creator begs the question. Remember, the faithful maintain HE created everything, cancer and leprosy alongside puppies and posies. The faithful maintain that everything is subject to HIS control, from tsunamis and genocide to rainbows and fluffy winter snows at daybreak. The faithful maintain that relatively insignificant prayers, like “make us victorious in this football game”, are often answered while prayers for mercy from tortured, maimed and dying innocents are ignored. To claim the creator made all of this, the good and the horrible, and then turns his back, occasionally peeking over his shoulder to help aunt Mable with her arthritis or little Johnny with his algebra test is ludicrous in the extreme.

      • Jeremiah February 18, 2013 / 1:28 pm

        Natural disasters have occurred since Adam transgressed the Law of God.

      • Norma Stitz February 18, 2013 / 1:42 pm

        I would like to start with an apology to Cluster and Amazona for the harsh things said in my last post. I was caught off-guard being called stupid and childish and I returned in kind. That was wrong regardless of the provocation, and I am sorry.

        But my question persists.

        Perhaps looking at it from the other side will shed light. Rather than looking at bad things happening to good people, how about the good things that happen to evil people?

        The standard-bearer for evil is usually considered Hitler. Hitler survived many assassination attempts that would have spared the world much misery. In the last attempt a bomb exploded next to him, killing and maiming most people in the room, but leaving Hitler practically uninjured. The reason is the bomb was placed on the wrong side of a steel table leg but the fact is the people sitting on either side of Hitler and those sitting directly opposite him died, and the person standing behind him was maimed and crippled. Hitler, by sheer luck, was standing in the only place in the room that was safe.

        While Hitler was not much of a believer in God, he felt his survival in that room was “Provenance” and that would seem reasonable. Had Hitler died, WWII would likely have ended two years earlier with massive savings of life and misery for all of Europe and the World. In fact, those two years were the most productive years of the Holocaust.

        My belief in a loving God and in Jesus is firm but I am at a complete loss to explain how such good fortune befell – on several occasions – the most evil person in modern history. I don’t think I will ever know the answer to this question, which has dogged theologians for millennia.

        I mean no offense by these questions but I do plead for civility in whatever comments you make in response..

      • Cluster February 18, 2013 / 2:55 pm

        Norma,

        No need to apologize, and I am sorry if I offended you, but I do take umbrage with people who feel the need to have an answer to everything in this regard, as the self appointed master of all knowledge Rusty does on a regular basis.

        In my opinion, there is no possible way our minds could even begin to comprehend the Creator. We do know through Jesus, that He is a merciful God, and those who seek after Him through the Teachings of Christ can lead spiritually fulfilled lives here and beyond. Other than that, I do not know why good things happen to bad people, or vice versa, and I don’t spend my time trying to figure out why. I simply take responsibility for my own actions and try and do my best everyday. To think that man has the knowledge to even begin to understand the origin or design of the universe and our existence is to have an unhealthy superiority complex.

      • neocon01 February 18, 2013 / 5:10 pm

        norma size

        Jeremiah – saying sin of Man explains the deaths of the tsunami is much like Pat Robertson – who is an abomination of Christianity in my opinion –

        so do you prefer wright? or faracan?

      • neocon01 February 18, 2013 / 6:00 pm

        norma seize

        ill bet this one/
        Farrakhan Claims God Sent Recent Winter Storm ‘Calamities’ to Punish His Critics — And Here’s His Bizarre Logic

        “When you plan against me, the plan is already against you and to prove it he’s going to increase the calamities shortly after you hear this message.”

      • neocon01 February 18, 2013 / 6:02 pm

        perryjello

        .Honestly, I dont want to anger anyone here, but the christian god is not loving. He is cruel, and if he were human we would call him a psychopath.

        so you prefer Satan?…..
        figures.

      • neocon01 February 18, 2013 / 6:03 pm

        perryjello

        OR that great fun loving god……allah-babba

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 7:03 pm

        Norma,
        Your post at 1:42 is a prime example of theodicy, the problem of evil existing alongside an all-powerful benevolent god. There are possibilities:

        1. God is not omnipotent
        2. God is not omniscient
        3. God is not all-good
        4. There is no god

        I think everyone here knows which one I choose. But theodicy is only one of many reasons for my atheism.

      • Jeremiah February 18, 2013 / 7:24 pm

        Norma Stitz,

        “Why does God allow good things to happen to bad people?”

        Matthew 5:45

        That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.’

      • Jeremiah February 18, 2013 / 7:30 pm

        Clarke’s notes–

        “He maketh his sun to rise on the evil – “There is nothing greater than to imitate God in doing good to our enemies. All the creatures of God pronounce the sentence of condemnation on the revengeful: and this sentence is written by the rays of the sun, and with the drops of rain, and indeed by all the natural good things, the use of which God freely gives to his enemies.” If God had not loved us while we were his enemies, we could never have become his children: and we shall cease to be such, as soon as we cease to imitate him.”

      • Amazona February 18, 2013 / 7:58 pm

        rusty, you exhibit another example of your primitive thought processes when you say:

        “Your post at 1:42 is a prime example of theodicy, the problem of evil existing alongside an all-powerful benevolent god. There are possibilities:

        1. God is not omnipotent
        2. God is not omniscient
        3. God is not all-good
        4. There is no god

        What utter nonsense.

        The most obvious answer is that the human determination that something is “evil” is mistaken.

        Step away from Christianity for a moment, as it seems to get your panties in quite a twist. Look at some of the other religious philosophies in the world.

        What about the belief that are born again, given multiple chances to refine our souls and learn the lessons we need to learn to move onto a higher plane of existence? According to this belief, which exists in one form or another in many religions, when we are on the spiritual plane between earthly lives we CHOOSE the earthly life that will give us the best opportunity to learn what we need to know—-or we CHOOSE a life which will give that opportunity to those around us.

        In this belief system, the soul of the suffering child chose this life, because the souls that now surround it need to learn from the experience. It is not punishment, it is not “evil”, it is opportunity.

        That can be applied to Christianity, as well. Maybe not the many lives theory, but the opportunity for spiritual growth. Christianity, for example, is based upon the concept of sacrifice of oneself for the salvation of others. In the cosmic scheme of things, our life spans are so miniscule that they are only the tiniest of blips on the spectrum of existence, so the suffering of someone is fleeting when applied to that scale, yet it offers abundant opportunity for spiritual growth and learning for everyone around the suffering person, who is himself purified by the experience.

        But once we become trapped in the delusion that our own primitive explanations for things we cannot understand are actually accurate, we can’t get beyond those limitations. WE call it “evil”. WE see it as punishment. WE see it as a defect in God. And then we work on the assumptions that our perceptions are true. Being the ego-dominated creatures we are, we rail against the unknowable for what we do not understand, instead of against ourselves for lacking the ability to understand.

        When I read these protestations that define things and events as EVIL I am reminded of the South Seas islands where the natives built primitive replicas of the airplanes they saw during WW II, to attract these perceived deities back to the island. I think our efforts to understand the mysteries of the divine are no more accurate than the understandings of these islanders of what they experienced, or why.

      • Norma Stitz February 18, 2013 / 8:25 pm

        Rusty

        I appreciate your response but surely you recognize there are other possibilities:

        1. Evil may be required within God’s plan, perhaps to keep the Universe in balance

        2. Our understanding of God, and of good and evil, is not complete

        3. God does NOT micromanage, as Cluster said, which would have the unfortunate affect of negating the power of prayer to call God’s attention to specific needs.

        I think your view, while intended or not, is more anti-religion than pro-understanding religion.

      • Norma Stitz February 18, 2013 / 8:29 pm

        Jeremiah

        The verse you quote is very meaningful but I’m not sure its interpretation sheds light on WHY evil exists. To simply say the un shines and rain falls on good and evil equally implies dsinterest on God’s part towards evil.

        Thank you for participating in this discussion. It means a lot to me, and hopefully to the group.

      • Norma Stitz February 18, 2013 / 8:32 pm

        I just reread my response to Rusty and I want to clarify that I did not list three items I feel in any way true. I was coming up with other possibilities for Rusty’s scenario that do not entail God not existing.

      • M. Noonan February 18, 2013 / 9:30 pm

        Rusty,

        Or the fifth possibility – that God exists, is all powerful and yet choose to create people who are free. To be free must mean free to reject God, or it isn’t freedom. God could have made us wind up dolls who only do what they are programmed to do and thus no evil – but God wanted people who could freely choose to love him…though that entails “or not”. Why would God want it this way? That is something I don’t know – but God called us “good” and so there is a reason for it, and I’ll eventually get enough answer to satisfy…meanwhile, as I wasn’t here when the foundations of the world were laid, it isn’t for me to carp about.

      • M. Noonan February 18, 2013 / 9:39 pm

        Pel,

        A good deal of your problem is that you are judging God based upon human terms which are not actually based upon a full exposition of even what the Bible says about God. The story which goes “well, God allowed genocide” isn’t actually true – the idea of it relates to the Jewish conquest of the Holy Land post Exodus which is presented as “the Jews went in there and at the command of God massacred every non-Jew”. But that isn’t what the Bible says happened; per the Bible, plenty of non-Jews continued to live in Israel after the conquest…and the Old Testament of full of provisions for the protection of non-Jews who are living among the Jews. But it works out to a nifty attack on religion: religion is genocidal, it says so in the Bible! But, it doesn’t.

        As for making a perfect world of immortal beings – that is what God created. Man rebelled against it, and so lost it…but here is the Good News: God came down as a man and undid our rebellion and if we’ll just follow him, we will get back in to that perfect world of immortal beings.

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 11:46 pm

        Mark,
        You’re wrong about the old testament, it’s full of violence, much of it explicitly ordered by god. God didn’t merely “allow” genocide, he commanded it – many times.

      • rustybrown2012 February 19, 2013 / 12:30 am

        Norma, your points in quotes:

        “Evil may be required within God’s plan, perhaps to keep the Universe in balance”

        …the problem I have with this is it’s too vague, it begs the question. It seems like much the cop-out. Can you even imagine a scenario where the type of evil we’re discussing is “required”? I can’t.

        “Our understanding of God, and of good and evil, is not complete”

        …same, begging the question, cop-out. To say we don’t understand something is not to solve it. We are back to where we started, asking our original question.

        A side note about the use of the word “evil” here, because I think some are misunderstanding it. In this philosophical context, “evil” traditionally refers to all bad things that happen in this world, natural or caused by man. The reason for this is that we are assuming god into the equation. Thus, in this context, a hurricane that kills innocent children is evil, because god has the ability to stop it or prevent it in the first place, but doesn’t.

        Another aside about evil, a few here seem to be suggesting that we can’t really know the true nature of evil, that we are not equipped to judge something evil. This to me is a grave dereliction of our duties as human beings. We are indeed very capable of recognizing and sometimes alleviating the great sufferings of this world, and we should feel compelled to do so. To put it plainly, the torture of a child is an example of unambiguous evil. We would properly call any man who tortures a child evil. The question is what do we call a god who tortures a child?

        “God does NOT micromanage, as Cluster said, which would have the unfortunate affect of negating the power of prayer to call God’s attention to specific needs.”

        …if this were the case then in my opinion god would be evil. The point here is that he COULD and SHOULD micromanage. If I decide to run a puppy mill, and through conspicuous neglect allow those animals to get horrific diseases, turn on themselves out of starvation and misery, and die excruciating deaths, all the while watching the entire process and being capable of easily alleviating their suffering yet do nothing, I would be evil. What is a god who does these things?

      • rustybrown2012 February 19, 2013 / 12:56 am

        Ama,

        It’s hard to “step away from Christianity” here because that’s the topic of this discussion. We are talking about evil existing alongside an all-knowing, all- powerful, beneficent god, not some godless reincarnation philosophy like you propose. Please try to keep up.

        You say that suffering “offers abundant opportunity for spiritual growth and learning for everyone around the suffering person, who is himself purified by the experience.” What a crock. Tell that to the mother who’s infant children are raped, tortured and murdered before her own eyes, knowing she’s next. And how exactly are these victims “purified”?

        Then you start playing the relativity game with the term “evil” that I derided in my last response to Norma. A truly distasteful dodge. If you can’t bring yourself to identify the above horrific scene and others like it as evil then you’re a sick person.

        Your post was relatively civil, are you feeling OK?

  3. rustybrown2012 February 17, 2013 / 3:44 pm

    Ama asked for examples of members of this blog “denying the fact of evolution”. Here ya go, from the last evolution thread:

    Mark – “Try as they might, the fundamentalists of evolution cannot get ’round the fact of man being what he is.  We don’t naturally follow from what came before.”

    Feel the fang – “Evolution, just like agw, fails the test of the scientific method over and over and over again. Its effects can not be duplicated and cause and effect can not be proven. Evolution is a RELIGION, a system of beliefs, nothing more nothing less.”

    Neo – “evolution = BS”

    …the denials go on and on; denial is evident in most of the posts actually! Check it out.

    • neocon01 February 17, 2013 / 3:54 pm

      talk about denial

      In reality, welfare programs are costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year. In fiscal year 2011, total welfare costs equaled $927 billion ($717 billion from the federal government and $210 billion from states).

      From a historical perspective, since the War on Poverty began in the 1960s, the government has spent $19.8 trillion (inflation-adjusted) to fund a growing list of welfare programs. As Rector points out, this is nearly three times “the cost of all military wars in U.S. history from the Revolutionary War through the current war in Afghanistan.”

      Yet, despite current annual welfare costs already twice the amount necessary “to lift all Americans out of poverty,” as Rector noted, President Obama plans to increase welfare spending. Welfare costs have already grown by a third since he came to office in 2009. And this isn’t temporary spending due to the recession. President Obama plans to grow welfare such that by 2022 costs will reach $1.56 trillion. Based on President Obama’s plan, in the next decade U.S. taxpayers will fork out roughly $12.7 trillion on welfare.

    • neocon01 February 17, 2013 / 3:56 pm

      show us HOW a SINGLE CELL organism that “SPRANG” into “life” after lightning hit a pile of mud became us?

      still BS!

    • Amazona February 17, 2013 / 4:44 pm

      Nicely excerpted from the context,, there, rusty.

      The only way you guys can keep squealing that “conservatives: deny evolution is to carefully edit your quotes so they appear to be discussing the proven evolution within species rather than the truth, which is that we for the most part (with, I assume, a few exceptions as there are always some exceptions) accept the fact of evolution within species but reject the speculation that all life evolved from the less-than-a-cell sized microscopic germ of life that supposedly sprung into being after a random accidental collision among inert particles.

      When I talked about having fossilized teeth from an ancient ancestor of what is now the horse, from an animal that was as large as a dog and with different construction of its feet and legs than we see in the modern equine, there was no argument from the other posters here. There is no problem with this, or other evolutions within species.

      What is rejected is the absurd notion that a grain of inert matter bumping into another grain of some other inert matter, or being struck by lightning or subjected to intense heat or whatever, can somehow become a human being.

      But you just keep on sorting through comments and cherry-picking a little here and a little there, carefully separating them from their context, to try to prove your bigotry-based disdain for people because they believe that the Constitution of the United States is not only the best form of government for the country but also the only legal one.

      Because that is the definition of “conservative”. You can’t even sort out the difference between political philosophy and personal opinion on non-political matters.

      • rustybrown2012 February 17, 2013 / 5:55 pm

        I cherry-picked nothing. All three clearly deny accepted tenets of evolution, as do most of the comments on that thread. It’s there in black and white, I’ve proved my point. Humans did evolve from earlier ape-like primates. Speciation, one species changing into another, is a scientific fact.

        And, sigh, again, evolution has little to say about abiogenesis so that’s not really what we’re talking about. Evolution is primarily concerned with the change and development of living forms on this planet.

      • Cluster February 17, 2013 / 6:19 pm

        Believing that there is no Higher Power and that our existence is the result of some random accident, requires a much higher level of Faith than those who do have Divine Faith.

      • Jeremiah February 17, 2013 / 6:20 pm

        Mr. Rusty Brown 2012,

        The famous “ape to man” theory is just that, a theory, and nothing more. There is no evidence for it.

      • Jeremiah February 17, 2013 / 7:00 pm

        Wikipedia’s page on Human “evolution,” as most pages on human “evolution” are, is inconclusive. In other words, there is nothing ‘concrete’ in it.

        If you take a walk through the forest in South America, you will find a diversity of plant and animal and insect life. Each species lives within its respective environments.

        Fish are fish, and they live in the water, and will always live in the water, and do not change from one fish to another. Now, as far as experimentation with fish, you can breed fish within their own family for desired traits, but you’ll never get them to live outside of the water, or be more than the creature they were intended to be, fish. Carp will always be carp, plecos will always be plecos, angelfish will always be angelfish.

        Monkeys are monkeys and will always be monkeys, they live in the trees, will swing from trees and eat bananas. They are still with us, otherwise they would all be in the civilized world just like us, working, playing, talking, and overall contributors to humanity. But they are not humans, never changed into humans, and never will be humans.

        There is this thing called irreducible complexity. And all living things are designed with this feature.

      • rustybrown2012 February 17, 2013 / 7:17 pm

        Sorry Jerimiah, you’re simply wrong. But thank you for proving my point to ama in real time. There are thousands of good texts to read about the evidence for evolution. I recommend Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution Is True”. Wonderful. I hope you get around to it sometime. I genuinely feel sorry for people who don’t accept evolution. It’s an extremely beautiful and marvelous theory, and absolutely one of the greatest achievements of mankind.

      • Jeremiah February 17, 2013 / 7:32 pm

        Rusty Brown,

        Thanks for the suggestion. I think I will stick with the Word of God. However, I might take a notion to purchase the book and read it.
        There have been many millions of pages published on the Internet, as well as in books, and journalistic articles in newspapers about the merits of evolution. The way I see it, if the “scientific” community at large were sincere about their claims of man evolving from lower forms of life, they would have stopped at their first perceived discovery. However, they did not. Every whip stitch they come out with another to try and once again tell us they’ve “proved” evolution.

        I feel sorry for atheists, as well. It’s truly a travesty that so many will spend Eternity in separation from God.

      • Cluster February 17, 2013 / 7:43 pm

        It’s an extremely beautiful and marvelous theory, and absolutely one of the greatest achievements of mankind. – Rusty

        Evolution is an achievement of mankind??? That’s F’n hilarious!!!!!

      • Amazona February 17, 2013 / 9:59 pm

        Speciation does not include moving from one kind of species to another. Through evolution or mutation a change can occur in a species to create a slightly different species. But Darwin’s Finches are still finches, not rabbits or snakes. There is no proof or even evidence that any mammal has become a reptile, or any fish has grown feathers and learned to fly

        And for all life to come from an accidental event involving a change from inert to a life form smaller than a single cell is simply not proved.

        You desperately cling to your delusion of a species “evolving” into a completely different kind of life form because you are so threatened by the idea of a Creator. Worse, you exhibit intolerance of those who do not agree with your chosen belief system.

        I know, I know, you have a desperate need to feel superior to others, and evidently this can only be achieved by being convinced that your own belief system is held by the intellectually advanced and that those who do not agree with you are less intelligent.

        Most people achieve a sense of self-worth by what they do. Those who can’t do this have to fall back on what they think.

        I am not threatened by the prospect of cross-species mutation or evolution. It would not bother me at all. In fact, it would be fascinating. Nothing about me, my belief systems, my life, my convictions, or my spiritual life is dependent upon not accepting the claims of all life developing from one source. Even as a believer in Intelligent Design it would not be a problem for me, because it would not negate the concept—it would just move that Design back to a very primitive and basic stage. If proof were to be found that all life DID “evolve” from a single miniscule spark of spontaneous life unrelated to what we know think of as life, I could accept that without a qualm.

        This is the essence of the objective seeker of truth—that truth is what it is, not what we want it to be.

        And what I see in you is a very fragile sense of self and place in the world, which is dependent on clinging to certain rigid beliefs and which is incapable of accepting anything outside this tiny bubble of chosen belief.

        It takes courage to believe in something infinite, mysterious and unknowable. It is safer to deny it, and cling to the smallness of a life without meaning, a life defined and limited to a few short years of physical existence. It takes courage to accept the responsibility and discipline and demands of an afterlife and consequences for what we do in this life. Some need to put on blinders that let them see only the here and now, and as we see in every anti-religion bigot this is accompanied by the need to create a fantasy world in which this cowardice is recast as intellectual superiority.

      • Amazona February 17, 2013 / 10:01 pm

        Cluster, that was my response, too, to the odd claim that evolution is “…. one of the greatest achievements of mankind.”

        It is obvious that rusty is of the trophy-just-for-showing-up generation, which can take credit for things never accomplished.

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 4:15 am

        Um, to clarify for the reading impaired, I wrote:

        “It’s an extremely beautiful and marvelous theory, and absolutely one of the greatest achievements of mankind.”

        I’m referring to the theory of evolution, not to evolution itself. Most well-balanced readers would get this. Another one of your pathetic “gotchas” gone awry.

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 4:33 am

        Ama@9:59,

        Speciation most certainly does include “moving from one species to another”. Look it up. Crack a book for chrissakes. Proven fact. Case closed.

        Glad to read you’re not threatened by speciation. Glad to read you would find it fascinating. Because it is! I suggest: “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry Coyne. Kudos to ama, the courageous truth seeker!

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 4:47 am

        Ama:
        “It takes courage to believe in something infinite, mysterious and unknowable”

        No, it doesn’t. It takes absolutely no courage to believe in fairy tales. It just takes a suspension of critical thinking.

      • Cluster February 18, 2013 / 9:23 am

        You rightfully point to art as a distinctly human achievement. But that’s a very narrow view – Rusty

        Exactly. Evolution is the greatest of all human achievements.

        And you too believe in fairy tales Rusty. The Big Bang theory is a fairy tale. No one really knows our origin, and I highly suspect that no one ever will. But you can go right on believing that we are just some random accident. As I said earlier, that requires a higher degree of Faith in a fairy tale.

      • Amazona February 18, 2013 / 11:49 am

        rusty, point me to an example of a mammal becoming a reptile, or a bird becoming a fish, or any other such leap from one type of species to another. As I said, quite accurately, Darwin’s Finches are still finches. They are still birds. They do not give birth to live young, they do not live underwater. They are still birds.

        Your smug conviction of intellectual superiority is quite obvious, and it is quite clear why you gravitate toward a belief system in which there is no power greater than you. And that’s OK. You get to be the person you choose to be.

        It’s just that no one else is as impressed by you as you are, and no one else finds your massive ego supported by fact.

        Glad you get a giggle strutting your imagined advanced intellectual development—everyone should have a hobby.

        But what you find compelling arguments for your belief system just point out how desperately you need both a rigid and intolerant belief system and the illusion of intellectual superiority to shore up your identity.

        Again, that’s OK.

        Just as I believe in a Creator and a Greater Power, I believe that there is a reason for people like you, just as there is a reason for mosquitoes—-though I do have trouble figuring it out.

        But that’s where faith comes in.

        It just seems that if your take on evolution is accurate, by now your kind would have evolved into a species with longer arms and an additional joint in them, to facilitate your self-congratulatory orgies, so you could pat yourselves on the back as you preen over your advanced intellect and understanding of the universe.

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 6:13 pm

        Ama, for the record, reptiles predate mammals and fish predate birds. You ask for evidence of macro evolution, here is a great video explaining the process. He makes several slam-dunks concerning one type of animal evolving into another. If you deny the facts in this video, I would be curious to know specifically why:

        Here is another fascinating video discussing the evolution of the manatee:

        I’m curious as to what others here have to say about these vids.

        And ama, I find it highly amusing that you characterize my position as a: “rigid and intolerant belief system”. Your belief system is self-characterized as innerent, has non-believers suffering the tortures of the damned for eternity, and is rife with arcane, constricting rules. My believe system (science) is open to constant reevaluation, endlessly striving for greater truth and knowledge, and welcomes all new ideas from anyone as long as they can be reproduced and verified. Who’s rigid and intolerant?

      • Amazona February 18, 2013 / 7:08 pm

        “Your belief system is self-characterized as innerent, has non-believers suffering the tortures of the damned for eternity, and is rife with arcane,(secret, mysterious, known or knowable only to the intiated) constricting rules.”

        Quite a list of descriptions given the fact that you know NOTHING of my personal belief system other than it includes a belief in a Higher Power. Its “self-characterization” has nothing whatsoever in common with your bigoted and intolerant litany of complaints.

        “My believe (sic)system (science) is open to constant reevaluation, endlessly striving for greater truth and knowledge, and welcomes all new ideas from anyone as long as they can be reproduced and verified.”

        Yet you reject anything that does not fit into what YOU define as “science” and you can’t reproduce, much less verify, any conversion from a rabbit to a fish, for example. You have your bibles, which you constantly refer to as absolutes. You “endlessly strive for greater truth and knowledge” as long as it supports your biases and prejudices, and you use your belief system to look down on those whose belief systems are different.

        “Who’s rigid and intolerant?”

        You are, most definitely.

        Just look at the first sentence I quoted, above. There is not a syllable of truth in it. It all comes from your preconceived notions of what someone who believes in Intelligent Design must be like, and you are completely unaware that you have incorporated a collection of negative stereotypes of people who don’t agree with you to demean them, dismiss them, and demonize them.

        And then in the next paragraph you preen over your imagined open-mindedness.

      • Amazona February 18, 2013 / 7:30 pm

        rusty, if I ever had any doubts about your maturity or your intelligence, they were laid to rest by your claim that the clumsy, infantile video about the manatee is “fascinating”.

        I can see why you like it—it takes this oddly primitive and simple-minded presentation to a “conclusion” that sneers at people who believe in God. It was tailor-made for someone like you.

        If you want a decent explanation of evolution, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse. You won’t like it—-it is too complicated, too “scientific”, and it doesn’t depend on juvenile snarling about people of faith.

        BTW, your “fascinating” video about the manatee supports what I have been saying. The manatee evolved from a very similar but genetically related creature, and has many cousins with the same origins. Big whoop. None of those cousins fly, or walk on two legs.

        I find you increasingly tiresome, as you are repeating yourself and everything you say comes back, full circle, to your combination of egoism and bigotry.

        The closest you have come to being interesting is the way you manage to insert the word “arcane” into nearly every comment, happily unconcerned about its fluctuations in context. For a while the Word Of The Day for intellectual wannabes and poseurs was “empirical”. It’s fun to see what you kids glom on to from one fad to the next.

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 8:10 pm

        Ama,
        No comment on the first vid, eh? I figured it would be over your head. Pretty hard to refute, especially the parts laying out the evidence for reptiles turning into mammals (which you specifically asked for) and fish tuning into tetrapods. I also like how the video illustrates that every form of scientific inquiry that tests the theory of evolution winds up strengthening the theory. Every one! No exceptions! Although evolution would be quite easy to disprove if it were false, all inquiries converge to confirm the fact of evolution. I liked your link on horse evolution though. And I’m heartened that you accept the evolution of the manatee; hey, it’s a start!

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 8:18 pm

        Ama,
        BTW, earlier you claimed “Speciation does not include moving from one kind of species to another.”, and now you state that you accept the evolution of the manatee as laid out in that video. Yet I’m sure you would concur that the modern manatee and it’s ancient tetrapod ancestor are completely different species. So which is it? This must be very frustrating for you; take a moment to untangle your beliefs.

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 8:53 pm

        Ama @ 7:08,
        My bad for assuming your belief system was that of the average devout Christian. I’ll take note that your god is fallible, you don’t believe in hell, and there are no rules to your faith. You’re more enlightened than I thought!

        You state: “Yet you reject anything that does not fit into what YOU define as “science” and you can’t reproduce, much less verify, any conversion from a rabbit to a fish, for example. You have your bibles, which you constantly refer to as absolutes. You “endlessly strive for greater truth and knowledge” as long as it supports your biases and prejudices, and you use your belief system to look down on those whose belief systems are different.”

        Balderdash. For one thing, I don’t “define” science. For another, science is not a belief system. Science is the best system of knowledge we have to understand our world. There are no “bibles” in science. Scientific texts which don’t hold up to scrutiny are dispassionately relegated to the dustbin of history.

        Your asking for verification of a rabbit turning into a fish is infantile, and a gotcha not worthy of a bright four year old. One has to be seriously oblivious to expect someone to “reproduce” a process that takes millions of years to occur. I guess since we can’t reproduce the natural erosion of the Grand Canyon, it didn’t happen. That hole must have been blasted out with dynamite! You are pathetically, but proudly ignorant

      • Amazona February 18, 2013 / 9:04 pm

        “Yet I’m sure you would concur that the modern manatee and it’s (sic) ancient tetrapod ancestor are completely different species.”

        No, I would not say “completely” different, as they are so clearly related.

        “Completely different” would be a modern manatee and an ostrich.

        And while I am sure that you have become completely dependent on nitpicking and quibbling as a substitute for actual dialogue, to keep people paying attention to you, it is quite tiresome. Your incessant screeching of “Look at me! LOOK AT ME!! LOOK AT MEEEEEEE!!! might have worked with your mommy, but among other adults it doesn’t take long for us to suggest that you either find something else to talk about or go home.

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 10:34 pm

        Oh man, are you dense. Now you’re claiming that the modern manatee and its four-legged ancestor that lived hundreds of thousand of years ago are the SAME SPECIES. Or kinda alike. Or something. Yowza, you’ve got some learnin to do. Has it even occured to you that they are different species by the bald fact that ONE OF THEM IS EXTINCT? When a species goes extinct, it means there are NO MORE of that species living on planet earth.

        Your right about manatees and ostriches being different species though. You should become a biologists; you’re creating a whole new revolutionary way of identifying different species: “if they LOOK different, they’re different species!” Oh, wait there is a group that currently views speciation this way – they’re called first-graders.

        I agree with you on one thing though, this is getting tiresome.

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 11:29 pm

        Ama,
        Still no comment on the first video I posted? Yeah, best to just ignore it. Maybe all that icky scientific evidence will just go away…

    • M. Noonan February 18, 2013 / 1:11 am

      Rusty,

      Man is an exception, whatever else he is. If he is not the image of God, then he is a disease of the dust. If it is not true that a divine being fell, then we can only say that one of the animals went entirely off its head. – G K Chesterton

      The thing is, we don’t follow – we are clearly not a totally natural phenomena. While it may well be true that over many years a positive thing called an ape slowly turned in to a positive thing called a man, there is really no way to explain what man does except in the sense of a miracle. Art clearly defines man as something different – as an image of God or an insane animal. Its not that, say, chimps do art badly while man does it well – chimps, and all other animals, don’t do it at all, and we do. There was clearly a break somewhere along the line – however you wish to believe it happened, something happened which clearly cannot be explained in terms of blind evolution. There was a point where nothing was doing art and then, quite suddenly, there was a creature who was doing art.

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 5:17 am

        Mark,
        It’s true that we are a unique species. And we appear to be the apex species for the moment (cockroaches may beg to differ after the next great nuclear war). But as magnificent as we are, our abilities and achievements should be viewed in context. You rightfully point to art as a distinctly human achievement. But that’s a very narrow view. Our ability to make and appreciate art is a byproduct of our huge brains and our self-awareness. Which in turn is a byproduct of evolution. And yes, that is undoubtedly very special and unique. But, ultimately, who’s to say if this is really special at all? Maybe it is the cockroaches’ iron-clad exoskeleton and hyper-genetic adaptability which is really “special”.

        We are, in actuality, very special apes.

      • M. Noonan February 18, 2013 / 9:49 pm

        Rusty,

        But, biologically, we’re not very special – we’re almost identical to chimps…and yet do art and chimps don’t do it, at all. If brain size decides, then humans with larger brains should be smarter than humans with smaller brains…but there is no correlation to human brain size and intelligence…the average human brain is about 3 lbs…but that means that half the brains are larger than that, half are smaller. But it is entirely irrelevant. Chimps, of course, have smaller brains than humans…but if brain size matters, then the chimp brain, which most closely approximates human size, should have some dim inkling of human awareness and thought. It doesn’t. Chimps are animals; like dogs, we can train them to do things, but no chimp will ever think it up on his own, any more than a dog would fetch a stick unless we showed him how.

        The human brain came suddenly upon the world – and as far as we can tell, once the human brain was here it as almost immediately farming, hunting, wandering, making beer, making clothing, honoring God (the concept of gods actually comes later in human history than the concept of God), burying their dead (what an absurd thing to do!)…there is no way to explain it by evolutionary forces. It just doesn’t connect…

      • rustybrown2012 February 18, 2013 / 11:23 pm

        Mark,
        Well, when I said “big brains” I was using the term figuratively. I meant more complex brains. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

        I do think you’re selling chimps short though. They are capable of an astounding level of sophistication and human-like behavior. And they, as well as a large variety of other animals, most certainly do think things up on their own. Crows will use tools to acquire food. Octopuses will unscrew jars to get a treat. Chimps are obviously much smarter than these creatures and their behavior shows it. Dogs have complex patters of play which may incorporate sticks or balls “on their own” as do cats.

        The human brain did not come suddenly into this world as you claim, it evolved over millions of years as did our activities. Archeology and anthropology is all about cataloging human behavior which became increasingly complex over time. What exactly are you having a hard time explaining by evolutionary forces? Burying the dead? Not so absurd. Among other things it’s a hygienic means of disposing a corpse and spares the survivors the stench of a rotting corpse.

        Lastly, we are animals too. Primates to be exact.

  4. Jeremiah February 17, 2013 / 4:11 pm

    What’s on mind is, when is America going to wake up and be rid of this unlawful, corrupt administration?

    • neocon01 February 17, 2013 / 4:18 pm

      right after the coming collapse and civil war.

      • Jeremiah February 17, 2013 / 4:33 pm

        It sure appears that we are headed in that very direction, Neo.

      • neocon01 February 17, 2013 / 4:34 pm

        Jer
        lets pray not…..but Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition… 🙂

      • Jeremiah February 17, 2013 / 4:48 pm

        lets pray not…..

        Amen!

        but Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition…

        And Amen!

        Wal-Mart is not fulfilling some orders on some ammo.

        And Missouri has already started the process of going forward with gun confiscation.

        Just a couple new stories of concern that I’ve ran across in the past week.

      • 02casper February 17, 2013 / 7:13 pm

        “Cluster February 17, 2013 at 6:15 pm #

        Casper, this means he is actually quite good at it, and is in ultimate pursuit of oligarchical collectivism. Big corporate is the same as big government, and conservatives oppose both. I wish you are on board with us.”

        That’s funny. Obama must be a socialist because capitalism is doing so well. LOL

        If conservatives oppose big corporate, why support Romney the ultimate corporate insider?

      • 02casper February 17, 2013 / 7:15 pm

        By the way. Interesting link. You do realize it’s about a book of fiction right?

      • neocon01 February 17, 2013 / 7:24 pm

        catspuke

        is dat you?

      • 02casper February 17, 2013 / 10:56 pm

        Moderator,
        One would think that if you allow neocon to post dumb videos you would allow me to do the same. However, it is your blog.

      • Amazona February 18, 2013 / 11:13 am

        “ultimate corporate insider”

        My, what overheated hyperbole!

        First, opposition to corporations is a personal opinion, not necessarily a component of the belief that the Constitution is the best way to govern the nation.

        ” Big corporate is the same as big government, and conservatives oppose both.”

        I don’t agree with this statement, and I don’t think it is an accurate assessment of conservative thought. It is the perception of those who identify with Distributism, which is not a representative of general conservative political philosophy.

        And neither you nor Mark have addressed the simple fact that the corporations with which Romney was involved were not the massive corporate leviathans that might be compared to the bloated federal government opposed by conservatives.

        While some of the huge multinational corporations might qualify as being comparable to “big government” even a successful company like Staples, one of Bain’s success stories, is in a different league.

      • Cluster February 18, 2013 / 12:03 pm

        Amazona,

        Agreed. It is an over simplification. But I seldom have the time to post detailed responses and this is one that would require such. There are products that require large corporations – automobiles, oil, etc. And there are big corporations that are a benefit to their employees and customers as you mentioned with staples.

        However, my claim is that the bigger the corporation, the better the chances are for incompetence and corruption. Much like big government.

  5. GMB February 17, 2013 / 7:28 pm

    Damn, I must of missed that memo.

    “I cherry-picked nothing. All three clearly deny accepted tenets of evolution,”

    An accepted tenet is now a provable fact?

    Shovel ready.

  6. Cluster February 17, 2013 / 7:55 pm

    Casper,

    Corporate profits are hardly the indicator of a successful capitalist economy. Can you tell us why?

    And your media fed, cartoonish understanding of who Romney is, has become a thing of legend. You know for a teacher, you are one of the more misinformed people I have ever known. And yes, the book is fiction, but the concept is being played out in front of our eyes. Obama has masterfully led idiots like you into believing he cares for the people. When in reality his actions and policies say something quite different.

    • 02casper February 17, 2013 / 9:23 pm

      “Cluster February 17, 2013 at 7:55 pm #

      Casper,

      Corporate profits are hardly the indicator of a successful capitalist economy. Can you tell us why?”

      Because you have used it as an indication of how Obama is doing on several occasions.

      “And your media fed, cartoonish understanding of who Romney is, has become a thing of legend.”

      Romney, a man who started a corporation which bought and sold corporations. Tell me that isn’t true.

      • Cluster February 17, 2013 / 9:36 pm

        Casper,

        You just don’t think for yourself do you? It’s really mind boggling how mind numbingly stupid you can be. Corporate profits are derived, and measured in many different ways. In this instance, profits are up because hiring is stagnant, or in decline, investment in R&D is down, tax loopholes are still plentiful so they aren’t paying taxes, and prices are up, all factors of which hurt the American people. But you go ahead and keep believing that that is a sign of how successful Obama is.

        Moron.

        And Romney was responsible for the employment and success of a hell of a lot more people than Obama could ever dream of.

      • Amazona February 17, 2013 / 10:33 pm

        “Romney, a man who started a corporation which bought and sold corporations. Tell me that isn’t true.”

        Sure it’s true. But to use this small aspect of his life to define him is like defining everything you are and have been and done and stand for by saying “casper, a man who posted on a blog.”

      • 02casper February 17, 2013 / 10:34 pm

        “And Romney was responsible for the employment and success of a hell of a lot more people than Obama could ever dream of.”

        AS head of a corporation that bought and sold other corporations.

        “tax loopholes are still plentiful so they aren’t paying taxes”

        Because Republicans aren’t willing to close them.

      • 02casper February 17, 2013 / 10:38 pm

        “Sure it’s true. But to use this small aspect of his life to define him is like defining everything you are and have been and done and stand for by saying “casper, a man who posted on a blog.”

        Thanks for admitting it’s true. However I wouldn’t consider it a small part of his life since it is how he made his fortune and what he ran on.

      • 02casper February 17, 2013 / 10:53 pm

        Amazona February 17, 2013 at 10:33 pm #

        “Romney, a man who started a corporation which bought and sold corporations. Tell me that isn’t true.”

        Sure it’s true. But to use this small aspect of his life to define him is like defining everything you are and have been and done and stand for by saying “casper, a man who posted on a blog.”

        I’m thinking it would be more like defining you as a rancher or me as a teacher.

      • Amazona February 17, 2013 / 10:54 pm

        Ranching is what I do, not who I am.

      • Amazona February 17, 2013 / 11:01 pm

        Romney’s career is NOT “what he ran on”. It is PART of what he ran on.

        Mostly what he ran on was his commitment to a Constitutional form of government, which went right over the heads of people like you who ignore actual political philosophy in favor of superficial fluff like how much his wife spent on a blouse or if his dog pooped on the car. And, of course, you depend a lot on the lies, such as the claim that Romney represented a “War on Women”, wanted to outlaw contraception, and would DENY ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        As for using his skill and knowledge of the business world as a recommendation for the job of heading up a government that has plunged into economic misery, that kind of serious qualification never mattered to people like you, who are much more impressed by charisma, by the packaging, by the illusion, by the symbolism, by the empty promises.

      • 02casper February 17, 2013 / 11:01 pm

        “Amazona February 17, 2013 at 10:54 pm #

        Ranching is what I do, not who I am.”

        Interesting. I voted for Romney in the 2008 in the 2008 primary based on his business experience. I guess that means I voted wrong.

      • Amazona February 17, 2013 / 11:06 pm

        casper, your willingness/eagerness to sound like a brainless twit never ceases to amaze.

        First, why did you vote for Romney in a primary? Are you a Republican? Or registered as one?

        Second, if you truly found Romney’s business expertise to be a compelling reason to vote for him, there is nothing wrong with that. It is a valid reason, certainly a better reason than skin color or a dramatic staging of speeches complete with reverb.

        I, too, found his business expertise compelling. But what mattered most to ME was his commitment to return the nation to a Constitutional footing, regarding government, because I feel that once this is accomplished the rest will follow.

      • 02casper February 17, 2013 / 11:16 pm

        “First, why did you vote for Romney in a primary? Are you a Republican? Or registered as one?”

        I was at the time and I considered him the best choice.

        Second, if you truly found Romney’s business expertise to be a compelling reason to vote for him, there is nothing wrong with that. It is a valid reason, certainly a better reason than skin color or a dramatic staging of speeches complete with reverb.

        I didn’t vote for Obama because of his skin color. Did you vote for McCain and Romney because of their skin color? I voted for him because of the positions he took.

      • Cluster February 18, 2013 / 12:07 am

        Casper,

        What is wrong with engaging in capitalism? Please tell us what is wrong with someone who buys and sells corporations.

        You are a very small man with an obsession of others and with a healthy inferiority complex. It’s not very becoming.

      • Cluster February 18, 2013 / 12:10 am

        I didn’t vote for Obama because of his skin color. Did you vote for McCain and Romney because of their skin color? I voted for him because of the positions he took. – Casper

        So you voted against McCain and Romney because they supported making terrorists uncomfortable with enhanced interrogation, and voted for Obama because he supports killing those terrorists, including Americans with drone strikes?

        That was your position from a few days ago right Cap? That was what you stated as your primary motive to switch parties.

        Again, a small little man.

      • 02casper February 18, 2013 / 9:28 am

        “Cluster February 18, 2013 at 12:07 am #

        Casper,

        What is wrong with engaging in capitalism? Please tell us what is wrong with someone who buys and sells corporations.”

        I didn’t say there was anything wrong with it.You are the one who said conservatives oppose big corporations, I just pointed out that Romney is a corporate insider.

        “So you voted against McCain and Romney because they supported making terrorists uncomfortable with enhanced interrogation, and voted for Obama because he supports killing those terrorists, including Americans with drone strikes? ”

        I voted for Obama rather than McCain or Romney for a number of reasons. The torture issue was just one of them. Life isn’t as simple as you seem to think it is.

      • Amazona February 18, 2013 / 10:29 am

        ” I voted for him because of the positions he took.”

        Such as?

        I watched the campaign very closely, and I don’t remember much in the way of “positions he took”. I remember the vague lollipop promise of “hope and change”, I remember the promise to “fundamentally transform America”, I remember the blurting out of “when the wealth is spread around everybody benefits” that was ignored by the Complicit Agenda Media and shut down by his handlers because it was too clear an indication of his Leftism, but not much in the way of policy.

        Oh, he promised to shut down Gitmo. Did that float your boat? If so, then why did you vote for him again? To get out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan–how’s that working out for you? He followed the Bush plan, which was already in place, to get out of Iraq, and his handling of Afghanistan has hardly been anything to brag about.

        “Ending torture”? A great appeal to emotions, especially the emotions of the ignorant, and McCain took the same position anyway. And then Barry went on to use what had been gained through the interrogation methods he demagogued to have Bin Laden killed, and is still riding high on the reflected glory of something he had nothing to do with.

        Universal health care? A darling idea, all sparkly and pretty, hanging out there at the edge of Utopia—-but not an enumerated duty of the federal government, not successful anywhere it had been tried, and far from the best approach to the problem of affordable health care.

        So what about Barry’s “positions” appealed so much to you that you voted for him? And what about his execution of his office made you vote for him again?

      • Amazona February 18, 2013 / 10:54 am

        Hmmm….someone here just said “Life isn’t as simple as you seem to think it is” but in the same thread posted this little gem.

        In response to “And Romney was responsible for the employment and success of a hell of a lot more people than Obama could ever dream of.” he came back with:

        “AS head of a corporation that bought and sold other corporations.”

        Talk about oversimplifying something! Not to mention illustrating abject ignorance of what Romney’s company did.

        People whose businesses were failing came to Bain for help. Sometimes a business just needed more capital to keep it afloat till it could turn the corner and Bain provided capital in exchange for part ownership of the business. Sometimes it needed restructuring of management or streamlining of its business practices and Bain provided the management expertise to accomplish this. Both of these approaches kept businesses running, and growing, when they worked, creating jobs. Sometimes nothing worked and the businesses failed anyway, but they were already in trouble or they would not have gone to Bain.

        Sometimes corporations were floundering because they had taken on too much, were too diversified, and Bain would carve off the unproductive companies in the corporation and sell them off to other corporations where they were a better fit, to revitalize the core business. When this worked —-and it didn’t always work—-jobs were created as businesses improved.

        Sometimes nothing could be done and the venture failed.

        But simply “buying and selling corporations” does not create jobs, and the comment is nonsensical. What creates jobs is expansion of companies, expansion of business.

        We are nearing the end of our second year in business, and we have been quite successful, growing far faster than we anticipated. And at our annual meeting a couple of days ago we agreed to hire a business consultant to come in, evaluate our business practices,, and advise us on ways we might improve them, to make sure we are maximizing our efforts, because if we need to make changes now is the time. This is a tiny tiny scale compared to the businesses bought by Bain or invested in by Bain—we only have about 25 employees–but it’s similar to what Bain did, though without the need for more capital.

        We identified an area where we thought we would realize great profit, and changes in the market have caused us to revisit that part of our business plan. The equipment is still paying for itself, but the profit margin is way down. It is not yet a drain on our bottom line, but we will try to sell off the equipment as time goes on. To extrapolate this to a big corporation, with this corner of our business being a company owned by the corporation, this is what Bain would carve out and sell off, to concentrate on the areas that are more profitable.

        And this is what the ignorant would whine about as “selling off a corporation”. You don’t “sell off” what is profitable—you find a buyer, or you dismantle it and redistribute the assets if you can to areas of greater productivity, and you move on.

        The more you talk, the easier it is to see why were so dazzled by Obama.

      • 02casper February 18, 2013 / 12:39 pm

        Amazona,
        Glad to know your business is doing so well in the Obama economy.

      • Amazona February 18, 2013 / 6:55 pm

        casper, do you get a big dimple in your chins when you do that smarmy little smirk? It’s really quite creepy so see a large fleshy middle-aged man titter in such smug self-satisfaction.

        I’d say that my business is doing well IN SPITE of “the Obama economy” and the administration’s efforts to stifle the oil and gas industry, which is why we are working on lateral moves to enlarge our scope as he and his minions are trying to shut down fracking and impose arbitrary EPA standards.

        Fortunately, our clients are not dependent on public lands, which are being closed off to drilling as fast as the Obamunists can make it happen.

        As I have pointed out, your coy smirks illustrate your shallowness and silliness.

      • Amazona February 18, 2013 / 6:57 pm

        BTW, cappy, it did not go unnoticed that you chose to indulge in one of your fey little titters instead of explaining which “Obama policies” drew you away from Constitutional Government.

      • 02casper February 18, 2013 / 9:35 pm

        Amazona,
        I really am glad to hear your business is doing well. I hope it continues to do so.

  7. Cluster February 17, 2013 / 8:02 pm

    Also, Cluster the debt is a problem but it is a long term problem. – j6206

    So it’s a problem for our grandkids and future generations, right? That’s remind me of this:

    The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic. – Barack Obama

    Care to comment?

    • j6206 February 18, 2013 / 12:12 am

      Barry is hypocrite when he campaigns, shocker. It doesn’t change my belief that austerity now is not answer to our economic problems. The problem with debt is health care spending. We need to figure out how to cut health care costs. I am sure you think let the markets take care of it and I think the opposite.

      • Cluster February 18, 2013 / 12:29 am

        I would say he is a liar, but I can live with hypocrite, and your support of someone who will outright lie or be hypocritical is duly noted. You, and too many other people, have a very low expectations, so no wonder this country is in such a mess.

      • j6206 February 18, 2013 / 6:31 pm

        Spare me the self righteousness, coming from someone who was a staunch supporter of Romney, (A man of any and all positions depending upon the time of day)in the primary and the general; you don’t have a leg to stand on. Also, you never answered my original question. Do the voices of Rep. Broun and his ilk help or hurt your side?

      • Cluster February 18, 2013 / 8:03 pm

        I don’t even know who Broun is. But if you want to play that game, do comments from Democrat Rep. Andre Carson help or hurt your side?

      • j6206 February 18, 2013 / 8:14 pm

        Broun is the guy who bragged about being the first person to call Barry a Socialist and is now running for Senate. If what Carson’s said is that the Tea Party are a bunch of racists, yes that is not helpful. Calling people names doesn’t help anyone.

  8. Jeremiah February 18, 2013 / 8:01 pm

    America better be wakin’ up!!!

    • neocon01 February 19, 2013 / 5:07 pm

      Norma
      It is not what happens to us on earth that is all important, but how we spend eternity. Eternity is Gods plan and we accept or deny it. Some get there only a few years sooner……WHY? I plan to ask God that when I meet him. Otherwise it is his plan and natures.

      some thoughts

      2 Peter
      Chapter 3

      8 — But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
      ——————————————————————————————
      Revelation 12:7 ►

      And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.

      —————————————————————————————-

      John 14:6 ►

      Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

      —————————————————————————————–

      Mark 8:36 ►

      And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?

      —————————————————————————————-

      Quotable Quote
      “The Bible says this life is really like a puff of smoke. I don’t want to strive and stress and be anxious over a puff of smoke when I have eternity to look forward to.”

      —————————————————————————————
      James 4:14 ►

      Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes

      —————————————————————————————-

      2 Corinthians 5:8 ►

      We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

      —————————————————————————————-

Comments are closed.