beowulf

I my case, it was confirmed by Scripture, personal affect and effect and, by the elders. Can you give an example of something that this voice said to you that was most convincing? Do you have back forth conversations with this voice?

Have either of you ever questioned whether or not the voice you hear is actually the God you believe in? How did you come to the conclusion that the voice you hear is the God of the Bible?

So when Obama wins, will it be Gods fault or the fault of people not praying enough? It is not a question of fault. It is about God's will for the nation. What makes you think your God cares anything about this nation? What makes you think his god does not care? The same reasons that I think leprechans care about gold.

So when Obama wins, will it be Gods fault or the fault of people not praying enough? It is not a question of fault. It is about God's will for the nation. What makes you think your God cares anything about this nation?

My email is boring!!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-09-28/all-your-private-data-belong-obama

I agree with you, but I think that is what the Gov will do.

I don't think the president has all that much control over the deficits anymore. Considering the USPS is going to need a bail out and SS and Medicare are runaway freight trains of underfunding. I don't see any reduction of spending in the near future, but my glass ball has never really worked very well.

Your way of looking at it ignores the cumulative value of the yearly trillion dollar deficits and only focusing on comparing to Bush's last year in office. That is a dishonest way of looking at it. Over all under the Obama Admin the US Gov is spending a lot more then under Bush even when considering his last year in office. Bush was wrong to have pushed the deficit over a trillion dollars and Obama is continuing that bad example.

It's still misleading. Your statement makes it sound like Obama is somehow spending less then Bush did, which is not true. Over all the Gov under the Obama Admin is continuing the over trillion dollar a year deficit that Bush started in his last year in office.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html Obama Deficits FY 2013*: $901 billion FY 2012*: $1,327 billion FY 2011: $1,300 billion FY 2010: $1,293 billion Bush Deficits FY 2009: $1,413 billion FY 2008: $459 billion FY 2007: $161 billion I don't think I would call that the right direction. Your statement is misleading at best.

The debt servicing is not a static number. The debt is continually rising and the interest rate is at a low percentage for now. The interest rate can and will go up in the future. My point is that this will only go down when the over all debt decreases and the interest rate remains the same or decreases otherwise the interest payment amount will rise as the US Gov continues to borrow more and more money. If and when the interest rates go up the debt servicing amount will increase sharply.

You are right in that Congress is responsible, but it should be the President's responsibility to bring it up and make it a priority. I don't think it's been given the attention that it deserves. They just keep pushing it out into the future and avoiding having to deal with it. No one wants to cut spending or raise taxes, so they just raise the debt ceiling and print more money.

The deficit and overall debt doesn't seem to be much of a political issue in this election. I think many think that the debt size doesn't matter. I think it does matter and servicing the debt takes up more and more of the budget, which increases pressure on everything else like SS and Medicare, which are underfunded.

To reiterate what I said earlier. I think what the Fed is doing won't accomplish their stated goals that you quoted.

Good point, but the feds/etc. have that market tamped down as best they can. Definite cabal going on there. That hasn't been much of a secret.

Stocks react favorably to the QEs. That's about it, though. Most people don't realize that the stock market really isn't sh-t. It's the bond market that makes the world go around. Bond volumes historically dwarf stock volumes. Bernanke himself really doesn't believe QE3 is going to do anything. He has been reduced to managing expectations of a mostly illiterate populace. Gold and silver reacted favorably also. I don't think Bernanke likes that.

It must be going to help. Senator Cornyn (R) complained that by helping the economy the Fed was benefitting Obama in the election. I just read an argument that essentially said one reason for QE3 was to prop up the stock market which would help Obama stay in office and keep Bernanke from losing his job. Not sure that opinion is valid, but it's similar to what Senator Cornyn is saying if you were to equate the stock market with the economy. I don't know what the real reasons were for doing QE3 but I don't think Bernanke was being honest.

I am unconvinced that QE3 will fix any of the problems or even help. I think it's just going to make things worse in the long run.

I am looking for details of what happened in this incident. Type of turn, estimated altitude, weather conditions, WL, eye-witness accounts etc, etc..... You know, the usual things people discuss about incidents instead of all this chest-beating about "We all knew this was going to happen". I am not looking for comments on my jumping choices. You are looking in the wrong thread. It would be in the incident thread and it appears that no one in the know is interested in posting that information.

Does nobody see a problem with this mindset? What if guns were less accessible by ALL? Would that not have a greater effect at stopping shooting rampages than if guns were easily accessible by all? The United States needs to take a good look at their gun laws and compare them to a country like Canada. The cat is already out of the bag. Banning guns will mostly affect law abiding citizens. Criminals by definition do not abide by the laws. Banning substances or objects has never worked, all it does is create a black market. Also to add, as the southern states are fond of saying. We don't care how you do things up north!

Maybe he just doesn't like the risks and hassles associated. Maybe he's responsible enough to realize how irresponsible he could potentially be with it. Not everyone in every situation should own, let alone carry. Here, look at this fucking old fool. http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.html?hpt=hp_t3#/video/topvideos/2012/09/08/dnt-grandpa-shooting.kprc Wasn't responsible enough to KNOW what was down range of what he was shooting at. Fucking idiot. I agree that carrying a handgun or owning one is not for everyone. Squeak was asking the orginal poster why and I ask why not. I can't think of any reason why he shouldn't carry concealed.

In the US states that have enacted a CHL program the crime has gone down. So my question stands why not carry a concealed handgun if you have the legal option to do so? There plenty of other reasons.

Why do you think my response was not intelligent?

I can think of plenty of reasons why, but if it's a legally available option, why not?