Subject: The best argument against atheism:
8-5-09
The next time O’Reilly tries to defend God, he needs to say it like this:
A college student hands in his physics dissertation and the atheist professor later says:
Atheist professor: I can’t pass you on this dissertation – it’s full of nothing but mistakes!
God fearing student: Well, professor, aren’t you aware of what’s making the world a continuing better place?
Atheist professor: Yeah, but that included eons of time.
God fearing student: Well, if I turn in millions of dissertations with nothing but mistakes, would you pass me then?
Atheist professor: No, because it has everything to do with natural selection.
God fearing student: Okay, I’ll destroy half of them.
Gee, “I” should be able to go out and get me some quick PhD credits, shouldn’t I? Technically, it would be the best thing ever for the advancement of science… if they ever rely on logic.
Since mistakes have now caused Bruno, the world should now be better off.
Topsy-turvy:
Fox News said, while visiting a former 17th century British slave fortress in Ghana, Obama told that “cruelty and oppression can be overcome.” You mean like in the cruelty and oppression of economic sanctions against the people of North Korea? Again, very doubtful the President of North Korea is missing any meals. So, it appears “dumb” still explains it best.
http://www.crosscurrents.org/gordon.htm, ECONOMIC SANCTIONS, JUST WAR DOCTRINE, AND THE "FEARFUL SPECTACLE OF THE CIVILIAN DEAD":
“The most reliable estimate holds that 237,000 Iraqi children under five are dead as a result of sanctions, with other estimates going as high as one million.(2) The deaths from sanctions are far greater than the number of Iraqis directly killed in the Persian Gulf War -- an estimated 40,000 casualties, both military and civilian.(3) But the sanctions are shocking not only because of the extent of the human damage, but also because the suffering has been borne primarily by women, children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor; the state and the wealthy classes seem to be inconvenienced, but are otherwise exempt from extreme hardship.”
Montgomery Gentry would say: “That’s something to be proud of.”
I guess sanctions would be worse than slavery, as the slaves got to live, and slavery targeting more the tough men who could handle it. And, slavery was at least productive. Of course, I’m not for slavery, I’m just against “dumb.”
Taliban genocide:
Sounds like we’re on a genocide mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and have been for years, and the Taliban know it The Taliban have to fight tooth and nail since we’ve proved to them we plan to kill every last one of them, so they can’t set up any safe havens for future revenge attacks against the United States. Well, I just want us to know that we’re not really any different than Adolf Hitler. I’m not crying either over the death of those who want to force burkas, but I know my talk and Bible sexual findings is likely the only way to ethically fight it. At one time in Arizona any Indian, peaceful or not, within the range of a rifle shot were to be killed; because, the less Indians, the less chance of an attack against white interests.
The sweet visions of victory! It looks like someone “won”:
Who’s boss now? Someone who Hannity loves… or, someone who Hannity hates? It can only be one or the other.
“All I wanna say is that they don't really care about us.” –Michael Jackson, 1995:
That’s simply because it’s not an open-sex world. If it was an open-sex world, then it’d be totally different. What I can figure out in seconds, no one else could figure out if they lived for a thousand years.
Is marriage breaking down?:
“Who’s cheatin’ who, who’s being true; who don’t even care anymore. It makes you wonder who’s doing right with someone tonight; and, who’s car is parked next door.” –Alan Jackson, 1997.
If Sex Feels So Good, Why Do I Feel So Bad?; (abstinence brochure); Heritage House ’76, Inc.; 1998:
Wow, those are some pretty bad things. I don’t know if it’s worth it: having sex in today’s world. Of course, all those feelings are church caused, and would all become eliminated in a Jesus-based open-sex society (after the cure of all STDs).
Should I refine by insults?:
http://www.answers.com/topic/imbecile-1, “Imbecile”:
"Imbecile" was once applied to people with an IQ of 26-50, between "moron" (IQ of 51-70) and "idiot" (IQ of 0-25).
Enough about Hannity, O’Reilly and Glenn Beck. When’s the smartererist people gunna have another one of these:
“Duh, I just do as I’m told – I don’t know nothing else!”
Apparently, taxes are going up against the most wealthy (so Obama can pay back some of their high complaining against his spending):
I sure am getting sick of hearing all the Fox News people complaining lately about Obama’s tax increases against the very rich. Wow, what a bunch of covetous pathetic lowlifes. I mean, what is a better definition of covetous pathetic lowlifes than Fox News? They are the epitome of the worst filth on the planet. Their kind cause more terrorism in the world than any other source, and they’re the root cause of the terrorism against us. In an ignorant tax-based system, what’s going on is the God fearing conservatives will give small amounts to charities in an attempt to fool Christ into thinking that they are His, then the real trick is to have the Antichrist Fox News whine about tax hikes, etc. which can cause thousands of times more damage to the poor and the middle class. They also wear suits and ties to fool everyone into thinking they aren’t the country’s worst scum bags. In the eyes of God, they’ll make John Couey look like a saint (in respect to the level of real damage they cause).
Self-centered cries from the richest 5% in this country get about as much sympathy from me as those Jews who whine about how bad they’re being treated since their invasion of Palestine, where West Texas would solve the entire problem.
God’s Fox News Satan also begs for sympathy the most about health care reform, just because they know that it will lessen medical attention for the rich by giving more doctor time to the poor and those who aren’t getting any medical attention at all. The present way is the way they like it! And, they are all so stupid that they think they’re fooling God. They are the real trash.
Now, would this be the best time to ask Fox News to give me a job as an on-air commentator?
I can still hear the cries of the poor much better than Obama can today.
So, what’s best: being a moron or an imbecile?:
It depends which channel you’re broadcasting on.
So when does squatters’ rights justify ownership of the land?:
I’d say when at least one generation has totally passed since the take over or since the final end of emanating hostilities. I think there has to be one full generation of total peace in the land area before one can rightfully claim a piece of property that their ancestors or great grand parents had taken from them in unfair violence. If no one can claim they’ve been personally victimized, then they have no claim. Since the violence is continuous in Israel, I think it’s going to be a long time before they have a rightful claim, as long as there was at least one generation of peace since the Muslims took it from the Jews. In other words, it’s like contracts that were made or broken by ancestors of the current living before they were even born aren’t ethically invalid, unless the dispute is still in the courts and is unsettled by, again, those currently living. Anyone wanting to restart a claim which was never in the courts during their entire lifetime would be the new wrongful invaders; as beyond this line, anyone could go back centuries or even millenniums to claim back conquered land. That would allow England a modern day claim to take back the Thirteen Colonies, for example. But, I think the British who felt those victimizing feelings are all dead by now. Anyone wanting to stir up something today would obviously just be doing it for total greed, not in the conscious of being a victim of unfairness.
Again, more practical than moving the Jews to West Texas (which is the “sure” solution), likely the best case Israel/Palestine solution is Israel paying the Palestinians sufficient restitution and/or rent. Money can usually always create a fair and acceptable solution. Even Iran would be satisfied. However, that would have to include someone in Israel to admit they were wrong. So, it’s not going to happen. Self pride rules, and will likely lead us to WWIII or the end of the world; and, if leaders and trusted people can’t be honest, then so be it (as it’s “inevitable”), so crickets or something have a better chance of evolving and creating a better world. All the lies is a filth that God wants to clean up one way or the other. Reality works better in truth. Hell works better in lies.
Since there will still be some Palestinians where no amount of money will satisfy their desire for revenge of their brother’s death, the West Texas solution is a more “sure” solution for the end of the entire problem and safety of the Jews, but is not as practical and easier to implement as restitution / rent. Surely restitution / rent to Palestinians would cost Israel much less than an invasion of Iran, etc., which would escalate to who knows what. So, self pride still overrules financial advantage. And, if we can’t overrule our self-pride, then we won’t be able to in the future, so it’s “inevitable.” It’s like how if we (the U.S.) just paid Saddam Hussein the restitution for Kuwait’s slant drilling, etc. then surely that would have cost us a great deal less then all the pride solutions we chose instead. Realize, “smart” equates with admitting error, and “dumb” matches with self-image pride; but everyone thinks it’s the other way around. If we don’t accept a more intelligent person to flourish, then we’re doomed eventually. Again, self-image pride is going to prevent even that from happening.
The battle between the religious and the atheists:
When I show my Bible sexual corruption findings to religious leaders, where they can validate its correctness, they always just ignore the issue and never share that vital information with anyone else. That proves they are more “dishonest.” But, since atheists and secular / media leaders can’t easily verify its correctness, they assume I’m dishonest; so, they are more “dumb.” But, if a dealer delivered a secular media leader’s brand new car with a big dent in the side of it, they would argue and debate the issue, as they could easily verify the correctness of the big dent. I guess what I’m saying it that the ones we “trust” the most (the Pope, etc.) are actually the ones we should trust the least; and, the ones (media and government leaders) we think “know” the most, don’t.
It could be an inability to think outside the box problem:
If God really doesn’t want you to reproduce, and therefore has given you a low libido, since we’re all clothed, since society found many years ago that clothing lessens sexual desire (creating the “box”), it could be that people like Cavuto or whoever has never imagined what sex would be like with someone other than their spouse, could simply be explained by an inability to ponder outside the box; therefore, a possible base reason for today’s religious leaders, and conservatives; which only powers ruling opinion in that direction simply because it’s those kinds’ number one cop-out for salvation, instead of the much more difficult Goldenrule (difficult for those with wealth), as Jesus said: very, very few with lots of money will be saved. So, mine has “Jesus” on my side, and “those kinds” just have their flat-out corrupt sex word-change lies accumulated with their far reaching spin, on their side. So, who’s going to win in this life, and / but who’s going to win in the Afterlife? I’m really just a dead person who happens to still be alive to talk about it.
Oh, those with low libidos aren’t going to know that their libido is low, “simply” because they can’t just borrow a person with a normal or high libido for a day, to compare. So, their default “assumption” is that their libido is the same as others, thereby enhancing their mistaken belief that they are more Godly than others. And, that’s based if there were no past religious sex lies. So, technically, those with low libidos who are also rich are God’s worst enemies.
To put it pithy: If everyone cared as much for one another as men do for women, it’d be a much better world:
Churches will tell me I’m wrong, but I think there’s proof somewhere that Jesus failed …so far.
They’re angry:
O’Reilly and Beck are both getting steamed about the thought that the next time they go to their doctor, there might be a poor person in line in front of them. Ha! Ha! Ha!
I don’t understand the Obama heath reform plan:
He’s only saying the perks, not what it exactly will be. O’Reilly complained about something to do with a Federal health agency will be getting everyone’s medical tests and information, then order what further procedure would best be next. If that’s what I think it is, then that’s great, as the top medical experts can put the data in a computer to tell the next step, etc.; and, make that information available to a different doctor that one may change to. I think that will greatly lessen doctor dishonesty, and provide a much better job of determining the best possible solution; as doctors may lack in certain things that the computer would be keep up-to-date on. There could be exceptions, but the computer would know when to make that call. That would be like having my car mileage constantly given to someone who will automatically make sure I make oil changes on time (hypothetically). Plus, the possibility of the patient going to a new doctor sort of checks the integrity of the first doctor’s test results, etc. In the status quo, Hannity and O’Reilly would rather see a doctor that makes more money the more the doctor lies, like in saying there’s a problem that needs surgery that really doesn’t; which I’ve personally came close to becoming a victim of. Hannity and O’Reilly are the types who allow doctor corruption the most as they actually believe the more money someone makes or the more credentials someone has, the more honest they are. Those are the same kind of idiots that also allow all the church corruption. Of course, what also makes sense, President Obama can’t actually say doctors and hospitals are frauding Americans; and, especially can’t explain how, or even more doctors and hospital will know how to do it if Republicans get their way. (Shortly after I wrote this, Obama proved me wrong.) This government “clearinghouse” would force more honesty in the medical field. I still don’t have the slightest idea on the financial question though. Conspiracy theory people will say it will just allow the government what it wants to do so badly; that is, to kill millions of innocent people for population control, for some totally irrational reason. As long as the government isn’t really trying to do something like that, then this kind of health reform ought to work.
Plus, a central medical computer would antiquate a lot of the doctors level of knowledge, where we’d end up with more paramedic type things where they just do the tests, etc. then let the computer call the shots. Again, I’m sure there’d be exceptions; but, if doctors are allowed to know less, then more people can become doctors; then the medical treatment “line” for O’Reilly and Hannity won’t we as long. Also, I’ve always wondered why colleges purposely don’t give A’s to everyone in the class when everyone deserves it. Possibly it’s a way to motive them to study harder. I don’t know. But, if the colleges gave out more A’s to everyone who’s earned it, then there’d be less people becoming discouraged, and then we can have more doctors; again, so O’Reilly and Hannity won’t have to wait as long for medical treatment. I think people who make A’s have more motivation to do better, not the other way around.
Otherwise, O’Reilly (and Hannity), in all seriousness, are just looking for answers up Bruno’s shtink hole:
I’m finding more and more that O’Reilly is just an idiot that shouldn’t be listened to (in further commentary) any more than the guy next door. He possesses a ton of knowledge, but / therefore he can’t think outside the box hardly at all. He is only good at shaping and hardening the status-quo. O’Reilly thinks a government controlled health care is big brother messing in his affairs; but, it’s really big brother keeping his doctors honest; therefore, costs down and health up. What an idiot!
In similarity:
Church leaders have tested and found through the years exactly what the majority will and will not believe. God actually wrote the Bible in such a way allowing these corruptions (so the Bible could be available in the era of ethical pursuit [today]) for a future genius to “explain” the original meaning. For example, they will try an assertion that Jesus’ no lusting policy in Matthew 5:28 means no sexual desire at all, as it passes the test to be the continued teaching, as few regular people are able to realize that that would destroy mankind if everyone did what God wanted. For the few smarter ones, pastors will just reply that “lust” is simply another word for sex outside of marriage. And, that covers the rest of the skeptics. The corrupt church creating different definitions of the same word ends up as the result, so they’ll be an answer for everyone… except apparently me. I’m must be either really, really, really dumb, or the smartest person who has ever lived. Either way, I’m seen as “way out in left field.”
Irrational Disbelief Syndrome (IDS):
Those who can’t believe that Jesus was for sex and against marriage, after reviewing all the evidence and logic at my website, all suffer from the common stereotype Irrational Disbelief Syndrome (IDS), which is an imbedded form of UTOB: Unable to Think Outside the Box.
What do you shtink about that?
Winning the “game” is all they know:
I’m curious how many people are aware that Hannity and Beck care more about dishonoring Barack Obama than they do about helping the American people. And, I think they’ve been instructed to be that way. That’s not good because if Obama does do something wrong, they won’t be able to correctly report it, because their integrities are mud.
“Fair and balanced”:
Big “talk” is Fox News, otherwise they’d have the liberals have entire hour shows to balance out Hannity and Beck. Any moron can talk big, actually doing it is the tough part. And, Fox News isn’t any tougher than Sara Palin. They’re even less “fair and balanced” since they laid-off Colmes. Their audience still believes it though.
I personally do feel secure in today’s society:
In today’s society, if I make a lot of money then I can get some great looking girl friends. And, conversely, if I end up losing all my money, today’s society allows me to shack up with some uglier women to have her support me. I wouldn’t be able to do that in an open sex society. I’d have to get a job and more financially take care of myself.
UNDERSTAND:
You do NOT get to touch this:
Instead, we appreciate your help in our primary goal to say “we won!”:
There are cops and there are pigs:
I think this Officer Crowley is just another cowardice bully. I guess a guy (Henry Gates) isn’t allowed to become angry and express his views. In Nazi Germany, the United States, and maybe even in Iran, if you’re angry, you’d better keep it to yourself. Unless this Gates made a threat of criminal intent against Crowley, then this Crowley was abusing his authority. When an officer is arresting anyone, he is threatening a violent act, in case they resist, etc. So, does that mean if some guy voices his anger against me in public, I now have the right to make a citizens arrest allowing me to become violent if they resist? Why should it be any different for someone whose job is to daily take that kind of stuff? Everyone seems to think that since Gates was in error in his pursuit of verbal improvement, that justifies him being arrested. In other words, if Gates was right and the police were harassing him in discrimination, then everyone would agree that the officer deserved the tongue lashing. But, in Freedom of Speech, it shouldn’t make a bit of difference if the guy speaks in error. What it really boils down to is that the police just personally “don’t like” being yelled at while others may be looking; which has 100% to do with their cowardice bullying image they pride themselves into maintaining, instead of allowing criticism in an effort in making a better world. Crowley just wanted any onlookers to think that he disrespects Freedom of Speech (that he’s not going to take that kind of sh*t). In other words, cops don’t really give three hoots about making a better world, their priority is that they are the dictator and never in the wrong, even / especially when they are. All they care about is their personal image, and that they aren’t strong enough to take unflattering criticism. You see, it’s because of those kinds of people why we found it advantageous to make a law protecting Freedom of Speech, which actually specifies it can be against authorities. Again, this is the supposed reason our troops are dying in the battlefield (because it’s the most justified reason for such). Therefore, it makes me sick knowing that the authorities are still allowed to violate it. I’m just saying that if two guys or two women got into a “legitimate” loud argument in from of their house, it wouldn’t be justification for an arrest (unless it was after 10:00 pm, or it goes on too long). I “disturb the peace” more when I mow my lawn, or when I have to speak loud enough to exchange in brief friendly conversation to a neighbor a few hundred feet away. “Legitimate” here means they weren’t making noise for just no reason. Venting one’s anger is technically a “legitimate” reason. If someone was angry at me, right or wrong, I’d much rather they speak their piece than resorting to violence, which is the normal historic reaction / wish; but again, Officer Crowley cowardly decided to use his unfair leverage of violence to counter someone who just wanted to speak their piece. If anything, the sight and sounds of an arrest was more disturbing of the peace than Gates’ words. Again, with cops, they just personally, selfishly think they deserve preferential treatment over the average Joe. And, they – especially – don’t, as is the essence of the First Amendment. Their later dropping of charges proves that the arrest was just a show for onlookers. When the police have to be at a scene, the public disturbance already exists, therefore, some added loudness isn’t going to change the disturbance much beyond the expected. As far as I’m concerned, if it’s Freedom of Speech, then it’s not “disorderly conduct,” unless it’s “really” just interrupting the baseball game, theater, etc. Saying one’s piece to a police officer at the scene of a pertinent event, is not disorderly conduct. Realize, not all people have the ability to wait and complain about it later, like on the Internet, and more properly to the pertinent superiors who can do lots more damage against a wrongful officer. That method is not “taught,” especially against the police. And, when complaints to higher ups just get ignored or not “explained” why they think the cop was right, in truthful, rational and logical sense, just “justifies” people to take out their frustrations at the scene.
Either pay cops less if being a bully is part of the job; or, pay them a little more for being man enough to take the bunk. That way, they can “learn” how to improve themselves and the laws. Today, authorities could care less about changing selfish perks, bias, and unfair laws. The more they hear people’s gripes, the more improvements can be “discovered.” Especially when the police are the ones who are there at the scenes. Let’s do this: Have a day once a year where a cop stands on the stage at the country fair, where people are allowed to criticize the heck out of him, right and wrong, with an audience full of onlookers. That way the officer will “learn” how to do his “job” better. And, the audience can get as “loud” as they do when they see Garth come out on the stage.
Now, I thing I’ll enjoy a beer right now.
You see, if Barack Obama agrees with parts of my thesis, he’s not really allowed to say it in the same direct terms as I can, that insults the heart of the matter, and can make him many enemies. So, I have a job.
Now, I’m sure there are cases where a civilian is just trying to be loud just to disturb the peace, but in Mr. Gates’ case, it would have been apparent that he really thought he had a legitimate gripe. And, that should make all the difference in the world. Like it would not be right to yell at a police officer just to be yelling, not with true anger / frustration. Indication might be if the yeller has a smile on his face. If it’s hard to judge, then giving the yeller the benefit of the doubt would be the more stronger manly way to deal with it. My guess would be that the vast majority who yell at police officers are “really” angry about something. It obviously wouldn’t get them out of being arrested for a true crime or for a more lenient sentence, unless it was about a case of requital (where the “victim” once committed the same crime against them at one time, especially where authorities didn’t act; which is more domestic problems, where the end of the marriage standard would be the best remedy).
I thought this picture was rather appropriate for this issue:
I just received this Sage Telecom brochure requesting customers to refer their friends for phone service savings and credits:
I know that Gates even made reference to Crowley’s mother:
Therefore, I advise that it would really be advantageous for every city mayor and police chief to inform each officer what they really don’t know until they’re taught it, that “Sticks and stone and getting shot will break your bones, but words can never hurt you.” Police officers need to apparently realize what can’t really hurt him. Of course, when everything is just a game (or probably 90% of it), then it’s going to be hard to understand.
Mark Fuhrman just said on Hannity that Gates’ venting was inciting a riot and therefore Crowley was 100% in the right. That’s what’s called spin, isn’t it? Or, quite an exaggeration. Well, we’ve justified killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis for the same kind of far fetched theory. But, since the dog never found the bone, “justification” became changed to that we were “helping” the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people we’ve killed. Yeah, you believe it. Conservatives: Are they more dumb or are they just more evil? I know it’s partly both, but what are they more?
Now, from this point forward, the thing to do is to use this as an example to correct future like problems. Since I think it’s going to be a long time before we can stop people from getting angry and therefore loud; and since the police do have a reputation for discrimination, even if Officer Crowley wasn’t a racist (blame in on the deserving stereotype: lawyers actually proved it with Fuhrman’s past); and since the police have voiced that arresting someone for getting mad is a crime if they personally want it to be, then I think Obama should more censure for more police correction. Just sweeping the problem under the rug isn’t going to stop it from happening again, especially when the police have voiced that they haven’t learned any lesson.
After the Beer Summit Obama said: “I have always believed that what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart.” Well, isn’t that logic supporting bi-open-sex? That’s a true and very supportive statement. I should remember to use it again sometime.
It just makes sense that Fox News would seek the advice of Mark Fuhrman, because Fox News is racist down deep. All those above that particular age, and some of the younger ones will all be dead someday; so, it won’t be forever.
I just heard this Officer Crowley say: “During this ordeal, one of the challenges was to make clear for people across America what a difficult and challenging job police officers face every day.” Sounds to me like he’s trying to justify his abuse. Well, blacks have a “difficult and challenging” time trying to keep from being abused by police officers also. College professors, plumbers, me, and lots of people have to face “difficult and challenging” issues all the time; but, we’re not allowed to break the law. So should not, and especially, police officers.
No one can really trust a word he says:
People need to realize that when Obama causes 99% of the economy to get back on the track, Hannity will still say he’s no good because of the 1% problem.
Bill Maher calls America a “stupid country”:
Well, now I don’t feel like the only one who knows this. It’s true that any society that’s more wealthy tends to be more ignorant when in comes to facts and solutions. Like I’m said before, even the media apple polishes the news to say more what the people who want the news optimized in their favor, like how we always seem to be in the right concerning foreign affairs. Hell bound people just don’t want to hear how American generals are ordering bombings that are killing innocent civilians, they just want to hear about the other sides bombing of innocent Americans, so they feel emotionally justified for whatever. It’s a vicious ignorance cycle. When they hear about a cop abusing his authority, they just like to think that it’s an isolated incident, or necessary to enforce the law. Like arresting and/or beating someone who publicly insults a police officer, to prevent a one-in-a-million “citing of a riot,” better said as a “legal technicality spin,” when reality says that the cops are just weak and can’t take the heat. Unless and until someone becomes a victim of police abuse, they could really care less as long as it didn’t happen to them. Then when they do become a victim, they’ll talk about how cops are wrong about everything they do. That’s what I think most of these conspiracy theory people are: victims of certain unfairnesses, therefore they’re on a constant campaign for revenge, right or wrong (but legal). In other words, they’re all just like Hannity.
Of course, being “stupid” is a comparative issue: More stupid than what or who? I always explain my insults. Bill Maher really didn’t. If Maher is right that Americans are more stupid than other countries, then it’s more our bias media reporting that’s the real culprit, which I’ve explained many times. From the dawn of communication, the tribe leader on one side of the creek will express his anger biasly to stir his followers; as the leader on the other side does the same, but with the opposite spin. Same in today’s American media. It’s “difficult” for the followers to even consider anything outside that communication box. If Bill Maher is comparing the average American to himself, then I’d say he’s basically right. Maher doesn’t have much better insight to what’s really going on; that is reading between the lines but, still lacks a lot in being able to think outside the box, where I excel. He’s about where Geraldo is. Both can read between the lines much better than O’Reilly. O’Reilly’s good to have though, because many times he just helps the opposition when his talk comes out sounding dumb, while he’s trying to harden the status-quo. So, O’Reilly’s goofs are making people realize that things can be better. You see, when something is wrong, the more talk and detail there is about it, the more exposed the error becomes. The best example is probably when O’Reilly tells how victimized an adolescent boy is when he “scores” with his female teacher. Intelligent people will more easily see the absurdity. Again, bigots can’t stop adults from having sex outside marriage like they really, really want to; but, they can make bigger and bigger deals about technical statutory laws. Again, O’Reilly just can’t think outside this box. His “aptitude” is set for another kind of intelligence (just presenting conclusive facts).
I received some more email information about the plans for HEALTH REFORM:
I don't know if I'm understanding everything, but it sounds like it's just adding regulations for the insurance companies. But then, like for "No discrimination for pre-existing conditions," what's going to stop someone from not paying for insurance, then when they need an operation, just getting insurance for that month only to pay for it, then canceling the insurance after the month, when they're okay? It sounds like to me we just need to do away with medical insurance altogether and just have the government pay the bill; again, with nominal fees that I outlined in the past. Could everyone really be that naïve, even Hannity? I’m just saying that the common Joe might be able to figure out things / loopholes that the entire White House staff and top media leaders aren’t able to foresee. I bet I wasn’t the only American that could figure out that an indiscriminate invasion of Iraq would cause a major insurgency problem later, but apparently it came as a big surprise to all government officials and all media leaders. “Dumb” has to be the best answer as they all apparently believed our own lie that we were doing it for the benefit of the Iraqi people, calling it “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Really! Most probably – maybe all – still believe our lie, and therefore have no understanding why there was/is an insurgency problem. Same, or even more so today with Iran and North Korea, since “fairness” is definitely no way on our side. And appropriately, that religious cop-out Israeli thing being at the heart of it. Again the world is going to destroy itself unless we realize that the Goldenrule is the ONLY “law” protecting individuals from Fair Afterlife Punishment, and for Salvation, as “Jesus” stated. Everything else is just commentary or suggestions.
I know women are control-prioritized in the sequence of (1) what others will think, then (2) emotions, then (3) rational logic; therefore, I assume this is the same with men.
I mean, we’d be better off paying all medical insurance employees a million dollars each just to not come into work so they can quit complaining with influence and interference, and allow us to implement the better way.
Who’s more justified?:
Technically, Iran and North Korea have more justification to bomb Israel and the United States’ main land, then we do to bomb them. You see, if some country made a serious threat to bomb us, then we would kill any number of their innocent people to stop it. Even Obama. And, we have made those kinds of serious threats to bomb Iran and North Korea, and just because they want WMDs for obvious and justified said self-defense reasons. Again, I’m not trying to justify a bombing of the U.S., I’m trying to deter it; but, that apparently requires a much higher I.Q. just to understand it.
Don’t forget to say something for the defenseless animals, Mr. Critical:
Eating meat is like eating Frosted Flakes: If you’re a model, realize that the good nutrition in Frosted Flakes is good for you; but, it’s mixed in with all the bad sugary / fattening stuff that’s bad for you.
Mr. Critical – It’s just one true genius thought after the other.
TO SEE PRIOR SUPERIOR WRITINGS (and more):
http://www.the-Goldenrule.name/