Uncertain

The thing about Hosea is that he married Gomer knowing what she was, she didn't suddenly change in the middle of the marriage. The person I loved and married was not the person I divorced, and it seems the case might be the same for you. Everything that I loved about her went away or changed so drastically it was essentially a new person. I didn't love her because of what she gave me, but because of who she was. Once she was no longer that person, the love went away.

Other one, I agree with you except for the last part, the very nature of negotiations make keeping the nation informed both near impossible and just a bad idea. Negotiations are so fluid that the information would always be changing, one week it would be reported we are trying for A B and C then the next week it would be B D and F. Then a good portion of the population would accuse them of lying depending on the politics of it. Also not all the players might want the information public so you are doing them a disservice. Some things just don't need to be public till they are done.

There is no intelligence requirement for being a governor of a state, all that is required is to talk people into voting for you. By what measures was she successful? She didn't even serve her whole term.

I am not sure the love is based solely on what you get in return, but that does play a part, especially when the return is evil and vindictive behavior. After your wife does not come home for 36 hours and then finally calls you to tell you she is leaving, followed by lies and worse during the divorce hearings that almost cost you your employment and does cost you more than half your personal wealth, then talk to me about selfishness and Hosea. The person I loved was not the person I divorced, she had the same body but was not the same person.

Not sure, maybe, no. I don't believe that love is unconditional, I loved my first wife, but when she left me and got pregnant with another man's baby and said and did very mean and evil things to me, I stopped loving her. from a human perspective allowing people to suffer eternally in hell is not an act of love.

Actually, that isn't correct. The courts are bound to uphold Constitutional law....not to make laws. Activist judges have been bending things but it's our fault, we the people, for allowing them to get away with that. In my experience an activist judge is one that makes decisions you don't like, nothing more. In the case at hand I see nothing in the Constitution that would preclude a person being fired for what they said, Shiloh357 on the other hand does. So who other than the courts would decide such a thing? This is the sort of thing the courts exist for.

I understand your opinion is that it is wrong, but those of us who choose to live in the real world knows it is the reality of the world we live in. I have provided 3 cases, which is exactly 3 more than you have.

In the real world all that matters is what the court say, everything else is just opinion, opinion that changes nothing. Speech comes with consequences, you may not like it or agree with it...but it is a fact of life.

Let me preface this by saying I think that Obama is an unmitigated disaster of a president and he was and is unqualified to run our great country. But if you really believe he thinks there are 57 states then there is no hope for you. Everyone mispeaks, and when your every word is recorded those become fodder for the rabid. Obama is a great many things, unintelligent is not one of them. Even if he graduated with a C average, doing so from Columbia and Harvard is a far better achievement than the community colleges that Palin went to. I understand the rabid right love Palin, that is why she was chosen to be VP. But she just is not the brightest bulb on the tree. She does not just mispeak, she is just lacking in general intelligence and basic knowledge. This has not really changed based upon what I have seen of her since the election. She is a pretty face that can whip up a crowd, and that is a deep as it goes for her.

My assessment of Plain is 100% accurate, you are clouded by you rabid base point of view. She is by no one's imagination smarter than Obama, or 60% of the population for that matter. A bachelor's is communication received after going to 5 colleges in 5 years does not stack up to Columbia and Harvard. Part of her problem is due to her upbringing she lacks the basic knowledge base that many people have. She was 3 months removed from being vice president but was not even qualified to give an interview, yet you claim she was qualified to be the president of the United States? The two don't go together. If one is incapable of giving an interview they are even less capable to the the vice president, a heartbeat away from being president. She is a nice lady, meet her at a fund raiser and spoke to her for a couple minutes, even in that short time you could tell there was just something missing.

Well, I didn't say that intangible assets are not factored in. However, to reassess your conclusion that a company is only valued at its asset value when it is going to be liquidated, perhaps you can explain why companies keep an inventory that is conveniently required each quarter? You see, the problem here is that for the last decade or so, the very people who installed this new form of economics just so happen to be in charge of teaching economics at institutions of higher learning. What they teach now is simply there to support their flawed system. The world has changed, the economic theories I leaned in school 20 years ago are not really valid anymore. What is "value" and it is determined has changed. Companies keep inventory that is counted each quarter because of old, outdated ideas.

The racism card would have worked just as well as a sexism card, which could have been followed by the racism card. But now Hillary is too old and too damaged to be useful. Obama was always part of the plan, they just had to adjust their time table. As for McCain and Palin, she was an embarrassingly bad choice, so bad that it almost had to be by design. What Palin did was ensure the moderates voted for Obama, she appealed to nobody but the rabid base, and they were going to vote for the R regardless. The very fact that she was not ready for a softball game of an interview with the likes of Couric should tell you all that you need to know about her. But she was about as qualified to be vice president as my cat Riley is. I am sure she is a very nice person, but if you prepped her for 20 years she would not have been ready for international politics, she just didn't have the aptitude or basic intelligence for it.

The outcome cannot be controlled perfectly, but events and people can be manipulated to bring about the desired effect. This is what happens. A two party system in which each party has a group of staunchly loyal voters based upon one or two social issues is very easy to manipulate. When you can count on votes no matter what you do as long as you say the right thing about abortion not marriage, that leaves a very small group you have to actually put effort into. But it is not an infallible system, I believe that Obama actually was not the chosen one and that he beat Clinton despite their best efforts. Obama turn was not supposed to be in 2008. That is why they had to pick a running mate for McCain that was sure to cost him the election. Add in a third or fourth choice for people and it gets much harder to manipulate and get the desired outcome. The Republicans do control the Supreme Court, 5 of the 9 were put there by the Republicans, yet nothing you think would happen has. I am sure you have a good reason why.

you cannot know what would have happened, all you have to go on is what you are told by the party, the same party that has done nothing to slow abortion on the national level. Despite 3 decades of breaking promise after promise you still trust them. That makes no sense. GWBush was small government conservative till he got to the White House, then he was anything but. He lead the way to ObamaCare with his Drug Plan. As to who's bidding you are doing, it is those that control both the parties and that is the same group. You are given the illusion of choice every two years to keep you in line while in reality you are not really getting a choice. Do you think it is just an accident that every opponent of a incumbent president since Clinton has been incredibly weak and never had a chance to win? This is by design, not accident. Everything you said about a 3rd party is correct, and each and every year you make sure that it is correct. It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. It is also the definition of our political system. And you are a happy contributor to the problem.

So, you know based on the actual numbers that abortion does not change much no matter which party holds power, and you admit the debate, thus the procedure, is never going to end. Yet you still use this issue as the basis of your votes. And people wonder why nothing ever changes. Has it ever occurred to you that you are doing exactly what they want you to do? A divided people are easy to control.

There are genetic tests to show if she's got any person of color in her linage. I have a friend who did the full test and found that his genetic make up is about 2% Neanderthal. His wife has a lot of fun with that part LoL She refuses to take the test. If they can tell about neanderthal genes in the dna test, now I want one lol. I can see neanderthal traits in me lol. There is no genetic test to determine race as there is no genetic difference. These supposed race test do nothing more than compare 1000th of such test with a sketchy algorithm and try and pin point a basic geographic location.

Or it could be that on a national level that nobody is pro-life except in name only. That once they make it to the national level power, votes and the party apparatuses override any personal feelings on the subject. From a party standpoint the abortion debate is the number one issue to assure yourself of votes from a particular group, and if that debate ever went away you have lost votes that you count on to win elections. And Bork was a kook.

On the topic of pro-life vs pro-choice: Since 1975 here are some numbers for you to contemplate. In the years with a pro-life president in the white house the average number of abortions per 1000 live births was 364.9 and 24.39 per 1000 people. In the years with a pro-choice president in the white house the average number of abortions per 1000 live births was 339.9 and 23.22 per 1000 people.

To deal with the current system of overspending, you have to vote people in that won't overspend. This will take two things that most are not willing to do. First you have to be willing to sacrifice a couple election cycles to get a viable 3rd party as it has been shown neither of the current parties will cut spending. They talk a good game but it is all a lie. Second you have to quit voting based on social wedge issues. If you want to improve the fiscal health of the country, focus on that at the voting booth. Right now a person with small government ideas and the best fiscal ideas would lose anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of conservative votes if he was in favor of same set marriage. When votes are based on social and not fiscal issues you get what we have now.

My first post was in response to your link, I made no suggestions as to why, just pointed out that if your link was correct then he could expect no help from FCA. Bottom line is we don't know why he was let go. If you tend to believe religion is under fire in the US you will be apt to believe his story.

If you ever get pulled over for speeding, try telling the cop "other people were speeding too" and see how that works for you. Should also be noted all we have is this guy's word for it as far as why he was let go.

http://www.wrbl.com/story/28935908/principal-fired-for-leading-prayer-meeting This article quotes the FCA handbook, "Faculty can only be involved to monitor, facilitate or supervise. " What he did went well beyond any of those. He should have known better.

The bad news is that he broke the FCA rules by doing what he did so he won't likely get support from the national organization.

For most of the modern world this seems a step backwards, not progress. I guess I can see how it would be good in 3rd world countries. As for commerce over the Net, there is no safer way to do things outside of handing cash, which has its own issues also. I not only earn my living over the Net, I also have not paid a bill any other way for a number of years. People dont think twice about handing a credit card to a person in a store or diner but they are worried about the Net. There are literally trillions of transactions each day done via the internet, the chances of yours being grabbed or even looked are are minuscule. I typically carry about 40 bucks in odd bills on me and it miht be the same for weeks as I never use cash, which is why this new App thing looks so odd.

We have been sharing our faith with each other for a decade, and I know that he has had his chance to change. It just seems inherently unfair of a system. It is NOT unfair; if you presented him with the Truth, for ten years, and he rejects it then you have done all you can do. The choice is his. You don't think that it seems even slightly unfair that the circumstances of one's birth can play a major role in where they spend eternity? No, not unless they live on an island somewhere and have never heard the Gospel. I'm sure God has his own plan for those people. But your friend lives in the U.S. (obviously) and has had you witnessing to him for ten years. It's not unfair that he will go to hell because he rejects the Lord and, remember, WE don't get to make that call. Calling God unfair or unjust is REALLY not a good idea. thanks to everyone for all the replies, there are too many to respond to them all so I will try to address some of them with this post. First, I think that people are fooling themselves about the number of Christians in places like Iran. In Iran less than 1% of the population is Christian, and that is even taking a very open minded count assuming that there are large numbers in hiding. My friend had never heard the Gospel prior to coming to the US. He knew of Jesus what he was taught via Islam, so he is starting a tad behind those of us who grew up in Sunday School and going to VBS. I do agree that he has had his chances and it is on him that he has not chosen Jesus, but I still contend that he is starting from a far weaker position than we can grasp. Secondly, lets play quick game of what if....say there are two teenage boys that became friends, Issac who grew up in Church and accepted Jesus at the ripe old age of 11, and there is Ishmael who just moved from Iran and had never even heard of Jesus. Being on fire for Jesus, Issac invites Ishmael to youth group. On the first night the gospel is shared and Ishmael has much to think on as this goes against all that he knows. On the way home there is a tragic car accident and both youth die. One would spend eternity in Heaven and the other would suffer for all eternity in the burning fires of hell. Does this seem fair or just? To me it does not. Finally, I do not think there is anything wrong with having questions or asking God to help you to understand. I am not saying that God is unfair or unjust, but from my perspective, it looks so very unfair. If I do not voice these concerns, how will God help me to overcome them? God does not call us to be mindless drones. I feel that Butero's answer is the most correct, but also the hardest to reconcile.