Subject: The more correct logo:
A News Corporation Company. Come on Fox News, get up-to-date!
3-7-2009 (the 21st century, and nine)
So, quit living in the past, Fox News! I’m talking now, and I can make it a lot better.
Catholic Church believes in evolution, but says it doesn’t prove there’s no God:
If the Catholic Church can attack the evolution problem with some kind of intelligence, then they can attack the sex problem with some kind of intelligence. With this, they have proven to God that they can reason with intelligence, so when God asks them why they didn’t concerning the sex problem, then “evil” (e.g., saving face) can be their only answer. And, that means more Purgatory prison. And, since the sex problem is a very big one… a lot of time in Purgatory prison! Oh, I know you all got 101 cop-outs, but what if cop-outs are not what God wants? What are you going to do then? In other words, what if “Jesus” in Matthew 7:21-23 is right??? What if you wait until you die before you tell the truth about what Jesus really said about sex, marriage and the family? Are you going to be able to tell the world then?
Interesting point:
A few days ago, an expert guest on Fox News told how if someone today (the man or the wife) gets laid-off their job, becomes sick, etc. where they can’t work, it will devastate the entire family; because, when both the man and the wife are having to work just to make ends meet, the other’s income alone isn’t enough to keep them afloat, and therefore they suddenly can’t pay the mortgage, fall into bankruptcy, etc. – where he (the guest) was telling that it wasn’t like that in earlier days (like the 1950s, 1960s), that when the man got sick (e.g.), their savings could help them along, or the wife could get a job, as one job could support an entire family in those days, and more so. (Sometimes I just can’t say it pithy.) This tells me that one job should be able to support that same basic concept today; but, with wives also working, things have bounced down to the point of today’s much lesser pay for each individual. This tells me that if my plan to give everyone a free government allotment did cause less people to work, we would still bounce “up” to having enough for all, as free enterprise causes this to be a “bounce back” society. And, with probably a lot more honesty in products and services, as the early era also earned. Look how much stuff we produced during WWII when it was just the women making it. They didn’t only support themselves, but manufactured a great deal of “waste” for the war effort, including the feeding of troops over there. With that alone, if we just had all the women working the same today, then all the men could have plenty by not working at all. I’m not saying to do that much of an extreme, I’m just saying that if that much of an extreme worked, then my plan would also work, even if millions decided to quit work (or, whatever the percentage was of adding up all the WWII troops, and everyone who only worked exclusively for the war effort. And, it costs us much more per soldier for them being over there then here at home. But, again, I’ve made some very good points why very few people would quit working under my plan anyway, as no one today (basically) quits a “good paying” job. Under my plan, everyone can have a “good paying” job. And, there’s a BIG difference between a “good paying” job and a “bad paying” job. Ask ANYONE! Especially in pride and enthusiasm in working, period. It definitely makes sense to at least give it a try.
And, we’re supposed to have better technology today that “should” cause less people to have to work. You say, but we have more things and fluff. Again, pulling people out of poverty should be priority, then “more” stuff second. Else, eventually, there will be only one person needed to work to make all that’s needed, but since he says no one eats without working, then everyone on the entire planet will starve. This extreme example just shows the direction we are going, or the kind of pitfalls we are going to continue to encounter, if we don’t implement my total plan. “Hannity” types are the only ones who want us to make more “stuff” while keeping everyone in poverty – and to work two full times jobs just so they can get even more stuff / fluff. The only way to really fight the Hannity types is with my plan. But then, they’ll be getting the same exact free government allotment, so they won’t have anything they can gripe about. Plus, my plan works best for the Hannity types as there will be no more income tax. The only barrier today is getting liberals to “realize” that forcing people to work or go without food and/or shelter, it not the best overall way. Today is the time to do what Jesus would do. Only then can we progress people out of poverty. Now, once everyone finally realizes that the government can “just” print up all the money needed (under Obama’s “new” [post 11-11-08] plan) without having to pay it back, then we should be able to realize the rest (of my 11-11-08 letter). (I’m assuming Obama is targeting the most immediately needed areas in the priority of pulling us out of this recession – if the stock market can hold on. But, if we don’t start seeing real results in about a month, I say give all the lower paid people a big spending check. Because they’ll spend it, the rich won’t.)
You’ve got two (2) choices: hate me or ignore me:
Allowing the government to just print up free money without taxing, allows the government to tweak things the way they want it to be, or I should say: the way that it works best for the people. When we base government spending on the limitations of taxing, then the government is limited in what they can do to optimize what’s really best for the population. I know lots of you don’t like me for telling that the government can just print up free money, and would like me a whole lot better if I just said things the way we’ve always been taught; but, I’m not going to do that. So hate me!
Again, I work best behind the scenes; but, it would be very beneficial overall for lots of people to understand what’s on my website. So, ignore me, but disseminate the heck out of my website. Sure, I would probably have more time to think and even more clearly about how to help everything, if I wasn’t burdened with the gloom of eventual financial doom so much; so, any kind big check someone could give me would sure logically expedite a much better future for Mankind.
True word definitions:
“Liberal”: “Thinking outside the box.”
“Conservative”: “Actually trying hard to not think outside the box.” (I’m aware they always like “saying” they do.)
The true conservative motif:
Every conservative thinks what’s fair is leaning towards the ultimate goal where as many people as possible would be working two full time jobs, including each wife also needing to be working two full time jobs, just to get basic needs for the entire family. That way there can be more fluff for the rich conservative. Makes sense. 100% all for themselves. 100% against the real Christ. 100% the real dirt of the planet. So, when Bill Clinton tells that he’s found a new way to motivate the poor to get a job (by kicking them when they’re down), the most selfish of all conservative element really, really likes hearing it. Now, since that’s the real goal in every conservative’s mind, and since it kind of interferes with the definition of the word “fair,” there’s a vast accepted easy-to-stereotype phenomenon called “lying to themselves” in their own minds. That’s why conservatives shun Freedom of Speech much more than liberals (O’Reilly’s a good example). Oh, I know the reason why they also can’t admit to that. Now, my economic plan of just printing up free money, then giving everyone a free basic-needs check every month, also really, really finds negativity in the conservative mind. However, it would take a one-in-a-million type of self-centered conservative mind to “realize” that by also eliminating all taxes, it would also be very beneficial for the selfish, one-sided always, conservative. So, today’s problem rests best with the word “dumb.”
More proof that it’d be a better world if not so many people worked:
The latest commercial on Fox News sells flood insurance. It sounded like it’s something everyone should get. But, free online FEMA flood maps show flood prone areas. If you don’t live in a flood prone area, you’d be a fool to pay insurance for it (basically if you live near a creek or in a river valley; and, the vast majority don’t). But, do you think that insurance company is going to tell potential customers that? Again, there’s a lot of money that can be made because of the high degree of ignorance in this country (but they can tell you all about the latest sitcom). Hopefully Obama can do something about ignorance, because Fox News will never do anything about it, and will actually support deceitful businesses who take advantage of it.
Things Obama should do (I should make this title a repeating theme):
Honesty is the best policy. The government shuns that motto a great deal, but not always for the public’s general benefit. For example: Since all telephone conversations are being recorded to fight crime (or, to harass Freedom of Speech talkers, under the Bush administration), if the public knew about that, they’d scream “privacy violations,” right? But, I think we should tell everyone anyway, because when two criminals are planning a heist, if they “know” they are likely being listened to, then they’ll have to resort to only whispering in each other’s ears in the woods. (Enlighten also about how easy it is for authorities to place bugs in cars and houses.) I say that will deter that kind of crime more than anything else. But, I’m sure the greatest thrill for a cop is to see the faces on the criminals when the cops all of a sudden show up at the drug exchange, night burglary, hold up, etc. When there’s two there’s Jesus, so I say being honest will cause crimes make by two or more a thing of the past. Like terrorism. I mean, I’d rather not be shot witnessing a hold up or drug deal, just so the cops can get a good thrill now and then. Anybody with me? Just tell the people that a human is not actually listening to their conversations unless they are suspect, say certain key words or phases (like “I plan to kill the President,” etc.), or maybe practice Freedom of Speech a little too much. The Lady Bug sitting on my table right here just told me: “Hey, I got ears: I know what’s going on.” So, “crazy” might also invite human listeners. (Well, it saves on email expenses when I add readers in other ways.) (Fox News surely thinks I’m crazy.)
Motto of the day:
You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar: “You can win people to your side more easily by gentle persuasion and flattery than by hostile confrontation.” Eeeh, that’s for people controlled by money.
So, anyone that says it’s okay to kill innocent people in war… is “retarded”!
Hannity is already blaming Obama for the economic problem:
“Conservatives”: They’re either evil and/or dumb: one and/or the other. None could possibly be good and smart.
Ending thought:
I think many people think that after they graduate college, that allows them to be an imbecile the rest of their life. Am I right or am I right?
Mr. Critical – Winning people over with my charm.
TO SEE PRIOR SUPERIOR WRITINGS (and more):
http://www.the-Goldenrule.name/