Justice
-
Posts
2487 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Justice
-
-
Indeed, we aren't talking about opinion shows. This is about the news in general, so Riley, Limbaugh, Carlton, Carville, and Begla shouldn't even be thought of here. It's the bias in the actual news given. At least, that's how I take it.
As far as my vote, I would go with moderate right, based upon the unbelieveable amount of negativity that news brings to Democrats. But it does manage to hit on Bush, although that merely could be because it is the popular thing to do.To be honest, it's because the Dems aren't doing fucking good, and there are 9 of them. On any given day, one of them is likely to attack another or fuck up or something. As of late, things have gone much better with Bush than earlier this year.
Personally? I find a slight slant to the left in the media. It really depends more on specific anchors and such (I'd cite Aaron Brown as a really irritating liberal, enough so that I just can't stand to watch him anymore), but most agree that the news media itself has a left bias on social issues and doesn't really have an opinion on economic issues.
-
My main point was that the Army has been helped by technology and just being better run. When you have ten percent less (23.6% vs. 14.8%) battlefield wounds end up as fatalities over thirty years, that's a big plus. Soldiers are alot better off.
But they're two different wars at this point, one spanning twenty plus years and four countries. In 1964, there were about 214 deaths in Vietnam.
But there wasn't nearly the same amount of troops. That's a big factor here.
-
I was only covering war, which was what was originally in question, so the point you make is moot.
Only if this war didn't happen to have any killing in it.
Edit: Found another quote from the same site.Some of these commands deserve further comment. As several modern versions indicate, the King James Version's "Thou shalt not kill" is too broad to convey the sense of the Hebrew of the sixth command. The word used is harag [g;r'h], which does not refer to killing in general, but to the premeditated murder of one person by another. Thus, it is not proper to build a case against war or capital punishment upon the basis of this verse. These activities may indeed be condemned on biblical grounds, but this verse should only be a tertiary part of the evidence.It's ratsach not Harag, like the same site said in your last quote, which is too general to mean only murder. It means kill. In Leviticus 24:17, the commandment is repeated with the word nakah meaning kill, "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death." And in Exodus 21:12 with Nakah again, "He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall surely be put to death." The commandment translates to kill, not murder. Sorry you don't like it, but there it is.
But the thing is, it doesn't. The New American Standard Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Murder" specifically.
Link to New American Standard Bible
And it even seems that they interpretted it similar to premeditated murder anyways. Another quote.
Discernment in Homicide Cases. The death penalty was posed for one who killed with premeditation, but not for accidental manslaughter (Exod 21:12-13; Lev 24:17; Deut 27:24). In fact, premeditated murder did not require a trial (Exod 21:14; Num 35:19; Deut 19:11-13). Thus, the Old Testament saw a fundamental difference between the two types of homicide (Deut 19:1-13; Joshua 20:1-7), providing two levels of meaning for rasah [j;x'r]. -
Please. Everybody spins. A WHOPPING .1% downturn? It's not much to get excited about. The fact remains that local jobs are being eaten by large corporations that ship employment overseas. The Nike's, Adidas, Old Navy's of the world. Where did those jobs go? They didn't just disappear: they got moved. The greatest example of what happens to a city when the manufacturing jobs move: Allentown, PA.
Personally, I just want to know what the Dems want to do to keep these jobs over here. More regulation? Better Worker benefits? Seriously, what do the Dems have that is better than the pro-economy stance that Bush has already taken? Each way you put it, Wildbomb, the US seems doomed to collapse on itself because everything and everyone is getting the hell out of dodge as quickly as possible. What should we do?
This is a problem.The current economy is driven not by manufacturing, but by technology and services. Most of these jobs are at Wal-Marts, where people are paid $7-$8 an hour. Can a family live off of that? I think not.
First off, all these jobs are at Walmart? Computer firms don't hire anymore? This is totally spin here. Didn't that article say that the average job out there is paying $15.46? If all those jobs were that much, wouldn't that mean that this figure would have gone down a bit rather than postign a small increase? I hate it when people just pull figures out their asses like that.
What type of family? A single mom with 2 kids? Yeah, I'll agree. But what about if it's only the mom or dad working there to supplement their spouse's higher income? Isn't that possible as well? What if they are single?
On the part you posted from the article, a lot of that is also spin and speculation as well. Remember, growth is growth and even if its slowly improving it still is.
I have to leave like RIGHT NOW, but I'll be back to give a bit more complete analysis.
-
I most likely won't be voting for a democrat, or bush. I wonder if Nader is running again.
I think he is. And I'm glad that you are intelligent enough to show your disgust by voting for a third party instead of simply not voting. That never works.
Well so far I have only been a part of one presidential race that I could vote for, and that was in 2000 when I voted for Nader. I will most likely do the same thing again.
And if he isn't running, vote something crazy like the Prohibition party
. -
I think you are fucking nuts because you want to keep troops there to insert a US-Friendly regieme while starving them to fucking death. It doesn't work, which is why we don't let people like you decide foreign policy: You oversimplify complex problems to one massive solution that lacks any possibility of being workable in reality without creating the image that our enemies want us to have: Of empire-building selfish fucks who only intervene when it is at their advantage to take control. That's why you are nuts.
Oh, and not much tax money goes into foreign aid, man. Just so you know.
-
So now the Man on the Street's gut reaction constitutes a valid basis for national policy? I don't even want to get into the problems that would cause. Average Joe's opinion doesn't matter because he's uninformed and rarely has any interest other than his own in mind. If we acted in the interest of that man on the street, we'd be in a lot more trouble than we are now.
Last I checked Democracy was all about listening to those average Joes and what they want.
You see, this is a REPUBLIC. Democracy on this scale would be impossible unless we voted on EVERY FRICKEN ISSUE and FORCED PEOPLE TO VOTE. We elect people to make democracy workable, and running everything through polls is a shitty job. Public opinion can changes often and can do so in an instant. To try and base a long term policy on something that constantly changes is moronic, which is why we elect officials to decide issues for us. They need not be completely bound to public opinion, which allows them to do the right thing even if the public doesn't agree with it at the time while still having to be reelected, which makes it so that he does still have to represent his constituency sometimes.
There's still a shitty job market. Alot of those shelters are occupied by homeless Veterans that you would think would be compensated for serving their country, not the case.No shit there's a shitty job market. It looks as though that will change, so those veterans will get a chance to be employed again. They are still being fucking fed in shelters. That's not the case in other countries where you can't get food, let alone a job.
I don't think its fair that when money for steak is earned we get stuck with meatloaf because the head of the household on the neighbors side can't do shit right. If they want changes let them do it.Then cry about it while eating the fucking meat loaf. You act as though the public over there has any control over their government. With your logic, I shouldn't fucking give food to those hungry veterans in the shelters because they are fucking lazy and deserve what they get.
If we want to claim moral superiority to the World when it comes to Iraq, we have to live that moral superiority. If that includes eating meat loaf so that someone else might even HAVE food, that's a sacrifice we must make to be that beacon of light that we claim to be. You can't run all over the World without rebuilding it.
That's worked out great too hasn't it? North Korea still wants to nuke the world (U.S. included) and the only thing holding them back is China and their massive army. Last I checked giving the people of Afghanistan food didn't end their anger for having loved ones blown the fuck up, also didn't stop them from further suicide bombings. What's going to stop that is a new regime...one that we help control, which is why I said keep troops over there cause we have unfinished bussiness.Don't forget to include the fact that we could EASILY cut off their food supply because they are literally eating the stuff we are getting right off the boats. They bitch all about nuking the world because they want more food because their population is starving to death due to their insane leader. But if you want to blame the poor people of that country on the failures of its leader, hey, go ahead.
Afganistan Suicide Bombings? Got an article, because I've been searching all around CNN and I can't any of the shit you are talking about. Of course, since you seem to be shoveling enough BS at the time, I shouldn't be surprised. Besides, because there is a small minority that wants us out, we should suddenly pull all aid to everyone there? Oh boy, maybe we should occupy the South and rescind white voting rights down there because OMG there are still KKK members around! Hurting the majority because of a small minority is idiotic and obscene.
And I love the "Don't feed them but keep troops over there" remark. So basically starve them while occupying them and claiming a moral high ground? Jesus, you are fucking nuts. You are the reason we don't let the Average Joe decide foreign policy.
-
It doesn't matter whether or not people inserted his name in the text because Josephus was born AFTER the death of Jesus.
You're using Jesus' death to disprove his existence?!
... Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
-
I was only covering war, which was what was originally in question, so the point you make is moot.
Edit: Found another quote from the same site.
Some of these commands deserve further comment. As several modern versions indicate, the King James Version's "Thou shalt not kill" is too broad to convey the sense of the Hebrew of the sixth command. The word used is harag [g;r'h], which does not refer to killing in general, but to the premeditated murder of one person by another. Thus, it is not proper to build a case against war or capital punishment upon the basis of this verse. These activities may indeed be condemned on biblical grounds, but this verse should only be a tertiary part of the evidence. -
I might have cared if the people who intercepted it wasn't the most biased source in big media news.
You know, they only broke the story. It isn't as though they wrote it the damn thing, Jobber.
-
I held off on reading them until now.
I think I might cry because this looks to be painfully shitty.
-
I just think he's not a fantastic public speaker. He's a decent one and has improved, but he's no Reagan or Kennedy. That has no bearing on his intelligence.
-
So someone can insert Jesus into text, but it's not possible for Jesus to be erased from text?
-
The "thou shall not kill" commandmant is the English translation, which is a very long time removed from the original. It is actually the idea of "Thou shall not commit Murder." A devoted Jew or Christian is perfectly within his rights--and not commiting sin--to use lethal force to defend himself/herself if attacked by someone wishing to kill them, or in time of war.
The hebrew word ratsach translates to kill, not murder. Includes killing in self defense, murder, and accidental killing.
"Rasah did not cover the subject of killing in war or capital punishment, which were done only at the command of God; thus, they were not in the same category as murder."
-
I'm seeing it tonight. This is quite disturbing, though. Oh well, still have Return of the King to wait for...
-
Odd that no one has made the point that the last three democratic presidents have all been Southern Democrats.
Anyways, Tyler, on the movie: When it apparently has incredibly slanderous quotes like the most common one ("They that live in sin shall die in sin.", and you can't take that out of context.) which has literally no basis and is character assasination for a man who can't even fight back, there's cause for outrage. I don't see how anyone can still defend this series when it is so obviously biased.
-
(and, no doubt, portraying this as the "miniseries too controversial for broadcast TV")?
-=Mike
It's like Al Franken vs The Media Whore. The more you want to make a stink and get the word out, the more publicity you're harping upon it.
The "Dogma" Theory.
-
Seems like almost anyone in fit shape with even a small knowledge of fighting could take down Osama in a one-on-one fight. He's sickly and thin. Saddam, on the other hand, is a different story. He WAS a hired killer.
but Saddams over 65.
You know what this means? Handicap match.
-
I can see your point, but the whole killing thing then becomes a big mess, which is how you end up with a guy waging a holy war and justifying religious murder.
Indeed, but this was really a land war rather than a terror campaign. But yeah, it is a real gray area.
-
Crusades
Well, it was a war for ownership of the Holy Land. When one declares war, it kinda waves murder rights. Now whether the war was justified or not, you have a case.
-
Danke for the backup, Tom
.Edit: And on the OMG ORIGINAL TOPIC, yes, I don't see it as being too far off. It's completely possible and the church could have easily modified the records and pages without us knowing. Again, the problem is we weren't around and how easy it is for records like those to be tampered with makes it really tough to tell us yes or no.
-
Oh Christ, turn on that Colin Quinn show. Colin just called Scott Thompson on the whole gay thing, pulling out the pro-gay legislation Reagan passed back in the 70's. While I like the guy, watching him execute a scramble drill to talking about Nancy Reagan was absolutely HILARIOUS. Damn, that was good.
-
Did CBS ever make attempts to say this movie was a factual account of history? I'm curious.
And yet that movie where the That's My Bush guy plays Dubya With CAJONES~! in the middle of 9/11 goes by unnoticed.
In one scene, the character of Reagan says of AIDS (news - web sites) patients, "They that live in sin shall die in sin." There is no evidence that Reagan actually ever said such a thing.Well, I think stuff like the above has something to do with the complaints, Jobber...
-
In related news, my God's cock is bigger than your God's cock.
I think it was more about fighting the guy one on one as a matter of honor rather than simply Christianity vs. Islam since he said he shamed Islam and all, but whatever.
Who DESERVES the Democratic nomination?
in Current Events
Posted
Wow. That makes me proud to have that avatar right now.