shoes_untied

Actually I agree with you. I am using the terms here simply as terms of convenience to say that no political party is above abusing the information they have but I would agree that it's hard to pin down a definition of either. At one time, if a person said they were libertarian, I would assume that they have a closer affinity to Republicans than Democrats. However, that is not a safe assumption any more. Some people consider themselves conservatives but it means that they are in favor of big government enforcing conservative values. On the flip side, people who think the government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage (a libertarian view) may have more affinity to Democrats. It's all pretty mixed up today.

While I love to poke holes in conspiracy theories and overblown paranoia as much anyone, I think you are being a bit naive here. There is plenty that can be done unethically from the perspective of public servants without personally identifiable information. It is one thing for a company to use this data to control the information that is delivered to us. However, giving the government data about our health and browsing habits enables the left to do what it loves to do but do it on steroids and that is to threaten the general public with catastrophe if they don't stick with big government. The left already loves to bring people on stage and make it sound like the Republicans want to kill this person by not including providing funding for (fill in the blank) so vote Democrat. The last thing we need them to do is to start buying ads on usatoday.com cnn.com, ... using data to personalize the threats. Have a person that has web browsed on heart conditions, deliver the misleading ad about Republicans wanting to kill research on heart disease and so on... It allows them to abuse power at a whole new level of effectiveness. I should add that the right could equally abuse this type of thing but they are not the center of the discussion here and the fact that both could should cause concern.

Yeah, it was short notice and 50 other world leaders were able to pull it together and move their security detail and make the event. It was just as short notice for them, as well. So the short notice thing is just an excuse. Yeah, right... We would use the images of President Obama at a rally against Islamic terrorism as proof that he is in favor of terrorism??? Let me know when you have an intelligent argument to make.... More empty arguments. It is an epic missed opportunity. The world leaders and their governments knew it was happening and this president knew it was happening. The problem is that it was a show of solidarity against Islamic terrorism and our president can't bring himself to admit that Islamic terrorism exists. For him to show up at the rally would be a tacit admission that Islamic terrorism is real. This has nothing to do with whether or not France is bombing ISIS and our president only started bombing ISIS after intense public outrage at the beheading of Americans. Had it not been for the intense heat of American outrage there would have been no bombing of ISIS. Oh and by the way, the bombings have not been all that successful. Any ground we gain is lost because we don't have boots on the ground to hold our gains. But what do you expect from a bunch of amateurs in the White House??? And here comes the strawman... Since it gets difficult to read embedding responses two or three responses in, I will just briefly respond to some of your comments below which is all I have time for. Regarding how a photo of him at an anti-terrorism rally would get used against him. That is easy to answer and I could go on and on but there is a segment of the population that processes everything through a confirmation bias filter where they indiscriminately take in any information that feeds their existing bias's and swat away anything that might challenge their ideas. Some takes a still frame of Obama walking onto a stage that looks like he is standing there and claims he failed to salute the flag: boom - believed, a hack writes an article implying that Obama was part of student cheering at Columbia University when Reagan was shot when Obama was not yet even a student at Columbia when Reagan was shot: Boom - believed, a marine charges into a school that is indoctrinating kids into Islam even the fact show that it was clearly part of a broader study that included the study of Christianity: boom - believed, and I could go on and on. Sites like tpnn.com make their living feeding this group what they want to here. No it is not hard at all to see the France situation spun a half dozen different ways regardless of whether he went or not because this gullible group will believe virtually anything anti-Obama. None of that makes any case for why a picture of Obama in France in that rally wold be spun against him. That is just pure hokum. But since you couldn't refute the substance of what I said, I can see why you would raise such a non-issue. It was made by one poster, I think and was not the genuine consensus of the thread. You were not responding to any particular poster and that's why your comment was a strawman. It attributes a claim to the rest of us that we never articulated or intended. Put simply, the image in question could easily be used out of context in the future and the same group that believe anything and get new legs with a whole new spin. At one time I would have said they could wait a year and reuse but this epic moment is already completely forgotten by the media and far from the minds of the average person that tpnn and the like probably only needs to wait a month or two before it uses it for a whole new spin. My last post on this issue since it is already so forgotten that people will be annoyed to see it brought up again.

When you add the amount of oil on the global market we have added with our sands and fracking oil the price has to go down. Speculation is why oil is at the price it was a year ago. I think it has more to stopping our fracking than it does messing with the Russians. I they keep up their production the price will drop...... if it drops too much, we won't be able to afford to do fracking. The only way to keep the price at three dollars is to control what's available on the market.... Completing the pipeline will just aggravate the price problem. I would hope that if they try and raise taxes now, there would be a price to pay that government would not want to pay. It looks like you both live in oil country and probably know more about it than I but I think there is truth in what both of you are saying. It is an oversupply but it also would not surprise me if there is a strategic aspect of this. This is got to be killing Russia which I'm sure a number of world leaders love.

Yeah, it was short notice and 50 other world leaders were able to pull it together and move their security detail and make the event. It was just as short notice for them, as well. So the short notice thing is just an excuse. Yeah, right... We would use the images of President Obama at a rally against Islamic terrorism as proof that he is in favor of terrorism??? Let me know when you have an intelligent argument to make.... More empty arguments. It is an epic missed opportunity. The world leaders and their governments knew it was happening and this president knew it was happening. The problem is that it was a show of solidarity against Islamic terrorism and our president can't bring himself to admit that Islamic terrorism exists. For him to show up at the rally would be a tacit admission that Islamic terrorism is real. This has nothing to do with whether or not France is bombing ISIS and our president only started bombing ISIS after intense public outrage at the beheading of Americans. Had it not been for the intense heat of American outrage there would have been no bombing of ISIS. Oh and by the way, the bombings have not been all that successful. Any ground we gain is lost because we don't have boots on the ground to hold our gains. But what do you expect from a bunch of amateurs in the White House??? And here comes the strawman... Since it gets difficult to read embedding responses two or three responses in, I will just briefly respond to some of your comments below which is all I have time for. Regarding how a photo of him at an anti-terrorism rally would get used against him. That is easy to answer and I could go on and on but there is a segment of the population that processes everything through a confirmation bias filter where they indiscriminately take in any information that feeds their existing bias's and swat away anything that might challenge their ideas. Some takes a still frame of Obama walking onto a stage that looks like he is standing there and claims he failed to salute the flag: boom - believed, a hack writes an article implying that Obama was part of student cheering at Columbia University when Reagan was shot when Obama was not yet even a student at Columbia when Reagan was shot: Boom - believed, a marine charges into a school that is indoctrinating kids into Islam even the fact show that it was clearly part of a broader study that included the study of Christianity: boom - believed, and I could go on and on. Sites like tpnn.com make their living feeding this group what they want to here. No it is not hard at all to see the France situation spun a half dozen different ways regardless of whether he went or not because this gullible group will believe virtually anything anti-Obama. Regarding the comment about bringing on the straw man arguments. I was referring to claims made by posters in this thread. If you feel those are straw man claims, feel free to take that up with them since you didn't when they were originally posted.

That is actually largely my bad. I posted a reference to an CNN article about who's in and who's not in the US lead airstrikes against ISIS in Syria which does not apply to Iraq and so was misleading.

This whole issue is mostly a product of the information age. A rally is pulled together on short notice and great political photo ops arise from it. Suddenly Obama isn't appearing in photo's with a terrorist head of state and his haters say it's a disgrace, never mind that the same people would happily use such images in a different context to show that he is in fact in favor of terrorism. These are also critics who had no idea in the first place that the rally was happening yet now it is an epic missed opportunity. France admits it was pulled together on short notice, there are no heads of states from any of the Americas at the rally. The U.S. is leading the coalition of airstrikes against ISIS, something the Obama administration initiated. France isn't a part of this coalition at all. France says they are not at all offended. The Obama administration admits they should have had a high ranking official. Conclusion: Obama is in favor of terrorism and is a Muslim. Time to have a bowl of Cocoa Puffs and head to work. Have a great day everybody.

Thank you NCN but if military participation in the war against terror is the judge then compared to other countries, the U.S. and Obama has nothing to apologize for. Take a look at the who's in and who's out list in the response to ISIS barbarianism. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/world/meast/syria-airstrikes-countries-involved/

OK, maybe I’m just feeling ornery today and since I voted for Bush twice, then McCain, and then Romney there isn’t any reason I shouldn’t take a nice easy ride on the “against everything Obama regardless” train. Trying to remember the European leaders that made an appearance her in the US after we lost almost 3000 citizens in the 911 attacks to show their solidarity against terrorism and seem to be drawing a blank. I know the 19 members of NATO issued a formal statement of solidarity but I don’t really recall feeling the love of the world afterwards. I was in Europe about 7 months after the attacks and while it is not fair to all Europeans to cast a broad net, the general attitude was that we should not have been surprised and that it was largely the culmination of us being international interventionist bullies. I know there are some moderators here from Europe so feel free to correct me although Great Brittan was probably the most supportive of western European countries. One of our biggest critics was France. Remember we were all going to start using the term “freedom fries” instead of “French fries?” I’m sure if the President could take a mulligan (using golf terms he would be familiar with) he would send representatives. However, I didn’t hear anyone in advance calling for the President to go or send a representative. In fact, if he had gone, it would not surprise me at all to see the whole slate of predictable pundits spinning this as just more evidence of Obama caring more about Europeans than he does Americans and all the tpnn.com like sites would be posting spin about how Obama barely interrupted his daily state legislative/lawyer life when we were bombed. We would also likely be seeing song and dance about France’s arrogance in thinking this terrorist attack As far as our respect in the world is concerned, based on two trips to Europe during the Bush administration, it would be hard to convince me that Obama is held in lower esteem than Bush ever has been. Even if Europeans are upset that Obama did not show it would be used as evidence of France’s arrogance (an opinion I would be sympathetic to) thinking this loss was more important in the world than the widespread violence on a much larger scale in other places like Nigeria and the middle east. Funny how, with the same crowd, Obama is usually the preferred enemy in just about any situation.

I would agree that relinquishing control of health care is a very slippery slope and one that we need to be seriously concerned about as Christians. As far as the motive is concerned. Obama doesn't seem to me the type to be overly consumed with controlling our lives. In some ways he is more libertarian than many in the right wing. I think he just has a vastly larger trust in what big government can do for us than conservatives have and either doesn't have a good understanding of unintended consequences that result from big government or he is just a run of the mill politician who realizes those consequences will come back to haunt future politicians.

Like I said, this is how tyranny always begins. It starts banning things on the grounds that this is for our protection, when the real motive is control. Your little list isn't the same as what we are talking about here. It is one thing to make sure that drugs do what they claim to do, food is safe to eat and free of poisons, and that ingredients are correctly represented and that what is on the label is what is in the can. But this government is trying to control what you eat, what you can drink and how much, what your kids eat, what you can drive, and so on. This ban on trans fats is just another example of that. I actually don't have a problem with you fighting the elimination of trans fats but what is being purported in the quasi news article is that that sprinkles are being banned which is frankly a lie being used just create click bait targeted at people so eager to hear something that feeds their conspiracy bias that they will believe it unquestioningly and then pass it on. The information is in more reputable news sites, but they have side adds that promote questionable things so that I can't link to them here. This was the only article that I could link to without violating the TOS. But the story is carried by many news sites that are better. It's not a lie. I don't care about the sprinkles. I don't eat the sprinkles generally. It's the principle that I am concerned with. It is the constant need this administration has to control what we buy and consume. If trans fat is no big deal one way or the other there is no reason to ban it, other than to exercise control. This is futile but it is, in fact, a lie to say the government is banning donut sprinkles in the same way it would be a lie to say that when the government banned leaded gasoline that it was banning automobiles. Regarding whether you care about sprinkles or not; fair enough and I don't really car about sprinkles either as I am more of an apple fritter man but you started this thread and created the title "US Government Banning Donut Sprinkles".

Those are all legitimate questions and so thanks for posing them in a straightforward manner rather than starting a thread with a title like "Should Government Ban Sugar Free Breath Mints" or something silly like that.

Like I said, this is how tyranny always begins. It starts banning things on the grounds that this is for our protection, when the real motive is control. Your little list isn't the same as what we are talking about here. It is one thing to make sure that drugs do what they claim to do, food is safe to eat and free of poisons, and that ingredients are correctly represented and that what is on the label is what is in the can. But this government is trying to control what you eat, what you can drink and how much, what your kids eat, what you can drive, and so on. This ban on trans fats is just another example of that. I actually don't have a problem with you fighting the elimination of trans fats but what is being purported in the quasi news article is that that sprinkles are being banned which is frankly a lie being used just create click bait targeted at people so eager to hear something that feeds their conspiracy bias that they will believe it unquestioningly and then pass it on. The reality is that trans fats do nothing for the enjoyment of the food you eat and while it does occur naturally in small amounts in some foods, it is nothing more than a manufactured preservative that allows bakeries to store baking materials or frozen baked goods longer. If the sprinkles issues is of particular concern to you, fear not, they will still exist. They will just have to be fresher when you consume them. Whether this is over reaching or not is a fair question but since I live in the land of opportunity and would rather devote my time taking advantage of that, I would prefer not to have to have to become an expert at what is being added to my food in order to make it store longer. Because of this, I'm glad that agencies like the FDA exists. However, I do like the idea of keeping agencies like this in check which is why I object to a silly re-framing of the discussion as is happening in articles like this. I don't want to waste my time on nonsense that doesn't keep me properly informed.

The FDA is seeking to ban trans fats that are used to prolong the life in a number of baked goods. This includes sprinkles. Therefore, if you run a website that depends on throwing out click bait on a daily basis by feeding people's existing biases, you spin this as they are banning sprinkles. In reality sprinkles will continue as always but just won't contain this type of trans fat...but who would click on a headline like "FDA Bans Trans Fats that Shorten Shelf LIfe of Some Baked Goods and Ingredients". So yeah, kind of Russia like that you can't really trust what you read in the media. As far as the FDA goes, here's a long list of FDA milestones spanning virtually every President in the last 100+ years. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/Milestones/ucm128305.htm

HI and thanks for the time you invested in sharing these thoughts. As a Christian who believes in an old earth, I can tell you there is no reason to be saddened by it. I did not come to the belief to try to accommodate unbelievers. I came to the belief because I believe in God's infinite powers that expand well beyond our human mind's ability to comprehend, much less put in written form using our finite language. Therefore, I start from the standpoint God is giving us a narrative that very metaphorical including things like God breathing into Adam the breadth of life representing the Holy Spirit. It is a much more meaningful and likely understanding of Genesis in my opinion. I don't mean this to be harsh to creation literalists but I actually think it's a bit of an idolatry of human intellect to think that God can't do anything that can't be described in the human narrative. Same thing for God's death and resurrection. I don't have any expectation that I will ever be able to understand how he did it and that doesn't change my belief at all in the resurrection.

Which part? This sentence: "Instead, they simply will exist no more, and memory of them will have perished."

Get a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, and look up the word 'hell' per its usage in the KJV Bible. It is one of three Greek words in the NT manuscripts, each with a different meaning. So it depends on which Greek word and the context where it's given. In some places with our Lord Jesus speaking, the word "hell" is a transliteration 'geena' from the Hebrew 'valley of Hinnom', a perpetual burning garbage pit outside the walls of Jerusalem. Jesus used Hinnom as a 'symbol' for the "lake of fire". Does not mean Hinnom is the "lake of fire", but only a symbol used for it. In other NT Scripture, hell is the Greek word 'haides', the word pagan Greeks used for their idea of the underworld, the world they believed one goes to after flesh death. In another case, it is 'tartaroo', also an idea from the pagan Greeks about the lowest abode of the underworld where the angels in chains are. I personally do not interpret the "lake of fire" of Rev.20 being about an everlasting burning, but an everlasting destruction. The Psalms says the wicked will be consumed away, like be no more. Ezekiel 28:18 points to Satan being turned to ashes upon the earth in the sight of men. Thus I do not believe in God's Eternity we will looking down in the pit to see people perpetually burning. Instead, they simply will exist no more, and memory of them will have perished. This is a good synopsis. I don't believe it will be an eternal flame either but will simply be eternity without common grace, which will not be a pretty picture. People will quickly realize the role that God's grace was playing in their lives. However, I don't quite understand what you mean in your last sentence and where you are taking that from. Please explain.

I would vote for someone who is not a Christian but who upholds Judeo-Christian values. I voted for Romney even though it is hard for me to believe that people still believe the story of Mormanism in this day and age. I think that many politicians align themselves with Christianity for political purposes but probably don't have a real deep faith. However, in the reformed church tradition, following people like Abraham Kuyper, getting involved in things like politics is considered important so that does drive a number of people of faith to politics.

They are continuing because of people like sharpton who incite things that give sharpton and his ilk power. Al Sharpton has little to nothing to do with most of these protests. Most people protesting would be hard pressed to site the last time they have even heard Al Sharpton speak. These protests are occurring because the masses want to live in a world where black lives are valued and not dismissed, who's lives are put on trial when they are killed by a white person, and are considered guilty until proven innocent.

You are absolutely right. Mathematically it just makes sense. If you assume that 100% of the protesters are supportive, then you add in those who don't protest for a variety of reasons but are glad it's happening, and thirdly add in those who are in quiet agreement, you will have a larger pool than what is publicly recognized.

That isn't a very good comparison. McSpadden is exploiting this entire thing to profit from her son's death. She had people attack and beat up Brown's Grandmother to get money off of T-shirts memorializing Michael Brown. That's thuggish, any way you slice it. You are missing the point on two levels. My fact point is that you were spreading falsehoods about his upbringing. I disagree. His mother and father didn't care about him until they could make money off of him. If they attempt to sue Wilson or file a civil suit, not only will they lose but they open themselves up to countersuits. This isn't about whose parents are better. It is about the fact that Wilson's mom didn't commit assault. Brown's parents are thugs and are typical of what is wrong with the African American culture in this country. I am not basing anything on how a person looks. You keep trying play the race card and I am not biting on that. I have a busy work day ahead so won't be posting further but this whole thread is one big one-sided bonfire of the race card that basically goes unchecked. I show up and challenge what is being said and it's introducing the race card? Is challenging flat out false statements playing a race card? You play the race card in the very sentence preceding accusing me of it. This is nuts.

That isn't a very good comparison. McSpadden is exploiting this entire thing to profit from her son's death. She had people attack and beat up Brown's Grandmother to get money off of T-shirts memorializing Michael Brown. That's thuggish, any way you slice it. You are missing the point on two levels. My fact point is that you were spreading falsehoods about his upbringing. The bigger point I was trying to illustrate is how completely ridiculous it is to try the parents as part of this thing. However, I will play along and concede your point that they are not comparable. Darrin Wilson's mom was convicted of hard crimes. Michael Browns mom is, per the rumor mill which based on the falsehoods I see thrown around here is highly suspect, is just under investigation and is being subject to people, many of whom seem to be Christians here, that think they can look at her and know what is on her heart and what her core motives are. Sorry, I don't know that from looking at a person. Haven't developed that skill yet.

and yet you seem to have no problem trying and convicting without a trial, the cop who shot someone who has just assaulted both him and another man, based solely on the fact that the cop's skin is white. we aren't talking about brown's mother's whole life. we're talking about her current life choices and actions. she is under investigation for having committed robbery and assault, just as her son was doing just before his death. we're talking about her choice to live with a man who is allegedly a known gang member. and none of that has to do with their skin color. it has to do with their attitude towards life, towards society, towards God and towards the law. since the cop wasn't committing any crimes, and was in fact holding up the law, and since a GRAND JURY evaluated three months worth of testimony and evidence and decided there was not enough to take it to trial, why would anyone care what his mother did ten or twenty years earlier? again, we're not talking about brown's mother's ancient history. we're talking about her choices in very recent history. wilson is 28. whatever choices his mother made, good or bad, he has not let it hinder who he was. he took responsibility for his actions as an adult, probably went to college, definitely went through months of training at the police academy, and was several years into an unblemished career as a police officer. brown was 18. whatever choices HIS mother made, including shacking up with a criminal gang member, and including being a person prone to violence and disrespect for the property of others, not to mention a lack of regard for the law, seems to have a direct reflection in her son's own actions in his last moments. but you're right. we shouldn't consider his mother's actions. because michael brown was 18. he was a grown man, fully adult, and fully responsible for his own actions. and he alone chose to rob a store, beat up a store clerk and a cop, and try to steal a gun. so i agree, we shouldn't muddy the water with his mother's lifestyle. too many would-be felons have gotten off the hook in trials by blaming their upbringing as their excuse to commit crimes. i'll try to remember not to give him that scapegoat again. you talk about the facts of this case being unsubstantiated and from right wing blog sites. and yet the TRUTH of the matter is that the FACTS of this case were determined by a grand jury, under enormous pressure to indict, who spent three months carefully evaluating testimony and evidence from witnesses, forensic experts, medical experts, autopsy reports and who knows what else. it's your own personal bias that keeps accusing the decision as unsubstantiated. there was no bias in the courtroom. there was evidence. and testimony. and no matter how badly that hurts, there was simply not enough evidence against the cop to even take to trial. ya know, it doesn't take much evidence at all to get an indictment. for a grand jury to return without one means quite simply that the case was so flimsy it would have been laughable to take to trial. it really is as simple as that. It would take all night to respond to everything wrong in this post and I really shouldn't respond to any of it because it's not really even based on anything I said. Can you show me where I am trying and convicting Darren Wilson because I'm drawing a blank. Can you show me where I'm claiming the facts in the case are unsubstantiated because I'm drawing a blank on that too? I do remember saying specifically that he was raised by his grand mother were unsubstantiated and that is because the statement is untrue and I did point out that the sources that Shiloh used to substantiate the statement had no bearing on what whether or not he was raised by his grandmother. The reason I made those statements is because they were true. If you would like to defend the falsehood that he was raised by only by his grandmother then be my guest and show me the facts. You won't because he wasn't. Sorry.

Not surprising, and you probably already know this but none of the links you make any argument what-so-ever that he was raised by his grandmother. The reason why they do not is because it is not true. He did not have both parents in the house for part of his upbringing but it wasn't until his mother moved while he was in high school that they made the decision to have him stay with his grandmother in order to not have to switch high schools. The three links you provided aren't even news articles, the only remotely reliable source is the fox news one but it is a brief op ed and all three are mostly just a bunch of ad hominem attacks.