Thread: Beguiled by Wall Street

I'm not sure who is the bigger idiot, our President, Congress or Wall Street, but I am sure I've been clobbered by the market.

Similar Threads:

• Single Wall Window Installation
• Black stuff on a wall.
• Who needs 6" of clearance for single wall
• Crack in the wall
• Staining on exterior wall near A/C

Man, I'm gonna have to look up that word..... sure have been seeing it quite a bit recently.

Look on the bright side, for one thing, it's an opportunity to observe an interesting experiment: how well the US government functions during a major financial crisis without a President.

And even better, we might get to watch President Palin addressing the nation on her plan to save the economy now that the banks are closed and the S&P 500 is at 487!

Why, it's like living in our very own banana republic!

------------------------------------------------------------
But seriously....

We are just in an hell of a pickle - there's not the slightest sign that either the major parties - or for that matter any minor party candidate - is prepared to talk or act responsibly.

It's been clear since at least the point where it became obvious that Iraq was not going to be a three-month war taxes were going to have to be raised substantially - with the disproportionate portion of that burden falling on upper income and high net worth taxpayers, because after a decade of stagnant real median wages it's going to be difficult to extract all that's needed from the working and middle classes - and that's a really brutal prioritization of foreign, domestic, and military spending needs was going to have to be undertaken.

Of course, we don't hear all of this, or even most of it, from the candidates of any party, because it would be political suicide to say so.

So it really comes down to a question of which party is going to be most ready to betray its stated principles, and to do so in a way that causes the minimum damage to the economy at home and Am American interests abroad.

Ideally, from an economic standpoint, I wish we could go back to the latter part of the Clinton years, when between a fairly moderate Democratic politician who was able to push his party to the right, and a conservative Congress holding his feet to the fire on spending, we went a long way toward putting our financial house in order, only to have that undone by George W. Bush and his merry band of tax cutting “spend and don't tax” corporate welfare recipients, aided and abetted by DLC Democrats try to buy their way back into power.

However, that's unlikely to be a luxury we enjoy in the near future: McCain's plans to reduce the deficit by cutting discretionary spending are pure fantasy compared to the scale of the problem, and the Democrats are clearly prepared to pursue an expensive domestic agenda on the assumption that once they're in place it will be impossible to undo them.

And to give the devil his due, having allowed the creation of economy which enormously enriched a plundering band of riverboat gamblers at the expense of just about everyone else, and having presented the bill to the taxpayers to the tune of her on $1 trillion (to start with) in return for a decade or more of higher taxation, both Democrata and Republicans owe the same citizens a bit more security than they have now - for example it's absurd that if you decide you want to strike out on your own in an entrepreneurial venture your children are left uninsured - it's one thing for adults to take this risk upon them selves, it's quite another to put them in a position with a little choice but to do so for their children.

The problem is just as conservative firebrands dreamed of drowning the government in the bathtub without any regard to what this would actually mean, many Democrats are in the grip of an equally toxic fantasy of permanently ending the conservative project by enormously increasing the scope of government safety net.

Meanwhile the conservative thought is equally currently full of all kinds of ridiculous economic pieties that are completely inappropriate for modern postindustrial society.- for example it's very clear to virtually all mainstream economists, and demonstrated in studies such the series done by the CBO, the we are well past the point where tax reductions are offset by increased economic activity created by the cuts, it's clear that we're in the midst of a series of massive regulatory failures (and these this is the result of both parties having sold her soul to Friedmanian dogma), that we are bankrupting ourselves in a classic case of foreign policy overreach, that our balance of payment deficit has placed us in a financially precarious position and depended on the kindness of strangers, and that now having refused to take the same economic medicine which we prescribe the rest of the world for the last decade, we are regarded not only as fools but hypocrites - and in my opinion that judgment is unfortunately accurate.

Now, it is perfectly possible for countries to find themselves in a sort of economic and political suspended animation for decades once they fall into this trap.

For example that's essentially where Great Britain was from the end of World War I until at least the 1960s and probably until Margaret Thatcher - you find yourself paralyzed by, as JM Keynes put it, by the fear that ‘’If you do anything, then you can't afford to do anything else”, and I find the parallels between the US in the early part of the 21st century and Great Britain post-World War I, after the collapse of the pound sterling, having acquired massive international indebtedness, and faced with the unraveling of a worldwide geopolitical dominance that allowed it a special dispensation to ignore the ordinary rules of diplomacy and international economics both apt and very depressing.

Especially as the result was decades of uninspiring and unimaginative “conservative” government, stagnating living conditions for most the population, the eventual emergence of a powerful labor-based left in the throes of its own dogma and unresponsive to modern conditions, conservative counterrevolution, and finally after 60 years a new political synthesis that finally allowed substantial economic progress.

Personally, I much prefer not see us go through 60 years of the same - but I honestly can't tell you which party, if either, will break the mold, and break free of its own 20th-century dogma.

Of course, if your primary concerns are primarily advancing social conservative causes, it's easy to make a decision in this election, the Supreme Court alone should make up your mind.

But if like me you are fairly libertarian in your social views, and your overriding concern is to prevent long-term economic stagnation coupled with a realistic appreciation of both the fact that the currently ascendant brands of liberal and conservative economic fantasy are highly toxic to our national future, you are pretty much in despair about both parties, and I honestly can't say whether McCain or Obama is more likely - if forced by further severe deterioration of economic conditions - to face facts, raise taxes, and radically but responsibly apportion domestic spending.

But one thing I am sure of: if John McCain drops dead on the inaugural reviewing stand, Sarah Palin is going to be the most uniquely unqualified president in modern American history to even begin thinking about such issues - her interview responses make it clear she hasn't a clue about national scale economics let alone the international situation, she has no basis on which to select or evaluate advisers, I don't see any evidence that she possesses outstanding executive ability however I do see that she has a strong propensity toward cronyism and highly adversarial style of leadership, and I've just gone through eight years of watching a president with pretty much that orientation- abetted first by Republican and then by Democratic Congress - screw up the economy and in my opinion make a god-awful hash of her international relations - and I'm really, really pissed that John McCain has put me in the position of even having to contemplate Sarah Palin as president

Look at it as a time for great buying opportunity.

rick

All of our money has (In God We Trust) printed on it. The founding fathers of this Country believed that no matter what, we would put our trust in God before we put our trust in money, government, our president, or anything else. No matter if you believe in God or not, one thing is for sure and that is if more of us followed the teachings of the Bible we would not be in the current financial crisis that we are now currently in.

Originally Posted by Trent Tarter

No matter if you believe in God or not, one thing is for sure and that is if more of us followed the teachings of the Bible we would not be in the current financial crisis that we are now currently in.

Absolutely *NOT* "one thing for sure". Those who got us into this mess are (according to them) believers in god.

So, keep god out of this, and, by the way, who's god are you referring to? There are many of them.

Let's take this back where it belongs, back to politics and keep the religious stuff out of it.

Keep in mind, 700 points is only about 7%.

In the Oct, 1987 crash it dropped 22%.

700 points ... taint nothing ... compared to that benchmark.

See, doesn't that give you the warm and fuzzies now, to know that it *ONLY* dropped 1/3 that.

Now, if nothing is done next week either ...

Originally Posted by Trent Tarter

All of our money has (In God We Trust) printed on it. The founding fathers of this Country believed that no matter what, we would put our trust in God before we put our trust in money, government, our president, or anything else. No matter if you believe in God or not, one thing is for sure and that is if more of us followed the teachings of the Bible we would not be in the current financial crisis that we are now currently in.

Now Please

See what you went and did. After that statement you stopped me in my tracks from putting forth a long drawn out spiel.

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

Look at it as a time for great buying opportunity.

rick

Seriously. If you have the cash. The stock market tends to over react, up and down. There are now plenty of companies whose stock price has been driven way down only because of panic. Somebody famous, and I'm too lazy to research who, said that when others panic is the time to buy, and when others buy is the time to panic. Or something like that.

Originally Posted by John Arnold

Seriously. If you have the cash. The stock market tends to over react, up and down. There are now plenty of companies whose stock price has been driven way down only because of panic. Somebody famous, and I'm too lazy to research who, said that when others panic is the time to buy, and when others buy is the time to panic. Or something like that.

If you have money and have an itch to buy. Waite. Hold. Pause.

You will find amazing buys real soon. Buy now. You lose. The bottom is far from being found at the moment.

Not being negative. Just realistic.

Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Buy now. You lose.

Depends on how long you are planning on holding.

If you have the money, the time to buy is ... pace yourself ... buy some now, some more next week, some more the week after that, etc., you will average you cost out over the long run and not 'miss the bottom', and ... who cares if you run out of money 'just before it hits bottom', the market will come back, and, when it does, your *averaged* position will be looking pretty good.

Originally Posted by John Arnold

Seriously. If you have the cash. The stock market tends to over react, up and down. There are now plenty of companies whose stock price has been driven way down only because of panic. Somebody famous, and I'm too lazy to research who, said that when others panic is the time to buy, and when others buy is the time to panic. Or something like that.

That would be the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Duponts, and the Kennedy's just to name a few.

Rick

I totally concur with everything Michael Thomas stated in his highly accurate post. As a long time student of history (still find it fascinating reading) I long ago became aware of the fact that our government has consistently lied to us since the first continental congress, but we as a nation have managed to survive incompetent leadership both in the oval office and the hallowed halls of congress basically because of our population’s work ethic and individual entrepreneurial drive.

I’m afraid this saving arm of our country has withered and is moribund due to bad leadership and the total lack of will on the part of our population to throw out all of the whores in DC posing as legislators. No, I’m not an anarchist, but when you take a serious look at the gross profits racked up by the oil and drug companies and the greed of wall-street financial institutions who pay outrageous salaries, bonuses to incompetent CEOs and then reward them for failure with golden parachutes it boggles one’s mind. What really fries my butt is the total lack of will by our population, forget whatever party they belong too, that accepts the daily rip-off wherever they turn; food, shelter, gas, drugs, tuition, medical care, and yes, just about everything. Is there a solution? Maybe we should elect a benevolent King?

Two trivia points:

1: "In God We Trust" had little to do with our original founding fathers. It was added to coins about the time of the civil war, and to paper currency in 1954. Mid 1950's was also when "under god" was added into the Pledge of Allegiance, on behalf of a lobbying effort by the Knights of Columbus.



Not really arguing about the principals in the bible. They are sound ways to conduct your life, whether you are Christian or not. I don't think many of our elected officials follow the teachings very well.


2: Did you know there are only 30 stocks involved in the Dow Jones Industrial Average? AIG was just removed and replaced with Kraft Foods. They are all very large companies, which does give a good cross section of the American economy, but it is not the only measurement of the market and economic activity. It does get the most attention from the media, but sometimes ends up wagging the dog.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Absolutely *NOT* "one thing for sure". Those who got us into this mess are (according to them) believers in god.

So, keep god out of this, and, by the way, who's god are you referring to? There are many of them.

Let's take this back where it belongs, back to politics and keep the religious stuff out of it.

Jerry, you missed the point in your rabid anti-God, anti-religion position.

Trent said:

All of our money has (In God We Trust) printed on it. The founding fathers of this Country believed that no matter what, we would put our trust in God before we put our trust in money, government, our president, or anything else. No matter if you believe in God or not, one thing is for sure and that is if more of us followed the teachings of the Bible we would not be in the current financial crisis that we are now currently in.

He was historically accurate in the beliefs of the founding fathers of the country, whether YOU believe it or not.
And he said, if the country followed the teachings of the bible... that is pretty specific on what teachings he was referring to.
If you are familiar with those teachings, they are also the type of sayings and thrift some of us learned as children from the wisdom of our parents, like: the borrower is the lenders slave, don't co-sign for anyones debt, and on and on.
Don't throw out the baby with the bath water just because you have a problem with religion and God.
While I don't come hear for my personal life and beliefs, I am not offended by the mere mention of God nor religion.
Your hyper sensitivity to the subject belies your own personal beliefs and foists that upon us all.
It seems you take it on yourself to be the anti-God police.
It seems there is tolerance of pretty much any viewpoint here except if someone dares to mention the word God without an expletive attached.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Jerry, you missed the point in your rabid anti-God, anti-religion position.

*I* did not miss the point, but it seems *YOU* did.

Trent said:

He was historically accurate in the beliefs of the founding fathers of the country, whether YOU believe it or not.

Historically INaccurate, yes.

And he said, if the country followed the teachings of the bible...

See, *MY* point is that ANY GOOD PERSON does what is right based upon themselves and their beliefs. That *MOST* (yes, believe it or not, *MOST*) people who claim to be "Christians" do not truly act as such. That "the bible" has nothing to do with how one should act, other than it is a collection of fables based on how good people should act, it did not precede people acting that way, it is simply relating that, when acting that way, it is a good thing.

Surely you are not saying that there were not good people acting in good ways before the bible was assembled, are you?

If you are, you certainly have given humanity little or no hope, past, present, or future.

THIS board is not the place to discuss religion, thus, the safest way to address religion here is not to address it.

There are way too many different religions for any one religion to think they are the one and only religion, and, to think such as a Christian, is un-Christian-like.

But Jerry, don't you understand there is no vacuum?
There is no such thing as no God and no religion.
When you attack all religion and all gods, you bring yourself round to the religion of secular humanism by default, which is a religion unto itself.
Many who adhere to such a system of belief are very vehement to the point of obsessing over the eradication of the mere mention of God in public, sound familiar?

I will agree that this forum is not the place to discuss religion OR politics since there is likely to be little resolution on either. But then I won't be likely to bust your chops for making a reference to your favorite party or politician as you have the posters on many occasions on the subject of religion and God.

A little more tolerance is in order in my book.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

So, keep god out of this, and, by the way, who's god are you referring to? There are many of them.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

But Jerry, don't you understand there is no vacuum?
There is no such thing as no God and no religion.

Ummm ... Jim,

What do you not understand about what I stated above?

A little more tolerance is in order in my book.

It is not *your* book, it is just what you believe in. There are many "books", show some tolerance for them all.

Ron Paul - A common sense politician. Check out this quick video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zthle...d.php?t=306932

Now I guess I can add my bit in.

I have to commend you both. Jim in his beliefs an Jerry in his.

I was born and raised Catholic but the real truth is I believe everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

Bravo to Jim and Jerry. Stand by your beliefs.

Religion is way to volatile to make any comments about. My born into religion was touted as the only true faith. So much for that. My ex female friend was a christian but another faith and that became our down fall.

In short. Living with ones beliefs is a wonderful thing. But not all Christians or any other type of faith always agree and has been inn the past and more than likely to some extent in the future the down fall of man and there different beliefs.

Anyway

God loves us all and as Jerry said. "No matter what God you may wish to believe in."

Man, I almost could not end that. See what I mean.

By the way. More people have died on this planet in the name of God than any other reason with the exception of disease. Hmmm, God may have had something to do with that. Who knows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who know how many gods have been worshiped/imagined by humans over the ages. Many thousands, I suppose. Most people who "believe in god" only believe in one of those thousands of gods, so I regard them as, say, 99.999% atheist.

Originally Posted by John Arnold

Most people who "believe in god" only believe in one of those thousands of gods, so I regard them as, say, 99.999% atheist.

Ahem to that.

Thus, that makes them 0.001% believers.

I can go with that.

ahem,
getting back to jerry m. i hope that your ass--etts are safe. this economy reminds me of the sixties movie "the magic christian" where people would jump in a swimming pool full of feces for the almighty dollar. the politicians,bankers,lawyers..etc deserve to wallow in their own s$hit for a while. why should us wage earners bail ot their sorry a$$es when they treat you like pond scum when you go to them for home loans,school loans ,personal loans etc?let em choke on their own vomit ! and ted i survived catholic schools

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

ahem,
getting back to jerry m. i hope that your ass--etts are safe. this economy reminds me of the sixties movie "the magic christian" where people would jump in a swimming pool full of feces for the almighty dollar. the politicians,bankers,lawyers..etc deserve to wallow in their own s$hit for a while. why should us wage earners bail ot their sorry a$$es when they treat you like pond scum when you go to them for home loans,school loans ,personal loans etc?let em choke on their own vomit ! and ted i survived catholic schools

Oh

A bit of a good Catholic boy ay. Either that or the nuns beat it into you.

I was also raised Catholic and I married a Jewish girl. That was 57 years ago and proves beyond a shadow of doubt that it's better to be lucky than good.

Thanks Brian for your concern and although I took some heavy losses I learned years ago not to put all one's eggs in one basket so in the long run I'm not going to lose any sleep, and besides what good what it do?

Congressman Paul has it right and I'm glad there are still some clear thinkers left in government that are not buying into Wall Street and the Feds BS. Besides, anything George thinks would be good for our country won’t be.

Think Alan Greenspan should be arrested for reckless (and wrecking our) economy? I sure do !

..........

Just heard on the news where they are now saying that it is not as bad as it seems, it is this way because of the way they have to count their money, that if they could count their money differently (money meaning assets) that the problem would go away.

Someone somewhere is lying to us, who it is and where they are, that's the part we do not yet know.

[quote=Jerry Peck;58384]Just heard on the news where they are now saying that it is not as bad as it seems, it is this way because of the way they have to count their money, that if they could count their money differently (money meaning assets) that the problem would go away.
quote]

My wife has been doing that for years.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Just heard on the news where they are now saying that it is not as bad as it seems, it is this way because of the way they have to count their money, that if they could count their money differently (money meaning assets) that the problem would go away.

Someone somewhere is lying to us, who it is and where they are, that's the part we do not yet know.

Jerry,

what they may be referring to is the "Mark to Market" provisions of the Sarbanes Oxley bill that was passed in the wake of the Enron scandal which now seems ever so small by comparison.

Some are calling for it elimination.

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

I was also raised Catholic and I married a Jewish girl. That was 57 years ago and proves beyond a shadow of doubt that it's better to be lucky than good.

Thanks Brian for your concern and although I took some heavy losses I learned years ago not to put all one's eggs in one basket so in the long run I'm not going to lose any sleep, and besides what good what it do?

Congressman Paul has it right and I'm glad there are still some clear thinkers left in government that are not buying into Wall Street and the Feds BS. Besides, anything George thinks would be good for our country won’t be.

Think Alan Greenspan should be arrested for reckless (and wrecking our) economy? I sure do !

57 years ago a Catholic boy married a Jewish girl and the world did not come to an end. Oh my.

"Someone somewhere is lying to us, who it is and where they are, that's the part we do not yet know."

Yes we do EC Jerry, as I have said before our government always lies and Wall Street has never been able to tell the truth. That you can take to the bank, as long as it's not Wamu or Wachovia.

No worries.

Obama going to take care of us all.

Had a lady also tell me today that in this month Vanity Fair magazine, it states that Brad Pitt is a 9th. cousin of Obama. So its going to all work out I believe.

rick

what do all our elected officials do when the country is economically collapsing and the end is here? they take time off for rosh-hashhanna? wtf? did you all enjoy the party? how many jewish people are in congress anyway? and why should this be celebrated when the country is going under per their words? fire them all!

Brian, in all due respect do you know what Rosh Hashanah is?

jerry,
no, but something tells me i am about to find out, but i am married to a russian -jewish women ethinically speaking. i did not or never have stayed at a holiday inn so how would i know? that'sa my excuse and i'm sticking to it

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

jerry,
no, but something tells me i am about to find out,

.
" Jewish New Year "
The start of a Jewish Day begins at Sundown ( so a new day will start at Sundown today.)

No Work is supposed to be performed on this Holiday. ( I guess The Law Makers consider what they do as Work.)

billy,
thanks for the info.i'll add that to my party list along with the chinese new years and festivus!

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

billy,
thanks for the info.i'll add that to my party list along with the chinese new years and festivus!

Brian,

Do you work on New Years Day? On January 1st?

If not, why not?

jerry,
i try not to! i forgot boxing day,kwaanza and raamaadan. maybe there's enough holidays to celebrate that i don't ever have to work again! how many countries,dead presidents, and religious holidays are there anyway? hmmmmnn?this could work

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Brian,

Do you work on New Years Day? On January 1st?

If not, why not?

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

jerry,
i try not to!

Now answer the other part of my question:

"If not, why not?"

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Now answer the other part of my question:

"If not, why not?"

Excuse me Jerry but New years day is a National holiday, right?

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Excuse me Jerry but New years day is a National holiday, right?

Now, let me get this straight ... you only want big government to interfere if it is to give you a holiday day off?

Now I get it!

Sheesh!

You don't need no religion if you live by the motto "Do unto others as you would have then do unto you".

Sorry, but it appears that far to many follow the "do unto other before they do unto you."

JP.
There you go again, dog-gone-it, trying to impose YOUR Religion of NO Religion on us. You preach tolerance when it suits you, but then you turn right around and have no tolerance for those of us that do have a religious belief. So which is it?? Do we have to keep our mouth shut while you espouse the secular religion of NO religion? Or, are you going to tolerate our beliefs?

Have a little tolerance, Brother, for the beliefs of others. You have no right to tell us to shut up and just listen to your secular ravings. (no smiley here) You and Van de ven are the reason I haven't been posting here for a long while. Your anti-Christian ravings are very intolerant.

As far as the economy, it took a village (of idiots) to get us into this mess. It started in the 80's with Reagan, Clinton exacerbated it, Bush blew it, BUT,, I repeat BUT, Big Bankers (fat cat wall street) with the backing of Congress sucked the life out of us all. Why do you think congress now has an approval rating of less than 10%? Because they were looking out for us?? Don't think so.

Unfortunately, there is noone in sight that I see that can put a stop to the fall. GOD HELP US ALL!!

RES

Originally Posted by Ralph Stakely

JP.
There you go again, dog-gone-it, trying to impose YOUR Religion of NO Religion on us.

Ralph,

No, if you read what I posted you will see that I am for ALL (how many times do I have to say that) *ALL* religions, each to their own, which means that YOU should not be preaching to anyone else about YOUR religion.

Let them be.

You religious people are the one trying to limit religion and what religion one can have and practice.

You preach tolerance when it suits you, but then you turn right around and have no tolerance for those of us that do have a religious belief. So which is it??

I do have tolerance.

Don't preach your religion to the rest of us and I won't preach the acceptance of *ALL* (there it is again) religions to you.

Only those who lack tolerance get upset with being advised that their religion is not the only religion out there.

GOD HELP US ALL!!

As I said "WHICH" god?

Only yours?

Or every one else's?

No Mr. Peck,
You are the intolerant one. You cannot see the forest for the trees. (Tolerance:n. 1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc,. differ from one's own, freedom from bigotry. 2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own....)Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.
You tell us to go away but you continue to preach the NO RELIGION mantra.
If you were tolerant, you would ALLOW others to voice their opinion. BUT NO!! Your way or no way. Is that it??

So far I have seen no one trying to convert you or any one else to their religion.. They are only voicing an opinion, which you degrade by your anti Christian "go away, I don't want to hear it" attitude.

Granted, you are a knowledgeable person, but you get anal about things. If someone disagrees with you, then they are ignorant or too stupid to see that you are "correct." You have a tendency to talk down to the "unlearned.

The "only religion??" Well, my friend, your perspectives are not always the "only correct" ones. Or is that too far below your cognitive reasoning to understand?

This all started last year when someone posted explicit (banned by Brian's code of conduct, or do you not go by code?? HMMMM) photos on this site. Some one objected. But you and your buddy decided it was ok for them to be posted but not ok for anyone to object. You Said and I quote, "If you don't like it, then go away." I don't believe that it is your forum nor your place to tell anyone to lump it or leave it.

I hate to deprive myself of an excellent learning tool, but again, looks like I must.

BTW. It's takes more faith for me to believe that all this wonderful world and universe just happened by chance, than it does to believe that God created it. Not preaching or trying to convert you, just stating my opinion. I know that trying to convert you is wasted effort. Even God said, " I will turn you over to a reprobate mind." HIS Meaning, I GIVE UP ON YOU.

Just one question for you before I sign off again.
Let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt on the big bang theory. Everything came from the explosion of a massive black hole where everything was compacted so small you couldn't even see it. I thought explosions were chaotic and devastating. Didn't know they were creative.
(An example) I previously worked at Delta Air Lines. At their aircraft hanger, they have all the parts to put together all sorts of planes. One day a Cat 6 Tornado blasts through the hanger, scattering everything across the field. Lo and behold, as the wind passes by and settles down, there sits a brand new assembled 777, all ready to fly. Think so??? I don't.

The question???.. Where did the matter/mass come from that made the black hole/explosion? Hmmmm.. Had to be created somewhere sometime by Some One..

Take care Jerry.. My God loves you and I'm trying as hard as I can.

Till we meet again..
Ralph

Originally Posted by Ralph Stakely

You tell us to go away but you continue to preach the NO RELIGION mantra.

Ralph,

What is it about "No, if you read what I posted you will see that I am for ALL (how many times do I have to say that) *ALL* religions, each to their own," that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND?


I will repeat it for you, only slowly this time ... "if you read what I posted y-o-u w-i-l-l s-e-e t-h-a-t I a-m f-o-r A-L-L (h-o-w m-a-n-y t-i-m-e-s d-o I h-a-v-e t-o s-a-y t-h-a-t) *A-L-L* r-e-l-i-g-i-o-n-s, each to their own,"

Please explain what it is you do not understand about " *ALL* " and " religions ", put together as " *ALL* religions ".

It really is quite simple ... *ALL* means, well ... *ALL*.

YOU keep saying *ALL* means "NO", and you really need to explain that to me because my limited brain does not grasp how you can take three letters 1) A 2) L 3) L and come up with two letters 1) N 2) O.

Need some help here understanding that.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Absolutely *NOT* "one thing for sure". Those who got us into this mess are (according to them) believers in god.

So, keep god out of this, and, by the way, who's god are you referring to? There are many of them.

Let's take this back where it belongs, back to politics and keep the religious stuff out of it.

Jerry, I think if you will read your original statement with an open mind you will see where it appears that you have no tolerance for anyone to mention God or religion.
I understand what you are saying (even with your condescending attitude.)
But I don't think that you realize that your freedom from religion statements are not possible. Freedom from religion is in fact a form of religion, secular humanism, whether you recognize it or not.

Big bang, God, belief in yourself, believe in the good in man.

Is there really a difference. Someone brought up the big bang. Something, someone, some being, some greater force in this and maybe even other universes created the goods that formed the big bang.

No matter how you look at it there is some form of greater being. You cannot take nothing and create something. You cannot close your eyes and imagine absolutely nothing. There has always been something to create this massive void to put all the rest of the goodies in. A void is something.

No matter what your belief. No matter what form of beginning. No matter what form of ending. Something created it all. That being, entity, what ever name you wish to put on it. It is your God.

God is God. The argument keeps being made "What God" God is your beginning and end it all. God is your belief.

There is no existence without a God. There is not a soul on earth that does not believe in God. You wish to view him differently but he is there. He is all around us, in us, beside us. God is our creator.

Atheist. What is an atheist? An atheist believes in some kind of creation, some kind of beginning, some kind of ending. He believes something somewhere started all of this. You cannot make something from nothing so there has never been nothing and there has always been something. Even if it is a being, a God, an entity and he she it was always here to create all this then that is God. To believe that all this came from absolutely nothing would be the most unreasonable thought there is.

He who wishes to think that there was not a creator of all this wonder, a creator of some kind, an always has and always will be entity, God, creator is the most irrational being in the universe.

Yes Lady's. There is a God. Call him anything you wish. There is "a" God. There is no such thing as "What God" God is God. God is the beginning. God is the now. God is the end. God is the forever. There is no such thing as nothing.

AMEN,
Jim and Ted over and out.

My last post here.

Ralph

Mr. Peck, do you see what you said "Take your religion and leave" WE don't want it here. So be it.
Or do I have to be an ass like you and s-p-e-ll-i-t-o-u-t-f-o-r-y-o-u-? You need more help than I can give you.. I did not say anything about ALL religions. I said YOUR mantra of NO Religious expression here. No Religion IS A RELIGION. T-H-E-R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N-OF-S=I=M=P=L=E=M=I=N=D=E=D=S=E=L=F=A=G=R=A=N=D=I=S=E= M=E=N=T.
I think your ego has gotten well out of hand.

I know this has gotten personal, so as not to be a point of contention, I will gracefully leave the scene.



Ok Brian, I'm done till, YOU ALONE, become the censor of this site.

Originally Posted by Ralph Stakely

You tell us to go away but you continue to preach the NO RELIGION mantra.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Jerry, I think if you will read your original statement with an open mind you will see where it appears that you have no tolerance for anyone to mention God or religion.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

So, keep god out of this, and, by the way, who's god are you referring to? There are many of them.

Jim,

Huh?

If you go back and read my first post on this, which you even quoted in your post, and then read Ralph's post, and my answer to Ralph, you will clearly see that I stated: "by the way, who's god are you referring to? There are many of them."

Which is not what Ralph is saying I said, "NO RELIGION mantra".

It is quite clear, should you bother to read my post, that Ralph is incorrect, and, if you are stating that Ralph is correct, then quite clearly you are also incorrect.

READ MY POST, unless and until you do so, you will not know what you are talking about.

I said "by the way, who's god are you referring to? There are many of them.", which is in no way "NO RELIGION".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Absolutely *NOT* "one thing for sure". Those who got us into this mess are (according to them) believers in god.

So, keep god out of this, and, by the way, who's god are you referring to? There are many of them.

Let's take this back where it belongs, back to politics and keep the religious stuff out of it.

Jerry, this is a direct quote from YOUR original post where YOU said, "So, Keep god out of this... and keep the religious stuff out of it."

How am I incorrectly quoting you? Did you really not mean to say what you said or is Brian's quote process somehow distorting what you said?

I understand you acknowledge many gods and religions, but the fact is you have taken it upon yourself to try and censor out any god or religion out of the discussion here.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

How am I incorrectly quoting you?

How?

Because you can't read?

*I* am posting MY quote to answer Ralph's statement that *I* preach "NO RELIGION mantra", in fact I keep saying "who's god are you referring to? There are many of them.". My mantra (if you want to call it such) is that *ALL* religions MUST be accepted, and, if they are, then ... "who's god are you referring to? There are many of them."

*WHICH* god are you referring to.

*WHICH* of the many gods for the many different religions are you referring to.

*YOU* are posting a quote which is not applicable to Ralph's statement regarding my statement.

Now, *IF* you cannot accept *ALL* religions and *ALL* gods, then, yes, "keep god out of it" - BUT ... the "mantra", as Ralph calls it ... is *ALL* gods for *ALL* religions.

*NOT* "NO RELIGION", and THAT is what Ralph stated, and what I keep trying to get you to read.

I'm sorry but I can't resist any longer.

The question isn't "which god" but rather is there a God or not?

How you answer that largely determines your response to others professing a belief in a greater reality.

Think and choose carefully.

Or don't think at all and just make it up and hope your right.

BTW-good luck with that!