The Casey Anthony Trial

[SamZee]

I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread about this already. Least not in this forum.

Anyway, am I the only one who's upset by the fact that one homicide case is plaguing the mainstream media to this extreme? -- Who sees this as an immensely elaborate smokescreen? There is so much happening these days and so fast, that it's impossible to keep up with it all. Fukishima is still a disaster, and the nuclear crisis over there appears to be getting continually worse. The Missouri river is flooded beyond belief, and what do ya know, there are 15 nuclear power plants along it. The ongoing severe weather outbreak, the work-in-progress revolution in Spain, the breakthroughs in disclosure, the list go on. And in the midst of all these things, (which don't receive nearly the amount of coverage they deserve if any) the Casey Anthony trial is regarded as the most paramount. It's delivered as this very tantalizing, dramatic mystery that everyone wants to solve. It's ridiculous how involved everyone is -- how attached everyone is, all to this one murder case. Now her family and other people are being pulled into it, adding new dimensions to this ever-evolving mystery which I think is terrible. Her and her family's lives are exposed to the entire public all day every day as the corporate media keeps them under this national microscope and capitalizes on the death of a child. People kill people every day. Of course the murder of one's daughter is rather heinous, but besides that, what makes this case so special? Why do you think the corporate media is publicizing this to such an extreme? I seriously think it's just one big, manufactured distraction.

What do you think?

[St. Dymphna]

The aesthetic value of this case is just too appealing to most people, I guess.
The majority of us crave drama as long as we can walk away from it, but if too many real problems are issued, then we become trapped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hii17sjS ... re=related

[heartsdreamer]

Just another distraction to avoid the huge problems our country is experiencing.

[SamZee]

The aesthetic value of this case is just too appealing to most people, I guess.
The majority of us crave drama as long as we can walk away from it, but if too many real problems are issued, then we become trapped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hii17sjS ... re=related

Hah, excellent song. Tool is what's up.

And yes, I would certainly agree. I would also say that if too many real problems are issued, that people would actually begin to think outside the limited box of reality society has allowed them. They'd begin to think about bigger things than themselves for once, which is what cripples the powers of the elite.

Just another distraction to avoid the huge problems our country is experiencing.

Precisely.

[Jeff_in_Time]

This is just the latest one, they always grab on to one big killing story and the news runs it like a soap opera/reality show.
Ratings!

[SamZee]

Yes, you're right... but I can't say I remember the other cases being this crazy. It's taken the country by storm.

[Jeff_in_Time]

One that comes to mind is the Susan Smith case.


Or that guy who killed his pregnant wife, I'll try to get you the dudes name.
Scott Peterson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson

Jon Benet Ramesy case also.

Or OJ Simpson!

[SamZee]

Ah yes. You bring up a good point. It seems that there are many cases which get way more attention than they deserve, and then there are some that make facking history. You're doing a reading assignment for a history class, and you read: "The Holocaust was one a terrible genocide. Over 6,000,000 Jews were sent to death by Hitler. AND DID YOU HEAR? OJ SIMPSON KILLED HIS WIFE!"

I have to wonder if these uber stories come about when there's a lot they don't want you to know about.

[Nostalgic]

I never watch the news but hubby complains here also.
The big one here is that French guy accused of raping the hotel maid. But hubby wants to see what else is happening in the world.

[Jeff_in_Time]

I wonder about why some are so over sensationalized too.
Figure it keeps viewers occupied and on that channel.

[Dorn]

What do you think?

I think you are off base, drawing conclusions without presenting their necessary support structure.

By comparison, I would personally prefer if more people watched artful films rather than cheesy action movies. But it's wishful thinking on my behalf, and I do not have the power to dispel the public's disinterest. The lack of concern for proper information (channels) matches this travesty.

Firstly, cable TV is for entertainment purposes only. If you are interested in the straight dope, you watch C-SPAN, read breaking news from Associated Press or Reuters, or subscribe to intelligence reports and analyses from Foreign Affairs, Stratfor or any other serious agency/think tank.

Secondly, the dominating news channels--which you carelessly call "the mainstream media"--present competing narratives, and the viewers credit the victor through selection. Thereby, the dominant narrative filters "reality" in the same manner that conformist entertainment mirrors "taste." Incidentally, there is no alternative route as all the press releases share the same origin. Even the so-called "alternative media" bases its reporting on the same newswires as the "corporate media." What differs is the narrative, the glue that ties the information together and presents it in the shape of a story.

Now, looking at your particular story makes me rather wary. It is guided by a flawed, paranoid outlook--a.k.a. biased inductive logic--where cherry-picked facts are placed next to either dubious or unsubstantiated claims.

Returning to the initial question, I think the twaddle is beneath you.

[St. Dymphna]

She was found not guilty.
Satan is my homeboy.

[Era]

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent
And satan has always been my homeboy

[SharA2]

I do not see how the jury came to that conclusion, there definitely was reasonable doubt.

[parousia]

I do not see how the jury came to that conclusion, there definitely was reasonable doubt.

The only reasonable doubt attributed to this case was our own predigious against a lying mother's demeanor/lifestyle.
Ain't a jury in the world would have found her guilty based on the evidence presented.
Seriously, did you even watch the case?

[RockPillow®]

I enjoyed the way the verdict upset everybody. It's interesting to see how revenge becomes the hope of many, but if she killed herself like many other murderers have in the past, there would be less for people to invest in and more to mourn.

[St. Dymphna]

Your sense of fashion is atrocious rock, and for that I shall mourn.

[SharA2]

I do not see how the jury came to that conclusion, there definitely was reasonable doubt.

The only reasonable doubt attributed to this case was our own predigious against a lying mother's demeanor/lifestyle.
Ain't a jury in the world would have found her guilty based on the evidence presented.
Seriously, did you even watch the case?

I caught it here and there, mostly in print, TV coverage was over the top, imo. She got off because of the families lies, which was probably all premeditated actions on each of their parts, even if they blamed their daughter, they don't want her to die too. The mother, father and brother actively added confusion in the juries minds. Even if it might have been an accidental death and possibly might not have been planned, she was still involved in the burial and cover up lies. She wants the fame and cash now too.

[Jeff_in_Time]

Heard she got offered a million dollar deal to do an interview.
That's crazy.
She's out when?Today or tomorrow?

[Dorn]

Seeing that this thread has lasted longer than the actual trial, it didn't quite serve as the "distraction" it was presumed to be. By extension, it would be appropriate if someone were to withdraw his initial, conspiratorial claim.

[7Believer]

A little while ago God taught me the difference between being optimistic and being naive. Being optimistic is when you believe in something where you have more to gain than to lose. Being naive is when you believe in something where you have more to lose than to gain. Please apply this logic to your beliefs concerning the existence of our loving Lord.

The sneakiest of criminals know how to cover their tracks. If Satan does exist, than since he is the one responsible for turning people into criminals in the first place, he would definately know how to cover his tracks. I think one of the reasons that this trial, and others like it, have been given much media attention is for the purpose of 'highlighting' the 'gain' from sin: fame, money, etc.. Compare this possibility to other subjects: movies, video games, music, apparel, books, possessions. Do others not envy the selfish rich who purchase expensive possessions? Do others not dress for the desire of fornication? Do others not root for the villain because he does whatever he wants? Destruction isn't the devil's goal, corruption is. He wants to turn us away from God in order to turn us into his slaves; preferably unaware ones.

I also believe that there is indeed a secret organization which the devil is using, unbeknownst to it's members, in order to gain control of the world. Manipulating the media to their advantage doesn't sound very implausible when you consider the fact that even consumer product companies use the same method. Unfortunately, in this corrupt monetary system, the richest control the rest. Further more, as I have previously mentioned, the sneakiest of criminals know how to cover their tracks. If you're truly interested in this matter, I suggest watching the Zeitgeist documentaries, even though they take some unjustified jabs at Christianity. Although I don't agree with everything they teach, some of the facts they share deserve consideration, if only to find out whether or not they are true.

[Dorn]

I also believe that there is indeed a secret organization which the devil is using, unbeknownst to it's members, in order to gain control of the world. Manipulating the media to their advantage doesn't sound very implausible when you consider the fact that even consumer product companies use the same method. Unfortunately, in this corrupt monetary system, the richest control the rest. Further more, as I have previously mentioned, the sneakiest of criminals know how to cover their tracks. If you're truly interested in this matter, I suggest watching the Zeitgeist documentaries, even though they take some unjustified jabs at Christianity. Although I don't agree with everything they teach, some of the facts they share deserve consideration, if only to find out whether or not they are true.

You have been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, correct?

[parousia]

He's fake crazy me thinks.

[Dorn]

He's fake crazy me thinks.

You could be right. His punctuation is rather orderly.

I'll wait for the reply and see what follows from it.

[7Believer]

You have been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, correct?

I have been diagnosed with schizophrenia, which I believe to actually be interference from the devil and his demons, but hopefully you won't let that create a bias in you against anything that I post. Please apply the same rationalization skills with me that you should with everybody else. Facts are facts because they can be proven. Theories are theories because they haven't been proven. This doesn't mean that all theories aren't facts. When considering a theory, please remember the difference between being optimistic and being naive: one has more to lose than the other. I know optimisim is usually associated with positive thoughts, and not probable theories, but I consider being aware of the truth a positive thing.

He's fake crazy me thinks.

You could be right. His punctuation is rather orderly.

I'll wait for the reply and see what follows from it.

I don't lie. If an action wouldn't benefit everybody if everybody practiced it (within a moral context; a world of lumberjacks wouldn't leave any trees), then it would do the opposite. I believe there is only good and bad, no middle ground. Even a rock that in no way hinders could be considered good, since it does exactly what our loving Lord expects it to. As a Christian, I choose to avoid practicing evil in any form. To have defended my faith as often as I have on here, only to fake an illness (for what purpose?), which would mean going against what I believe in, would make me a hypocrit.

If you are going to call me a hypocrit, please provide some evidence. Proper punctuation attests to my intellect, not to the possibility of demonic interference, which science cannot disprove, yet denies anyway.

[Era]

[Dorn]

You have been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, correct?

I have been diagnosed with schizophrenia, which I believe to actually be interference from the devil and his demons, but hopefully you won't let that create a bias in you against anything that I post.

Then you must know that the above compilation--secret organization, devil, control of the world, media manipulation, Zeitgeist--points to symptoms of such a condition. The fact that you don't reject them out of hand will be to your disadvantage in similar situations.

One way to avoid those pitfalls would be to maintain the secular order. The separation of politics and religion is actually beneficial to the latter.

As Henry Adams put it, "politics is the systematic organization of hatreds." Politics is base, shortsighted and local, whereas religion is transcendent, timeless and universal. Whenever you pair the two, you pull religion down to its nethermost representation.

Facts are facts because they can be proven. Theories are theories because they haven't been proven. This doesn't mean that all theories aren't facts.

No. A theory is per definition not a fact, as a theory produces falsifiable predictions. It is important to separate the two; facts relate to certainty, theories to conjecture.

He's fake crazy me thinks.

I don't lie.

I take your word for it.

I believe there is only good and bad, no middle ground.

This is a problem as well. Perpetuating a Manichean worldview, where one side is always good and the other always evil, sets you up for a victimization complex.

Proper punctuation attests to my intellect, not to the possibility of demonic interference ...

Agreed.

[7Believer]

Then you must know that the above compilation--secret organization, devil, control of the world, media manipulation, Zeitgeist--points to symptoms of such a condition. The fact that you don't reject them out of hand will be to your disadvantage in similar situations.

One way to avoid those pitfalls would be to maintain the secular order. The separation of politics and religion is actually beneficial to the latter.

As Henry Adams put it, "politics is the systematic organization of hatreds." Politics is base, shortsighted and local, whereas religion is transcendent, timeless and universal. Whenever you pair the two, you pull religion down to its nethermost representation.

Have you heard the expression, "don't make silly faces or your face will stay that way"? It's an old wive's tale, used for scaring children into obedience. What about the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf? It's about a boy who lies and then suffers the consequences of having his honesty doubted. How do you get people to ignore the truth? Perhaps by creating doubt and fear. Doubt that people being oppressed by demons (what science clalls schizophrenia) can actually speak the truth, and fear that believing them would be naive.

Why should religious truth not be applied to politics as well? If Satan does exist, then he's going to try and seize control of the world. How? Through those that do control the world.

Theories can be facts that haven't yet been proven. I have a birthmark in the shape of a heart on my foot. This will appear as theoretical to you, but fact to me.

I take your word for it.

Thank you for trusting me.

I consider my statement about there being only good and bad Christian, not Manichean.

[Dorn]

Have you heard the expression, "don't make silly faces or your face will stay that way"? It's an old wive's tale, used for scaring children into obedience. What about the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf? It's about a boy who lies and then suffers the consequences of having his honesty doubted. How do you get people to ignore the truth? Perhaps by creating doubt and fear. Doubt that people being oppressed by demons (what science clalls schizophrenia) can actually speak the truth, and fear that believing them would be naive.

An old wives' tale plus an Aesopic fable plus the truth plus demons ... the only thing missing is an account from the brothers Grimm (the one with Simpleton and the Golden Goose).

Nevertheless, what does this esoterica spell out?

Why should religious truth not be applied to politics as well?

I repeat, "Politics is base, shortsighted and local, whereas religion is transcendent, timeless and universal. Whenever you pair the two, you pull religion down to its nethermost representation."

Just give Machiavelli's The Prince a glance if you wish for a closer examination of the political.

If Satan does exist, then he's going to try and seize control of the world. How? Through those that do control the world.

And who controls the world?

Theories can be facts that haven't yet been proven.

No. A theory brings forth results which may or may not be factual.

I have a birthmark in the shape of a heart on my foot. This will appear as theoretical to you, but fact to me.

No, it doesn't appear theoretical in the least. Outrageous or nonsensical would be my choice words.

I take your word for it.

Thank you for trusting me.

You're welcome.

I consider my statement about there being only good and bad Christian, not Manichean.

Dividing the world between forces of absolute good and absolute evil readily defines the Manichean dualism. Within Christendom, it's considered a heresy.

[7Believer]

An old wives' tale plus an Aesopic fable plus the truth plus demons ... the only thing missing is an account from the brothers Grimm (the one with Simpleton and the Golden Goose).

Nevertheless, what does this esoterica spell out?

The following is quoted from wikipedia's file on The Golden Goose:

Dummling, after three more impossible trials including finding a ship that sails on land and sea, sometimes inserted in the tale, in each of which he is assisted by the little gray man, wins the Princess and everyone lives happily ever after.

Simpleton/Dummling: 7Believer?

Three impossible trials: Old wives' tale, Aesopic fable, an account of the brothers Grimm

A ship that sails on land and sea: A vessel containing either solid fact or loose theory

Little gray man: In between white and black, right and wrong

Princess: Royal beauty, a birthright identity



The old wives' tale relates how automatically trusting in those who have more experience than you isn't always the best choice; the whole field of psychology could be a 'golden goose', one that provides a convenient front for demonic interference. Now, would it be naive of me to believe in this, or naive of you not to? Who has more to lose?

The crying wolf fable reveals why Satan would want to cause the stereotype of schizophrenia in the first place.

Theories can be unproven facts, just like possibilities can be true.

If the Lord only approves of good things, then anything He doesn't approve of is bad. This isn't heresy, my friend, it's logical deduction.

If you don't believe that the photo is of me, I can post another one with your name written on a piece of paper.

[Jeff_in_Time]

Man, what tats do you have?
Is that a snake going up your arm, looks detailed, but its hard to tell.
What's the story behind it?

Sorry peeps for my off topic.

[7Believer]

Man, what tats do you have?
Is that a snake going up your arm, looks detailed, but its hard to tell.
What's the story behind it?

It's a snakedragon. I got it done a couple of years ago, when I was still an atheist. I think my reason for it was envy; I was seeking a social advantage. What caused my envy? I believe it to be the same root cause of every other personal malfunction; the devil and his demons. Divide and conquer, envy and pride.

I chose a red snakedragon design kind of randomly, while the artist (I got the tattoo done at a place called Stigmata) added the color black. This all happened before our loving Lord had rescued me. I don't think it's design was a coincidence. The devil is referred to as both a snake and a dragon in the Book of Revelation. Likewise, his figure is red, and I think black has represented negative as long as white has represented positive.

[Era]

o wo I like tattoos. Personally I think it's a nice tattoo *shrugs*

[Dorn]

Simpleton/Dummling: 7Believer?

Do you automatically identify with the protagonist when reading fairy tales?

Three impossible trials: Old wives' tale, Aesopic fable, an account of the brothers Grimm

A ship that sails on land and sea: A vessel containing either solid fact or loose theory

Little gray man: In between white and black, right and wrong

Princess: Royal beauty, a birthright identity

A triptych mystery journey mirroring our very own curious case. (So much more intriguing than that Casey Anthony trial.)

Theories can be unproven facts, just like possibilities can be true.

Again, you will have to separate the two: facts are extant, theories are not. A theory is that which unfolds facts or falsehoods, but it isn't a fact nor a falsehood by itself.

If the Lord only approves of good things, then anything He doesn't approve of is bad. This isn't heresy, my friend, it's logical deduction.

Faith is by definition supra-rational.

However, in relying on the language of our particular faith, the immediacy of determining good or evil in every subject is a discreet denial of God's sovereign grace; Augustine of Hippo and Paul the Apostle are two examples of "sinners turned saints"--that is, of evil turned good through grace. Denying this selection is but one example of what makes such a black-and-white perspective a heresy.

If you don't believe that the photo is of me, I can post another one with your name written on a piece of paper.

Is this the manner in which you usually accost strangers? "This is no laughing matter. I must show you the kissy lips on the sole of my foot."

Putting the drivel aside, though, there are two important aspects which you disregarded in your reply:

(1) Machiavelli, the teacher of all things political;
(2) assessing the foundation for your own perspective; that is, pointing out the "secret organization" by name and function so as to further your point.

The political discussion will be restored the very moment these two are addressed.

[Jeff_in_Time]

Man, what tats do you have?
Is that a snake going up your arm, looks detailed, but its hard to tell.
What's the story behind it?

It's a snakedragon. I got it done a couple of years ago, when I was still an atheist. I think my reason for it was envy; I was seeking a social advantage. What caused my envy? I believe it to be the same root cause of every other personal malfunction; the devil and his demons. Divide and conquer, envy and pride.

I chose a red snakedragon design kind of randomly, while the artist (I got the tattoo done at a place called Stigmata) added the color black. This all happened before our loving Lord had rescued me. I don't think it's design was a coincidence. The devil is referred to as both a snake and a dragon in the Book of Revelation. Likewise, his figure is red, and I think black has represented negative as long as white has represented positive.

Damn, that is one intricate tat. Do you recall what that cost you?
I like it, like the colors too.
Does it ever bother you that you wear it now, not being an atheist anymore?
Or it is a remainder to keep the good path?
Thanks for posting the pic.

[7Believer]

Do you automatically identify with the protagonist when reading fairy tales?

I'm the one who's intelligence is being questioned.

Again, you will have to separate the two: facts are extant, theories are not. A theory is that which unfolds facts or falsehoods, but it isn't a fact nor a falsehood by itself.

I'm not suggesting that facts are theories, but that theories can be unproven facts. A theory is a possible fact; it may or may not be true. I realize that a possible fact is different from a fact, but that wasn't what I was implying. Basically, something is either true or it isn't. If you don't know which, that doesn't automatically place it in the untrue category.

Augustine of Hippo and Paul the Apostle are two examples of "sinners turned saints"--that is, of evil turned good through grace. Denying this selection is but one example of what makes such a black-and-white perspective a heresy.

I haven't stated that bad cannot become good, or vice versa. I am an example of this as well, if you're willing to believe in my Christian faith. However, this doesn't change the fact that if something isn't good, then it is bad; good being defined as that which our loving Lord approves of.

If the heart was a set of kissing lips, it would have an arched bottom. I think your stretched denial of my birthmark's shape, and your disregard for the very unlikely odds that the Golden Goose quote would match up so perfectly with what we are discussing, as well as your two straw men (good and bad, theory and fact), all reveal your intentions. Is this about proving yourself right, or discovering what's right?

I know you also believe in our Lord. I posted some information about how I communicate with Him in this thread: http://dreammoods.com/dreamforum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=79794. I don't know how you communicate with Him, but perhaps try to and see if I am correct or not.

Putting the drivel aside, though, there are two important aspects which you disregarded in your reply:
(1) Machiavelli, the teacher of all things political;
(2) assessing the foundation for your own perspective; that is, pointing out the "secret organization" by name and function so as to further your point.

Machiavelli's perspective is just psychology's definition of the devil's corruption.

The documentaries in the Zeitgeist series do name names, if names are what you are looking for.

Damn, that is one intricate tat. Do you recall what that cost you?
I like it, like the colors too.
Does it ever bother you that you wear it now, not being an atheist anymore?
Or it is a remainder to keep the good path?
Thanks for posting the pic.

I think it cost over $2000. I don't let anything bother me, because I have been shown a good side to everything. The tattoo has a special meaning in regards to a dream language that I have been taught, which will be explained next year when my book is out. This meaning will ultimately serve a positive purpose. Plus, there are better things to spend money on than a tattoo removal, like donations to those in need.

[Dorn]

Do you automatically identify with the protagonist when reading fairy tales?

I'm the one who's intelligence is being questioned.

No. On the one hand, I am questioning your sense of humor; on the other, your political susceptibility. (By the way, it's whose, not who's.)

Again, you will have to separate the two: facts are extant, theories are not. A theory is that which unfolds facts or falsehoods, but it isn't a fact nor a falsehood by itself.

I'm not suggesting that facts are theories, but that theories can be unproven facts.

Drivel. I repeat, "a theory is that which unfolds facts or falsehoods, but it isn't a fact nor a falsehood by itself."

Augustine of Hippo and Paul the Apostle are two examples of "sinners turned saints"--that is, of evil turned good through grace. Denying this selection is but one example of what makes such a black-and-white perspective a heresy.

I haven't stated that bad cannot become good, or vice versa. I am an example of this as well, if you're willing to believe in my Christian faith.

Did your fingers slip or did you just deem yourself divine?

However, this doesn't change the fact that if something isn't good, then it is bad; good being defined as that which our loving Lord approves of.

It does, since whomever you denote as evil--through your peculiar definition--will remain evil through time.

If the heart was a set of kissing lips, it would have an arched bottom. I think your stretched denial of my birthmark's shape, and your disregard for the very unlikely odds that the Golden Goose quote would match up so perfectly with what we are discussing, as well as your two straw men (good and bad, theory and fact), all reveal your intentions. Is this about proving yourself right, or discovering what's right?

I haven't even gotten to the point where you have stated your case intelligibly. That's what I'm waiting for, really.

I know you also believe in our Lord. I posted some information about how I communicate with Him in this thread: http://dreammoods.com/dreamforum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=79794. I don't know how you communicate with Him, but perhaps try to and see if I am correct or not.

Let me remind you that this is the "News & Politics" section, where spiritual approaches are irrelevant.

Putting the drivel aside, though, there are two important aspects which you disregarded in your reply:
(1) Machiavelli, the teacher of all things political;

Machiavelli's perspective is just psychology's definition of the devil's corruption.

The Prince was written in 1513, well before any definition of such a thing as psychology. And the work happens to coincide with the end of the Dark Ages and the outbreak of the Italian Renaissance. Furthermore, Machiavelli was known as the greatest comedian of his era, especially for his play The Mandrake (1518).

(2) assessing the foundation for your own perspective; that is, pointing out the "secret organization" by name and function so as to further your point.

The documentaries in the Zeitgeist series do name names, if names are what you are looking for.

Zeitgeist is paranoia porn. There's nothing of value in it whatsoever. (And here I thought you were semi-serious and not an outright nutter.)

[7Believer]

No. On the one hand, I am questioning your sense of humor; on the other, your political susceptibility. (By the way, it's whose, not who's.)

Your first post to me was questioning my state of mind. As for my sense of humor, here is a quote of mine from a different thread:

I believe that demons interfere with all of us, not just you, and not just me. Laughter is a good example. Laughter is when your diaphragm moves up and down rapidly, accompanied by a good feeling, whenever something negative happens: flatulence; injury; embarassment; unintelligence. However, you can make your diaphragm move up and down rapidly without a good feeling accompanying it, so the movement of your diaphragm is not what causes the good feeling. Remove the rapidly moving diaphragm, and what you have left is a good feeling whenever something bad happens. Now, if the devil really does exist, then he would know how to cover his tracks while he subtly corrupts people. If everybody just received a good feeling whenever something bad happened, instead of a good feeling accompanied by a rapidly moving diaphragm, then I think we would be able to catch on to his ploy rather easily. Instead, we just wave it off to another unexplained phenomena of the unexplained psyche.

Politics follow political rules, not God's rules. As far as I know, no politician has yet passed a law stating that the rich must help the poor. However, I have seen campaign ads from multiple parties lined up one after another on road banks, as if seeing a name more than once in a row would cause me to vote for it. As for my susceptibility, I try to be optimistic, not naive. Thanks for the spelling correction.

Drivel. I repeat, "a theory is that which unfolds facts or falsehoods, but it isn't a fact nor a falsehood by itself."

You seem to have ignored the rest of my post concerning this matter. Please reread it.

I haven't stated that bad cannot become good, or vice versa. I am an example of this as well, if you're willing to believe in my Christian faith.

Did your fingers slip or did you just deem yourself divine?

How so? All I have claimed to be is an example of bad become good. I was a sinful atheist, and am now a faithful Christian.

It does, since whomever you denote as evil--through your peculiar definition--will remain evil through time.

How have you reached this conclusion? I've made no impression of that sort. You should have known from my posts that I was once an atheist, and am now a Christian. Is this not bad become good? One who once selfishly spent $2000 defiling his body, and who would now rather donate his money to charity?

Let me remind you that this is the "News & Politics" section, where spiritual approaches are irrelevant.

To whom? You? To me, God is relevant everywhere. Does this mean you won't attempt my suggestion? If so, please share why.

Regarding Machiavelli, the reason I stated what I had about psychologists is because they claim to know why people do what they do. I wasn't inferring that He was a psychologist.

I forgive you for your insult. Since we are at odds about Zeitgeist's content, how do we discover who's correct, if either? What's possible, and what's plausible? Which line of production has the largest consumer base? In other words, who makes money off of everybody? Banks. They make money off of your money. Now, is it possible that whoever runs banking at it's core has the most money? Yes. Plausible? Yes. Is it also both possible and plausible that the richest people are greedy, since they wouldn't be rich if they donated to the poor? Once again, yes. Now, is it both possible and plausible that the richest and greediest people in our world would want even more than they already have, that they would want all that they could have? Yes, especially if the devil is behind their unexplainable greed in the first place.

[Era]

Question: Do you feel that anyone who spends money on a tattoo for whatever reason is being selfish? Regardless if it was a family gift or some thing for the memory of someone else? Even if the intent of getting the tattoo was meant for someone else rather than you own want?

A "Bad" thing can be a good thing.

I shall however quote Dorn on one truth:

Let me remind you that this is the "News & Politics" section, where spiritual approaches are irrelevant.

History has a funny way of showing what happens when Politics and spiritual/religious approaches mix. Keep the religious and spiritual things where they are suited better: the Spiritual and Religious Subforum.

[Dorn]

Your first post to me was questioning my state of mind.

I did it because of what you said, not because of who you are (which I can't know).

Politics follow political rules, not God's rules.

Politicians are sworn in to follow the laws of the land, and liberal democracies maintain a strong secular tradition. You will have to locate a theocracy--e.g., the Vatican--to make your point aboot "God's rules" politically relevant.

As far as I know, no politician has yet passed a law stating that the rich must help the poor.

Again, a statement like that points to you being either absentminded or politically insusceptible.

As it happens, Canuckistan is one of the world's leading welfare states, where social security, medicaid, unemployment benefits, low-income support--or pogey, as you may call it--are commonplace entitlements. That can't be a surprise to you.

Drivel. I repeat, "a theory is that which unfolds facts or falsehoods, but it isn't a fact nor a falsehood by itself."

You seem to have ignored the rest of my post concerning this matter. Please reread it.

Like architectural structures, arguments need a foundation. If you miss one essential pillar, the whole thing falls apart. Analogously, you don't drink the punch if there's a turd in the bowl.

I was a sinful atheist, and am now a faithful Christian.

Singling out atheists as rotten human beings because of their lack of faith is bigoted. In an open society we embrace differences.

Is this not bad become good? One who once selfishly spent $2000 defiling his body, and who would now rather donate his money to charity?

How do you know that that Monopoly money didn't end up contributing to something or someone somewhere?

Let me remind you that this is the "News & Politics" section, where spiritual approaches are irrelevant.

To whom? You? To me, God is relevant everywhere. Does this mean you won't attempt my suggestion? If so, please share why.

You have already been given good answers, including this one:

History has a funny way of showing what happens when Politics and spiritual/religious approaches mix.

Regarding Machiavelli, the reason I stated what I had about psychologists is because they claim to know why people do what they do.

I see a twofold possibility: either you stand for a most peculiar reading of The Prince, or you're just making things up as you go along.

I forgive you for your insult.

Which one?

Since we are at odds about Zeitgeist's content, how do we discover who's correct, if either?

Reality is at odds with it. Zeitgeist is Soviet-style agitprop turned drivel: "Jesus is the Egyptian deity Horus"; "9/11 was an inside job"; "It's the bankers/Federal Reserve/Babylonians whodunit," that is, having instigated every war since time immemorial, from the Roman Expansion to WWII. It's all one big bowl of stupid.

What's possible, and what's plausible? Which line of production has the largest consumer base? In other words, who makes money off of everybody? Banks. They make money off of your money. Now, is it possible that whoever runs banking at it's core has the most money? Yes. Plausible? Yes. Is it also both possible and plausible that the richest people are greedy, since they wouldn't be rich if they donated to the poor? Once again, yes. Now, is it both possible and plausible that the richest and greediest people in our world would want even more than they already have, that they would want all that they could have? Yes, especially if the devil is behind their unexplainable greed in the first place.

In other words, the devil influenced low-income earners to seek home ownership like never before, generating a price bubble. Politicians, regulators and bankers stood idly by, blinded by the devil. Then the devil extended the home owners' credit via trashy hedge funds, which caused a subprime mortgage crisis. This, in turn, led the devil to enlighten the Washington elite, who called for a $900 billion bailout to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And after causing Lehman Brothers to break down, the devil initiated TARP to funnel $700 billion in fiat currency to collapsing financial institutions. And so it goes.

Now, don't you instinctively feel that something is missing from the above narration?


Signed,
House of Rothschild

[parousia]

This led the devil to enlighten the Washington elite

Never bet against the house.

[7Believer]

Question: Do you feel that anyone who spends money on a tattoo for whatever reason is being selfish? Regardless if it was a family gift or some thing for the memory of someone else? Even if the intent of getting the tattoo was meant for someone else rather than you own want?

History has a funny way of showing what happens when Politics and spiritual/religious approaches mix. Keep the religious and spiritual things where they are suited better: the Spiritual and Religious Subforum.

To your first question, yes. The money is better spent elsewhere. Memories are better kept elsewhere, as well. Tattoos are like body piercings; self-mutilation. You are naturally beautiful, and mutilating that beauty isn't good for any reason.

Like I've already stated, I believe God, and a religious perspective, are relevent everywhere. Are you stating that you believe, both you and Dorn, that I shouldn't be allowed to share a religious perspective on political matters?

I did it because of what you said, not because of who you are (which I can't know).

My point is unaffected by this statement.

Politicians are sworn in to follow the laws of the land, and liberal democracies maintain a strong secular tradition. You will have to locate a theocracy--e.g., the Vatican--to make your point aboot "God's rules" politically relevant.

Laws can be changed. Government leaders do it all the time.

Again, a statement like that points to you being either absentminded or politically insusceptible.

As it happens, Canuckistan is one of the world's leading welfare states, where social security, medicaid, unemployment benefits, low-income support--or pogey, as you may call it--are commonplace entitlements. That can't be a surprise to you.

My comment was in regards to the rich, not those in debt; most countries, as far as I know, are heavily in debt. If what I am suggesting were in place, there wouldn't be any rich, because they'd give their extra income to the poor.

Like architectural structures, arguments need a foundation. If you miss one essential pillar, the whole thing falls apart.

I think you are referring to yourself with this comment, since you haven't addressed my point on the subject, but I'm not sure.

Singling out atheists as rotten human beings because of their lack of faith is bigoted. In an open society we embrace differences.

I haven't inferred that all atheists are immoral. Atheists, in general, include a mix of both the virtuous and sinful. Christianity, however, includes only the virtuous. I use the word virtuous to represent positive intentions, because I am aware that some Christians, although meaning good, make many mistakes.

How do you know that that Monopoly money didn't end up contributing to something or someone somewhere?

I don't. I do know that if it had been contributed to a good cause directly, than the odds are a lot higher that it made a positive difference.

You have already been given good answers...

How do you consider excluding God and religion from world affairs a positive thing? It sounds like atheism to me.

I see a twofold possibility: either you stand for a most peculiar reading of The Prince, or you're just making things up as you go along.

I don't fabricate for the sake of pride. I haven't read The Prince. My comments were in regards to machiavellianism, the reason he is well known:

(1) Machiavelli, the teacher of all things political

In response to it's summary, the book's general idea doesn't include the reality that each new generation seems to further itself from God.

Which one?

Well, since it appears you've added more, all of them. How do you think insults benefit you?

Reality is at odds with it. Zeitgeist is Soviet-style agitprop turned drivel: "Jesus is the Egyptian deity Horus"; "9/11 was an inside job"; "It's the bankers/Federal Reserve/Babylonians whodunit," that is, having instigated every war since time immemorial, from the Roman Expansion to WWII. It's all one big bowl of stupid.

I've already stated that I don't agree with everything that they claim, but each suggestion deserves some amount of commitment to finding out the truth. Do you also consider Michael Moore's films entirely fictional? What about the ozone layer being depleted? Surely you don't think that is just a myth, too?

In other words, the devil influenced low-income earners to seek home ownership like never before, generating a price bubble. Politicians, regulators and bankers stood idly by, blinded by the devil. Then the devil extended the home owners' credit via trashy hedge funds, which caused a subprime mortgage crisis. This, in turn, led the devil to enlighten the Washington elite, who called for a $900 billion bailout to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And after causing Lehman Brothers to break down, the devil initiated TARP to funnel $700 billion in fiat currency to collapsing financial institutions. And so it goes.

Now, don't you instinctively feel that something is missing from the above narration?

I don't heed instincts, nor misguiding feelings. I won't claim to know the details, but I do believe that whoever is at the core of banking, is responsible for much of the consumerism/capitalism tactics that are destroying our world. Why seek global conquest through sinful means? Unsatisfaction with the bare necessities. Who's responsible for that? Who pulls the strings of those behind the curtains?

[Era]

As I already said, History has a funny way of showing what happens when a religious perceptive is mixed with politics. Maybe you should read up up on the history of the world and see what I mean.

So yes, a religious perceptive tends to damage and hurt in any political matters.



As for the comments on tattoos, that is your opinion. I have a tattoo that was spent on my birthday, and my mother and I got the tattoo together. Something to symbolize us and to represent us. I feel just the same as I did before in the terms of "natural beauty". I still feel naturally beautiful. If you simply regret getting the tattoo, own up to it. Don't put the devil or whatever excuse you have to be why you got the tattoo. Do you think I regret the tattoo any moment? No. In fact, I love it. My first tattoo was spent with my mom and not some drunken one night thing with a group of friends.

[parousia]

I have 7, all but one of which have many decades of forethought put into them.
I love everything about the whole process of getting some ink, as I have a very spirituial bond with my flesh; hail Satan!

[Dorn]

I did it because of what you said, not because of who you are (which I can't know).

My point is unaffected by this statement.

I concluded that such a point, in all likeliness, would be the result of a paranoid thought process, and posed my inference in the form of a rhetorical question. Parousia, by contrast, thinks that you're just having a laugh.

Politicians are sworn in to follow the laws of the land, and liberal democracies maintain a strong secular tradition. You will have to locate a theocracy--e.g., the Vatican--to make your point aboot "God's rules" politically relevant.

Laws can be changed. Government leaders do it all the time.

Laws are supposed to be changed, to counteract discrimination and injustice. Change is ubiquitous, and liberal democracy does not appear in a final state.

My comment was in regards to the rich, not those in debt; most countries, as far as I know, are heavily in debt. If what I am suggesting were in place, there wouldn't be any rich, because they'd give their extra income to the poor.

Canuckistan isn't welfarish enough? You are looking for some sort of communist theocracy, I take it.

Once again, history presents a graveyard of evidence pointing out the perils of either communism or theocracy. Combining the two would be madness akin to a "final solution."

Like architectural structures, arguments need a foundation. If you miss one essential pillar, the whole thing falls apart.

I think you are referring to yourself with this comment, since you haven't addressed my point on the subject, but I'm not sure.

Addressing it would be the logical equivalent of walking into a house without a door. When making a point, be sure to ground it empirically or theoretically. When you do neither, there is nothing there in the first place, which makes it impossible to address.

Atheists, in general, include a mix of both the virtuous and sinful.
Christianity, however, includes only the virtuous.

Bigotry exemplified.

How do you consider excluding God and religion from world affairs a positive thing? It sounds like atheism to me.

No, that's secularism. And it doesn't remove religion from personal or global affairs, but from politics.

I see a twofold possibility: either you stand for a most peculiar reading of The Prince, or you're just making things up as you go along.

I don't fabricate for the sake of pride. I haven't read The Prince.

Making things up for the sake of winning a debate is perfidious.

How do you think insults benefit you?

Whatever rattles the cage makes light of that which hides in the darkness beyond the bars.

Reality is at odds with it. Zeitgeist is Soviet-style agitprop turned drivel: "Jesus is the Egyptian deity Horus"; "9/11 was an inside job"; "It's the bankers/Federal Reserve/Babylonians whodunit," that is, having instigated every war since time immemorial, from the Roman Expansion to WWII. It's all one big bowl of stupid.

I've already stated that I don't agree with everything that they claim, but each suggestion deserves some amount of commitment to finding out the truth.

You stated that the movie's "answer" was representative of the all-powerful, world-dominating "secret organization"--the ridiculous banker-Fed-Babylonian trifecta--that you put forth in your first post.

Feel free to retract it at any time.

Do you also consider Michael Moore's films entirely fictional? What about the ozone layer being depleted? Surely you don't think that is just a myth, too?

Michael Moore is, at his best, a derisory and tendentious demagogue; his game is confirmation bias and shoehorning. But comparing serious scientific research--like that regarding the ozone layer--with "truther" agitprop is simply delusional.

I won't claim to know the details, but I do believe that whoever is at the core of banking, is responsible for much of the consumerism/capitalism tactics that are destroying our world.

Capitalism isn't a "tactic"; it is a mode of production where the owner primarily reinvests the profit in capital (the means of production) and not in the workforce (wages). And no one created capitalism. It evolved as a result of owners reinvesting their profits in order to increase agricultural output in the 17th century.

You appear to see a Golden Age of some sort located in the past: economically, a return to the pre-industrial and pre-capitalist mode of production; and culturally/socially, to pre-Enlightenment and pre-Renaissance values. Is that what you strive for--a pre-modern, anti-capitalist theocracy?

[7Believer]

So yes, a religious perceptive tends to damage and hurt in any political matters.

As for the comments on tattoos, that is your opinion. I have a tattoo that was spent on my birthday, and my mother and I got the tattoo together. Something to symbolize us and to represent us. I feel just the same as I did before in the terms of "natural beauty". I still feel naturally beautiful. If you simply regret getting the tattoo, own up to it. Don't put the devil or whatever excuse you have to be why you got the tattoo. Do you think I regret the tattoo any moment? No. In fact, I love it. My first tattoo was spent with my mom and not some drunken one night thing with a group of friends.

If God exists, then so does the devil. Keeping the reality of his involvement in political corruption furthers who's goals? Since you want to prevent a religious perspective on politics, how about removing an atheist's perspective as well, or is politics strictly exclusive to athiest commentary?

I don't have regrets. There are mistakes that I have made, but I am able to see the positive side of negativity, what you could call it's reason for being. Regrets are bad feelings and thoughts created for bad purposes, not by one's own self.

I concluded that such a point, in all likeliness, would be the result of a paranoid thought process, and posed my inference in the form of a rhetorical question.

You questioned the level of my intelligence, and I related it to the Golden Goose's protagonist, which you weren't able to pick up on. Then you posted a comment which made no difference in this realization, yet allowed you to avoid acknowledging your mistake.

I'm not suggesting that facts are theories, but that theories can be unproven facts.

Drivel. I repeat, "a theory is that which unfolds facts or falsehoods, but it isn't a fact nor a falsehood by itself."

This is what I asked you to reread; my point, which was stable. I did notion to it more than once, when I pointed out your straw men. If you think that theories can't be unproven facts, then you imply that all theories are false. Your position was against facts being theories, while my position was that facts can be unproven theories. You are being made to defend a technicality that I haven't even opposed.

Bigotry exemplified.

Are you claiming that Christians don't follow virtuous values, and that all atheists do? Being a Christian, by definition, means following the virtues put forth by God Himself. This isn't bigotry. Once again, it is logical deduction.

No, that's secularism.

Secularism: a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations; religious skepticism or indifference; the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

I understand the difference between atheism and secularism, but I pointed out it's similarity for a reason.

Making things up for the sake of winning a debate is perfidious.

I agree. I still haven't read The Prince, but I read wikipedia's summary of it after I quoted you about Machiavelli.

Whatever rattles the cage makes light of that which hides in the darkness beyond the bars.

Try shining a light. Insults reveal your disconcern for your fellow human, which therefore reveals your lack of foresight regarding the consequences of promoting spite instead of unity.

You stated that the movie's "answer" was representative of the all-powerful, world-dominating "secret organization".

Why is this not a probable possibility for you? All you've done is posted your disagreement without offering why.

comparing serious scientific research--like that regarding the ozone layer--with "truther" agitprop is simply delusional.

How do you know that Michael Moore didn't research his subjects seriously? I know it's not science, but that shouldn't be a roadblock for you.

Capitalism isn't a "tactic"; it is a mode of production where the owner primarily reinvests the profit in capital (the means of production) and not in the workforce (wages). And no one created capitalism. It evolved as a result of owners reinvesting their profits in order to increase agricultural output in the 17th century.

Captialism can be a tactic, and is. I haven't suggested that whoever is using it as such is also responsible for creating it.

Capitalism is an economic system structured upon the accumulation of capital in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.

If everybody's competing for profits, with money as the primary goal instead of our well-being, then what do you think is going happen?

You appear to see a Golden Age of some sort located in the past: economically, a return to the pre-industrial and pre-capitalist mode of production; and culturally/socially, to pre-Enlightenment and pre-Renaissance values. Is that what you strive for--a pre-modern, anti-capitalist theocracy?

A pre-industrial and pre-capitalist theocracy, yes. Include art and enlightenment, but through God, not without Him.

I've noticed that you attack a lot of straw men. This infers to me that you don't closely examine subjects, and base your judgements on face value. This would explain your distrust in complicated affairs, and why you seem to have completely dismissed our Golden Goose's reflection. I've also noticed that you prefer using insults as a means of finding out information about a person, instead of clever questions. Plus, you don't address every point that I make. Perhaps pride is why you choose a belittling investigation method, and why you also avoid addressing points that seem to justify my case. Or maybe you skip my points because you just don't notice them? Regardless, you also seem to think that posting an opinion without a reason seems to provide an effective counter response. This is another indicator of a false sense of self-achievement; that your opinion alone should be enough.

I could be wrong. However, you do claim to be Christian, yet actually promote insults. You also discourage the realization that God is more important than people, and as such deserves recognition before politics, which therefore makes Him also relevant to it's discussions. For example: "Is a politician right or wrong? What has God taught?". I think further discussion with you is not going to yield honest results, or rationalized ones, and is therefore pointless. I will read your defense, but I will most likely not reply to it. Attempting to reveal the truth with those who don't believe in the demonic interference factor is like attempting to hit a bullseye, while the wind tries to make you hit anything but the bullseye.

[Era]

So yes, a religious perceptive tends to damage and hurt in any political matters.

As for the comments on tattoos, that is your opinion. I have a tattoo that was spent on my birthday, and my mother and I got the tattoo together. Something to symbolize us and to represent us. I feel just the same as I did before in the terms of "natural beauty". I still feel naturally beautiful. If you simply regret getting the tattoo, own up to it. Don't put the devil or whatever excuse you have to be why you got the tattoo. Do you think I regret the tattoo any moment? No. In fact, I love it. My first tattoo was spent with my mom and not some drunken one night thing with a group of friends.

If God exists, then so does the devil. Keeping the reality of his involvement in political corruption furthers who's goals? Since you want to prevent a religious perspective on politics, how about removing an atheist's perspective as well, or is politics strictly exclusive to athiest commentary?

I don't have regrets. There are mistakes that I have made, but I am able to see the positive side of negativity, what you could call it's reason for being. Regrets are bad feelings and thoughts created for bad purposes, not by one's own self.

The only goal that is furthered is the goal to make people ignorant of any thing that is considered a sin and part of the devil when those things are in fact just natural occurrences and simple things apart of life. When you are making decisions for the good of the people in any political matter, you have to be unbiased and fair to all people. That means taking your personal religious perspective out of the picture. Why? Because the general public does not believe in the same religious perspective. That is indeed a fact. You lead yourself to repeating history when you continuously push religious perspectives into people who don't share the same perspective as you. It is not wrong to have a religious perspective, but when you are dealing with a large population of people that require some political perspective to delegate over the matters to better suit everyone and promote tolerance, you have to push your religious "obligations" and perspective as side. Think with your brain and not with some force that is imaginary to many.
The point is to take ANY religious perspective out of politics. Atheist, Theist. What have you. You assume that people would only take out a christian one and not want to take out an atheist perspective. You sir are showing signs of being a bigot and Dorn has given you examples of you staying that.

Really you should read up on the history of the world.

Your view on atheists is bigoted.

Everything you say something is created for a purpose and not by the person, I feel like your a patient at my dad's psychiatric clinic.
Conspiracy theories much.
Regrets are made by the person. Not some "evil force" for some "evil purpose". Take off your foil hat and listen to what you say.

[Bubbydoll]

Poor Caylee

[Era]

Poor Caylee

:\ Yeah.

[7Believer]

...when those things are in fact just natural occurrences and simple things apart of life. When you are making decisions for the good of the people in any political matter, you have to be unbiased and fair to all people. That means taking your personal religious perspective out of the picture. Why? Because the general public does not believe in the same religious perspective.

Your opinion of natural is just what's common. It lacks rationalization. Notice how you mention that political matters require being unbiased and fair, but then try to seperate religious representation. That, to me, is bias. Going with the crowd is also biased, because you abandon the minorities.

You assume that people would only take out a christian one and not want to take out an atheist perspective.

What do you call a belief that excludes religion? Atheism. That is why I related atheism. Try removing an atheist perspective from politics, and religion will be inserted. Regrets aren't made by people. Would they choose to have negative thoughts and feelings torment them over past mistakes? No. It happens despite what they want. You ask me to think; I let our Lord think for me. I don't let misguiding feelings or unrationalized instictive thoughts guide me. I let God and His logic guide me. You aren't completely comprehending what you are saying, otherwise you would have noticed the above errors of yours. From past discussions with you, I am aware of how distorted you become, so I will end our discussion here, unless our loving Lord has planned otherwise.

Poor Caylee

One of the things our Lord has taught me is that purgatory is actually what we refer to as Paradise. People are sent to Paradise when they've led ultimately virtuous lives, but don't yet have a true belief in God. From there, they can be rescued through the prayers of others, so that they may learn of God. I think Caylee may already be in Heaven, which means she will never again experience suffering. She will get to grow up amongst the angels! Thanks for the reminder of what's truly important, Bubbydoll.

Peace be with you Caylee.