udx

Looks like you have absolutely no faith in God's power and do not see how God is in control. No, the Constitution is not only meant to protect Christians. It is meant to protect everybody from the government. Once you start to single out a certain group of people, the protection is already lost. It would then always depend on the whims of the government which group of people would be afforded protection, certain groups would have more rights and equality than others, instead of everybody having the same rights. The encroachment of Muslim influence on American society is only a symptom of spiritual decay. Just trying to cure the symptom may solve the problem for a time, but it doesn't solve the underlying issue.

I strongly disagree. Outlawing any religion is unconstitutional, and would sit forth precedent to outlawing other religions including Christianity. There would be no longer freedom of religion. Instead of viewing as an invasion, you should view it in God's eyes and see it as an opportunity to preach the gospel to the Muslim community. It is a lot less risky to preach the gospel to the Muslim community here instead of sending missionaries to Muslim countries. Spread the gospel back to Muslim countries by converting the Muslims coming into the country. My local Church and Pastor are pushing and equipping the congregation on how to witness to the Muslim community.

I wouldn't work for you either, if you cut my hours to such a paltry amount for so little pay.

I agree. With how much property tax people are burden with, it is pretty much renting. If you can't pay the property tax, your property would be taken from you just like if you fail to pay the rent.

Ah.. Seems like you want to use the I have more experience than you type of argument on me. I should clarify then. I used to own a house, but sold it. I have rented the house out while I owned it. Why don't we go back to discussing the issue instead of these irrelevant details.

Where did you get this magic number of 10% over any other number? Why do you get to decide the demarcation line between greedy and not greedy in isolation of any other factors? Real Estate – Without using any debt, real estate return demands from investors mirror those of business ownership and stocks. The real rate of return for good, non-leveraged properties is roughly 7% after inflation. Since we have gone through decades of 3% inflation, over the past 20 years, that figure has stabilized at 10%. Riskier projects require higher rates of return. Plus, real estate investors are known for using mortgages, which are a form of leverage, to increase the return on their investment. http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/beginnerscorner/a/What-Is-Considered-A-Good-Rate-Of-Return-On-Your-Investments.htm That does not answer the question. Why do you get to decide it is greed if it is over 10%? Like the article says.. and what I implied, risker project require higher return rates. Are you a property owner who rents out homes? No. Just a person who dislike and challenge arguments/positions that are very one sided.

Where did you get this magic number of 10% over any other number? Why do you get to decide the demarcation line between greedy and not greedy in isolation of any other factors? Real Estate – Without using any debt, real estate return demands from investors mirror those of business ownership and stocks. The real rate of return for good, non-leveraged properties is roughly 7% after inflation. Since we have gone through decades of 3% inflation, over the past 20 years, that figure has stabilized at 10%. Riskier projects require higher rates of return. Plus, real estate investors are known for using mortgages, which are a form of leverage, to increase the return on their investment. http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/beginnerscorner/a/What-Is-Considered-A-Good-Rate-Of-Return-On-Your-Investments.htm That does not answer the question. Why do you get to decide it is greed if it is over 10%? Like the article says.. and what I implied, risker project require higher return rates.

Where did you get this magic number of 10% over any other number? Why do you get to decide the demarcation line between greedy and not greedy in isolation of any other factors?

This is how free market works. Market dictate what rental price it would be. This isn't greed. If it is greed to charge as much as what people would be willing to pay, then it is also greed to find to cheapest rental house you can afford (demand the highest wage for a job). Just the flip side of the coin from the owner's perspective. I believe that the free market concept is good. However there is no denying that for many landlords greed is a major factor when the demand exceeds the supply. That is exactly why I said sometime back that mortgage debt is using debt for the right reasons. If any person can save enough for a down payment and has a steady income to cover the monthly payments and necessities, then that is the only way to avoid becoming enslaved to a landlord. With the current level of interest rates, the monthly payments will often be equal to or less than rent. And there are cities in the USA where a house can be purchased at a very reasonable price. Please do a search and see for yourself. Everyone does not have to live in New York. Greed is definitely one of the factors.Buying a home is always the smarter way to go financially because the owner of the home is reaping the benefits. I don't think we should be so quick to judge people as greedy. You don't know people's circumstances. Greed means avid desire for gain or wealth. You don't know people's heart, it is unfair to classify most/all landlords as greedy, just because you think the rent is too high. A lot of people call out other people as greedy, but they are just really coveting person's wealth themselves. I am not coveting their wealth.You should see what kind of rent they are trying to get for a literal run down shack.Then when they have not rented it after a couple of months they come down several hundred dollars. I understand. I am not saying you are, but many people really do look at landlords with envy. Have you ever been a landlord yourself? Do you understand the cost that factor into the rent? We should look into the situation in someone else's perspective and not always pity the poor over who seems to have more. High rental rates only reflects an underlying problem of not enough supply. If you only think it is the landlords fault, then you would be like those politicians that implement those short sighted rent control policies that exacerbate the problem without fixing it. For example in San Francisco, cost of houses/apartment themselves are really high, and lease agreements protects the tenant a lot more than the landlord... landlord have to factor these into the cost of the rent. There are also so call professional renters, that rent apartment but dont play rent. They play the legal game and stay at one place rent free until evicted by police, which could take months, causing tremendous cost the the landlord. A lot of the time the rent barely breaks even on the mortgage, and there is always the risk the real estate do not appreciate, then the landlord would lose money. All these are risks that factor into this rental investment.

This is how free market works. Market dictate what rental price it would be. This isn't greed. If it is greed to charge as much as what people would be willing to pay, then it is also greed to find to cheapest rental house you can afford (demand the highest wage for a job). Just the flip side of the coin from the owner's perspective. I believe that the free market concept is good. However there is no denying that for many landlords greed is a major factor when the demand exceeds the supply. That is exactly why I said sometime back that mortgage debt is using debt for the right reasons. If any person can save enough for a down payment and has a steady income to cover the monthly payments and necessities, then that is the only way to avoid becoming enslaved to a landlord. With the current level of interest rates, the monthly payments will often be equal to or less than rent. And there are cities in the USA where a house can be purchased at a very reasonable price. Please do a search and see for yourself. Everyone does not have to live in New York. Greed is definitely one of the factors.Buying a home is always the smarter way to go financially because the owner of the home is reaping the benefits. I don't think we should be so quick to judge people as greedy. You don't know people's circumstances. Greed means avid desire for gain or wealth. You don't know people's heart, it is unfair to classify most/all landlords as greedy, just because you think the rent is too high. A lot of people call out other people as greedy, but they are just really coveting person's wealth themselves.

If it is the Truth, it can stand up to testing.

I use debt as a tool. I intentionally go into debt, not because I have to, but because it makes financial sense. For example, I could pay my car off in cash, but why pay it off in cash when I could get the car with 0% interest financing while my cash could be earning interest. I would also be paying back the loan with inflated dollars. Real example. There is a car selling for $25k with tax included. You could be paying it with cash for $24.5k with $500 cash rebate. On the other hand I could pay for with 60 monthly installments at 0% over 5 years. But note, i would be paying the loan with inflated dollars which would be worth less than $24.5k in today's dollars, not to mention I could be earning interest with the cash I have on hand. I am essentially taking out a loan of 25k for free! You gotta be disciplined and not spend this money foolishly. This decision wouldn't be the same if interest rate is higher of course. However, one needs to watch out and not overextend by using this cash to do risky investments, but consider it as cash spent and use it on very conservative cash equivalent investments. Debt, like money, is a tool, but few are wise enough to wield it properly. All money are essentially debt, so I do not really distinguished between the two. They are just debt in different forms. Paper money originate from an IOU promising you that you can redeem gold, now it is just an IOU back by the government. If you hold on to money, you are holding someone else's debt. When there are no debt, there would be no money. GoldenEagle's advice on debt not going into debt is good for ordinary people. However, the next level would be how to use debt strategically, make debt and money work for you instead of being controlled by them. If you are not good with money, then stick to GoldenEagle's advice.

I also have a question to add to this. Your question is "Deny Christ or die!"... Would you do it, and why? Adding to that would be, "Deny Christ or other people (friends/family) would die!" Would you do it, and why?

If your income is too low compare to the loan you are getting you are going to get turned down no matter how high your credit is. It seems like this is the case right now, you have too much debt relative to income, or the loan you want to get is too big. At your current credit score you should be able to get any loans.

By the way, most of the female profiles on the site are fake. It is more sin of the heart than anything else. I doubt any actual physical cheating occurred. http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944

My answer would be.. Of course! Why shouldn't a Christian be paid for services rendered? Why don't you ask it this way, should a Christian store sell products for free? Of course not. Services like products are valuable combination of time and talent why should they be provided for free. If you would like to provide services for free, it would be like a donation or charitable act and it would be at your discretion, but the norm is to get paid for services rendered.

If you look at it as GOD looks at it, than it is adultery, which is the only reason that GOD accepts for divorce. So, my answer is "yes." I disagree with your assessment. Just like Jesus says hating your enemies is tantamount to murder, it is not exactly the same in the criminal sense. It is only by God's standards adultery of the heart and hating someone is equivalent to physical adultery and murder, but definitely do not warrant the same punishment. You cannot use God's standards to punish and judge people or else we would all be dead, only God could use his standards, but because of his Grace we are forgiven. Jesus was showing that it is impossible to be sinless by God's standards and that we all need to be redeemed.

This is a lot easier said than done. In an ideal world that is what should happen. If they know exactly what the workload is and how much to hire then we wouldn't need the HR department.

Nope. I believe humans are capable of evil all on its own due to the sin nature. Satan could be locked up and humans would still sin. However, indirectly you could claim that Satan is behind all adversity due to tempting humans to sin, resulting in the curse that bring about human adversity.

He can definitely do another term if enough people in the public supports him. The US Constitution is only for reference only, quoted when convenient, and ignore when not. An indefinite dictatorship is not out of question if some sort of crisis occur near the end of the term before a new president could be elected. I think in order to change, you would need the public to change, a leader can do a lot but only as much as the public allows. The nation has deteriorated so much because the people have allowed to be lead this way. I believe there would need several terms of leader willing to sacrifice their lives in order to turn things around. One does not truly make meaningful change unless you confront the real powers behind the politics. President of the country is not the most powerful person in the Nation. Presidents have become the position of top minion for the highest bidder. From what the current president does and how he behaves, I do not think he really has independent power or capable of what he is doing by himself. I think there are powerful forces behind him that are the ones pushing their agenda through him. You seem to know a lot about American government; who do you believe these powerful people to be? If you really want to know... The old phrase "follow the money" seem to fit the bill. Although I could not identify specific individuals with the power, because these individual are masters at being behind the scenes. I could identify the class of people they belong to. They are individual that controls the world's money and money supply. Through control of world's wealth they hold control and power. They have nearly unlimited wealth and money at their disposal because they control the production of it. Once a person or group of people have unlimited wealth, they go for power, control and domination. Notice that 'elections' are taking increasing amount of money to fund, who do you think funds these elections. The politicians are beholden to their 'investors/sponsors' or there will be consequences.

Looks like somebody does not understand what it means to be a "conspiracy theory". The word, to conspire is a verb to make secret plans jointly to commit unlawful or harmful act. A conspiracy is basically when a group of people plot in secret with intent to do harm. A conspiracy theory is an explanation of a particular conspiracy. A conspiracy does not automatically mean "false or fanciful idea" that some people have come to interpret it as. There is no point claiming something isn't a "conspiracy theory" as if it increase the legitimacy of what you are saying. Illuminati working behind the scenes definitely fits definition of a conspiracy theory. Illuminati are a group of people that plots in secret with intent to do harm to the public. I always find it silly that people like to start with "it is not an conspiracy" and proceed on to describe a conspiracy. Human history is full of conspiracies and thus a lot of conspiracy theories, the Bible has a good documentation of human history and have mention many of these conspiracy theories. Psalm 2:1 (NIV) Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? Yah, you're a funny guy. Finish the definition of conspire: synonyms: plot · scheme · plan · intrigue · machinate · collude · connive. You do know what plan means, right? Conspiring does not always mean to do harm. Now, lets define theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. There is a big difference between being a conspiracy and being a conspiracy theorist. I took the_patriot2015's comment to mean that I had some far out theory that would be akin to the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton always refers to when trying to explain away her and her husband's foibles. Patriot2015, like many others on this forum does not use the proper definition of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist". In their definition "conspiracy theory" is a fanciful idea that can not be true and "conspiracy theorist" is a crazy person that believe outlandish "conspiracy theory". I just want to get the proper definition down so people are on the same page. "Conspiracy theory" and "Conspiracy theorist" are often disparage by the government and government controlled media so the public would conform to the 'official story' and not analyze facts critically or for themselves. It is a means for which government discourage people to dissent, criticize the government and uncover corruption. Media and government try hard to tag a negative connotation to "conspiracy" so anyone who dare think otherwise are labeled and marginalized from public discourse. They do this by making a big deal out of wrong conspiracy theory. I do understand many conspiracy theories are false, but that does not give one license to generalize that all of them are false. What does your explaining the definition of conspiracy and conspiracy theory have anything to do with the discussion, it does not go against what I have been saying? You only added/expanded to definition of conspiracy, so what. What point are you trying to make?

He can definitely do another term if enough people in the public supports him. The US Constitution is only for reference only, quoted when convenient, and ignore when not. An indefinite dictatorship is not out of question if some sort of crisis occur near the end of the term before a new president could be elected. Wrong. The only way the election would be called off is if we were in a state of declared war. Brush up on American constitutional law UDX. I do know American constitutional law, thank you very much. I am not saying that he would go for another term by normal means if goes for another 'term' you are totally missing the point.

He can definitely do another term if enough people in the public supports him. The US Constitution is only for reference only, quoted when convenient, and ignore when not. An indefinite dictatorship is not out of question if some sort of crisis occur near the end of the term before a new president could be elected. I think in order to change, you would need the public to change, a leader can do a lot but only as much as the public allows. The nation has deteriorated so much because the people have allowed to be lead this way. I believe there would need several terms of leader willing to sacrifice their lives in order to turn things around. One does not truly make meaningful change unless you confront the real powers behind the politics. President of the country is not the most powerful person in the Nation. Presidents have become the position of top minion for the highest bidder. From what the current president does and how he behaves, I do not think he really has independent power or capable of what he is doing by himself. I think there are powerful forces behind him that are the ones pushing their agenda through him.

Looks like somebody does not understand what it means to be a "conspiracy theory". The word, to conspire is a verb to make secret plans jointly to commit unlawful or harmful act. A conspiracy is basically when a group of people plot in secret with intent to do harm. A conspiracy theory is an explanation of a particular conspiracy. A conspiracy does not automatically mean "false or fanciful idea" that some people have come to interpret it as. There is no point claiming something isn't a "conspiracy theory" as if it increase the legitimacy of what you are saying. Illuminati working behind the scenes definitely fits definition of a conspiracy theory. Illuminati are a group of people that plots in secret with intent to do harm to the public. I always find it silly that people like to start with "it is not an conspiracy" and proceed on to describe a conspiracy. Human history is full of conspiracies and thus a lot of conspiracy theories, the Bible has a good documentation of human history and have mention many of these conspiracy theories. Psalm 2:1 (NIV) Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?

I agree. It seems to me that there should be a formula to calculate a percentage, and a way to have it keep pace with the cost of living. However, this presents a conundrum as any change in wages affects the cost of living as this is passed back to the consumer. As far as what one's major was and how it affects unemployment, this might be surprising - if you want no unemployment, become an astronomer or archaeologist, or work in genetics, http://www.studentsreview.com/unemployment_by_major.php3 From how you interpret this dataset and coming up with the resulting conclusion, it looks like you do not know how to analyze data critically and hence susceptible to misleading statistic and propaganda (like saying how increase minimum wage actually make a difference). https://mises.org/library/yes-minimum-wages-still-increase-unemployment How can you come up with such misleading conclusion from this survey. The results from the survey is statistically insignificant in the majors you said have no unemployment. Only around 20 people responded to the survey of their employment status in astronomy, archeology and genetics. As with any voluntary survey, there is a high degree of selection bias, where only certain groups of people would respond. For example, only people who are employed may respond leading to false representation of the whole population. This survey is neither random nor representative of the market at large, it may at best represent how alumni at this particular school did, even then the sample size is way too small given the population it is trying to represent. To truly have no unemployment is to element minimum wage laws and have a sound money (eliminate Federal Reserve fiat currency), so everyone can get hired at their market rates. You want to increase unemployment?Increasing the minimum wage would get you there. I disagree that there should be minimum wage that adjust to cost of living. This is just crying for more government intervention and abuses. The real question people should be asking is what caused the cost of living to increase, the main culprit is the government and its monetary policy. It is nature of economy on fiat currency to increase cost of living at a faster rate than wages would grow. The government's rapid monetary expansion erodes everyone's spending power causing yesterday's minimum wage to be inadequate today. The government plays dirty, instead of reflecting how it is damaging people's standard of living, it turns around and demonize the business people, saying how they are not paying enough to keep up with standard of living. udx, I didn't interpret the data set, I simply shared what some of the reported results were. It is simply the results of those they received responses from. Lots of room for error. The point of it all is that things are not so black and white as some would make things appear here. The problem with all of this with the proposed minimum wage hike is that it will probably cause more problems than it solves. I think everyone is looking at the wrong problem here to begin with. Everyone is worried about what raising the minimum wage will do. Why is no one worried about our our of control debt, and the fact that there is virtually nothing to back it up? The feds have responded by continuing to lower interest rates to keep the economy from crashing around our heads - we are near the bottom. What happens when the interest rates can't be lowered anymore? You did interpret the data, when you said if we want no unemployment people should go into genetics, astronomy and archeology because of the survey results as if the results meant anything. Debt could not be controlled as long as the government as the power to inflate currency. You are not exactly right regarding there is nothing to back the debt up. The thing that is backing US currency up right now is oil, US military and natural resources in America (land), and the future labor of US tax payers. Umm that's not what interpreting the data means. Interpreting the data requires you use the raw data. I don't have access to the raw data. This is silly to argue about imho. And you have completely missed my point about what's backing up, or not backing up the debt. That is not true. You don' not need to use raw data to interpret data. We are interpreting data all the time when you reach a conclusion from summary statistic people come up with. We are taught to interpret data all the time since grade school from graphs and charts, those are not raw data, but they could still be use to make valuable judgements or business decisions. Do you actually know what raw data means? Do you have your own definition of 'interpreting the data' like you have on 'backing up debt'? Definition of interpreting data means finding meaning and patterns or trends to reach a conclusion or result which is what you have done. There are whole sections on standardize examines (GRE, ACT) where you 'interpret' data base on summary statistics presented. Regardless what your definition of interpretation is, you made a judgement call on a statistically insignificant data. You see that there is 0% unemployment on the fields of study you mentioned without considering the sample size of the said fields and reach an conclusion that people should go into that field because everyone who go into that field would be employed by generalizing that 0% unemployment is representative of general population of people in that field. Cleaning up data is not for the faint of heart, it is very hard to interpret raw data you must clean it up. I do data analysis, and nobody hope to do any interpretation on raw data until it tidy up and converted into something more intuitive, there is a whole branch of data analysis that deal with that (exploratory data analysis). What is your point about debt then?