buckthesystem

This is interesting: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3730640a28,00.html

Now that is a bit disrespectful to liberals, isn't it?

I wouldn't really call this a "breakthrough" of any kind. There are far too many "problems" to be ironed out and (forgive my arrogant assumptions here) I think it be revealed that these "problems" are just not possible to be overcome without some exaggerations or downright hoaxes from the scientists involved. Afterall the article did say "....the survivors suffered problems of the kind also seen with cloning" and "..... though the animals were either too small or too large and they died prematurely".

I'm sure you don't realise what an artificial concept that is. I'm now 50, I've had a DL for 35 years - in those days I didn't have to produce any id to get it. I've voted every election for the last 30 years - I've never had to produce any id to do so. I've operated bank accounts - no id has ever been demanded. I've had about 10 different jobs in my life - again no id was demanded for any of them, despite the fact that a lot of them have been in different towns. Over the last three years I've been faced with demands for id all of a sudden (to join a local library of all places, to "register" a car, to operate an existing bank account to name just a few) and in all cases I've "kicked up a fuss", asked questions, written letters to head office etc. and found that "they were just trying it on" and no id was legally required. If I had to have an id card to vote I would no longer vote. Everything I've read about the American SSN tells me that everybody has a resentment that when it was first introduced (in 1935 I think) they were all promised that it would never be used for compulsory id - and at one time it even had "not to be used for identification purposes" stamped on it - and yet now ..... I have to say also that a DL is not an id card, it is a certificate of competency to drive a motor vehicle. I'm curious as to why all of a sudden people seem to think that they need an id card (even after reading horror stories like the one in the link). Why do you feel you need an id card?

Every Bible I've looked at says clearly "thou shalt not KILL". It doesn't say "thou shalt not murder" or "thou shalt not kill, except of course if you are a government employee or you have been taught that you are killing the 'enemy'". It is about time we stopped re-interpreting scripture to mean what we want it to mean. Sure God killed all of humanity except Noah and his family and God indirectly killed and destroyed armies, through other armies. But we have to note that "God" killed, or killed using people as the instrument. It seems that just about every war has been justified by man to himself, with man telling himself "God is on my side, he wants me to do this". But of course, the opposition is doing that too. To "be on the safe side" we should not go around assuming that God sanctions things unless we have a clear word that he does. One day we are all going to face judgement and "but I think the Bible says....." may not be good enough.

Probably one of the best books I've ever read: Body Politic by Glyn J Godwin, published by Barbour. Next there is Craig Parshall's books, the "Chambers of Justice" series. There is: The Resurrection File Custody of the State Accused Missing Witness The Last Judgement (Resurrection File, Custody of the State and the Last Judgement are the best. The other two I thought were kind of mediocre. "Attorney Will Chambers" is the main character and you really have to read them in order to follow his life.) I found "Custody of the State" first on an internet auction site and then came across the others. and realised that I should have started with the Resurrection file". Harvest House is the publisher.

See this: http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1002512006 It never ceases to amaze me that people see things like this and yet continue to insist that id cards are a good idea.

I remember reading ages ago - when "chipping" technology first became a potential possibility - that Alzeimers patients, prisoners - particularly political prisoners, "suspects", babies and young children would be the first to be implanted with these devices. All vulnerable people, and those too weak or too young to be able to fight back. It looks like society has reached that exact state, but governments and companies are also imposing it on employees (who really don't have any choice either as their livelihoods are "on the line"). As the measure of a society is how it treats its weak and vulnerable, well.....

A little bit out of the article: "Eliminate the current legal requirement saying the Justice Department must publish a public "notice of the actual number of communications interceptions" every year. That notice currently also must disclose the "maximum capacity" required to accommodate all of the legally authorized taps that government agencies will "conduct and use simultaneously". Hmm so they want powers, without accountability. I don't see any reason at all why the FBI could not/would not follow this simple, logical, fair procedure.

Of course the government could drop their massive great tax hike on the petrol. That would help the average motorist.

The excuses are getting amazingly flimsy: "To help Sir Alex Fergusson track their movements on the pitch". Yes of course, and it can't possibly be used for anything else. Don't people realise that this is how these things are always introduced and made "acceptable". Some people are absolutely fanatical about soccer and the players. I can imagine kids talking "gee, I can't wait to get a chip just like my hero xxxxx (name of soccer player)". If this goes ahead it will "convert" a lot of people who otherwise would have been totally against "chipping", they might think "well, if sports stars have computer chips embedded in them, they can't be so bad after all". Anyway, here's the story: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...ip_players.html

This seems to be to be advocating that Shari'ah law be introduced in America. I realise that people get absolutely carried away with emotion when it comes to anything like this, but they have to "step aside from that" and realise that advocating state mutilation of offenders (or otherwise) is exactly what Shari'ah law is all about.

Fine if you have control over the TV. Then you can turn off a film where there is an average of eight "f" words every 30 seconds (this seems to be mandatory with a lot of the films made in the last few years, I don't know why they do it, what they're trying to prove). I just don't watch TV at all as there is absolutely nothing on that I want to watch, and I can get better news coverage from the computer or the papers. I work from 4pm to midnight, when the worst of the programming is on, but lately because of the weather we have had no work and this will probably last until after the spawning season so I have been at home and in the evenings, the TV dominates the whole house. I listen to the mindless drivel and swearing while I am trying to concentrate on something else, but there is nothing I can do about it, my kids are adults and I can imagine their reaction if I tried to turn the receiver off. To "reason with them" about the programmes they watch is only inviting antagonism. The only thing I can do is hope and pray that the rest of the family will see that what they are watching is evil. Somehow I don't hold out much hope. One alternative though is the "history channel". They have become interested in this lately and it has some good programmes on - some rubbish too (like an "indepth analysis of the Da Vinci Code) - but usually good programmes about genuine history. And if "there was more filth coming out of the mouths of my workmates", I'd get new workmates.

Giaour, if the following: "Anti-Americanism from abroad would not be such a problem if Americans were united in standing up for their own country. But in this country itself, there are those who blame America for most of the evils in the world. On the political left, many fault the United States for a history of slavery, and for continuing inequality and racism. Even on the right, traditionally the home of patriotism, we hear influential figures say that America has become so decadent that we are "slouching towards Gomorrah." If these critics are right, then America should be destroyed. And who can dispute some of their particulars? This country did have a history of slavery and racism continues to exist. There is much in our culture that is vulgar and decadent. But the critics are wrong about America, because they are missing the big picture. In their indignation over the sins of America, they ignore what is unique and good about American civilization". Is the case, then there are far worse countries, and if America should be destroyed then so should the whole world. Britain has a history of slavery - a system of serfdom, and a history of slave-trading. Afterall, it was British, Spanish and French ships in the main who provided the American land owners with slaves. Compared to the "skeletons in the closets" in history of every European country America's past is "spotless". Just about every European country, at one time or another, felt it had the right to "expel all the jews" from the country - forgetting that "the jews" were its own citizens. America has never done that. Countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden live virtually depraved existances with state sanctions on things such as euthanasia, prostitution, gay-pride, abortion,"alternative" religions and belief systems. America might have those things too, but they are not state sanctioned and rife. Some Americans (and I do stress some) might have "racist" views, but other countries have "ethnic cleansing". There is nowhere in American history where a leader has decided to exterminate an entire race. If America just manages to hang on to its tradition of freedom and individual rights it will have a lot to be proud of. Again: HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!

I absolutely agree with you KatyAnn, this is an excellent post. happy fourth of July and remember the spirit of freedom under God!

The way I see it (this is open to debate though I guess), the quote from Matthew 5.17 refers to the law of God as already laid down, and the basic rules for life (thou shalt not kill, steal etc.). It is logical that Jesus "came to fuflfill them" and practise them. However, in Ephesians 2.14, it refers to the law of man, particularly as it was at the time. The clue is in the words, in 2.15, "by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations". So Jesus was saying "you still have to live a life with morals, the way I have shown you" but do not take notice of the false regulations that man has put in place".

Here's where I think we really are approaching the end. This particular "church" (I believe) "has its roots" in the Anglican church. I believe also (I guess I could be wrong, and somebody please tell me if I am) that they look to the Archbishop of Canterbury as their absolute top leader. Rowan Williams, the Arch. of Cant., is well know for being "sympathetic towards gay clergy" and ordaining at least one (as far as I know) gay man. Of course, the thing here is that The Anglican church is getting further and further away from the true doctrines of Jesus Christ. My sister used to attend an Anglican church and she moved to another one (I think it might be a church-of-Christ though I'm not sure) when they appointed a lesbian minister. The Anglican church itself is getting more and more steeped in political correctness (they call it "inclusiveness" or "tolerance") and in their rush to "cater for different views" they seem to have totally "lost the plot" and not only don't take scripture literally but have given up all the basics like the "one way to God" doctrine. This is all explained away by calling it "celebrating diversity". To sort of make a joke of it I like to compare this thinking to the scene from a comedy programme that used to be on a while ago about catholic priests on an island off Ireland (they were depicted as being Catholic, but I thought they might as well have been Anglican). One of the priests was a young fairly inexperienced priest and in one espisode they had him giving a television interview - the interviewer had thought he was the other priest on the island - and he said "of course I don't believe in any of your loaves and fishes stories or any of that rubbish". The idea was to say that he really didn't know anything about being a priest, but it is all too true of some "churches" today. Could be the start of the "one world religion" or the "new all inclusive religion" or "the false religion" that was prophesied will take over, or try to. However, if I am "totally barking up the wrong tree" and "out of line" will someone please tell me.

Kittylover's list included: taliban intelligence Thank God I'm an Atheist twelve-ounce pound cake Well how about 2 pound pound cake? (Like the one I just made, I don't know what happened, it goes against all the laws of physics).

but thats not an oxymoron though! *keeps comments to self* I think you'll have to change your name to "Blind Seer" (I guess you want your name to be an oxymoron).

Good job. These idiots must realise that they cannot go round putting people under "house arrest" indefinitely, willy nilly, merely on the opinion of someone. They have to either charge them with an offence, then arrange an honest and speedy trial to be held within a reasonable amount of time, and under the full scruntiny of the public and the press, or let them go. Remember that it is taxpayers' money that is paying for this weird situation. "Suspects" are not criminals until they have been found guilty by a fair and impartial court of law. We cannot go around breaching basic human rights. "Derogation by sleight of hand" is absolutely right!

How about "would you like to pay?"

Is America officially a "Christian country"? Maybe it is a good thing that your top politicians are Christians and don't go round forcing un-Christian legislation on everybody. In "power" at the moment we have a PM and minions who are atheists (Helen - the PM in case anyone doesn't know) has stated publicly that she is an "atheist" (and also "strongly believes in a woman's right to choose"). That attitude, unfortunately, colours everything she does. We have rules like "a school student isn't allowed to wear a crucifix at school but "ethnic" students are allowed freely to wear jewelry that symbolises tribalistic religions. Likewise anyone selling "hot X buns" at easter in a school or even just giving them to kids in the school has to take the pastry crosses off them. And so "function creep" continues.

QUOTE(Leonard @ Jun 29 2006, 07:27 AM) MAY????? Who do you think you're kidding? If the barn door needs paint, paint it! This is a brilliant comment. And oh so true. However, I think we have to accept people for what they are. All people. God does. He will see through the layer of make-up and knows exactly what we really look like. Seriously though, make-up is great - it makes women (and a lot of men) look really good. But we must always bear in mind that if we are wearing makeup and dressing "to please" (either ourselves or others) it is going to get harder and harder as we get older. I never wear make up or "dress up" but then I never did. I am not worried about my husband looking at PYTs, if he wants to he can but somehow I don't think he ever would. Someone said (sorry, it is late and I can't be bothered going back to find out who said it) that men want the woman they married (apologies if I got the wording wrong), but how could I look like the woman my husband married - I am 50 now and if I tried to look like a 20 year old I would look ridiculous. Likewise my husband is not the man I married either. All those years ago I married a fit, slender 26 year old and he is now 57 and with a "beer gut" and is balding. I am not saying that we should look "slovenly" either (I'm just thinking of all the money I save by not buying make up and high heeled shoes). Surely that comes into it.

The point is (my point anyway): Why do they want to be recognised by the state? What is so wonderful about an id card? Some of us are going out of our way to avoid this. As I see it you can only be persecuted by a bureaucrat if you are on their list and able to be tracked. The only way to avoid this is to not be "registered".

Yes, I think the EU is definitely the start of an OWG! I think that for the simple fact that it is a "successful" union of states under one controlling body, and that controlling body is basically evil and will probably spawn the antichrist. The EU now exists and has transferred power away from the people and the democratic process to a behind-the-scenes bureaucracy. The EU has meant (in my opinion anyway) the complete collapse of the democratic system, some states on a rapid path towards totalitarianism and the EU is causing Europe to regress to being a "throwback to a pre-democratic age". I must have read the word "neo-feudalism" with regard to the EU more times than I can count. The EU adopting (again a decision that was made without referenda as should have been the case, and something that adds weight to prove the fact that power has been taken away from the people) a common currency. I still can't believe they did that, as that is something I thought would never happen. One of my neighbours just got back from visiting friends in Germany and travelled throughout Europe as well and she came back singing the praises of the "Euro" - "how convenient it was". When the Soviet Union was first created the communist ideal behind it was to destroy nationalism, but this backfired as when the SU collapsed long suppressed nationalism came flooding back. EU states have the most strange, perverted laws possible, and the people seem to be absolutely Godless. The existance of the EU is probably the first step and the next step will be a "false organised religion". I get this theory from the preaching that comes out of Europe all the time of "tolerance" and "inclusiveness".