Subject: Hey, any of you know where I can get a vegetarian cat?
I’ll ask at the pet store.
4-14-09
You have two choices: Spin it or ignore it:
When analyzing new information, there are many things evil people can spin; but, most of my stuff you have to just ignore at best. It’s like you can’t bring up the Amiriyah civilian shelter bombing and/or slant drilling as often as you bring up 9/11. That’d be hard to spin, right? You can try, but you know that rational thought would end up on my side concerning all the sexual evidence I have telling that Jesus wasn’t such an anti-sex bigot. Your experts would say that you’d better just ignore it. And, of course your justification is that since evil people are in charge of making the decisions, we can’t allow the American people decide what’s fair and honest. You also know that the people feel better when they think our government, media and religious leaders are fair and honest at the war front. I mean, otherwise, spouses of 9/11 victims might actually desire revenge against the true American leader wrongdoers, if they knew all the facts, right? Let’s just keep priorities based on what best serves the continuing saving of face of people who are paid to be honest. I mean, since we’ve concluded that Paul and evolution both end up telling that Jesus’ Fair Afterlife Punishment is incorrect, saving face for personal selfish pride reasons is something you also think God will overlook.
What, where, why, how, who?:
A vegetarian cat is a cat that refuses to eat meat, and acts a little finicky about it to boot. I’ll find one.
Our professor is “smart”:
It’s not that people become atheists because evolution proves there’s no God, it’s that someone of high stature has told them that evolution proves there’s no God. And, if one has an average to high libido, then becoming an atheist eliminates all the stress and guilt. Again, being highly educated means one is quick and good at learning something that’s already thought out, or is easy to figure further. But, I’m starting to believe that the brain can only allow advanced reckoning in minds that are slow. It’s like trying to figure out how a car is put together while driving it. It’s easy to learn how it drives, but you can’t take it apart to see exactly what’s making it work while you’re driving it. One way impresses everyone, but the other takes lots of time to figure out. Plus, you won’t look like you already know it all when they see you taking the car apart. It’s like you can better impress people by telling everyone there’s a mailbox there, when you fly by in an airplane, but the person that’s going to get to town later is going to be able to read the address while walking by. If your mind is set for speed and fast conclusions, then your conclusions are “simple” which better suits your existing knowledge, while you’re missing lots of the detail. If you mind is filled with 99% of what other’s have taught you, then you have only 1% left to think outside the box; but, if your mind is filled with say 75% of what’s you read and hear, then there’s a lot more area which you can ponder further. If lots of people listen to you, then you probably state the wrong thing much more often then someone who nobody listens to; thereby limiting your allowance to change. In a society that judges you by your communication skills, appearing smart is definitely priority over actually being smart. I don’t know, is O’Reilly starting to give up on his firm stance against immigration? When it gets to the point that they actually start looking dumb for maintaining their stupidity, they will. Do you think that all conservatives will give up their firm stance against the poor if I became religious leader (where all I’d have to do is read some of the red letter parts of the Bible)? Does anyone think the world is ready for that kind of abrupt change?
And if you’re rich, then you’re already at the destination, and therefore have never ever even seen the mailboxes.
Go ahead O’Reilly, spin the rest of it around:
The atheists will tell me to just wait for an “accident” to happen, then I’ll get my vegetarian cat.
Lots of people in Oakland cheering after Mixon kills four policemen:
My guess is so many people wouldn’t be out to get the cops if the cops obeyed the laws. I understand the cheers are in retaliation for a good history of cops beatings black people. The Uhuru Movement’s demonstration flyers declared: “Stop Police Terror.” “Nicole Brown said that she can’t condone murder but that police don’t respect residents of the area.” Okay, are you ready for a commentary that none of you would be able to figure out on your own in a thousand years? Now is the time for the police and courts to adhere to the law. All police and courts do is let the criminals know that it’s okay for the system people to break the rules, but not the criminal, which just instills a great amount of fairness instability in the minds of the criminals, thinking that there’s no real definition of right from wrong, and everything is just a game of selfishness and whatever you can get away with. It’s no wonder many times criminals come out of prison twice as bad as when they went in. Surely the worst criminals in society are the system people who ignore the laws, play games, save face, etc.; police officers who use excessive force while making an arrest; etc. And, the pathetic thing is, none are smart enough to even realize they’re just creating future crimes. When authorities show no respect for written laws, then the other criminal minds find absolutely no ethical reason either, and become assured of an actual kind of (false) justification, once they’ve been victimized by it. I bet lots of people who fight the cops when being arrested are those who have been wronged by the system people in the past. You see, there’s a BIG difference in someone spending a lot of time in jail / prison thinking about how unfair their crime was, and spending the entire time just thinking how the judge ignored certain laws, how the public defender waived certain important witnesses just to get out of a little more work, have been beaten by the cops, transcripts corrupted, etc. The only time when this kind of stuff is not going on is when the media happens to be watching. And, the media can’t watch every arrest, detention, and trial. Why does this happen? Because all system people “think” they’re doing the right thing when they ignore laws and rules. And, hypothetically, if there’s any law that allows a police officer, prison guard, etc. to beat someone, or use excessive force, then the actual law causes the problem. Most laws are very fair and comply with the Goldenrule, it’s the system people that escalate all the problems. Now, some news people will realize this, but since my stuff isn’t being disseminated, no cops or system people will realize it.
Cops need to pretend that every person they arrest is their blood brother. Then when they make the arrest – assuming they’re an honest / fair cop and do at least that – they’ll never use excessive force.
If system people think certain laws should be broken by them to better serve justice, then those laws need to be changed… first.
I found something I really like doing:
That’d be showin’ my smarts by proving how dumb everyone really is, in the desperate need of correcting world problems. And, I’ve noticed I seem to get along with people I personally know much better now that I am redirecting my gifted superior talent of quality and accurate criticism to where it can do the most good. I just smile now when someone I personally know says something really dumb or evil. I need to save my energy for the next blunderous and bias idea someone makes in the news, that can affect the entire world. “Correcting” people I knew in the ‘80s and mid to early ‘90s just ended up causing me more problems, that’s all. Since October of 1996 when I started all this writing, my personal well-being has improved.
But, sometimes it can backfire:
I figure I’m the one who’s caused these Mexican drug wars:
A couple of years ago, I challenged O’Reilly to say something to motivate Mexico into paying their employees more, as the best way to curtail all those illegals crossing the border for a better life. If jobs are equivalent in Mexico, then they won’t need to come over here – the overall best possible objective. Well, O’Reilly then did a show with former President Vicente Fox as the guest. It started out good targeting the Mexican economy and jobs, but ended up with O’Reilly making such a big deal criticizing the Mexican authorities for not doing enough to just stop their people from crossing the border (because that’s all O’Reilly really cares about – he doesn’t really care about helping those people by creating better jobs in Mexico, he only cares about them not coming over here, to support his position in one-step). My guess is that since O’Reilly is so popular and well accepted, current President Felipe Calderón gave close attention to O’Reilly’s complaint. Then, advisors to Calderón determined that the worst ethical problem with the border was all the drug trafficking, prompting the actions of the current drug war. If O’Reilly wouldn’t have swayed off course for personal reasons, then possibly Calderón would have rather given more attention to higher paying jobs, etc.
Same thing with Obama taking my idea of printing up free government money. If it isn’t being used correctly, it can cause more harm than good. I highly recommend to start eliminating taxes and start giving everyone free money increasing toward their basic-needs. Then let everything “bounce back” into line with that.
I don’t know if drugs should be illegal or not, and exactly what should and shouldn’t be. I’m guessing things would be better if all drugs were legal with a serous (pithy) scare label, because I bet most people who start taking drugs don’t realize the later pitfalls. Once ignorance is gone, I bet most people will not really want to do something that can mess up their future. Plus, when no one has to worry anymore about basic needs, or their love life, stress levels that can make a person resort to drugs should be much lower. (Health problems is the only other reason someone would want to take drugs, but that’s a good reason.) Today, one of the thrills of being an authority is feeling the bootlick of people who just do as you command without you having to explain why – that is, the pitfalls of taking illegal drugs. So, enforcement is probably up 10 to 1 over education and facts. I don’t have a beef with drug dealers who are just selling something to someone who wants to buy it. I don’t see the Goldenrule being broken there, assuming they aren’t a “pusher” (persuading people into taking it, who wouldn’t otherwise). However, since it is illegal, one has to be quite a scumbag for taking advantage of it to make money. Therefore, I don’t shed a tear when they get killed, but there are a lot of innocent people I understand who are being killed in this Mexican drug war, which I feel I started, but O’Reilly was the one who deviated from my “perfect” suggestion. If my stuff was being disseminated and disseminated correctly, then likely we wouldn’t be having this Mexican drug war problem, and everyone would much better know about the many pitfalls of taking drugs, and not even have the necessary levels of stress, to curb the entire problem. “My” ear should have been in that Mexican Presidential meeting discussing the issue several months ago, instead of just the power of O’Reilly’s voice, and some one-step reality thinking.
Again, everyone needs to follow everything I say (on major issues), like it’s the Bible. Otherwise, it can just make everything worse.
Well, at least you’re turning:
Fox News is looking for some “change”:
Realizing that Republicans lost the last two elections, and since they know that not being Fair and Balanced on international issues has worked pretty well, I guess they now figure it should also work on national political issues, by getting rid of Colmes and placing the latest conservative imbecile at the helm: Glenn Beck. Glenn obviously hasn’t ever read any of my material, so he’s like bringing back all the antiquated ten-year-old degradation tactics against Democrats, which surely makes him look like an idiot in front of today’s news people who have read some of my stuff. Like the old imbecilic strategies where they spend half the time making fun of Democrats looks, voices, bad pictures, or human error. News people who have read my stuff are now likely smart enough to know that that just “shows” that one doesn’t have legitimate gripes when they have to resort to putting down things that people can’t help. Like that Barney Frank: he has a slight speech impediment; so, of course Glenn’s going to have everyone laugh at that. The evil conservative imbecilic mind will actually thing that Barney is wrong because he has this minor flaw; and, of course, the conservative audience doesn’t hear my commentary either; so, these fourth-grade tactics will likely raise Glenn’s ratings. The reason Republicans didn’t win the last two elections is not because the way O’Reilly and even Hannity now attack in a bit more smarter fashion, it’s because of the Iraq war, specifically where we just went in killing any civilian that was in the way – which caused the vast insurgency, which did result in a kind of slow torturous / negative feeling here in the States. If Fox News would have cared more about Fairness to the Iraqi people, then likely Democrats wouldn’t be so much in control. Keep Glenn though. Again, imbeciles know how to please imbeciles. I say keep up the good work Glenn, so eventual intelligent people can easily distinguish the facts. Ted Nugent telling Obama to “suck on [his] machine gun,” and calling Hillary a “worthless bitch,” is not even as immature as what Glenn Beck does. Insulting looks or a speech impediment is the bottom of the barrel; but, that’s why I like it so much because it “fits” so well with the conservative motif. I think Ted Nugent learned that the crazy rebellious Rock music in the ‘70s was radical, but didn’t realize it was radical against “the man” who killed innocent people in war, and who was unfair to his fellow American. Ted somehow got it turned around thinking it meant radical against peace and fairness. I guess there has to be all kinds, or it wouldn’t be a diverse world. You better get out of the way if you’re a defenseless animal, because Ted defines being a man as never taking on someone his own size.
Hannity’s best argument against Obama is apparently the Bill Ayers connection. If Obama instead had worked in say Topeka, Kansas, then it’s very likely he would have never even known Bill Ayers. So, it was a geographic matter, more than a matter of collusion. But, at least Hannity explains the connection at maybe a tenth-grade level.
4-2-09: O’Reilly enlightens some reality into Code Pink antiwar lady guest:
He essentially says we have to attack the Taliban because how they treat women. The antiwar lady said we shouldn’t kill innocent people during the process, but didn’t explain why. O’Reilly ended up looking smarter. If I was the antiwar lady, I’d have hit O’Reilly with the pithy: “Us killing their innocent bystanders justifies them doing 9/11.”
I understand that Obama wants to try negotiations with the Taliban to try to bring the violence to an end. Wait while I pick one of these playing cards. … We should do five (5) more violent attacks against the Taliban including killing their innocent bystanders, before we start peace negotiations, just to make sure that they know for certain that President Obama is ethically no different than President Bush. That’s what should better make the Taliban want to submit to the “fairness” of the new antiwar administration. If that doesn’t work: if the Taliban doesn’t listen to reason, then we should wait another 4 to 8 years for our next chance for them to listen to reason.
I know that all we want the Taliban to do to be able to come back into Afghan society, is to quit cutting off people’s heads and quit treating women bad. Therefore, I think they will be able to fully understand this better, while they are actually observing the headless women after our next five (5) violent attacks. That way they can see first hand the wrong. What? – I’m sure it’d make sense to Geraldo.
You say: There’s a war going on here, and we have to kill their innocent people to protect ourselves. Sure, you can, but you just don’t have ethics on your side. In addition to your cowardice, weakly, and unmanly choice that it’s okay for innocent people to die so you can live, please quit making me sick my insinuating that you’re on the right side. There is no right side when both sides kill the other side’s innocent people. Try to be just a bit above a piece of scum, and admit that you’re just as evil as the other side. I know, “smart” would have win first, and that’s just not going to happen from well educated people and people who talk and read fast, is it? I say wars are never going to end as long as everybody believes their own bias lies. O’Reilly and Hannity need to “admit” that there’s absolutely no ethical difference between them and the worst terrorists; and that it’s all a game between the selfish. Oh sure, O’Reilly and Hannity don’t “cut off heads,” but they do support the setting of innocent people on fire; and in much more a lie than the Taliban. If I ever get killed by a cowardice terrorist, I’ll at least know that they aren’t the only ones to blame. So, I blame all the blameworthy now. (Great example article of something that takes a two-step thinking process. Only a slow thinker can apparently do it.)
To the root:
All unethical / unfair treatments today can be attributed to the vast majority of church cop-outs, intended to please the money. So, I (only) am 100% on top of the subject, not to mention the religious sex issue that’s the key to the solution to everything else.
O’Reilly, when you finally get it right, remember to “admit” that you were a double pinhead:
To understand the Taliban is simply to understand Fox News:
I’m guessing the Taliban is just like Fox News, where hardly any of them are aware that our intrusions are because they wouldn’t let us search for bin Laden, that he killed innocent Americans on 9/11, they won’t stop threatening more attacks, and because we don’t like how they treat women. The vast majority of Taliban probably just think we are just unjustifiably evil, again just like how Fox News conveys to all Americans about all our enemies. So, I’d drop some flyers or get some talk going around there. At least they will know “why” we are attacking them. Because Americans will never know why they want to attack us. You see, the full unbiased truth would cause Americans to “realize” why we have enemies, allowing negotiations that could make things better – but that’s never going to change; however, at least we can inform the Taliban “why” we are attacking them, for them to at least ponder negotiations. – I could see that (us informing the Taliban) happening because it may be to our advantage to end hostilities; but, it’s still apparently not going to get done until I suggest it.
Minnesota – Coleman vs. Franken:
Are they ever going to get done tallying up the votes? I know nothing about Franken’s politics, but I’m for him simply because O’Reilly is so much against him. I could be wrong; but, the basis for my logic still has to be better than Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.
“Despicable”:
O’Reilly calls a lot of things “despicable” but nothing could be more “despicable” than the Iraq war; even from an honest warmonger’s point of view, as the premise of WMDs were found as incorrect. All of Saddam’s 1980s atrocities were not the reason for our invasion, proved by our killing of the same Iraqi civilians, proving that Bush started the entire thing mainly for personal spite, and in hopes that the American people would praise him for it.
Sorry guys, not until marriage!:
Fox News says statistics tell that Christianity has dropped from 86% in 1990 to 76% in 2008:
That’s nearly a 12% drop. Again, it’s because of the churches’ condemnation and stigmas against sex (outside of heterosexual marriage). The poll also told that it was mainly between 1990 and 2001, where only 1% was from 2001 to 2008. This is likely because of my 6-9-99 flyer telling all the denomination heads about the Bible sexual word corruptions. They now more ignore the subject, allowing less direct condemnation; but, still not admitting to the specific word facts to recant the entire traditional taboo. Once they do that, not only will people become more Christian, but it will eventually cause a future utopia. “Artificial salvation cop-outs” is the most harmful evil, but free sex is the key to the solution of it all. You have to know what the human animal really wants. Now, you’re not going to understand this if God “gifted” you with a libido so low that the thought of touching another woman, other than you wife, just grosses you out.
See the above poll article at: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/author/laurengreen/, Losing My Religion? Not So Fast.
And, the poll indicated that atheists have increased from 8.2% in 1990 to 15% in 2008. Would that indicate that “evolution proves there’s no God” as an 1800s theory or a 1990 theory? All it proves is that someone called an “era” a “day” in Genesis. Like taking “seasons” and “days and years” (Gen. 1:14) and somehow judging its results good in one “day” (Gen. 1:19). You see, to judge something seen as “good” (Gen. 1:18) you have to let it pass at least once, and four “seasons” would have to take at least a year. Again, this is just another intellectual fact that you’re not going to hear on Fox News or any other channel. The main support that there’s still a (“limited”) God, is the last few verses of the entire Bible saying that God can’t “just stop” added errors (stating that He can only deal with the culprit later). Now, Paul contradicted this, but, you see, God / Jesus later contradicts Paul. Lots of the Bible also has to do with like how the Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-30) can be morally interpreted in two opposite ways: If you see it that the rich man condemning the poor man was moral, then you’ve proven to God that you are evil; but, if you think the rich man was unfair, then your mind has what it takes to enter Heaven. So, Jesus can be more concerned with knowing your true colors rather than if you just obey orders. Because, in Heaven where there are no “orders,” an otherwise evil mind will corrupt the place. If you will fight or support for your country right or wrong, or just in ignorance (just follow “orders”), then that will also prove your true colors. And, all of today’s news media loved ignoring the Amiriyah civilian shelter, slant drilling, etc. issues after 9/11 and during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, proving their true colors. Again, narrow is the gate that leads to salvation (Matt. 7:12-14), and I seem to be the only one trying to do something about it. Easy to do church cop-outs are the only things that people think widens that gate, and the gate is totally open if you’re a Protestant (in “true colors”). So, church leaders are the one’s who will suffer most in the Afterlife. But, that does not change your true colors one bit.
I’m telling you, you don’t want to be upside-down on your way to Heaven.
You can be like God right now, by considering everyone in the world as your children. If you “can,” then like how you will give to your son or daughter who asks, you will now “give” (mainly fairness) to everyone on the planet. If you think you do now, then that just shows how dumbness can overrule “true colors.”
Realize that you don’t want to end up in the dark for eternity just seeing all the things you’re missing:
Somalian pirates take hostage:
The fact that this has been going on quite a lot lately, but doesn’t become big news until an American ship gets hit, shows that American society is far from Christian (we only care about Americans, not others in God’s world). I’d inform the pirates who have hostage(s) in view out at sea, that they can surrender and not hurt the hostage(s), and get guaranteed three square meals a day in prison for the rest of their lives, but if they kill the hostage(s), they’ll be tortured to death. That would not only encourage them to give up the hostage(s) but mainly it would very much discourage others from piracy. Education is key: Ask the pirates to hold their heads under the water for about a minute until they can’t take it any longer. Then, ask them if they want to die that way. Whoever’s reading this, do the same; then, ask yourself if that might work. This would not be hurting an “innocent” person, and would be doing the Goldenrule to the innocent hostages, especially potential future ones. Otherwise, if we pay the ransoms, piracy attacks with hostages will surely continue / increase. Then the only way to stop it is making me religious leader of the world, where I would preach that anything but the Goldenrule is a cop-out (allowing fairness to trickle down); and, none of you want the world to hear that. Especially those of you who give (pay ransom) to any of today’s churches.
Of course, O’Reilly would say that pirate hostage situations are bad, but how are we going to fix the world’s worst problems, like teachers who have sex with their consensual teenage students?!!
I don’t think we do, but if we had economic sanctions against Somalia, then they’d be half justified in piracy (via the rules of today’s game).
Congratulations for the safe return of Captain Phillips. Very skillful. But, I think we also lucked out. The next time, don’t even consider paying ransoms. I am getting sick of hearing so much about how wonderful the U.S. is compared to other countries. That’s the kind of bias and very immodest talk that can just cause other problems, in attitudes of both Americans and other countries. If it’s not the Olympics or other sports, then I don’t want to hear about this kind of troublemaking favoritism.
Why is it that Mr. Critical can always continually find fault?
Let me think:
Build a sea drone that is bullet proof, that can stay close to the pirate boat (with hostages aboard) constantly spraying out some sleeping gas. The dern thing could constantly be maneuvered to stay in the boat’s direction of incoming wind. It’d be just funny to watch the pirates trying to fight the thing. Of course, that’ll just create a market for selling gas masks in Somalia. So, buy your stocks now.
If it had happened to an Iranian ship, everyone including the hostages would have just been blown up. So, I do like the way the U.S. handled it.
I’m hearing a lot about pirate escalation possibilities:
Realize there’s a big difference between pirates and terrorists. Terrorists are morally / revenge based, therefore attacks against them can escalate. Pirates are just common criminals that know they don’t have legitimate justification. Sure, pirates will threaten more, but will do less. Their motivation is only based on what they think they can get away with for selfishness purposes only, rather than to teach right from wrong (terrorists). Shooting more of them (pirates) will deter their kind of activity, not escalate it. Because of the one-step thinking, very high bias of our media, I realize it makes it very hard for the common Joe to tell the difference. Even the news announcers themselves live in the dark. It’s like I could tell someone who lived a thousand years ago all about how an automobile works, all the intricate parts, etc., but the whole thing would be in vain if I failed to mention that an automobile is something someone drives for transportation. The key reason why terrorists want to attack us needs to be explained… to the American people. It’s clear they’re not going to know otherwise.
Any violent pirate protests will end once they realize it isn’t intimidating us. You see, we generally don’t want them to be mean to us. Where’s the logic in allowing them to be mean to us (allowing piracy), to get them to quit being mean to us (in violent protest)? Well, I’m sure it’s logical to some Americans; and apparently whoever has paid any of those ransoms. “Dumb” it can cause things to escalate.
We certainly can and should take out known pirate people and operation locations and in Somalia, but not where we kill innocent bystanders, or they’ll have justification. If you can’t do it without hurting innocent bystanders, then you can’t do it (that way).
Billy Bob Thornton:
I’m being reminded of a 1993 Michael Douglas movie called Falling Down.
I know you’d all allow World War Three to occur rather than admitting that I’m smarter that you, even if you knew that that was the choice.
Mr. Critical – Figuring it all out.
TO SEE PRIOR SUPERIOR WRITINGS (and more):
http://www.the-Goldenrule.name/