Obama hostilie towards christians?

Originally posted by whodey
Its about Obama being a power hungry statst. All those who interfere in this pursuit, including christians or patriots, will be dealt with accordingly.

No, that's not what this thread is actually about, but it is what you seem to think every thread is about.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
How is his question nonsensical? Our understanding of time is extremely limited. Most think of it as something that exists but doesn't, as if it's not something that is tangible.

But didn't Albert Einstein prove that time is not the universal constant, but rather light is? Why is it that time slows down for any subject traveling at speeds, and ...[text shortened]... Why did that amount just happen to always exist and not less or more? I could go on all day.

The question is nonsensical strictly according to its terms (i.e., analytically): the word “before” is a temporal term; and one cannot speak of “before” except in a temporal context, which already entails the existence of time.

If time is a real aspect of the universe (which I am not challenging), then how does one speak of a “time” that was “before” the universe? To do so, I think, can lead to metaphysical confusion—e.g., to try to (philosophically or religiously) “get beyond” the idea of a singularity to what was “before”, when, as I (minimally) understand it, the singularity is precisely what we cannot “get beyond”. If we ever can “get beyond” the singularity, I suspect it will be science, and not speculative metaphysics, that does the job.

____________________________________________________


I have no problem, per se, with philosophical speculation. But I think we need to (continually) challenge our own language to avoid confusion. I understand the basis of the questions (e.g., sf’s questions); but if we cannot formulate the questions in non-contradictory terms, how can we avoid inherently contradictory answers?

For example, if it is our language that inhibits us from holding the conception of a totality—that, by definition, has no boundaries, and therefore no dimensional “beyond” or “outside” or (re the temporal dimension) “before” or “after”—does that then mean that there can be no such totality? Or just that we need to search for answers within the totality, and not allow our language to “bewitch” us into thinking that there must be “something else”?

Philosophically (and, in a religious context, theologically), the idea that thinking in terms of a totality (the ultimate coherent whole) makes sense, leads to a view called non-dualism.

Originally posted by generalissimo
There's no need to blindly follow loons like glen back.[/b]

Loons like Glen Beck? Who are the loons, the ones that drive up a $11 trillion deficit or the one who is critical of such practices? Perhaps the loons are the voters who abhorred BUsh and his spend thrift ways and then elected Obama. After all, Bush sent us into the credit crisis and you would think we would have learned from his mistakes and voter outrage by stopping this madness. Instead, however, we are spending at a higher rate than "W". Go figure.

Why not do yourself a favor and go out and buy his book "Common Sense"? I think you could use some.

Originally posted by whodey
Loons like Glen Beck? Who are the loons, the ones that drive up a $11 trillion deficit or the one who is critical of such practices? Perhaps the loons are the voters who abhorred BUsh and his spend thrift ways and then elected Obama. After all, Bush sent us into the credit crisis and you would think we would have learned from his mistakes and voter outrag ...[text shortened]... do yourself a favor and go out and buy his book "Common Sense"? I think you could use some.

An 11 trillion dollar deficit? Sounds more intelligent than looney. Ask yourself what is the real goal for this. There is method to this madness.

Originally posted by joe beyser
An 11 trillion dollar deficit? Sounds more intelligent than looney. Ask yourself what is the real goal for this. There is method to this madness.

There are several thoughts as to why the deficit has been allowed to go this high. Perhaps there is a conspiracy to destroy the most powerful economy in the world so as to bring the US down to the size of its peers. Nation destroying is vital if there is, in fact, a conspiracy to build a one world order. You can then pick up the pieces and build what you like afterwards.

Another thought is that the outrageous deficit is simply a natural product of the progressive movement started at the turn of the 20th century. After all, it took about a century of spending to get where we are now. There is no doubt about it, the progressive movement is expensive!! There is no time to be fiscally responsible when there are the poor to feed, governments to bail out, retirements to pay out, medical bills to pay, countries to invade, and money to skim off the top for your own greedy wants. There is no debating that what we spend we need for the most part, so why keep a tally of what we are spending when it is things we need? Just trust your leaders who just begin to print money to deal with the problem. No worries!!


Then again, maybe it is a combination of the two?

Originally posted by whodey
There are several thoughts as to why the deficit has been allowed to go this high. Perhaps there is a conspiracy to destroy the most powerful economy in the world so as to bring the US down to the size of its peers. Nation destroying is vital if there is, in fact, a conspiracy to build a one world order. You can then pick up the pieces and build what you l ...[text shortened]... y to deal with the problem. No worries!!


Then again, maybe it is a combination of the two?

I thought this progressive movement was to achive a one world order. The United States is still a hellofa wild card and will have to incrementally brought down. Obama or any of his financial advisers are well aware of what they are doing. They are intelligent people that are no doubt experts in their field. So what is the real plan here? The Ruination of the economy followed by a collapse of the dollar will instantly make the masses reliant on the government. How many have lost their retirement and jobs simultaneously? The social security Ponzi scheme has just about run its course now. Some major publications announce that we are all socialist now. Congress doesn't read the bills the president wants rushed through. The whole notion of national service. Obama taking control of automobile manufacturing companies. Taxes used to bail private corporations out. Pretty clear to me.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I thought this progressive movement was to achive a one world order. The United States is still a hellofa wild card and will have to incrementally brought down. Obama or any of his financial advisers are well aware of what they are doing. They are intelligent people that are no doubt experts in their field. So what is the real plan here? The Ruination of obile manufacturing companies. Taxes used to bail private corporations out. Pretty clear to me.

Yes, it is to acheive a world order of sorts, although, I'm not sure there is a consensus as to the details. Don't get me wrong, I think the progressives think they are doing a "good" thing here. It is not good for the country, rather, good for the world which, at some point, would be good for everyone. Of course, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I liked what Glen Beck had to say about the destruction of the US. Sure they can destroy the government/economy, but they can't destroy the Constitution and Declaration of Independence etc. I think if the US goes down the tubes and they begin to start to create a new world order they will have a fight on their hands. No doubt, there must be a crisis mode created to quell the disent. That is the only way it can be done just as we are seeing now. There is simply no time to even read a stimulus package before legislatures vote on it. LOL.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes, it is to acheive a world order of sorts, although, I'm not sure there is a consensus as to the details. Don't get me wrong, I think the progressives think they are doing a "good" thing here. It is not good for the country, rather, good for the world which, at some point, would be good for everyone. Of course, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes I believe most people involved to have the best of intentions here. I think the masterminds pretty much want %80 of us dead.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Yes I believe most people involved to have the best of intentions here. I think the masterminds pretty much want %80 of us dead.

Even Hitler thought he was doing a good thing for humanity by killing off the Jews.

Having said that, I don't think they want us dead, but I do know they just want us out of their way.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes, it is to acheive a world order of sorts, although, I'm not sure there is a consensus as to the details. Don't get me wrong, I think the progressives think they are doing a "good" thing here. It is not good for the country, rather, good for the world which, at some point, would be good for everyone. Of course, as the saying goes, the road to hell is pa ...[text shortened]... ere is simply no time to even read a stimulus package before legislatures vote on it. LOL.

I have given this thought off and on. The crisis could be another world war. It could be a civil war. It could be both. Throw in a little influenza outbreak and martial law and it is a done deal. Those pesky guns still bother the statists. I don't think the masterminds behind it all care much, as human life has historically meant nothing to them. If people are shooting it out then their plan is working just fine. The statists believe they have a place in tommorows world and want to take the guns to secure their own positions.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I have given this thought off and on. The crisis could be another world war. It could be a civil war. It could be both. Throw in a little influenza outbreak and martial law and it is a done deal. Those pesky guns still bother the statists. I don't think the masterminds behind it all care much, as human life has historically meant nothing to them. If peopl ...[text shortened]... e they have a place in tommorows world and want to take the guns to secure their own positions.

Well it would appear that another economic crisis will be part of the mix. Expecially the way we are headed now. As far as guns go, if the Constitution had not directly stated that it was our right to bear arms, not doubt it would have been "interpreted" long ago that it was not a Constitutional right and would have been taken away. I think the fact that it is there annoys the statists to no end. Thte mere fact that they did so allows us this freedom today. Even though this freedom seem protected other freedoms that are not spelled out so specifically are the ones I worry about the most.

Originally posted by whodey
Loons like Glen Beck? Who are the loons, the ones that drive up a $11 trillion deficit or the one who is critical of such practices? Perhaps the loons are the voters who abhorred BUsh and his spend thrift ways and then elected Obama. After all, Bush sent us into the credit crisis and you would think we would have learned from his mistakes and voter outrag ...[text shortened]... do yourself a favor and go out and buy his book "Common Sense"? I think you could use some.

voters who abhorred BUsh and his spend thrift ways and then elected Obama

there you go, its called democracy.
If the situation was as bad as you say it is, the people wouldn't vote for Obama next time. Politics change all the time, there is no need to go insane just because your candidate lost.

would think we would have learned from his mistakes

what about the fact that Obama did impose more regulation on the banks and the financial system? I guess he did learn with W's mistakes in a way.

Why not do yourself a favor and go out and buy his book "Common Sense"? I think you could use some.

No, Im too smart to read read that kind of propaganda. I'd rather form my own opinions based on facts than based on some book by a paranoid mormon.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes, it is to acheive a world order of sorts, although, I'm not sure there is a consensus as to the details. Don't get me wrong, I think the progressives think they are doing a "good" thing here. It is not good for the country, rather, good for the world which, at some point, would be good for everyone. Of course, as the saying goes, the road to hell is pa ...[text shortened]... ere is simply no time to even read a stimulus package before legislatures vote on it. LOL.

As soon as martial law is declared, the constitution is worthless.