One think is pretty clear. If God exists he does not interfere in the lives of the masses of humanity. At least not in a direct way. If he did there would be no wars, no children dying of terrible diseases, no 9/11's or senseless invasions of Iraq and a million children would not starve to death around the world every year. Saying God gave man "free will" and lets us make our own decisions doesn't explain why he would allow the Titanic to sink or aids to exist to kill millions around the world.
If God refuses to save millions why would he go out of his way to save one?
Millions pray and get nothing for it. The whole concept of prayer and miracles is more than a little ridiculous. God either gets involved in the lives of people or he does not. The evidence is overwhelming that he does not.
What could be considered a miracle of sorts is when people turn their lives around and dedicate themselves to helping their fellow man. There could be something miraculous about overcoming your personal hatred of other groups of people and setting aside racism and bigotry, misogyny and embracing equality for all. Something as simple as taking the time to try and understand another person's point of view instead of automatically dismissing it ......can seem a little miraculous at times for many of us.
Love is as intangible as faith or prayer but we can see it's impact on the world on a daily basis. Goodness and empathy are as incorporeal as miracles and yet unlike prayer and miracles we see them change the world. These may be secular miracles but they come about because of the potential for good that is latent in all human beings and not based on pie in the sky religious dogma and superstitution.
Real miracles are brought about deep in the essence of what and who we are as individuals and as a species. No one has to wait or pray for a miracles when they can make one themselves.
What do you think?
A Miracle zolace? How about you admitting that God might not exist because there is no evidence he does. That would do it. |
|
|
|
|
guys since you guys should just go for referral sales and u can probably make more then doing pay per post espeically if hes looking on how many sales you make him. I didnt make one sale my first term and he let me go. so im sure is matter of time he will do the same to everyone else when you can make him any more sales.
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, I don't see Obama interfering with miliatry force as necessarily a bad thing, leastwise, not in this case. He has a track record of using drones in other countries almost as chaotic (northwestern Pakistan, Afghanistan come to mind), this was almost easy pickings. Secondly, we are supposed to be in this for the long haul and every opportunity should be taken advantage of.
|
|
|
|
Now this is the part I don't get. I understand Obama is trying to pressure the Iraqi government to be more inclusive. Political druthers, I don't have a problem with that. But what I don't understand, is why Obama would pass up such a golden opportunity to attack and virtually eliminate a large contingent of these Islamic fanatics when he has absolutely no problem with attacking these same fanatics in other parts of the world and more often than not, when civilians are at risk.
Obviously, Obama's political druthers haven't worked out while the situation in Iraq has become even worse with these same Islaimc fanatics now entrenched, the same Islamic fanatics Obama could have destroyed almost from the get-go. An all-out attack on these fanatics, in the middle of the desert, no civilians around and almost a guaranteed chance of success. And Obama passed on it for what appears to be...political druthers.
A case of poor judgement...or just late to the dance again?
As if you wouldn't have lambasted Obama for making strikes on these sites if he'd agreed to it. It is not Obama's fault that every time someone looks at an Iraqi solder sternly, they drop their weapon, strip out of their uniform and run away. I know that for you, absolutely anything that happens is Obama's fault, but it's just not true. Put down the koolaid, take off your partisan blinders and try thinking for a moment. Like you, I have completely supported Obama's use of drones to attack these Islamic fanatics and have said so numerous times in this forum. Even the American renegades thrown in the pot. As far as I'm concerned, this was a golden opportunity for Obama to continue those attacks and I would have fully supported that decision. Now go back to sleep. The thing is, what point to attacking them? Look, if it's not ISIS, it will be someone else. We take out this year, next year it's OSIRIS or whatever. Are we supposed to go rushing to Iraq's request everytime they can't control their own internal affairs? Now, if you're operating under the principle of "we broke it, we bought it", then, yes, we have an affirmative responsibility to maintain the "peace" we created. But geopolitically, anyway, it makes more sense for us, as Americans, to let the chaos continue. We are not inclined as a body politic to expend military action--even if you are most would just see it as Obama interfering again--and it doesn't make sense for us strategically. You're right in a sense--this is just a horrible situation for these young girls, but it is part of their lot these days. I think you may want to ask your fellow conservatives how many of them would support the "we broke it, we bought it" argument. I think you'll find it's very few. As far as I'm concerned, it's a trade off. These Islamic fanatics (like ISIS), are as much our enemies as they are Iraq's. It's not a question of rushing in the help Iraq as it is addressing our own national security interests. And that would include any Islamic fanatical group committed to attacking the American people and I don't particulary care when and where. The only caveat being a regard for civilain casualties. Maybe I'm old fashioned but attacking and killing these Islamic fanatics whenever possible seems a reasonable response. |
|
|
|
|
Now this is the kind of drama queen response that fits into the list of 10 reasons not to be a leftie. I'm one of the few on either side of the aisle that is against drones because they're used in communities instead of in war zones. I would have lauded obama for taking out a contingency of radical muslim terrorists before they could inflict more damage. And since obama has stated time and time again, as bush did, that we are at war with terrorists not islam why in the world would you think that anyone anywhere in the world would be upset because obama used drones to take out a band of terrorists? So in response to your strawman argument that had he acted in response to iraqs request conservatives would have whined, sometimes you do the right thing because its the right thing regardless of what it will do to your political career. BTW he certainly didn't care what conservatives thought when he shoved obamacare down the throats of the majority that didn't want it now did he? And because he put his popularity ahead of lives there are tens of thousands of murdered humans and now you compassionate humanists on the left have to defend obamas do nothing stance that killed innocent men, women and children.
|
|
|
|
Now this is the part I don't get. I understand Obama is trying to pressure the Iraqi government to be more inclusive. Political druthers, I don't have a problem with that. But what I don't understand, is why Obama would pass up such a golden opportunity to attack and virtually eliminate a large contingent of these Islamic fanatics when he has absolutely no problem with attacking these same fanatics in other parts of the world and more often than not, when civilians are at risk.
Obviously, Obama's political druthers haven't worked out while the situation in Iraq has become even worse with these same Islaimc fanatics now entrenched, the same Islamic fanatics Obama could have destroyed almost from the get-go. An all-out attack on these fanatics, in the middle of the desert, no civilians around and almost a guaranteed chance of success. And Obama passed on it for what appears to be...political druthers.
A case of poor judgement...or just late to the dance again?
As if you wouldn't have lambasted Obama for making strikes on these sites if he'd agreed to it. It is not Obama's fault that every time someone looks at an Iraqi solder sternly, they drop their weapon, strip out of their uniform and run away. I know that for you, absolutely anything that happens is Obama's fault, but it's just not true. Put down the koolaid, take off your partisan blinders and try thinking for a moment. Like you, I have completely supported Obama's use of drones to attack these Islamic fanatics and have said so numerous times in this forum. Even the American renegades thrown in the pot. As far as I'm concerned, this was a golden opportunity for Obama to continue those attacks and I would have fully supported that decision. Now go back to sleep. |
|
|
|
It isn't. Widespread abuse is a myth, especially for SNAP.
You are delusional and out of touch with reality. There is no point trying to talk to people like you. |
|
|
|
Social Security will be around for as long as old people vote more than young people.
They will sacrifice a lot of/most stuff before they get rid of it.
Actually I don't know any young people who want to get rid of it. They just don't think it will be there and that's a good mentality to have since they will be pleasantly surprised when it's sitting there at retirement.
To answer the question, yes, SS should be around. Not enough people save on their own and it is designed for someone to not rely on inevitable assistance upon retirement and no retirement funds.
There should be a private option, but it shouldn't be entirely private.
If the problem is that people do not save enough, why not just replace Social Security with a mandatory private system. Instead of 12.4% of every dollar workers earn going to Social Security, the 12.4% goes into an individual savings and investment account that cannot be tapped until 60+. Because if it's mandatory, it's the same thing and Social Security is guarenteed and would be flush with cash if not for being raided periodically. A private option that had risks of loss defeats the purpose of a guarenteed savings program (Personally, I don't think politics would allow a functioning private system. The moment the first old person whines about not having their money, the givernment will bail them out). A private option with no risk on return is near identical to what we have now. |
|
|
|
|
Social Security will be around for as long as old people vote more than young people.
They will sacrifice a lot of/most stuff before they get rid of it.
Actually I don't know any young people who want to get rid of it. They just don't think it will be there and that's a good mentality to have since they will be pleasantly surprised when it's sitting there at retirement.
To answer the question, yes, SS should be around. Not enough people save on their own and it is designed for someone to not rely on inevitable assistance upon retirement and no retirement funds.
There should be a private option, but it shouldn't be entirely private.
|
|
|
|
|
.............one reason more and more of our economy is underground; i.e. cash only or bartering. No records for the tax Nazi's.
|
|
|
|
I agree with this. It's all a misdirected blame game. While government spending continually goes up and incomes go down then someone needs to be the bad guy. How about the person with the shiny car instead of the politician? http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...ion-a-day.htmlGovernment spending as a percentage of GDP hasn't really dramatically increased. It is about The same as it was under Reagan. |
|
|
|
|
That said, we would be not be honest to the Word of God if we were to ignore, deny or try to explain away the plain meaning of these verses. The Bible told us well in advance that Israel would be reborn and the Jews would come back to the Land, and this has come to pass. Genesis 12:1-3 tells us that the Lord will bless those who bless the children of Abraham, and He will curse those who curse the children of Abraham. Those who have cursed Israel have, sadly, found themselves facing great pain and suffering. Sometimes Bible truths are difficult to accept, but they are true nonetheless and we must accept them by faith.
|
|
|
|
|
I recognize that these verses can be difficult for some Palestinian Arabs and some Israeli Arabs to read, whether they are born again Christians or nominal Christians (raised in churches but without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ), and especially if they are Muslims. The Bible indicates that Jews will be a sinful people when they are brought back into the Land. Only after they return, the Bible teaches, will the Holy Spirit be poured out upon the Jewish people in an increasingly significant way (Ezekiel 39:29 and Joel 2:28-32 — or Joel chapter 3 in Hebrew Bibles). Then, a growing number of Jewish people will repent and return to a personal relationship with the Lord. Meanwhile, Jesus said in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 that there would be “wars and rumors of wars” and “revolutions” and “lawlessness” in the last days. Certainly, the rebirth of Israel — while prophetic and God-ordained — has come with wars, rumors of war, revolutions, sins, and even crimes committed by some Arabs as well as some Jews. The Bible doesn’t teach this period of the last days will be easy, and the Bible is right.
|
|
|
|
...it doesn't matter if this horseshit is prophesy or not...because they can make it self-fulfilling prophesy. Scary shit. The sooner religious zealots perish from the earth the better.
Yep, Christians are going out there and making those nations do all that stuff just to 'self' fulfill prophesy. LOL. |
|
|
|
I haven't checked out the Mazda, but have you considered the new Mini? I liked it a good bit more than the Focus .Both the std Cooper and the Cooper S for 2014 are turbo. S has a two liter, and the base model has a three cylinder turbo...
Have they fixed the goofy gauge locations on the new Mini, or are they still in the center of the dashboard? It's about time they gave up on that little bit of retro BS. |
|
|
|
|
Now this is the part I don't get. I understand Obama is trying to pressure the Iraqi government to be more inclusive. Political druthers, I don't have a problem with that. But what I don't understand, is why Obama would pass up such a golden opportunity to attack and virtually eliminate a large contingent of these Islamic fanatics when he has absolutely no problem with attacking these same fanatics in other parts of the world and more often than not, when civilians are at risk.
Obviously, Obama's political druthers haven't worked out while the situation in Iraq has become even worse with these same Islaimc fanatics now entrenched, the same Islamic fanatics Obama could have destroyed almost from the get-go. An all-out attack on these fanatics, in the middle of the desert, no civilians around and almost a guaranteed chance of success. And Obama passed on it for what appears to be...political druthers.
A case of poor judgement...or just late to the dance again?
|
|
|
|
I think that this is a hoax. The ISIS / ISIL is composed of fighters from all around the world, including regions where the Female Genital Mutilation is practiced (such as Somalia, Egypt and Sudan), as well as those from regions where it is not practiced (such as Chechenya and Uzbekistan). Since the latter group is having a majority, this will never be carried out.
The 'religion of peace' strikes again. And there you have it. Bush created ISIS. What is islam doing to stop ISIS from murdering, rioting and now mutilation? What is Islam doing to stop it? Those who are doing nothing agree with it which makes them no different… Like you may have a problem with the tactics of the progressives, but you really don't have a problem with the outcome so you ignore the tactics of the progressives which makes you no different… Like if a friend of yours commits a crime and you do nothing to stop them, you are just as guilty… It is simple What is Islam supposed to do to stop it? We're not talking about a friend committing a crime. Islam is a global religion, and you have a few factions who commit these horrible acts. Most of the Muslim communities condemn ISIS and the things they do, but you blame them because what - they're not all getting on planes to Iraq to fight ISIS directly? Do you know just how stupid you sound? Do you care? Unfortunately, these women are on their own and as callous as it sounds, the spoils of war pretty much define their dilemma. One thing that puzzles me. Several months ago, when ISIS was first penetrating into Iraq, they set up staging areas in the desert in order to begin their attacks on these Iraqi cities. The Iraqi government was aware of this and secretly asked Obama to attack these ISIS staging areas, located in the desert and far from civilian population. Obama refused their request. |
|
|
|
I think the "private" option is a good one. Social Security sops up 12.4% of workers' income. Even at a very modest income with modest returns, the average worker would do much better with a privately owned account than Social Security.
did. and failed. your parents can tell you stories about how companies swindled their workers pensions when it's almost time for them to cash out. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the info.
The speed3 was a he'll of a ride I mean I couldn't believe a car that price could put my head back on the head rest like that. The turbo is a
bit scary for me having not owned 1 before so the gages seem like a good idea for some peace of mind for pretty low cost.
Turbos are pretty reliable nowadays, especially if you leave the ECU programming stock and you don't modify any of the pressure sensors. But it's great fun to drive a car that, the faster it goes, the faster it *wants* to go. Positive feedback loops are endlessly entertaining. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
