BrandonL

I'd answer your question, but you have to pay first And no, money doesn't solve everything, although it probably makes some things a little easier.

Figures Colleen would know where the story is.... I have a sneaking suspicion her house is going to be awfully crowded soon....

What is this "outside" you speak of?

There are 3 Biblical types of relationships between men and women. Mother and son/father and daughter, brother and sister, and man and wife. The relationship between men and women who are not related by blood can still be classified as brother and sister. Obviously, you can't simply live your entire life without having relationships of members of the opposite sex aside from your wife, sisters, and mother. There is Biblical ground here, but as a few people have pointed out, the dangers are inherent and you must be careful that your sisters don't become something other than your sisters.

Can my fiancee and I apply for this retroactively? She's twenty-three so that's like $8,500 that we could use on our honeymoon lol.

Ditto here, but I keep having to replay "Jesus Messiah," "I Will Rise," and "Praise the Father, Praise the Son" over and over lol

Yep. I am married with 3 kids (2 are grown) and totally in love with my husband as he is with me. P.S. The Song of Songs is about Israel. It is about Israel. It's also about the Church. It's also about love and relationships.

That's right. Don't forget that there is no "perfect relationship." Premarital counseling is always a good idea, but no matter how hard you work on it before hand, you're always going to go into a marriage with problems. That's just life. I've known couples that dated for many years prior to getting married, and they still struggled with the same problems as everyone else. We're all human. We're all sinners. That's all there is to it. That is why it's so important for us to have Christ as the focal point of our relationship. It's not a matter of what we should be doing according to some set of rules or principles arbitrarily drafted by God to control our lives. It's a matter of God wanting the best for us and giving us the tools to make it as easy as possible for us, if that makes any sense. The "dos" and "don'ts" are there for a real, practical purpose. They protect us and keep us where we need to be - with our eyes on Him. As far as it ruining their chances? Well that's not so black and white. Remember that God can work "all things" together for good, not just some things, not even just most things. I can tell you thousands of stories in my life of God taking my mistakes and making them His victories. God works in our lives to glorify Himself. I believe He relishes in turning our mistakes into things that He can use for His glory. Those things cause us to keep our focus on Him and His grace, for one thing. They also humble us and remind us that we are sinners in need of a savior. And that is where God wants us to always be. In the good times and the bad times, His primary concern is that we rely on Him. Beyond that, everything else is basically fluff. And it's really amazing what happens when we begin to rely on Him more. We make fewer mistakes. We sin less. We enjoy life more. That is the basic purpose of God's intent for our lives. The greater our faith and reliance upon Him, the less of us there is in the picture. The result of that is a more fulfilled, and fulfilling, life. So making mistakes or marrying the "wrong" person isn't the end of everything. Forgetting to keep Christ as the center of the relationship isn't either. We serve an amazingly merciful God who gives second chances to our second chances to our second chances. It is never too late to start a new life with Him at the center, or to renew a life that had Him at the center and then wandered away. Yes, some people are meant to be single. Although I believe that is very rare. I do know, however, that God has an express and detailed purpose for every person on this planet, and when we chase our calling, He reveals it to us beyond any doubt. If you are meant to be single, then I believe God will make that clear to you. I also believe He will give you peace with it.

Yep. It happens as long as you follow God's leading. That is what He wants for us, after all. He has chosen the perfect mate for each of us, and He is faithful to show us that person, as long we are waiting for His guidance. Even if you marry the "wrong" person, God can still make it work. It may not be as smooth and easy as it could have been, but it can still work. Again, the key is to just stay focused on Christ. When two people have a common goal, they will grow closer to that goal as they grow closer to each other. Likewise, they will also grow closer to each other as they grow closer to the goal. It's inevitable. Just follow Him!

Lol. Nope. We're still not trained to take care of rattlesnakes... although you could make the argument that we are. I mean, in the military anyways. We do have to maintain our proficiency with the M-16 after all

The real question here is how long is it gonna be before the soldiers get bored and decide to see who can handle the eat the most hand grenades?

This was pretty remarkable. I'm stationed about 70 miles west-north-west of Baghdad and actually had that same snow fall on our base. When it first started, it had been raining, and everything was wet. We didn't expect any of it to stick, but by morning, there was about an inch on the ground. Very cool

Link didn't work for me I googled and came up with this... is it the same picture? http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/northpole.asp

I'm way to ADD to read all that, but I skimmed it and liked all I saw. Admittedly, I'm kinda shocked to see a positive post about America, though, and wonder how long it will be before someone jumps in the thread to bash the States again. (I give it 12 posts before that happens so prove me wrong )

For once in my life, I'm jealous of a taxi cab driver lol

Update on the 4 shootings in Co Springs: One victim in critical condition, one in fair condition, one in good condition, and the other is unknown. The three reported all have good prognoses and are expected to live. Also, police have apprehended one suspect in Co Springs; it is still believed another suspect is at large. Whether the two shootings is stil not known, but it is believed that there is more than one suspect.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071209/ap_on_...mcHGiA39eas0NUE There's a link to the Co Springs shooting

My cousin's best friend was one of the ones killed. Please pray for the family and friends of the deceased. The two staff members that were killed have touched many people's lives in a very close way.

You are operating under the premise that any money that you pay in taxes just ceases to exist. Any economist will tell you thats a misnomer. GDP is not just the private sector, its both public and private. In terms of economic activity, there is no difference in a dollar spent by me, Bill Gates, the government, or for that matter a crack addict, either way its economic activity. The question is one of economic efficiency. If a Charity provides a service with an 80% efficiency, while a state program does it with a 93% efficiency, then the program is more efficiently provided in the public sector. Ok, you completely missed my point. First of all, do you really think that any federal program will ever operate with better efficiency than any private one? If you truly think that's the case, I suggest you do some research into how ridiculous our government spending is. Next, yes, what you are saying is true that federal spending does equate to economic activiy under that regard. However, where is that money spent? How much of that money goes overseas? Are you aware also of the fact that the government borrows more money from banks than any private company? You realize, then, that the federal government is the reason that interest rates keep rising. The Federal Reserve Board doesn't adjust interest rates arbitrarily. They do so based on the amounts of money being borrowed verses the amount of money available to borrow. Banks can only lend a certain amount of money. The more money being lent, the higher interest rates will be. Basic economic principle of demand vs. supply. Exactly my point. As Ovedya said, "Teach a man to fish..." But let's not kid ourselves. All the government programs exist for the purpose of p:utting people back on their feet." But how often does that actually work? It's a joke through and through.

http://www.worthychat.com/blog/54 I would ask that everyone check this link out, too. This is to the chat admin blog. Omegaman posted something similar already. Forrestkc, what you are saying makes sense, to a degree. However, what you are neglecting is the fact that these systems place a drain on the overall economy. Any type of social assistance must be funded by private citizens. This can either come through tax money or through charity. Even if we were to neglect that the former is unconstitutional (which has been disregarded by our very own government), it is still fiscally irresponsible and unhealthy. The concept of taxing the rich to give to the poor is tragically misunderstood. The end result is that the wealthy only end up hoarding more of their money. If the "progressive income tax" were dropped altogether, trillions of dollars of lost and wasted revenue would be placed back in to the economy. Don't believe me? Consider this hypothetical... Imagine a CEO of a Fortune 500 company makes $10,000,000 a year. (I'm just making up that figure for its ease of use). With the current tax system, he would pay $2,800,000 in taxes. His net income, then, would be $7,200,000. Let's imagine further, that the CEO goes on to invest some of that money. He earns another $1,000,000. Then he has to pay capital gains tax in addition to the income tax. This means that he's now paying $378,000 more in taxes. Total, he earned $11,000,000. After all the taxes, he earned $7,812,000. That's about $3,188,800 in income that goes nowhere. You can argue that his net income is still plenty, if you wish. But consider that the CEO earned (wasn't given) his income. He had to work hard for that money. Not just in his current job, but in every job he's ever worked up to that point. No one handed him that money for nothing. He had to work very hard for many years to get that far. Naturally, he values his income, so he takes steps to avoid taxes. Let's say he's even a Christian and he tithes 10%. That gives him a $1,100,000 break in taxes immediately. In this case, that money actually gets to put to good use instead of just disappearing into some fat cat's pocket. Further, by claiming his children and wife as dependents, by re-investing some of his money, by claiming his interest on his mortgage, and by sending about $1,500,000 overseas to a bank in the Carribbean, he avoids paying 2/3 of his taxes. He pays, in the end, about $1,100,000 into the waste pool. Now, in the end, he has paid approximately 10% in taxes, instead of the 28% he was originally tasked with. Yes, he has still cleared the same income ($7,812,000) even if he gets around those taxes. But more has to be wasted. He has to hire an accountant to make sure it's all legal. Then an IRS accountant has to do the same thing again. Then the computer at the IRS bounce around his file for a few months, kicking it from desk to desk until it's been reviewed several times. Finally, some IRS accountant notices a small error. It only appears to have been an error in some basic math, but it made a difference of about $50,000 that he paid over what he owed. So the IRS sends him a small (relatively) refund. This may sound simple, but it's far more complex. It costs massive amounts of money. That's just one person. Now imagine all 500 CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies. That's still only a drop in the bucket. If you back it all the way to the point of every person in the US who takes steps to avoid taxes, it becomes hundreds of millions of people, making quadrillions of dollars. An entire economy of IRS and civilian accountants has to exist to keep it all in balance. That's billions of dollars that simply disappear every year. Yes, you could argue that those accountants are making money themselves and are putting it back into the economy, but the sheer amount of waste involved is staggering. The simple end of it all is that taxing the rich to accomodate the poor is too inefficient. Next, I could (but won't) get in to the whole issue of the unconstitutionality of the entire matter. The federal government was never granted the authority to directly tax the citizens. If you can find that one in the Constitution, let me know, because I've never seen it. And remember the 10th amendment. You know, the one that says any authority not specifically given to the government belongs to the citizens. Lastly, there is a still larger issue at play. If you make the lower-class dependent on social care, how are they ever going to leave the lower-class? Isn't the goal of all of this to allow them to get on their own feet? It's not to provide a life-long income for no reason. If they know that when worse comes to worst, they will still have a roof over their heads, food, and health care, courtesy of those who are financially more prudent, they will never stop that cycle. Case in point: consider how many "poor Americans" own TV's. I make a six-figure income and the most expensive TV I own, I paid $50 for to buy used from a co-worker. Another, consider how many of these people own stereos, pay cable bills, have internet access, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, use drugs, etc. Accuse me of stereotyping if you will. I will only reply that stereotypes exist because they are often true. Even if it is only true in 20% of the cases (which is a vast under-estimate), I still don't see how it is my responsibility to accomodate the luxuries of those who don't earn their own income. I didn't always make this much. I just spent some time in the military, where, in my highest-paid year, I made $14,000 before taxes. That's it. Yet I still lived comfortably. I understand the plight of that type of income. I know first-hand how easy it is to get over your head in debt. I had my car break down on me once and it cost me $500. My semi-monthly paycheck at the time was $615. I lost an entire paycheck to poor design of a tie rod on my car. Guess what I had to do to pay for it? Yep, I had to use a credit card. I ended up spending probably over $1,000 to get that $500 repair. It also had a spiraling effect that made me late on my bills that month. That further reduced me to having to put even more on my credit card to get my bills back in order. On it continued, for about 6 months, before I finally was able to level out, with several thousand now in credit debt. All because a tie rod snapped on the front-left tire of my car at an inoppurtune moment. I know how hard that can be. So, I determined that I would get my life in order. I took some risks, stepped out on my own, and ended up getting a job that pays over $100,000 a year. By cutting the fat out of my expenses, I was quickly able to get my life back in order. Even at my current salary, I could very easily wind up in debt. It wouldn't be that hard for me to decide that I want a nicer, newer car for about $50,000. Then, I could buy a house with a $60,000 down-payment. Oops, I just spent more than I earned.

There are street-legal tires that can handle speeds up to 300mph. But, at 400mph, the tires would rip to shreds from the centrifugal force. The biggest problem is that land-speed-record cars have to be very low to the ground to keep from taking flight, too low to drive on normal streets. Not to mention that to get to that speed even in a jet-powered car would take many, many miles of perfectly straight, flat roads with no interruptions

Not any car that could drive on the streets

No, I don't mind. Go right ahead so long as it isn't cheating lol.

That question sounds a bit like a conspiracy theorist dreamt it up. Peaches was sort of taking it in the right direction. However, I think what they want is a bit more toward the liberal side of the equation. It is becoming more and more wide-spread to believe that there are groups of wealthy people on this planet that are trying to make the world stupid. (Think Masons or Illuminati or some other secret society that allegedly exists to keep the average people down). Now, if I were to get a question like that in a school assignment, I would take it in an entirely different direction. I would set about to prove why there is no socioeconomic impact on literacy. Rather, literacy has an impact on socioeconomics. The responses that have been given so far aren't too far off the path. None of them is wrong, per se, but the reason I'm responding is that I feel that question to be biased and spun so hard toward the left that it bothers me. I am saying this knowing nothing about your instructor or the bias of his teaching. It could very well be that he is asking the question hoping that someone will catch its fallacy. Peaches said to consider how something like an increase in taxes could affect the school system. That's pretty much exactly how to answer the question at its face value. Still, that misses much larger socioeconomic realities at play here. I should clarify that I am from the USA so my perspective is narrowed by a familiarity only with the American education system. The state of our schools is far beyond the help of any amount of money. When you have a problematic system, throwing more money into it only creates a larger problematic system. It doesn't fix anything. Now, having said that, I again emphasize that I am coming from an American background. Perhaps in Canada or other countries (I'm not sure where you are from) this is not true. Back to my response to the question. I hold that there is no socioeconomic impact on literacy and rather that the opposite is true. Why? Well, it's really rather simple. Literacy implies education. Education affects values. Values affect both sociological and economic beliefs. To take that the other direction really makes no sense. Not in the real world anyway. One could say that I am over-simplifying the issue. I would argue that the issue is really just that simple. This is the most common error of liberal economists. They like to try to expand every issue to include every possible scenario. It is a disturbing political game that ends with disaster. If you want to see the true end of that direction, look at the USSR. Am I being melodramatic? Hardly. I am a fiscal Libertarian. That means I agree agree with the Libertarian party in terms of economics. As a Christian, I cannot completely agree with the Libertarians because of their moral views. I say this to clarify my perspective since perspective alters reality. It is my strong belief that free markets should be kept free. The implications of this question lead toward restricting the free market. It implies that socioeconomic powers can control education. By extension, it is saying that the wealthy control the masses through education since the wealthy are the greatest socioeconomic powers. However, in any society (even non-democratic societies) the power belongs to the masses when they truly begin to understand that. Case in point: the USSR. In 1917, Lenin led the October Revolution overthrowing the Russian monarchy. The Russian monarchy was infamously cruel and dictatorial. The tsars were known for their arbitrary uses of power to destroy anything that could oppose them. So Lenin was standing on the unfavorable side of the power struggle. But by recruiting enough people to join his side, Lenin was able to overthrow Moscow in a matter of weeks. So, despite the overwhelming disadvantages, the masses overthrew the powerful. But we all know the final outcome of that experiment. Now take that principle and apply it to a democratic or republican state. Regardless of any wealth, no one holds power over the masses. That is the simple fact of it. I will allow here that the socioeconomically powerful can make a play here over education. They can gain power and alter the education system to disarm the masses. That is possible on paper. It is not, however, likely since no one man or group of men can control everyone. That is where this question is founded. There is no other way for it to be true than in a circumstance similar to that that I just described. That is why I stated that the question seems to have come from a conspiracy theorist. On a side note, I find it oddly amusing that conspiracy theorists so often miss that it is they who give the alleged power to those that they oppose. The perceived power that they attack is the only power that the allegedly powerful have. In attacking that power and drawing it into the public eye, they are expanding the power that the "powerful" hold. Now, on the other end of the spectrum. Take the British Empire of the 1700s. This is a classic example of the impotence of socioeconomics over education. The British Empire was similarly dicatorial in their control of education. Things like the African slave trade were taught to be acceptable. Yet, it is that very trade which eventually led to the demise of the Empire. Today, we look back at slavery in disgust and wonder how someone could have ever thought it justifiable. But at the time, Africans were simply not believed to be humans. That may be hard to grasp, but that is how it was at the time. It makes the slave trade more understandable in that aspect. If Africans were viewed in the same way we view horses or cattle today, then ownership of one would have the same implications. It wasn't a conspiracy, though. No one was sediciously trying to lower the state of Africans in order to gain control of the world. It was just basic economics. Slaves were cheap labor. Labor was required to grow the produce of plantations. Plantations were the largest and most powerful industry of the time. The British Empire eventually fell victim to its own spoils. By demanding the produce of its plantations at inhibitively low costs, the demand for slaves increased. However, the slave trade began to grow unpopular as people discovered the cruelty and unspeakable horrors of its reality. This, in turn, made things difficult on colonist planters who were trying to sell their goods. The planters then began to fight back. The French got involved because they were the Britain's largest competitor in the slave trade. In both Great Britain and the French Republic, slavery began to lose popularity at exponential rates. But in both cases the ruling class was financed by the slave trade. This created a revolution in France. Britain, in fear of having its own revolution or losing its colonies, began to label abolitionists as revolutionaries. This quelled the debate for a few years. But in the end, it only further exposed the weakness of the ruling class. Eventually, Britain lost its colonies and abolished its own slave trade. Both of these started a domino affect on the British colonies throughout the world that, over the course of the next 150 years, led to the demise of the Empire. In the end, the education of the masses was what affected the socioeconomic policies. Not vice-versa. You can take from this what you will. I am offering the position that eventually education rules over socioencomics in every case. Look at the eventual demise of the USSR, too. Romania revolted due to the reality of what socialism had become (and will always become). After Romania revolted, the USSR lost its perceived influence just like the British Empire did. This, again, started a domino affect throughout that led to the demise of the USSR. There are countless examples throughout history where you find that it is the masses who control the powerful. Socioeconomic policies will always have to bend to education. It only takes one voice to end it all. In the British Empire, it was William Wilberforce who affected the abolishment of the slave trade. One man who went about to educate the masses.

Lol you'll have to out-bid me for it