Oh, is that what the question marks mean.

Well, I heard that bad people go to hell, good people who are not christian go somewhere else, which is not too bad but not good,either, and only true and babtized christians go to the kingdom of heaven.

You go to hell if you don't obey the rules given to you in the Scriptures. After you go to hell, you will be experiencing a forever, and everlasting sensations of pain and torture. The fires will be burning you, with all the pain they give you, yet you don't burn up, you spend the entire eternity in fire.

This is what I meant by Christian Fearmongering. I thought that to a good christian this would be self-evident. Please tell me if I made a mistake in interpreting dogma, and then again tell me you don't understand the fearmongering motivational force of Christian dogma.


REALLY?????

What's so hard about putting "better behave, or else you'll suffer for ever and ever in great pain" and "fearmongering"? Is there really an incomprehensible element of persuasion here that makes this "not fearmongering"?

And they give me question marks.

Instead of using their own brains.

These are smart and insightfully funny quotes, some of them.

But they have been put in place much longer ago than our lifetimes.

The rich discovered they can buy people's votes with images, with things other than the proposals how to deal with issues. The rich funded the campaigns to make people vote the way the rich wanted. And make the people think they themselves, the people, voted how they wanted.

But they did not;they voted how the tv ads wanted them to vote, and the tv ads were paid by the rich.

Now there is a movement to cost-cutting, since the economy will be burdened with higher taxes, and the people realized: Hey, we can cut out the middle man.

Now the government and the people are dealing with each other directly, without the intervening of the fat cats who got their huge cuts in the deals they helped develop.

-----------------------

“The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”

This is happening now. Except for the "bribe" part which may or may not be true, only the course of history as it happens can tell us.

In the past the rich directed the votes, they got the government in their pockets. It is a horribly simplistic view, but let's imagine it's true.

No bribery there.

Lots of nepotism and manipulation for the good of only a few.

--

Now there is bribery, if it is going to turn out that way.

"We give you medicare if you vote for us". people bought this. Is this bribery?

It is bribery, if the government does not create affordable universal medicare. They bribed the populus to give more money, for less in return.

But what if the government indeed creates affordable universal medicare? Is it still bribery?

I mean, sure, the congress and whatnot can still vote wage increases for its members. But they bought the votes with a promise, which if they keep, then it's a straight contract, between the people and the government: "Give us more money, and we give you this very valuable thing in return, medicare."

This is not bribery. This is a proposal for a contract.

The people accepted the contract offer.

Now if the government keeps its promise, then there is nothing briberish about this.
------------------

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Banjamine Franklin.

This is a completely false way of looking at it.

People pay taxes to get services distributed in ways that are equitable like dishing out the law, or to create equilibrium, or are equalizing, like taking some money from the rich, to give to the poor.

Army budgets are equitable, subsidies to universities are equalizing. That's so coz the army protects all in a nation, equally, but a university would only be available to the rich, if no equalizing by helping and finanially subsidizing poor but talented students happened.

So. If we pay taxes, and we get the tax money back... what's wrong with that? We pay the taxes, and we don't expect that taxes paid money to be buried away in a hole somewhere in a desert, but indeed we expect TO GET IT BACK IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. Taxes are monies that are supposed to be spent to serve and help the poeple.

Benjamin Franklin was a greedy, selfish, stomach-turningly stuck-up rich fat cat with no concept of what he was supposed to do with the money his government collected for him from the people.

In his view spending tax income money to equalizing or for equal services was stupid.

I really don't know what he thougth the government was supposed to do with the tax income.

Too bad he is not around to answer that now personally.



The governement and their entire operation is mandated to help people. To return the tax money in form of services or even in form of hard cold cash, in the government's efforts to equalize and to keep equally beneficial the services of the govermnent to all, to help individuals help themselves, and to protect the people; it is its mandate also to keep order, by issuing rules of the game, to make so that resources that companies and people need, when they run scarce, they can be accessed by those who need it most.

This is what government should do with the tax money. Creating universal affordable healthcare is not a bribery, it is not paying people off in exchange of votes. It is going to be, instead, an equalizing sort of service; it will be equally dished out to all who need it, and it will equalize the accessability for all people.

I really, but really like this answer. The spirit of it, that change will happen, change happens, and people can't continue to pay lip service when the change happens how much they like change happening, because in reality they hate change.

This was good.

I hate change too, and I am all the way behind no change. Women MUST not get older, and lose their looks, I MUST not grow old, fat, weak and senile, and most importantly I MUST not die.

In my opinion it works both ways: Whether the change is good for you, or they are congruent with your ideals, as well as when the change is bad for you ran disagreeable with your ideals.

Change occurs, it is hard to live through it.

The rest of the post, what with the dollar, the medicare, the rich, the stock market, they are illustrative points, but the philosophy on change you put down there, that really cuts really deep.

Quite, little Grasshopper. And a little more quietly, too, please, as well.

A good little young Tibetan monk trainee is not supposed to jump up and down in excitement when he sees the Cow of Milk turn the Corner of Street to come home from Pasture.

:- )

Then reality is a gooey amorph playdough in metaphycisal terms.

You stretch reality here, and it must therefore contract in another part of itself.

Think of reality as an elastic space, and if there are are no constants in this space, that is, if this space behaves not randomly, but changably due to no constancy, the players or agents that play in a particular set of physical laws, they are at liberty to bend the laws (not break them, they still have to obey them), and thus the law (physical law) will be changing within its parameters how it acts on its subjects, and the subjects themselves will influence the parameters of the law's applicability in any one instnce.

This would lead to the "chewing gum" conceptual reality space, in which the law is influenced by its objects, the objects obey their laws, and therefore you can't take the entire miazma in your mouth, so to speak, all at once, that is, you can't comprehend the entire miazmatic relationships of laws vs their objects. Gaining knowledge would become impossible, even our minds could not develop in the biological form as we know it and have learned to like it.

In other words, the entire concepts of "reality" and "knowing reality" would need a new paradigm for their existential birth, and our paradigms, the ones we know, and operate with, would need to be discarded.

I used to feel exactly the same way as you.

I would so totally match the woman's "laundry" list of what she wants in a man. I write to her a long, insightful letter, and the reply comes, "sorry, i don't think we are a match. I hope you find love and happiness in a new partner soon."

So I gave myself to thinking, and realized the ladies (and the guys too, for all I know, which is i don't know), write down what they want, and what they don't want, but there are a lot of other things they do want and don't want, and those they don't state necessarily.

Because they could make them sound callous or shallow, whereas they are totally normal and harmless personal preferences.

For instance, a woman would say "i want a dark-haired man who is smart and funny. He is not into motorcycles or watching football on the couch," but they don't say he also needs to have a normal life, a normal job, and some normal existence, which I don't and the girls don't say that the guy can't be short or insane, because they feel for short and insane guys, but they won't want them necessarily for themselves.

This is the paradoxical paradigm of female caring in healing professions with the insane: Showing care, but trying to show that she does not want the insane inmate or patient sexually. This is really hard a concept to make patients grasp.

But you are not insane, so I digressed. I am saying that yes, you are what she says she wants, but you are also somebody she does not want. She does not say in the ad first up what she does not want, what you have. But she can tell, and she makes a decision on that.

This is how she operates, and good for her. It makes a lot of guys bruise their nose skin, so to speak, when she rebuffs them, but she is here for herself, too, just like all of us.

------------

What advice to give? Lower your standards slowly, in the girls' qualities whom you approach, and when you got low enough below which you can't go, OR if a girl is responsive way before you got to the too low point for your own liking, then you can stop writing to women and join us on the forums for some marryment and fun.

--------------

Edit: out of interst, are you a devout Christian? Not at all related to the topic, I'm just curious. (I am not a Christian, so please don't answer unless you want to. This is nothing but a question that came to me. Don't attribute anything to the question, any motivation on my part.)

And you keep mounting her. (General "you", not you personally, muanes.)

I understand you are saying the truth, but I resent in your putting words in my mouth.

I did not say you are prostituting yourself. I said it appears you are toying with that idea and I advised you agaisnt it. This is what I said, not at all that you are prostituting yourself.

I also did not say that the avant guarde picutres are there to make you look sexy or whatever. I simply said, they are not my taste, and I hastily added, this is just my opinion, dictated by my personal taste. I did qualify my opinion as that. I did not insinuate that you put them there to make yourself look sexy.

I resent it when people attack me on grounds of attributing things to me as though I said those things, whereas I did not say them at all.

That's all. I take all your other criticisms of my criticism, fine, you are right in those, but please don't thing badly of me because you think I said "you are prostituting yourself", because I did not say that at all; and please don't think badly of me because you think that you put in the avant-guarde-looking pictures to make yourself sexy, because I did not say that.

I really don't know why I am getting into trouble with people. I say what I think, and they think what I say, but the two are completely different.


Why me? What's wrong with giving an honest opinion, and getting flack for it? I did not say ANYTHING bad about you in my opinion of your profile text or pictures. Why do you get so defensive that half your audience hates me now? Show me please one point of grievance.

I think you misread my critique, you got upset and leashed out on me.

How do you think that makes me feel? Why do you think I should lie down and take the accusations from you that you based on things I did not say at all, but you assert I said? and most importantly:

Why did you distort my words, and put them in my mouth?

This last question was a totally honest question, I dont know the answer, but I would like to. It is not a rhetorical question. What was it that made you misread my words, and believe that your reading is what's there, black on white?

This I am really curious to know. And I promise I won't be defensive about it, as long as you are honest in your answer. I am really baffled why things like that happen to me. I haven't a clue. What is happening here? Why is reality ignored? So vehemently, so fiercely, and so much against my favour?

I am not demanding an answer from you, at all. But I would be really grateful if you could please fulfil this request.

It is for the purpose to make me acquire new insight about human nature, that's the only reason I request an answer. I have removed the persona from the general problem already, my curiousity is why a general person would do such a thing, and since you did it, you are a good person to ask. I am not singling you out, I ask you only because I think you know the answer. And you must know the answer, because you did just exactly that.

I agree. But I was not attacking anyone. I asked a question and supported my reason to ask it.

Plus it's hard to criticize someone when a change of behaviour is requested, without it sounding as an "attack".

Also, it is not nice to put up a picture which is misleading. If someone puts the picture of a winged folklore fairy or a pig on a string, or two stars and a square,it's obvious it's not them, so they are not misleading.

I hope you get the reason for my inquiry. it is okay to lie, as long as everyone knows it's a lie. The problem starts when the lie aims and succeeds in misleading. That, I believe, is worthwhile to try to eradicate.

It is therefore not worthwhile to eradicate those forum comments that are trying to eradicate misleading lies, even if they SOUND like a personal attack.

Mine was not a personal attack, but an inquiry, and if it is answered then we will know if my issue is valid or not.

Or else you can look at the pictrue and see it for yourself.

Once she answers, depending on her answer, I may or may not ask her then to post more pictures of herself. She may or may not comply. Because my asking for more pictures is not a demand, and certainly not a demand of executive nature. She wants to put more pictures,she will, she doesn't want to, she won't.

She asked for comments on her profile. That includes comments on her picture.

I answered in kind.

So please don't say I did a personal attack on this lady.

Lipmaster.

Better question would be why women post at all. If they did not, it would be an eloquent statement that they also have their own free will, and answer to questions only if they want to, otherwise they have the right to withhold the answer.

And because this is a way of asserting that we have our own free will.

can we whine about the b_ithcing? Give us some slack, everybody needs something to whine about.

I think you forgot the most important element, which is that he must be able to make peace in the middle east.

One form of it may be the man admitting to being wrong.

I did that to a gf of mine after seeing her for like 30 years, and admitting to being wrong about something in the 28th year of our relationship. (Not exact figures.) She made a diary note of that in her diary, saying she had always wanted to hear that for me, and waiting 30 years (or however long) for it to happen was very worth it.

I also saw a tv detective show, to do with ghosts, and the woman and the man partners change sex. they talk to their partner's friends, and they hear their own answers on their answering machine, and the girl, in the boy's body, says, "well, finally I heard them say (this or that) but they said they could be wrong." And they said this was the strangest and most welcome experience while being the opposite sex for a day.

This may be one of the possibly many much sought-after male humility which is expensive coz it happens so rarely.

I kindly doubt that you have experienced dying and staying dead.

Sorry about spitting in your soup, TexasScroundrel. But in my opinion it's one thing to be the maverick skeptic, the maverick "bad boy ultimate" attacking basic feminine values, and it's another thing to try to destroy a GOOD website with stupid and unfounded fear mongering.

And fear mongering works, just look at the popularity of Christianity, and the true reason, or rather, the true logic of the logistics of its fearmongering, for that scam.

This is nothing personal, you understand, I actually like your posts, but don't do stupid things like undermining the system from within, please.

O, I like this. The Nigerian scammers will get their scam-money drawn from a stolen credit card. Or the robber it he car will get his loot in used lottery tickets.

There is nothing that says that scammers and robbers do not have their own collection problems in accounts receivables. The poor saps, they can't even hire collection agencies.

And we all think of it as a danger. Guess what: their risk also involves jail term, so we are still better off just going on any old date inside an enclosed van, with five Russian Jewish Maffia members, and their 13-year-old boys who have gone through their bar mitzvah, to become a man.

Oh, nonono.

You can get a credit card applying for one in an abroad country; mostly they want you to pay enough prepayment to your limit, and then you top it off each time before you want to use the card again.

Or you can walk up to the first bum on skid row or in Sally Ann, and give him $30's worth of crack cocaine if he will open a card and give it to you. Bad credit is not a problem, at all, becasue you can just open a deposit account and make payments to the singles site with electronic debit transactions.

These are only two of the 566 ways of telepaying for an internet service without needing to uncover your own identity, and without needing to steal a credit card.

There are about five million people currently in the USA alone whose identity is "undetermined" according to the IRS. These people may be actually only 500,000 people, or any number, theoretically, between 1 and ten billion.

I don't think at all that that is a real problem.

Most people never find anyone; and the ones who find one, would be so excited, that being robbed in a stolen car, would be the most romantic thing that happened to them in decades.

It also does not rule out that they two may become lovers.

You see, the woman's feminine fierceness of giving her money to the robber before threats come out, and helping him find a getaway plan, etc. etc. and all her help to him to help himself may get through to him so much, that he eventually breaks down, breaks down into a sobbing of tears, changes his ways, becomes a copy machine repair man, marries the woman and the two live happily ever after.

This sort of thing does not happen during insipid coffee dates or during one night stands when the man is already married.

IN THE RARE EVENT that the robber and the woman don't become a loving couple, or the robber and the man, then the robbed member will have a lifetime's supply of one story to tell. He or she will bet he darling of the forum crowd. Nobody can top him or her in popularity.

So... what do you say, mate. Date? I'll bring my gun and hold-up note, you bring your life savings.