Subject: Is the word “Purgatory” pithy?
It make sense that O’Reilly should suggest us to use “Purgatory” instead of “Not Paul, not the disciples, but Jesus instructing the ‘multitudes’ from the highest point one could go in that day (a ‘mountain’) in Matthew 5:23-26, speaking ‘assuredly’ about an Afterlife prison that you will eventually get out of, based on the equal degree of your wrongs against others, unless you were able to achieve full amends / restitution / satisfaction, not to yourself, not to a priest, not in faith alone, not to anybody else, but to the same exact individual victim(s), which would have to be during their lifetime.” (Say that ten times real fast.)
2-21-09
But, O’Reilly would ask: “If God is a ‘good’ God, they why would He expect us to pay restitution for our wrongs?” O’Reilly types (and probably all church goers) would never be able to understand the answer. My question is, “Would it pertain when one just supports our military to kill innocent people?” The answer in a question: “Would it pertain to those who aided al-Qaeda if you were one of the victims of 9/11?”
I know I’m all alone with all this reality, intelligence and logic.
When one can best explain a point by simply placing the shoe on the other foot, it should mean that the “intelligent” human should be able to figure it out on their own. So, when none can, then what’s that mean? Could “dumb” be the real base reason for many of our problems? If so, would that mean the entire world should listen to someone who is not dumb? Is calling everyone “dumb” like a major insult, that’s never going to make me any friends? Well, then tell me to just shut up.
Corruption, emotional allegiance, and never admitting dumbness:
Congressmen take campaign contributions from lobbyist. They vote in partisance instead of a real desire for improvement. They punish those they don’t like, by voting against beneficial bills. I say America needs to find a bunch of honest high-school dropouts to run things.
American laws deserve much more respect than its people: with “patriotic” people like Hannity who are really just selfish warmongers (who were the real cause of 9/11), corrupt politicians, prejudice, favoritism in the courtroom, etc. I’m not saying every law is right, but obviously fairness laws are usually a few steps ahead of the people. If I became religious leader of the world, it’d still probably take 200 years before it became a utopian society. The adamant evil / misguided minds of today influencing a few more of its generations would all have to die first. And the worst part is they are all so stupid they don’t realize they’re evil and misguided. Guys, do you still feel more sexual desire for an “attractive” woman than an “unattractive” woman. Then that should give you an idea of how difficult it would be for you to change to fairness.
Parents worry about subliminal religious messages in their children’s talking toys:
Here’s the best one: “I Baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Goldenrule).
It should only be “constructive” criticism:
O’Reilly called 88 year-old Helen Thomas a witch. (Poring water to dissolve her physical indicates his real meaning.) He should only criticize “constructive” points, like Helen’s telling of the many innocent people U.S. fighters have killed. I’d suggest to just tell her to “hush up” about that kind of stuff, instead of insulting her looks, age or even voice. Criticism should never insult a flaw the person can’t do anything about, like looks, age or voice. Like what I once said about Shirley Phelps being The Wicked Witch to My West (I live in Olathe and she’s in Topeka). Even though neither liberal or conservative would object to my statement, insulting Shirley’s looks (in particular picture) has no factual basis for her to improve on, making me just an immature angry young man. As I stated at the time, it was a good example of how not to be. Making fun of Sarah Palin’s voice on Saturday Night Live is different as Sarah’s voice is not a serious flaw compared to the normal female voice, other than it doesn’t really sound “Presidential.” It’s like there’s humor in Dana Carvey’s exaggerating Arnold Schwarzenegger’s accent, but not degrading to Arnold as an accent is normal for immigrants. George W. Bush’s laugh is “unique” but not something he would really need to try to improve on. Most everyone has something “unique” that could be humorously emphasized, but shouldn’t be if it’s something of a serious imperfection that the can’t do anything about. It’s like caricature art. One should, however, be careful in this kind of humor as there are variable degrees of both how degrading it actually is, to how much the intended person in the joke is offended in their own personal opinion. E.g., there would be quite a difference if O’Reilly had instead called Britney Spears a witch, as a witch mainly signifies an old and ugly appearance. Of course, off camera, these O’Reilly/Hannity stereotypes insult others in this kind of way all the time. It’s that typical old gloating superior fraternity-house commonality added reward for being luckier than others (success in this country only feels better when they can make fun of the flaws of the less fortunate). It is what probably separates the goats from the sheep. Jay Leno once critiqued Britney for being a bit overweight, but I doubt it hurt her too much. Of course, in her business, that’s something she could improve on.
Usually, when someone insults a physical flaw, that just means their real reason for criticism is flawed.
Hey Hannity:
It looks and sounds like that Alexandra Pelosi girl would do ya’. Too bad you can’t take advantage of that. I bet she could use sex to change you into a liberal. I’d figure history has found lost sheep via sex.
If it’s easy, you may think Heaven is waiting for you:
Look, if you have a low libido, and got “lucky” enough to find a good / supportive wife, it’s advantageous for you to be against sex outside of marriage (or, whatever’s today’s status-quo church moral), as it makes you feel much more worthy of Heaven. However, what if you’ve been bamboozled about what Jesus really said about sex, marriage, and the family? Well, you’d still want it covered up, as even a President needs to save face, again, to make them feel better. But, what do you really think is going to win in Fair Afterlife Judgment? Self-centered feelings or the truth? Well, then pray hard that my findings aren’t correct. Ignoring them will make you feel better, anyway. (See my website if you dare.)
I’d say a below average libido is anyone who only wants sex twice a week or less. And, especially if other women don’t turn you on. Most guys have to constantly suppress those feelings with frustration. That’s the way the church thinks it ought to be. “Freedom”: the church is really against it.
You know, when one watches only Fox News, one isn’t apparently going to get the full story about what’s going on:
Now, let me make sure I’ve got this right: During Obama’s entire campaign, he said he was going to increase the taxes of those making more than $200,000 (or whatever), and keep the taxes the same for those below. Now, he’s going to decrease the poorer population’s taxes, and not raise it on the wealthy? And, he’s going to print a bunch of money to pay for this job creation / stimulus package (which includes a good chunk for the needy). Well, that’s basically part of the plan that I advised on 11-11-08, which is slowly doing away with taxes completely, and just printing up money with no backing, for government jobs. Still distant from the total solution, but if this does help the economy, then that will show that my ultimate plan will work. All the smart rich people on Fox News are all griping about it though; but, if it works, then that means we can start further moving in the direction of decreasing taxes even more, until it trickles up to where those same smart rich people aren’t paying taxes either. Me trusting that Fox News people aren’t completely dumb, may be the reason I didn’t see this earlier. Again, the rich people should hope this decreasing the taxes while spending more plan works, as it will eventually work to their future “advantage.” And, their selfish financial advantage should be more important to them then the game (of Bush not implementing the same plan, or in higher number). He could have: He was President for two more months after I advised the basis for the idea. Again, this “national debt” doesn’t have to ever be paid back to our children (as Fox News says) if it continues to produce a good economy. You see, after there’s no taxes at all, then we just have to direct all the government money to “needed” things, but making sure we aren’t going over certain limits; which simply gets determined by what is working and what’s not. If giving too much starts to falter, then pull a little bit back on everyone’s basic needs allotment, etc. Government programs / jobs to fill the gaps is good in areas where private enterprise is not accomplishing it. That’s supposed to be the way it works already, but when you limit that activity because of not wanting to raise taxes, then you end up with the economic dilemma that we currently have, where there’s a lot of things that need to get done but no money to pay for it. When you just print up a bunch of money to pay for it, then it should get done. Then when everyone has “more” money, Circuit City can stay in business, etc. Plus, “Reaganomics” should be able to work a lot better when there’s no tax for the rich, which would probably allow a lot of current government programs to go back to private enterprise, which is still the best way to know what jobs should be paying more and which jobs can pay less in better proportional fairness. Sounds like people are getting smarter, thanks to me. Again, Obama started this new “jobs” bill directly after “I” presented my 11-11-09 advice. Actually, I had the advice basically written in August but decided to delay its release until after the election, because I knew McCain wouldn’t understand it. But, it probably worked out the same either way.
Once we have all the needed government programs getting done, and when there are no more taxes, then we should start giving everyone their added government allotment, and let that slowly increase as things get better (or allow). Then things should really flourish as people start to get more and more enthused about working and obtaining better things (overall) for it. Again, no one today that makes a good salary would want to give it up, just so they can sit around and do nothing all day, for their goal of living in the dumps. Allowing all the people at the bottom to be making “more” will cause / lean toward the same enthusiasm to keep working, as people today who have good salaries. I don’t know how else to explain it. But, I think Obama’s the guy who will be willing to give it a try. Oh, again, everyone getting a set government allotment will be like automatically raising minimum wage, but where employers actually pay less. Therefore, no inflation, and the dollar will actually become stronger, opposed to employers that would have to raise their prices if we just raised the minimum wage. I don’t see how it could lose. There would be a line somewhere, but with my plan that line “can” increase; where traditionally, the economy works like an earthquake: it slowly builds up pressure, then all of a sudden snaps “back” into place. With my plan, the movement of the pressure (technology lessening the need for jobs) will be allowed to continue in that direction. Because of better enjoyment of the benefits (people like working more when they have more to show for it), everyone will likely stay working, making even more things for everyone overall …. Maybe we’ll have totally safe cars driving themselves on GPS in 50 years – no way with current tendencies. Maybe we’ll all have tornado / hurricane proof houses in 20 years. Etc. Ordinances preventing homes being built in flood zones (tomorrow if we just did it.)
I guess it finally dinged on me that Obama must not be increasing the wealthy’s taxes or I’d be hearing about it on Fox News for sure. So, I need to learn how to learn from things I don’t hear. All I’ve heard a lot about is something called “pork.”
You see, I didn’t know Obama was not going raise taxes on the wealthy. So, I say to Obama, if it works, and it should, do more of it to see even better results. Of course, it’d be nice if you could count me in for just a couple of billion dollars. That wouldn’t even amount to 1%, for the real genius who thought it up, and/or sufficiently explained the pros and cons. Then I could get me some good health insurance. Well, I take that back. In this country, where Jesus paid their penalties, when you present your health insurance card to the doctor’s / surgeon’s receptionist, that means they will know if you have good or bad insurance. And, I really can see how that could benefit a doctor / surgeon if they found the need for many surgeries on a person with good insurance versus bad insurance. So, maybe I’ll actually stay healthier with my bad insurance, eh? I’ll just slip the few billion under my pillow until these banks start impressing me again. It wouldn’t even be “pork”: it’d just be rewarding someone for the best advice mankind has ever had, that’s all. I mean, I’ve got this girl friend who wants some $2,000 ring that I can’t afford. It’d sure be nice to surprise her with like a 2 or 3 hundred million dollar ring or something. Of course, what might impress her more is if I just bought her the entire mall. Well, think about it. But, comparably, I’ll probably just end up dying poor like that crazy guy who just sat around the camp all day rubbing sticks together, until he got burned. Or, that lazy, good for nothing, who never liked carrying stuff around; so in his spare time of not doing his fair share, he invented the wheel to lessen his once a week burden even more. What a bum!
God is like you being an employer of artists:
Would you want to have to constantly tell the artists what to paint, or would you rather sit back and have each individual create their own unique masterpiece?
“It Takes A Woman’s Love To Make A Man.” –Kansas (band), 1975:
Very true. So, what would happen if everyone loved the man?
Huchabee criticizes Obama’s stimulus package:
Huckabee was talking about how minute Obama’s tax relief of only $13 per person was: how it’s not going to buy those people very much at all. Well, then we should make it $100 per person, right? Or, if I was in charge, I’d make it $1000 per person a month. Then it’s wouldn’t be so small, right? What do you call Huckabee’s kind of spin? Spin that works only if you’re evil or stupid. He already knows he has the evil on his side, so he’s working also on getting the stupid, apparently. Well, he does hang with that country music crowd.
Again, I have to agree, $13 a month isn’t near enough spending money to keep all the soon to fail businesses from failing; but, lots more would. But, I’m not complaining: if we can get it right in ten years instead of this year, that’s still a lot better than the road we were on.
Eight babies born to California woman:
Single woman, with no job! And, that adds to the six she already has, making fourteen (14). Ridiculous! Who’s she expect to have to pay that bill? That right – you and me: the taxpayers. Grrrrr! Because, she can’t feed that many children with no job! Well, she could if she lived in Kansas City… 200 years ago. That way she’d have six little helpers, then in a few years fourteen helpers. She’d wouldn’t have to do anything after that, and would then be treated like a queen.
All I can say is that sexually based love is powerful stuff:
Drew Peterson’s girl friend becomes enlightened and leaves him; but, they’re back together again.
Government allotment to everyone:
I thing people who are on welfare don’t want to work mainly because they know they’ll be giving up something valuable. But, in my program everyone gets a monthly allotment that they get to keep no matter what, so getting a job won’t present the feeling of giving up anything. Getting a job will be 100% complete “gravy”; especially when there won’t be any more tax. I don’t see how it can lose. It’s like restaurants that distribute free appetizer coupons. Few people just come in and get the free appetizer alone (but some do). But, most will get the free appetizer and will actually speed their money to get “more.” If a restaurant can figure this out, shouldn’t our government be able to?
What discourages people who are working from wanting to work is when they have to work their ass off and have little to show for it. That’d make me want to give up and look for a way to just stay home and be a bum. Maybe I could move back in with mom. I mean everyone who works an ends-meet or less job constantly has his cloud of disappointment hovering over them all day saying all they are doing is working their tail off and have little to show for it. Every day and every night! That’s the “reason” why people “don’t want to” work. And, that’s nearly impossible for anyone who has a good salary to understand, as they neither see or feel any cloud of gloom hovering over them, ever. And, since the higher salary people are the one’s making these decisions, then they’re simply not going to understand where the real need of improvement is. People who make good salaries are the ones who want to work the most; therefore, there’s no real logic why a government allotment to everyone would just make people not want to work. Plus, employers can’t be looking over every employee’s shoulders all day. But, when people are more enthused about working, then productivity can only go up, and errors can only go down.
Sure, when we give money to those people who currently don’t want to work as described above, they’ll initially utilize it to just not work and stay home. But, when they finally realize that working now is “gravy” their attitude will change, and they’ll be happy having a job. So, there should be a bit of education provided about this along with the allotment, because since poor people are also human, it would take quite a while for them to figure this out on their own. Even rich people would never be able to figure this out, until I explain it first. Actually, the once overwhelmingly victimized poor person would never be able to figure it out sitting a home, they could only realize how great having a job would be only when they actually experience a job that provides greatness. My explaining this to them is probably the only thing that would make them want to try it. But, once they try it, they’ll not want to end it (employment).
But what’s fair?:
Fox News doesn’t think it’s fair how the liberals just want the rich to have less and the poor to have more. It’s because “luck” partly has to do with why people are rich. Fox News is fighting it, but “fair” is definitely the direction which society is moving. “Unfair” was just the stronghold for societies in our past. Since Muslins are religious every day, that past “unfairness” remains as an instilled stronghold. Since Christians aren’t religious but once a week, “fairness” can progress. What both religions have lost their grip on, is that Jesus was a strong advocate for fairness, stating that that is the key to a much happier world, but was subdued by the “unfairness” stronghold of the day. Sure, early Christians were (basically) fair, but medieval secular pressures (mainly cop-outs) changed the church. Today, the church still accepts some fairness thinking, as long as it doesn’t disrupt the unfairness of secular greed. And, since people can’t reckon that kind of corruption, when a pill comes out for effective birth control, the church is going the think that all medieval changes in the church (to aid unfairness) is from God, and therefore can’t “just” change to “fairness.” They aren’t even smart enough to know what it is. That’s why Jesus was very unique. Apparently, so am I. Society needs to heed the advice from very unique prophets, because they are apparently very rare, as today, advocates for fairness (liberals) seem to lean against religion – proving that they (somewhat) know what’s fair, but aren’t smart enough to just read the Bible. There’s a big difference between what you’re going to hear at a church today and the true instructions of Jesus. Church preaching overwhelms Bible reading probably 99 to 1. And, I like the way those who do read 1 Corinthians 7, e.g., where Paul says it’s better to not marry, but is allowing it overruling an earlier authority / instruction, and somehow conclude that that proves that that’s God saying marriage is a prerequisite for sex. So, the overwhelming “power” of past instilled brainwash overrules most people’s minds even when they do read the Bible. The sex cover-up is the biggest and most widespread lie ever. People are going to think how incredibly evil and incredibly dumb (even more) everyone really is, once they somehow discover / realize the truth. I know for a fact that the size of that realization is so large that they still can’t believe it even when they see the conclusive evidence in black and white. Which I (apparently) find extremely interesting. To put it pithy: Since “dumb” is more the base of our problems than is “evil,” then when we do discover “smart” it will eradicate “evil.”
People like Hannity or O’Reilly probably don’t read the Bible, but if they do and find Jesus’ overwhelming message to help the poor, they evade it for the strong selfish gainful positions of their careers, and/or just to save face. That’s maybe why their spin is so strong that they even belief it themselves. “Spin” here means ignoring like 99% of the facts and logic, and emphasizing on the remaining 1%. They do it, and self-centered people who are on their way to Hell like it (they like hearing an expert in spin telling what they want for their self-centered secular gain). How could it miss when the preacher’s preaching “Jesus paid your penalty”? So, to put it pithy: “Faith alone” justifies all the unfairness against the poor, and disbelieving that everyone is really that dumb causes the sex problem, moving more and more people away from Christianity.
(That above paragraph alone is more pinpointing the problem than any other writing in probably the last hundred years.)
Who was in charge of policing corruption?:
O’Reilly stated 2-20-09 in his Talking Points that the economic problem was caused by “corruption” in the loan business, which the government didn’t police. Isn’t that putting down George W. Bush?
Glenn Beck says businesses should be allowed to go out of business:
He said it’s like how fire causes the clearing of the brush. I basically agree. If a business isn’t making it own their own, it’s because the demand is down or gone: people aren’t buying it anymore. If we bail them out now, most will go out of business anyway because their product isn’t really want it used to be. I say we should allow these businesses to go out of business; and, since there’s no more demand, allow their employees to not have to work anymore, where they would make less for doing nothing, because forcing them to have to come up with something else just promotes more deceptive and faulty products and services, which we are inundated with today. We can compensate by making more government jobs to get things done that private enterprise doesn’t accommodate, but we’re either going to have to move to more government overall or just allow more and more private enterprise to just mess up things more. Windows Vista is a great example. Think how many safer bridges we’d have if we instead took all Microsoft employees and had them work on infrastructure rather than continuing Bill Gates’ pride. Or, if they could have just been paid for not working (but less), they wouldn’t have had to screw up the huge computer business. If the government would have sucessfully policed Microsoft, that Bush 43 dismissed, then things would probably be much better in the computer industry today. I realize that the Republican motif is to allow rich people to break the laws whenever they want, but there are probably lots of similar businesses that need this “policing” attention. This economic problem via loan corruptions is the latest example, again, thanks to Bush 43. When “faith alone” couples with “dumb,” then reaches the White House, it can cause a lot of damage. I say pay certain workers to stay at home, or pay ‘em more to work on a government job. And, when all those government jobs are taken, and nothing sells any more in private enterprise, then we’ll have to realize that many people should be just paid to stay home.
Why not just fix it now?:
Obama’s present tax cuts will probably help the economy a little bit in like a couple of years as it is being spread out in time. But, by then, the banks will have failed and the stock market will have crashed (because that problem is much greater). Then money won’t be worth very much as there won’t be as much stuff for sale. In other words, I don’t think saving the lower income people $64 this month is going to keep the banks from failing and the stock market from crashing next month. To really boast the economy right now I suggest giving the lower incomes a one-time major boosting tax cut to pull us out of this recession before something really big happens. I mean do it today! Maybe no tax’s at all for “last year” for any individual making less than say $30,000 (maybe re-adjust the 10% bracket from there). That’d refund a lot of people to give the boost we need to get some healthy buying going on, and it being directed toward the more needy. This will also create jobs in the private sector. We can also give tax cuts to the rich, but they’re not going to spend it, because they already buy everything they need and want, so they’ll just put it in their savings not boosting the economy hardly at all.
That should pull us out of this recession; but again, tax cuts for the lowest incomes will only cause employers to eventually just pay employees less, back to poverty levels, to compensate; where my government allotment to everyone idea is the only permanent / long term solution.
“Intent” is the only thing we should judge, not what ended up happening:
Hopefully you all know my stance on lessening manslaughter penalties. That is, e.g., if a person had “intent” to drive drunk and kills the mayor, he should only be penalized the same as if he got caught driving drunk but didn’t cause an accident; because his “intent” was no different. But I should also add: Conversely, if a terrorist had “intent” to blow up a lot of innocent people, he shouldn’t get off just because the bomb failed to blow up. He should be penalized the same as if the bomb did go off. I can’t believe our justices are so stupid to not already know this, but they are, apparently so I can prove how much smarter I really am.
Mr. Critical – Yes, I’m nearing the completion of my religious research:
As long as I don’t slip and fall.
TO SEE PRIOR TIMELESS WRITINGS (and more):
http://www.the-Goldenrule.name/