diverborg

Not necessarily intended directly towards you Billvon, but to anybody reading these verses. As Christians we should live up to these verses, and sadly most of us fail miserably and are too concerned with me me me. I do however think this is a model for how we are to live on a personal basis, and not a govt model. If the govt is in charge of wealth redistribution, then nothing we do comes from the goodness of our heart. Its easy to be generous with everyone else's money, but God wants to see what we personally are willing to sacrifice to help others and for His greater good. In addition to all this, I'm all about helping the helpless and less fortunate, but when you take the right from the people and put the govt in charge of it, then we lose the right to how that money is distributed, and then it becomes a crutch for people. I spend a lot of my time and money helping the less fortunate in my local society. There are those that need the help and those that would be better off without it. I am more than happy to donate my time and money helping that poor single mother struggling to feed her kids and make her rent. I do not think God would like His money paying for new spinners on an 86 Caprice, also I'll add that I don't think God likes his money building marble pillars in a megachurch as well. You take away our ability to make that decision, then you've taken away the freedom to give as we see fit. That's the problem I have with socialism. Charities know when people need help, govt hands it out to everyone willing to suck that tit to get by. A lot more people would donate to charities and help other people if the govt didn't already take their income and redistribute it. To oppose socialism in no way contradicts these verses, in fact I view it quite the opposite. The church should be in charge of welfare, not the govt. If some on here still view that as being greedy, let me tell you that in addition to what I'm overtaxed already, I donate close to 15% of my takehome pay to different charities as I see the need, and that's not including the amount of time I donate either. Please do not take that as boasting because thats not my intention. Its just to point out that us die-hard capitalists are not the greedy people many want to portray us as.

Yikes.. now that is an insult to Rachel. I think she's great but to each her own.. Sorry, I may have overreacted a little. I'm not sure anyone deserves to be in the ranks of Nancy Grace.

Her tv show isn't much different. I'd actually watch Olberman all day before I could stomach 10 minutes of that girl. Something about her just drives me off the wall. She rates up there with Nancy Grace in my book. Although I pretty much never agree with Olbermann, at least he can get a chuckle out of me once in awhile. Maddow makes me want to puke in my mouth listening to her. Ah yes, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Rush, don't care a whole lot for them either even though I generally agree with them. Cavuto is the shiznit when it comes to conservative commentary. Very polite, well-spoken and logical in comparison to the anger vented by the others. He actually lets his guests talk and politely discusses his logic behind why he disagrees with them.

I actually think GM made a lot better products in the 80's and 90's than they do now, not figuring in rusting factor. My dad had a 1985 Buick skylark that he did nothing more than his scheduled servicing and I think a fuel pump and got over 400,000 out of it. I still drive a 1994 chevy s-10 with 140,000 miles on it I bought 5 years ago. It got terrible consumer report ratings, but its been the best truck I've ever owned and it just never has a problem. However, in the last few years while trying to find a vehicle for my wife, we went with the Honda Fit. We did a neon (megacrap) prior. The Fit is a sweet little vehicle for the money and nothing the big 3 make can come close to it in its class. I've test driven a lot of different cars in the last year and there is a definite difference in build quality, handling, ergonomics and performance lately. My parents are on there 3rd transmission on their 04 Silverado and they don't even tow. A coworker of mine has an 08 Silverado that's on its second transmission. No excuse for that IMO. I also think the imports have come a long ways since 1990 as well. Go test drive a brand new chevy aveo, neon, or focus. Then compare it to the test drive on a yaris, fit, accent, or versa. There's just no comparison. How long these cars last, I guess will see. But since 2000 these manufacturers vehicles have been going a long ways.

How do you suggest we do this? Making an inferior product in order to remain competitive price wise because our labor costs are too high isn't helping this fact.

I don't really disagree, but I think many of them probably think that they are doing what the "name" wants them to do. Sure some use it to suit their own needs as well, but it would take one strange individual to blow themselves up for their "own needs" if they are not gonna be around to reap the benefits.

Typical fear tactics. Do you really think throwing even $50 billion is going to save the big 3. How much should we keep giving them to prevent the "end of the world". United Airlines filed chapter 11 bankruptcy not long after 9/11. It wasn't the end of the world for them and it won't be for the big three either or the rest of civilization for that matter.

I watched the same thing. I wanted to puke listening to that guy.

I'm not saying it does or doesn't, but if this was a politically motivated bombing and not a religiously motivated bombing, I'm pretty sure they could come up with other methods to employ that wouldn't involve blowing yourself up. I'm not one to lump all muslims into this category, but I don't think its very disputed that there is a branch of them that like the suicide approach for specific religious reasons. Now if he/she had just planted a bomb or gunned down a bunch of people, then I would be a little more inclinced to believe that this wasn't religiously motivated.

I fully understand this. I wasn't giving a realistic scenario, just mainly making a point of how ridiculous of amount of money we're talking and how little difference its going to make for the company if we just dish it out. Chapter 11 bankruptcy doesn't mean that GM will no longer be around. They are on a long track record of losing money and dishing out 1/4's worth of losses isn't going make a damn difference and then we either inevitably file chapter 11 or we give them more money next time. It churns my stomach, but if we have no choice but to give them money, then let them file chapter 11 bankruptcy first then give them some money with some very very strict oversight to where it goes. Help them reorganize with a shred of hope that they will actually turn a profit someday. Why isn't this option on the table? Oh thats right that would mean the union would be broken and there's no way the UAW will ever except that. To hell with the UAW (not in the literal sense) I say, they are hugely responsible for this mess.

Michigan is not a right to work state where you can work for the auto companies without being part of the union. The plants in the rest of this country, mainly in the southeast are doing just fine because they don't have to put up with this horseshit. The UAW will never allow these corporations to ever prosper regardless of who manages them. I love it how people want to point all the fingers to the execs, but the numbers show otherwise. Until someone here can explain to me how that company will ever produce a competitive product and make money with what they're paying their assembly line workers and retirees, then I will take it all as anti-capitalstic propaganda horseshit. The numbers have been layed out, yet those that refute it have nothing to add other than it's managements fault period. (not referring to you Rehmwa) Ponder this. The $50 billion originally on the table would've covered GM for about one quarters worth of losses. 3 months later we're in the same boat. Chapter 11 needs to happen. Even if that company completely liquidated and all 300,000 employees were on the street. That $50billion would be enough money to hand each one of them $166,000. That should be enough money to move anywhere in the country and find a job, and also over 2 yrs worth of salary for the typical assemply worker. I'd rather see the money go to that and see the company go by by, than to have them come back asking for another $50 billion in 3 months. That's worse case scenario, chapter 11 does not mean they are done.

We've got a few inches here in South Mississippi as well. Such a strange site.

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile." sorry I couldn't help but think of fight club when I saw this

I'm not here to debate whether the US should fund Israel or not. Lets look at it from the Palestinian perspective and say Israel was guilty first. What percentage of Israel's population was really around when that first "crime" was committed and should the new generation be targeted for vengeance because of this? Undoing history will do harm to innocent people regardless. Do you not think that the young generation in Israel isn't struggling with the same bitterness for a schoolyard that's been targeted by a suicide bomber. Let's say that Israel makes a formal apology, raises the white flag and welcomes the Palestinians back. Do you really think Hamas is going to settle with that or is their vengeance going to still overcome them. I would like to think peace could be made, but no matter what Israel could do to make right any past wrongs, there is still an overwhelming crowd that would seek their decimation. My point from my first post still stands. You can only change you're own attitude. Whether or not Israel is guilty matters not. You can only call out your side on this issue. Until the palestinians quit calling for the unconditional destruction of Israel, you can't expect progress to be made. That is the only thing those with your viewpoint can do to help this. The same can be said for Israel. If they didn't wipe out a village just because one rocket came from there, maybe the Palestinians wouldn't seek their destruction. However I think the bitterness just runs too deep for Israel to not remain a target regardless of what they do. So I don't see this conflict ever ending. Answer this if you can. What do you think would happen to Israel if they layed down all arms and issued a formal apology? You simply cannot make the other side forgive, you can only forgive first. Both sides have to forgive, but nothing is accomplished waiting for the other side to apologize first. Pointing out Israel's wrongdoings while turning a blind eye to your own(meaning palestine, although I know you're Iranian) will only stir the pot.

If we there was a video posted showing a US Marine headbutting a lady, would it be fair to judge the entire nation and military based on this one marine's actions. I'm sure the IDF is responsible for its fair share of atrocities, but you can't say that Palestine isn't either just because they are the underdogs. I can understand that this probably brings some pretty tough emotions about in you. Things will never get better if each side only waits for the other side to change their attitude. We can't control what others do, we can only control how we react. Here's a parallel that might not be as extreme, but still somewhat similar. I moved to Mississippi about 2 years ago. I've stepped into one of the most heated racially tensioned communities probably in this country. We've created a mess down here in the past couple hundred years that we now have to try and undo. This state is guilty of some serious atrocities towards blacks, but my generation was not around for it and will swiftly condemn it. In my small town of only about 18,000, in just the last few months a 5 yr old was gunned down in a driveby with his family in the car. A co-worker of mine was shot execution style right outside of the bank after cashing his check. We have countless robberies and so on, and as bad as this is going to sound, these incidents are typically committed by the empoverished black population. Now my generation is starting to become angered and frusterated towards these actions because they simply are not responsible for the current social situation and we don't want to lose our town to this stuff. I think you can see where this is going. The hate just continues because we simply retaliate with hate and then the vicious never-ending cycle begins. Now should I be angry and say that I'm not going put up with the crap going on and just isolate myself from that community because of the mess our forefathers created. Or should I take it upon myself to bridge the gap and reach out to those less fortunate in my town. Regardless of what race does what, the majority of them would not condone the above actions. If I return hate the hate continues. I can't sit around wating for them to change, all I can do is reach-out and show care to that population in hopes that others will do the same and eventually some gaps can be bridged. For being right in the center of the bible belt it amazes me how many "Christians" down here tend to disregard Jesus's teachings of "love they neighbor as thyself". When I was trying to find a church down here, I would not go back to one that didn't have some mixed demographics.

Good for Barney! Seems like the guy might lave a lick of common sense after all. Absolutely!!

I can only speak for the Glock as that's all that I've been watching. I'm not sure about the 19, but most of the outfitters around here are asking over $600 for the 17 right now. I haven't seen one at a gun show or pawn shop under $500, and some of them I've seen I wouldn't pay $200 for. Its not a huge hike, but its a little silly to pay that much when the retail value for a new glock 17 is only listed at around $541. I could order a new one for retail value, but I'm hoping to find a used one at a reasonable price. Edited to add.. The reason I know they hiked a good bit is because I've been looking for one since June, and my wife and I decided it could be my Christmas present so we waited, and now I can't find one in the price range they were only 6 months ago.

I was thinking the same thing, but didn't know how to put it. For the record I'm very pro-2nd ammendment, but this one just seems a little wierd to me. I wish my health insurance would buy me a 9mm. I've been trying to find a good deal on a glock 9mm for awhile, but since BO got elected, gun prices went thru the roof. Its amazing what the guys are getting for a glock 9mm at gun shows lately. Anyway, thats a whole other discussion and I didn't mean to get off topic.

The article isn't about the employee suing, its about the injured customers suing. Big difference IMO. I'm right there with ya though. My wife worked in retail that day at another store, and if she got trampled to death, I would hate to admit that I would probably sue even though I usually oppose that sort of thing. If she was in the mob and got hurt, I could only vent my frustrations on her own actions.

IMO, the family of the guy that got killed has a case, because he's a wal-mart employee who's death was caused by doing his job. It may not seem fair, but they will win no questions asked. However, any customer that decided be a part of that mob and is suing for injuries, the hell with'em I say. Absolute horse crap!! Wal-mart ran the sales, but everybody is there on there on free will. When you see an angry mob ready to bust down a door and you choose to sit right in the middle of it to save $10 on "Gears of War II" for you kid, you're on your own. There's nothing wal-mart could've done to control the crowd anyway. THEY BROKE THE DOOR DOWN, hurt themselves in their own stupidity and greed and choose to sue wal-mart. Abso-friggin-lutely amazing. What, should Wal-mart have called in the freakin National Guard to disperse the crowd? Wal-mart should be suing them to fix the damages to their store, and see how they'd like it. Its one freakin sad day in this country if I can't run a bunch of sales in a business and have to worry about getting sued because people trample each other busting down my doors. In fact next year, I'm gonna join the mob, trip on purpose so I get injured, then sue. Seems like a quick way to retirement for just a little suffering.

There may be a flaw in my thinking there, but it seems to make sense as far as I can tell. Take note, that I'm very opposed to government setting salary limits for anyone as well as ridiculous windfall profit taxes, BUT all that goes out the window when a corporation comes asking for the government to bail them out. If you want money, then we say where it goes and thats not in your pockets. AIG setting aside $6 billion of their bailout money for bonuses, is absolutely criminal in my mind. Its an injustice to every taxpayer in this country.

My $.02, let them file chapter 11 bankruptcy first, then consider giving them money. We could give them $50 billion right now and that is going to do nothing but prolong the intevitable. That will cover them for about one quarter's worth of losses. (thats just a guess, I know quarterly losses are in the billions though) The union needs to be broken if they ever want to get out of the trouble they're in. That company will never be able to produce a product that is priced competitively and still profit with the wages it pays for basic labor. If the execs don't think their pay should be cut too, then they are in for a surprise. If I was in govt, the execs would have to agree to salary/benefits limits for X number of years set by the govt before they got a dime. I don't like the govt dabbling in businesses, but if they want to come crying for the govt tit, then well...

I'm not gonna disagree with ya there, we just can't assume thats the case and bring a lawsuit based on inference. The business owner could sue if thats really the case and maybe the atheist organization if they really have a case, but its really the business owner's decision what he wants to put up on his board. I am really curious though, how many of the people that are up in arms about this would be if it were the other way around and it was the "-God" signs that were removed. I can pretty much assure that you're not gonna hear from the ACLU if it were the other way around.

If they were asked to do so by representatives of any level of government I would classify that as intimidation at some level. Representatives of the city should have declined to involve themselves in the matter. I am quite sure that if a group of atheists complained to them about religious signs they would not ask the group to remove them. I see you're point, but I hardly see "asking" as intimidation. You're right that it isn't any of the city's business, but if you were the one that had to listen to the complaints every day, maybe you would think of a reasonable way of not having to deal with it anymore. Seems to me the billboard business had every right to just give a simple "no". If the city pressed the issue then you got a problem. That may or may not be the case here, you just can't draw that conclusion based on this article. Especially when journalists like to input their own "tone" into an article. Personally if I owned a billboard company and the city asked to take down adds that had every legal right to be there, I would tell them to get bent. If the city asked me if I could remove the adds and I said OK, then later sued them, that would be pretty freakin stupid. Would you honestly feel the same way about this if it were the other way around and city asked a billboard company to remove one of those "-God" signs.

This is pretty silly, but the article is pretty vague. Was the billboard company politely asked to remove them because of complaints and chose to comply at their own will, or were they threatened, inimidated, or forced to remove them by the city. I see a big difference between the two, and one would not warrant a lawsuit. However I don't see that distinguished in this article. It simply says that they were asked to do so and did. So far it doesn't seem like there's any constitutional violations here. I'd like to know the full story here.