Subject:  I think women should make a man earn it

That’s right.  Treat him bad just to see if he comes back.  That will prove that he really, really cares about you.  Right?  Otherwise, having sex with just any yay-hoo will likely lead to pregnancy, and a woman needs to know that she can depend on a man that will be there, to take care of her and her kids, and not run off to another tribe where she never sees him again.  Maybe someday they’ll invent a pill or something to help a woman with her family planning, but for now, a woman needs someone who will be there to feed her and her kids.  You see, since agriculture has become the preferred organized / civilized norm, a woman needs to realize that she can’t feed herself and her children anymore, unless she has coins for the market in Babylon; because, smart people have found that limiting produce to only the market works best.

8-7-08

But, why would any ancient civilized person buy produce at a market if they could just grab it along any creek or river, as Lewis and Clark reported in their journals, using words like “abundance” and “variety,” and noting that it was not that way east of the Mississippi?  Why would anyone buy produce at a market today when they can just grab it along any creek or river?  Probably the same reason.

Possibly someday women will also have the right to say “yay-hoo!”

Apparently I’m working on it:

“The servants of God are those who are hated by the world.” –Early Christian Donatist slogan.  If I say all the right things, supported by further logic, and it makes everyone hate me, then that’s cool: I can dig that.

Don’t let Israel bomb Iran:

Because, broken glass sends shivers down my bottle.  And because they’ll block off Strait of Hormuz.  Then we’ll bomb the heck out of them.  Then Russia and/or China will try to stop us.  Then you’ll all be asking me what to do.  (Could things ever really get that bad??)  Only then I’ll feel rich – thick and buttery, too.

It’ll likely be a sudden thing.

Like the best advice for the current Iraq predicament is to go back in time and instead do my February 1998 advice.  That’s really the only advice I should be giving today about our Iraq problem, consuming the last five years.  I look forward to repeating my current West Texas advice in the near future.  Barack Obama is just another guy who’s going to get emotionally angry when somebody doesn’t do what he tells them to do.  Today, it’s me only who can figure out these problems.  And, if I die without disciples who are “somebodies,” then it’s just a matter of time before nuclear war.  Gaining followers starting with society’s rejects, then waiting 300 years for God to hallucinate my symbol for some warmonger to use to win in war, is just not going to cut it in an age where nuclear war is at hand.

Today’s Jews are just proving that they should be controlled by someone like the Roman Empire.  The Old Testament is full of wars and battles between nearby towns.  The Roman Empire just forced more peace in that area, until the Jews decided to boot them out of Jerusalem.  Again, their Messiah had the solution: Jesus stated that possessive things are irrelevant to what one needs to reach the Kingdom of Heaven.  Today’s Jews really need to heed Jesus’ fulfillment more now than any other time in history.  They ignored Jesus in 70 AD which caused their near extinction, and they’re ignoring Him today, which should cause World War Three, this time affecting the entire world.  It makes sense that when Jesus first informed the people in the Synagogue that He was their Messiah, they scorned Him; but, today Christianity is the world’s largest religion.  So, the Jews should at least “consider” the possibility.  And of course, Jesus’ advice is that there is no penalty for wronging others.  Not!  You’d better let me (only) explain Jesus to you.  And that ain’t no joke!

Same thing with Muslims: They shouldn’t have put Jesus in the back seat.  Of course, it makes sense why:  In the 6th century, the name “Christian” meant “warmonger.”  They should have somehow compared it to the “turn the other cheek” guy in the Bible.  Why they didn’t?  That will have to be another essay sometime in the future.  Really, the only way to correct anybody in this world is by starting with the word “idiot.”  If you can’t believe that, then you’re not really going to be able to understand the rest.  Believe me, I’m attacking the problem both ways.  Maybe there are planets out there far, far away, where the people are born with all the correct facts and complete rational intelligence.  But this planet is not one of them.

Naturally, Muslims didn’t have the ability to not believe the 6th century Christian “somebodies” instead of Jesus in the Bible.  They had no mentally available option to believe the written Word instead of the all powerful “somebodies.”  That’s the most pithy reason why there were so many Muslim-Christian wars, especially over that Holy Land possessive / material cop-out.  It’s the same cause of wars today:  “Somebody” needs to teach the correct Jesus, not in private Bible study, but to the multitudes.  Which is to “do” the Goldenrule with all possessions / materials.  Of course, this isn’t going to emotionally happen until everyone is able to love one another like how men love women.

World War One materials:

We seem to be very smart in knowing how to make useful things, but very dumb when trying to handle our dumb animal emotions.

They didn’t say who Bud Johnson voted for:

Was it Barack Obama or the incumbent John McCain?  I guess we’ll find out in November.

Maximizing the Vegetarian Diet, Whole Foods (health food) Market (chain, world’s largest), brochure I picked up 7-23-08:

You say: That’s not good enough for me, because I’ve been “taught” to eat meat, and there’s no way my momma and daddy could have been wrong!  Think about how many dumb people there’d be in this world if that above statement was true.

I hope Microsoft doesn’t start taking over the search engine niche:

Google seems to place the user first, where Microsoft places themselves first and the user last.  Google earned their position.  Bill Gates just knew how to charm IBM executives, where monopoly tells the rest of the story, even at the expense of the user.  It seems success that isn’t really earned, just being at the right place at the right time, the endless greed factor is elevated; opposed to businesses that had to reach their success by actually doing something better.  It’s the difference between pride in product and pride in self.  It’s the difference in the good feeling of making something really better, versus the good feeling of making the sales figures better.  It’s the difference between a true Christian and those who pursue church today.  And like how people will run at a machine gun to their assured death just because a “somebody” told them to, consumers will always buy from a “somebody” like Microsoft, where others really have to be perfect when they start out as a “nobody.”  But, I’m sure there are lots of cases in this country where the “somebody” bought out the successful “nobody,” which just added problems back for the consumer.  Windows Vista is just another thing intended mainly to “charm” the consumer, to only make sales figures go up, instead of making anything really better.  There are lots of things I’d like to see improved with Windows XP but when I demoed Vista, I didn’t find any of it corrected or better.

Actually there are lots of new versions of products that aren’t as good as the old versions.  Plus, I see improvement to products all the time that manufacturers never seem to see.  I don’t know if I’m just getting smarter with age but I’m noticing that people just aren’t as functionally smart as they were years ago.  Maybe it’s the cell phone radiation.  (I’m that one guy in all of Olathe that still doesn’t own a cell phone.)  They all seem to still be “quicker” than me, but down-deep reckoning seems to have lowered a few degrees.  Maybe they’re extracting more away from their deep abstract thought processes, where many variables have to be taken into consideration, and moving it to outward appearance.  On the surface, quick decision show seems to only be what impresses people today, including themselves.  Maybe we can all look forward to a future with more Bill Gates than real improvements.  Past technology advancements seem to be the only thing that’s keeping our heads above water.  That’s fine, but I say let’s try to get rid of the Bill Gates types so to not let them destroy what we’ve already got.

Have you flushed a toilet lately?:

Some conservatism is good.  I’ve noticed that the water splashes much harder today on many of the newer toilets.  Today, when I have to flush a public toilet or urinal before I use it, it’s great knowing that I could be getting someone else’s waste in my eye (yes, that far up).  What happened to the toilets that were built in the 1970s, that hardly splashed out any water at all?  Maybe it’s the cell phones?

Everyone watches movies on DVD now-a-days:

That’s because the “somebodies” say to.  But, with VHS one can eject the tape anywhere during the movie and it will be at the exact point where I will want to restart it later.  DVD won’t do that, without the added hassle of having to make counter notes, etc.  And if you forget to mark the counter location, or accidentally hit eject, then it’s a BIG hassle having to replay many scenes forward and back, trying to figure out where you left off; especially if it’s weeks or months later.  All I want to do is just continue watching the movie!  With VHS, you just push the tape back in and go sit down.  DVDs don’t appear to have any clearer picture.  Can’t we just forget certain technological “advancements” and go back to 1985 with certain things.  What next change for the worse will we have to sacrifice next?  I think they’re finally back to using a knob for volume on car radios.  Pressing the protruding push buttons on my old 1980s microwave takes probably 10 times less pressure than today’s flat buttons.  How about we present all new ideas to… me first, then only “improvements” will be what the “somebodies” tell all the idiots to use?

“Triumph” says: “Come poop with me!”

O’Reilly said he doesn’t like Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.  That’s probably because Triumph poops on a lot of bad things.  But, “I” think if everyone would just poop on others who are in the wrong, it’d be a much better world.  Well… only after the smell went away.  In the meantime, it’d prevent space aliens from landing, as the overall scent of the planet would surely keep them at distance.  So, I suggest the government mandate that all toilets be stopped up, for the not-so-respectable way of cleaning up all the waste.  (Beware: Bad people should start looking for holes cut in the ceiling above their couch.)  (Well, at least it’d be healthy vegetarian poop.)  (….  I don’t know… Maybe dropping poop on suspected Taliban hideouts would save American lives.)  (Oops, I hope I don’t go to jail for threatening to poop on wrongdoers.)

Paris Hilton:

What could I possibly say about a fluff queen?  Just that “wrinkly, white-haired guy” is a good example of “unconstructive” criticism, as it is an item which he cannot improve on, to the benefit of others.

Liars, deceivers, suppressors of information/facts:

Like bad parents who restrict what their children watch.  They are in the wrong country:  They should all move to China, Islamic states, or Nazi Germany from 1933-1945.  “Freedom” will win.

Kids should know as much as they can about sex, violence, emotions (language), crime, cruelty, horror, sarcasm, insults, gossiping, etc. before they go out into the world, so to “better” protect themselves from said pitfalls.  (How many people really want to be ignorant?)  However, knowledge is the first step, but my five issues is the only full and best source to avoid the pitfalls.  Realize, my five issues should be their only guidance, not “parental guidance” as many parents still believe in conditional love; war, right or wrong; that people who ate free food in Kansas City 200 years ago, didn’t deserve it; many religious cop-outs to avoid “assured” Fair Afterlife Punishment; and eat animals.  Give it up, otherwise.

Again, the dictionary definition of “lie” is also “to convey a false impression” and “intent to deceive”; not today’s cop-out spin of “making an unintentional mistake.”

Oxymorons:

…are the Movie Ratings people who have an “R” (restricted) classification, in a country that is supposedly “Free,” unlike China, Islamic states, or Nazi Germany from 1933-1945.  Basically all information should be “Free.”  The only thing that should be (additionally) “regulated” in like businesses that make electric shavers that are manufactured to fail before their optimal time.  “Should be” will eventually win. 

An “oxymoron” is like “smart human,” “holy war,” or “faith alone.”  The “smart human” oxymoron can be understood when you realize how a human will run at a machine gun, where the oxymoron “dumb animal” won’t.  And, why have “faith” in no penalty for sin, when you might as well just be an atheist.

Fair and Balanced:

Fox News just started a new ad like thing, where they’re stressing their Fair and Balanced reporting, emphasizing that they “tell the truth.”  Other than a lot of spin, off hand, I can’t say they’ve lied about anything: I’m just saying that Fair and Balanced means like “equal time,” not just for U.S. political issues, but commensurate time allotted for the other side’s facts, points of view, and opinions concerning like the war issues.  I do think now would be a great time to interview friends and relatives of civilians that were killed during our glorious Iraq invasion.  And of course, do allow the other side equal time in expressing how they thought Iraq had WMDs.  That’d be hilarious, and a lot of us could use a good laugh.  Except those Country and Western listeners.  Early Christians were right: There’s no way to achieve real ethical improvement in this world, without making most people hate you.  I mean, if all the friends and relatives of dead and maimed Iraqi civilians somehow expressed that they were all evil, and knew they were all evil and deserved what they got (which is our default perspective), then Country and Western listeners wouldn’t be so hateful to those presenting it, now would they?  So, when someone doesn’t like my commentary, it just tells me I have a good point, and that it’s getting to the people who need to hear it the most.  Now would also be a good time to educate people about Iran, otherwise the American public will be gung ho about beginning a war.  In Vietnam we’d randomly shoot at farmers as we flew by.  What would you be thinking if you saw your wife and daughter killed by an American helicopter that just passing by?  According to Americans, you’d (A) be thinking how important it is to allow American Supremacy to decide moral issues, and would pridefully quickly try to convince your government to give up hostilities.  Or (B) you’d join your military just for a possible opportunity to kills a few Americans just for revenge.  Placing the shoe on the other foot would be truthful Fair and Balanced reporting.  And, gee, it might help in determining alternatives to war.  The choice is up to the morals of American Supremacy, as Laura Ingram puts it.

America’s too greedy to be in control of the entire world.  Plus, religiously, Protestants just justify all wrongs (total Antichrist), leaving everything up to secular courts.  And, American courts still love nitpicking the little issues, especially against those who practice Freedom of Speech, while letting big time, toady white-collar crooks off the hook.  Same with regulations.  And America has to be the dumbest country in the world – probably because of all the fluff.  Actually reckoning that the Iraqis would all like us after bombing them, is a great example.  No, a “major” realization of right from wrong has to be firmly established before the U.S. can be in charge of the entire world.  I.e., one is never justified in hurting an innocent person, and only those who hurt an innocent person are justifying being hurt. So close, because it’s right here, but so far from being implemented.  And with the Purgatory support of Matt. 5:23-26, it can win, once all the artificial salvation cop-outs are “found” to not overrule Jesus’ pressing words.  After all of Jesus’ metaphoric speech is revealed, and a fear of God is placed in all wrongdoers via Matt. 5:23-26, with the logic of technology bringing us all back to life someday, all the rest of His teachings can be said in One Word: Goldenrule.

In Fair and Balanced debate between relatives of dead Iraqi civilians and Republicans:

Or, have the Republicans tell them that it was worthy for their innocent loved ones to die during our invasion, because we needed to execute justice for Saddam Hussein’s killing of innocent people in the 1980s.  (The laugh is growing bigger.)  Or, say we had to do it because Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait back in 1990 and thirteen years later indicated that there was trusting, valid, ironclad speculation that he was lying about not seeking revenge, like we would do.  Be sure to explain that since we know we would, we assume he would.  And, since he invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil with slant drilling, etc. and the U.S. refused to do anything about it, and therefore probably killed some innocent people in the process, we have the right to invade Iraq 13 years later, and kill lots more of “his” innocent people.  Tell them how the “game” works.  We could add in that before our 2003 invasion, George W. Bush made several commands for stricter weapon’s inspections in exchange for not invading, all of which Saddam Hussein agreed on, but George decided to invade anyway.  We should argue that Saddam Hussein’s prior violations of the 1991 agreements was justification for invasion, while George W. Bush broke all of “his” prior 2003 invasion not-invade agreements.  So tell the Iraqi victim’s families how it was okay for the U.S. to break promises, but it wasn’t for Saddam Hussein, even after he made good on all of them.  And of course, anyone would know that the best time to invade a country in when they have agreed on all weapon’s inspections agreements, instead of when there’s disagreement on weapon’s inspections.  And, since there were no WMDs, we should leave “innocent” Iraqi military resistors and insurgents in prison, just so we don’t have to admit we were wrong!  Of course the catch-22 here is that the smarter conservatives readers want to tell me how they could totally care less about ethics and fairness, while the dumber liberals haven’t quite yet determined a stable basis for right from wrong, which is “one is never justified in hurting an innocent person, and only those who hurt an innocent person should be hurt.”

Now for something serious:

Many are asking how non-progressive, conservative Zurps from the planet Blurp, whose greatest achievement is exchanging heads, could have a “rocket ship” that could reach Kansas City in 1880.  It’s because the progressive, liberal, counterculture Free Lovites from the planet Far Out, Man left one on Blurp because of their overabundance of technological improvements, of course. – Where electric shavers are manufactured to not fail before their time.

Just when you think it’s going to be great:

The Kingdom of Heaven is like that big vacation trip of the decade, where all your friends and family go, but when you reach the entrance door, you are told you cannot go in until you have suffered equally for the innocent people you have harmed / killed.  Then you will really, really, really wish you didn’t hurt those innocent people, and even more so, when you start feeling the equal suffering.

Great example of “dumb”:

Protestants who somehow make sense of the contradiction “love one another”/ “don’t sin” and “Jesus paid your penalty.”

Hannity would say that being critical makes me a hypocrite of the Goldenrule:

And most would “just” believe him.  But, me sitting around like a monk “just” thinking how bad people are who kill little children, and never saying anything bad against anyone, is not going to get the bad people to “think” about what they did.  So the Goldenrule aims to correct as I would want someone to correct me, if I did bad things.  The basis of all evil is ignorance and stupidity, so I have to address this problem at the highest degree of insult, to be more correct and accurate in my attack.  Just telling people to be good is not going to cut it, without accurately explaining why, and that “why” is very demeaning to most people (because those are the real hypocrites).

The definition of “hypocrite” is someone who “professes” or “pretends” to be (or thinks they are) a certain way, which Jesus specified as His meaning (therefore excluding John Edwards, etc.).  I’m telling you now, I don’t necessarily profess or pretend to be the perfection I preach; and, the best way to figure out truth is to exclude oneself from it.  You see, God feels it much more valuable for me to preach correctness which can better the lives of trillions, in exchange for some mean talk.  I am personally ethically better than the vast majority, but I’m sure you can find some who do better than me in some cases, like in giving to the poor.  If I gave all I had to the poor, I’d be homeless, therefore unable to preach to any audience of size.  And, again, I am not trying to gather followers to make my own religion, mine is just 100% facts and information to the existing religions.  My gratification is not trying to live the life of a utopian world, but to correct the errors of modern day thinking and beliefs.  Plus, in this evil, dumb based world, it’s not easy being better than others.  For example, there are occasions where I’m attending dinner with people I mostly don’t know.  When the vegetarian issue gets exposed, many people will inquire why I do that, and when I talk about the health reasons, I always get “corrected,” so when I move to the ethical reasons, then I’m making them all feel like they’re evil, and that makes them not want me around.  So, many times, personally, I’ll lighten up and conform to when in America do as the Americans, just to get along.  But, when I write, I don’t have to do that.

For example: If I was a police officer, and I’ve lost it a few times by used excessive force in arresting a few people, my preaching against excessive force would still be correct, and that’s all that should matter.  Specifically, I’d state how it just justifies a criminal’s crime as I’d be showing that it’s okay for the system people to break the rules, but not the criminal.  “Unfairness” would be a true moral defense for the prisoner (the way the rules are set up today).  But, normally, a police officer who has ever used excessive force, wouldn’t ever write against it.  So I am a really, really weird guy.

Since I’m Christian based, I’d personally prefer the Jews to control Jerusalem than the Muslims, but I’m restricted by God to write in Fairness.  Does that make me another one of Hannity’s hypocrites?

Mine intends to more correct the “thinks they are a certain way” part of hypocrisy.  (Those who profess to be one way and know they aren’t is everyone else’s stress for correction.)  Therefore “dumb” comes more into play with my thesis than does “evil,” because “dumb” causes many more problems than “evil.”  “Evil” is just a lot easier to see.  Most already know that “evil” is “evil,” but the problems associated with “dumb” are much more rampant, because it is difficult to see or admit.

Again, I welcome “constructive” criticism, regardless how it’s said to me; therefore, my harshness complies 100% with the Goldenrule.  People have difficulty distinguishing “constructive” criticism versus “non-constructive.”  Kings of the past would de-head you regardless if you were constructive or non-constructive; actually “constructive” probably caused more torture before the decapitation.  So, people today are not naturally able to distinguish much of a difference between “constructive” and “non-constructive.”  People who “think” they are good people, just prove they are really not when they shun “constructive” criticism and/or debate.

Someday, people will ask the religious, media and government leaders why they ignored my points.

Hannity: he’s evil when he calls certain people hypocrites.  It should be easy to see.  But it’s not… because of “dumb.”  Hannity is one of the few who are actually trying to make things worse in the world.  Most other conservatives just want it good for themselves, right or wrong, where Hannity enjoys making less-fortunates suffer.  Most conservative think they are 100% righteous just because they don’t enjoy hurting the less-fortunates like Hannity does, but I tell you: siding for yourself, right or wrong, can cause tremendously more evil in this world than “obvious” malice like Hannity’s.  In other words, just because a greater evil exists doesn’t mean you’re walking straight with Jesus.  But then many of you apparently already know that – that is why you attend church, to praise all the cop-outs.  Religious cop-outs are the largest cause of evil.  And that Holy Land cop-outs instead of moving Jews to West Texas, just proves my point.  The atheists have a very good argument against today’s church goers but would fail if they took on the red letter words in the Bible.

Today’s “Christian” leaders are actually worse hypocrites that the ancient Pharisees, in that the Pharisees at least preached righteousness, but didn’t follow it, whereas today’s church leaders hardly even preach righteousness: they shun Goldenrule teachings while dwelling on cop-out issues.  If fact, today, “righteousness” is obeying all the “cop-outs,” like the eucharist, just showing up at church, just believing in Jesus’ name rather than His instructions, not being homosexual, etc.  Mainly just “believing” that the cop-outs work will get you directly into Heaven, according to Protestant literature.  Like questioning an obvious contradictory cop-out will make you go directly to Hell, according to Protestants.  No wonder it’s so easy for people like George W. Bush to become a “reborn Christian.”  There can be no better Antichrist than today’s Protestant church.  And Catholic “confession” doesn’t really achieve much better results.  “Restitution” to the actual victim(s) would definitely work, as “Jesus” stated in Matt. 5:23-26.  Add in that He’s saying this to the “multitudes” from atop a “mountain” (the highest known place one can go, of that era) overrules anything else: any contradiction.  Someone needs to get it pithy, that’s all (see the first half of my homepage… only).

Again, hypocrisy is “falseness” only if you profess you’re something good when you’re not.  Living in an expensive house while talking for those who don’t, doesn’t mean you are saying you are not living in an expensive house; therefore not hypocrisy.  Some pithy definitions can overlook that fact, allowing guys like Hannity to easily spin against many people who don’t meet the “falseness” criterion.  Another example would be whenever “somebody” changed the meaning of “child” from “A person between birth and puberty” to the contradicting later definition of “A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.”  So, which is it, before the desire for sex or before the legal age for sex?  The word alone is now unstable, and correctly requires further clarification.  All media seem to enjoy putting their spin on that one, for their “Fair and Balanced” report to a very, very dumb public.  Sometimes the public would really be better informed if we didn’t have the media.  In today’s many debatable issues it would be:  If the public didn’t have “someone” telling them what’s wrong, the public wouldn’t have a problem with immigration, sex outside of marriage (today), adolescent sex, gay sex, etc. or a desire to fight in the military.  And if the church just told about Jesus without all the cop-outs, we’d all fear Judgment – that means a lot less (real) sin.  If no one knew that animals could be food, then no human would eat one, not even Ted.

So, hey, try to be more wisdomer when righting oreilly@foxnews.com.

“Every day it seems much harder tellin’ right from wrong: you got to read between the lines. … Fight The Good Fight every moment: every minute, every day. Fight the good fight every moment: it’s your only way.” –Triumph (band), 1981.

Mr. Critical – I’m gonna be mighty proud on my deathbed, about all that I have said and researched.

TO SEE PRIOR SUPERIOR WRITINGS (and more):

http://www.the-Goldenrule.name/