Subject: You all think the same
Or, you all process your information and trust in the same manner. Like you all won’t listen to a “nobody” like me, but most of you will run at a machine gun just because a “somebody” told you to. The only exceptions are just “cowards”. With women, most really don’t want to give up their ability to get men to do whatever they want, via restricting sex, unless they’re really independent. But practically all “independent” women I’ve dated during my many years of being single, still have their demands even though it’s mainly unspoken. Especially when they have the Pope (a “somebody”) and Protestants demanding that dishonest prostitution is not only their right, but their virtue.
7-29-08
What would Jesus want?:
Regarding John 13:34: If everyone cared as much for one another as men do for women, then it’d be a much better world. Am I right or wrong? “Open sex” with a desire for diversity in looks, is the solution. Just create the right fad / craze / style… after STD cures. “When a man loves a woman, can’t keep his mind on nothing else: he’ll trade the world for the good thing he’s found. If she’s bad he can’t see it: she can do no wrong – turn his back on his best friend if he put her down.” –Percy Sledge, 1966. Well, not quit to that extent, because that’s the perfect description of “lust”: “strong / intense desire.” In an open-sex society, lust will come down, and Fair and Balanced for one another will go up. “There’s no love, like your love, and no other, could give more love. There’s nowhere, unless you’re there; all the time, all the way. Oh, you can’t tell me it’s not worth tryin’ for. I can’t help it – there’s nothin’ I want more. I would fight for you; I’d lie for you; walk the wire for you – yeah I’d die for you. You know it’s true: Everything I Do, I Do It For You.” –Brian Adams, 1991. Sounds like there will be a lot of room for care and concern to “go up” in a Christian open-sex society. Yes, that’s the way Jesus wants it. Please, someone articulate, email me and explain how I’m wrong! Your ignoring me will assure me of my correctness.
Comcast Digital Voice:
So far, I’ve gotten three (3) old girl friends back. It works! Get it.
World War One recruitment poster:
Yeah, more of a reason: The thought of entire countries running hard to kill one another blows my mind. I mean, when basically everyone on one side believes that it’s right and just to kill basically everyone on the other side, something “intelligent” is just not in place. If everyone was as smart as me, we wouldn’t be having wars. Basically, instead of everyone believing that everyone on the other side is evil and knows they’re evil and therefore deserves death, realizing that the other side’s “evil” just happens to match your evil would be food for thought. The lack of true Fair and Balance news in the main reason for all the ignorance. Open-sex would definitely cause everyone to emotionally “feel” the importance of people in other countries, as “a” value, even when one never travels. In the last few years, I’ve written a great deal of “reasons” why war is dumb and selfish. Just re-read all that. If one never participates in or supports a war, then one can’t ever be rightfully considered one of the “evil” ones. Jesus summed it up best by ordering us all to “forgive” all others. But, the existence of Christian participated wars for the last 1700 years shows that Christ failed in His teachings… so far. 9/11 and the Iraq debacle shows that I have failed in my teachings… so far.
It’s amazing how all these “smart” people in the world (surely all more articulate than me), seem to all know precisely which counties to 100% support and which countries are 100% evil. “Binary” probably explains it best. And all you people think I’m the idiot. The more I study history and get today’s news, the more I “realize” I (only) have a very unique aptitude and purpose in this world.
Prior to my 1998 paper, it was very common in warfare to actually target the other side’s civilians. In addition to trying to persuade an honorable leader to give up, it was also to let them know how ruthless the attacker was, so as to deter the enemy and others to never cross them again. Just a little bit of intelligence back then would have told that killing the other side’s civilians just fully justified retaliation down deep in everyone on the other side’s heart, thereby mounting even a larger force for reprisal. Like Ho Chi Minh apparently let the United States know that he didn’t care how many of his innocent people we killed. Therefore: He was evil, and we were good, to minds like Montgomery Gentry. Only a rather unique kind of person could see that “both” sides were evil. How could “both” sides be evil? That doesn’t make any sense. Sounds like just an “excuse.”
Mr. Critical – Using “intelligence” to decide war, instead of just by how angry you’re getting.
TO SEE PRIOR SUPERIOR WRITINGS (and more):
http://www.the-Goldenrule.name/