Ion01

Is black liberation theology racist? "Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants." "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community." "... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love." -James Cone I have never descriminated or oppressed a black person yet I am the "white enemy".

this is not actually racist. It is not saying that whites are superior. It is a generalization which, IF (I am not saying they do but am only posing a hypothetical situation) black people do these things more than whites then it is true. However, if white people do these things more and this same statement were made in the direction of white people would you call it racist or just say the facts support the generalization?

How does turning the other cheek help one to evolve? This concept is completely against evolution. Evolution is survival of the fittest. How can the most fit move forward if they turn the other cheek and are ultimately stiffled in their attempts to be productive and carry on their genes? This even works within the corporate world which is a very cut throat place. If one continually turns the other cheek they may end up poor and un-able to have the same number of kids as the rich cut throat executive thierfore the rich "less evolved" persons genes carry on. This is ultimately why morality cannot be a result of evolution because it is counter to the way evolution works.

If someone stereotypes a group of people that doesn't make them a racist. Racism is to say one race is superior than another. Also, america was not the only country in history to have slaves to have slaves. Here is a study that was done during the freeing of slaves in south africa. Place of origin Number Percent Africa 875 26.65 India 1195 36.40 Indonesia 1033 31.47 Sri Lanka 102 3.10 Malaya 16 0.49 Mauritius 6 0.18 Other and unidentified 56 1.71 Total 3283 100.00 So should africans be paying reperations to indians and asians? Should indians and asians be getting more government money for organizations and schools than black people since black people enslaved them? Obviously not. People also forget that the slaves were bought from black tribes who captured other tribes to africans were selling thier own people into slavery. This is not to bash black people or anything like that but to simply make the point that at some point in history every "race" has been wronged. I am at least enough american indian to get goverment money yet I don't. (I am really more white than american indian.) The reason I don't is because knowone today has done me wrong so why should I be treated differently...or anyone else. We just need to be humans and treated as such. Lets also remember america is a free country and, although it is completely wrong, we have the freedom to discriminate and be racist if that is what we choose to believe. If the goverment is to take away that right then we no longer have the right to choose what to believe....the government must dictate that to us. People can and do discriminate for plenty of other reason other than race such as age, dress, ect. But to generalize isn't necessarily wrong or inaccurate either. One may generalize that most black people believe whites are racists. In actuality to combat this generalization one is actually generalizing that most black people don't believe that whites are racist. Its still a generalizations so it goes both ways. The question should be whether it is an accurate generalization or not. People generalize skydivers as crazy nuts that are adrenaline junkies. To say that we aren't is to make another generalization. Once again the question is whether it is accurate or not. One may have know a skydiver that is an adrenaline junkie does the generalization true? Another may know someone who is not a junkie, does that make the opposite true? No, however, is most of us really are adrenaline junkies then the generalization is accurate. This generalization may not always be accurate though. The sport may change or the culture of the sport may change so that most aren't junkies. The same is true when generalizing any group of people even by color. Every group can be generalized in some way. It is a matter of statistics and those generalization can be positive or negative. Skydivers are beer drinkers. This is a generalization. Is it true? Does that mean that I drink beer? If I don't drink beer does that make the generalization false?

there is a reason that people travel from all over the world to america for medical treatment. Thats because the vast majority of the world has goverment run medicare and it doesn't work near as well as privitized medicare.

What rigs can this be used on? The Skyhook for example can only be fitted on Vector 3, Sigma, Micro Sigma and Javelins.

Ding ding ding! It's not about how many guns there are. It's about culture. An culture can be highly effected by the laws. Such as in the USA we consider it a right to drive but in places like german it is a privalige. They don't have problems with drinking and driving like we do here because they view drinking as a social thing where as many here is the USA use it to escape reality. I am sure this is highly influenced by the fact that here you can have 5 DUI's and still have a legal license (I was hit by a drunk with 5 DUI and a legal license once). Where as in places like germany if you are caught once you loose your license period! Thier fines and such is based upon how much you make so even if your rich breaking the law is still going to hurt. There BMW's don't have cup holders. They often find it unbeleivable that we would even think of drinking a coke or eating while driving. They have strick laws about using cell phones yet we, in spite of all the studies and deaths, see it as a right to talk on the phone while driving. Anyways, I am not trying to get off subject here but use this as an example of how it is the laws that determine not only culture but violence. If you are caught stealing here you just give it back and spend a night or two in jail. Big deal, especially if you have nothing so you get clean clothes, cable TV, food, bed, etc. People who break the law do so by taking away the rights of others, sometimes the right to live, yet we have prisoners rights. And if you have enough money you can murder someone and if you even get convicted you can spend only a few years in prison for behaving good (the way you should be behaving anyways!) On top of that if you attempted to murder someone but fail because you were either to stupid in your execution of your plan or they just happened to not bleed to death after you slit thier throat twice because you suck at cutting or the knife was so dull you get tried for attempted murder....not murder. So because you suck or are stupid you get off with a lesser sentense just because you weren't successful...even though you fully planned to kill them you just didn't succeed in your plan. Really? Anyways, I think what should be discussed is the laws and justice system, how strick are the prisons? how strick are the laws? (not gun ownership laws but things like murder and such) how strickly are they enforced? How does the court system work. This is where the true correlations can be found. PS. One must also be careful in regards to statistic because statistics show that certain cities may have low pot usage whereas you can walk down the street and see people smoking and a cop may walk by them and do nothing. This statistic is arrived at by looking at the number of arrests for pot. Well, if the cops don't arrest people for pot becuase they feel they have more important things to deal with then that effects the statistic ultimately making it inaccurate whereas another city may show high usage but thats because they have a huge drug force that arrests any and everyone they can find using pot....so the reality is actually the opposite of the statistic. Not all statistics are like this but some are. You must look at how it was actually gathered.

Its called the venturi effect. The vaccum that forms behind your back...well it forms over the cup and will suck the liquid out.

although I agree with the let them fail part the EV1 was not so tried, true, and kick ass. The lease price for the vehicle was equal to leasing a 30-40 thousand dollar vehicle. The actual cost of the vehicle, when accounting for overhead costs, was around 80 thousand. It also had traditional acid batteries which are a huge risk in accidents and don't last every long before needing to be replaced as compared to the life of a vehicle. The real damage it did to GM was their image.

This is so addicting it is wrong. I got 17.9 now. make that 22.7!!! Okay I am really done this time....

I got 14.2 running like a crab

I can help you here. They are hypocritical bigots that are incapable of actually following the tenet of JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED. Basically think of them as control freaks that want to look into everyones bedroom window.. and get their jollies that way. DO AS THEY SAY... certainly not as they do Really??? Although many in the religious world are hypocrits to catagorize everyone as such is rediculous! Have you ever read matthew 7? 1"(A)Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and (B)by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you (C)look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4"(D)Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. 6"(E)Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. He is talking about hypocritical judgement. The speck was still removed from the brothers eye but after the plank was removed first. If the speck is to be removed then judgement must take place but you must not do it in a hypocritical manner. If you are going to quote the bible please do it correctly. And if the rest of you who are not religious are so non-judgemental then why are you so judgemental in all your posts here? The above quote is a great example of not only judging but the hypocritical judgement that was really spoken about in that he didn't know what the bible really says.

Lie. Lie. Lie. Hilarious lie. Nonsense article attacking a barely recognisable, distorted strawman of evolutionary theory. Believe me, the ignorance here goes in only one direction. Fixed it. They're supposedly all lies yet you provide no evidence that they are.....I don't have that kind of faith to accept anything without evidence.

The real issue regarding gay marriage is that it is a fight against christianity and nothing more. A civil union or any other legal bindings are not good enough for the gay community....they want the instituation of marriage which is a religious binding which is to take place before God. The gay community is not satisfied to make thier own choices but wants everyone to say that it is acceptable. This is the reason churchs have been SUED for preaching that it is wrong to be gay. What happened to the freedom of speach? Why can't people decide for themselves what they think about being gay? Why must the religious community be forced to accept anything when it is a religious right to do what they want just as it is the individuals right to do what they want. Why do people not want gay marriage and say it will lead to other things.....because it is a fight to breakdown and destroy religion....it is a fight to remove the ideas of right and wrong.....and if evolution is true there is no right or wrong but only survival of the fittest....so even from an evolutionary standpoint this is a fight to survive for religion not the gay community. The goverment hasn't made a law against being gay and you can have the same legal rights under contracts and unions but they want the religious instituation of marriage. If you want the actual stance of the "religious community" and the philosphical implication of gay marriage here are some links. Please don't be so narrow minded and ignorant as to catagorize all religious viewpoints as idiotic or terrorists and such. Please educate yourself first to both sides before making such judgements. http://www.apologetics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=260:whats-wrong-with-gay-marriage&catid=36:cultural-apologetics&Itemid=54 http://www.apologetics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145:same-sex-marriage-challenges-and-responses&catid=36:cultural-apologetics&Itemid=54 Finally, please remember that numerous studies have be done in which gays were given proper counciling and as a result have become heterosexual to the point of heterosexual marriage. The point being is that it is a choice one makes and that decision is made as a result of psychological influences.

Politics is all about performance and in this area Oboma performed incredibly. He gave the people what they wanted to hear without really saying anything or really addressing the issue and kept himself a mystery. People put there "hope" in a man who they don't know where he stands on the issue and how he truely plans to fix the problems of this nation.....oh I mean how he plans to "make a nation" as he said in his speech. www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE

I agree, this is ultimately why I do not believe in the big bang or evolution. When someone follows actual science such ideas cannot stand. The big bang must rely on such things as dark matter, dark energy, and even dark inertia because the models don't work so they must conjure up matter and energies that can't be observed or experimented with whereas science is supposed to be observable and testable. http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/solar08/021608_dark_inertia_1.htm http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/080907_gst_cro_bhf.htm http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/080930_sjc_bhc.htm Evolution to is not only full of holes but it has yet to be observed and tested as well and no-one has even conjured up an idea to even begin to explain how life arose from non-life. "To say intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say there exist well-defined methods that, on the basis of observational features of the world, are capable of reliably distinguishing intelligent causes from undirected natural causes. Many special sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this distinction-notably forensic science, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (as in the movie Contact).... Whenever these methods detect intelligent causation, the underlying entity they uncover is information. Intelligent Design properly formulated is a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of intelligent causation as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. Intelligent Design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow. Intelligent Design is therefore not the study of intelligent causes per se, but of informational pathways induced by intelligent causes." I use the same methods as an forensic science, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence does. I have found the simplest question that works in all areas - Can natural forces create what I have found? If I have found a piece of fire hardened clay with a carving in it I can easily concluded that it was created; Same with a painting in a cave; Same with an electric motor, which many hold as one of the biggest signs of our scientifically advanced society. When we look in some cells we find an electric motor called a flagella. Why can we not conclude that it was created? Are you familiar with irreducible complexity by Meyer? Here is his site to help http://www.discovery.org/a/3408 Also, as stated in the quote, information is also a key. If we received a series of radio wave pulses from outer space which could be interpreted into a single sentence such as “We are here” everyone would conclude that aliens sent the message, and rightfully so. We now know of something called DNA which contains so much information that it results in beings, such as us, which are more complex that anything we have every created or even imagined. Just as an archeologist would do, we conclude from such evidence that we were created. This is sound science. On the other hand evolution requires that you not only ignore such evidence but that you simply have faith (a greater faith than I could ever have) that one day we will find a way to explain how DNA and the Flagella Motor can come about. Yes there are a lot of theories. (one evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, admitted to the existance of evidence in the cell that pointed to a creator but said those signs were placed there by aliens that put us here and the aliens obviously evolved....that doesn't sound very scientific to me.) Do they have a good foundation in observation and experimentation? I can theorize that invisible knomes do my work while I am at home. I may even give all kinds of “evidence” such as the simple fact that when I leave work and set the alarm there is no one left at work and when I get there the next day my spread sheet is on my pc and is done. I, of course, have over look many details in the formulation of my theory such as my computer is connected to a network and can be accessed by other employees who have the same job as I do. Anyways, I think you see my point. People can develop all kinds of ideas but unless they are based in the real world in which we live and takes all evidence into consideration they are nothing more than ideas. Here is something else regarding evolution as science: http://www.icr.org/article/773/ [/url]http://www.uncommondescent.com/ http://www.designinference.com/[url] The couple of points I am trying to make here: 1. I don't have the blind faith necessary to believe in evolution or the big band but simply follow the evidence which leads to a God. (Sadly not all poeple who are "religious" follow the evidence but maintain a blind faith because the simply don't look at the evidence just like so many "scientists" do.) 2. Believe what you want but don't attack others because they don't beleive the same; particularly when you are ignorant (this simply means you don't know the information) of such subjects. The few references I have given are only the beginning of the information out there. Find the information, don't be spoon fed everything, decide for yourself, and don't try to force others to follow you particularly by calling them stupid and such.

WOW! That was unbeleivable. That was also some really quick reacting on the instructors part! Mad props to the instructor!

What good is a leader if he leads you in the wrong direction? How can someone qualify as a good leader when they have not accomplished anything in the area they are supposed to be leading in? (Also, how can someone be a "dictator" in our government system?) Hitler was a great leader in the aspect that people followed him.... but where did he lead them? We should be looking at where these people plan to lead us first, then whether they are actually capable of leading us there or not. Once again, how can we consider someone capable of leading us somewhere when they have never accomplished anything in the area we want them to lead us? There are those who talk and sound good when they do, and people will follow whatever they say.... that does not mean they are being lead in the right direct or even that they will ever reach their goal. I like result, not talk, and that is what the president is supposed to bring us. I also like for those result to be what is right for the country and this is also what the president is supposed to bring us. In on of the debates there was a virtual admission that higher taxes would hurt the economy and therefore the country. This was in the statement that they would wait for the economy to recover before raising taxes. Obviously they have to wait for the economy to recover because they know raising taxes hurts the economy. If taxes helped they wouldn't wait. Once again, the president is supposed to bring results and is supposed to do what is best for the country yet we see here in this one example how if there are result they will not be what is best for the country. Its that simple.

Just like listening to a revival......this is the problem. He is a good speaker....but is that why someone should be president? I thought they should be elected due to their stance on the issue? So we, a free and capitalist country, elect a socialist....a man who's policies are similar to those of a previous president who lengthened the depression 7 years http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409 .... a man who doesn't get payed enough to tell us when he thinks life begins.... a man who thinks the goverment should raise your kids til they are 5.... a man who doesn't know how many states there are www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws.... a man who doesn't even know what religion he followswww.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw ..... Barack the builder? No one can name a single accomplishment of his...www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzFOOcEQtP0 www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkZ1DQeOSVQ Please, lets look at the facts and not the pretty words.

Here is some information which should help:http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/bldea050426.htm http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2001/04/30/Opinioncolumnists/Marijuana.Is.A.Poison.Should.Not.Be.Legalized-1493910.shtml http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/mjhoax.htm

And with the DOW and such on the rise again Oboma will be taking credit for the bounce back of the economy before raising taxes and halting its progress. According to a study by UCLA FDR's policies prolong the depression by 7 years. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409 Have you noticed the similarities in Oboma's policies?

Are you sure he is not a muslim? www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIXRt57tM3Q The guy doesn't even know how many states there are!!! www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws Also the first ammendment makes no such statement. Have you ever read it! "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Where is separation of church and state? In fact if we look at the 9th one we read this: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It is not only against the constitution to enforce some type of religion but it is also against the constitution to restrict it as well, and that is all that is being said. The statement seperation of church and state came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. He actually wanted the constitution to contain that phrase but it doesn't and for good reason.

Here is the real issue-Is it the videogame or the maker that is to blame or the parents? (Obviously a rhetorical question) Someone has to buy these games for thier kids and not explain right from wrong or the difference between fantasy and reality.

Well, this is actually quite simple and is already defined by the law. According to the law if a pregnant woman is murdered the murder is tried for the murder of two people. The law does not specify how far along the pregancy she must be only that she is pregant. Therefore, a person must simply prove that they were pregant. Currently techology found at target allows us to know when someone is pregant within 2 weeks of conception. If one had access to the necessary equipment one could actually prove that someone was pregant even if they were murdered the day of conception. Therefore, if a child is aborted at any point after conception then it is murder. Ultimately this law is in conflict with the aborption laws and therefore one or the other should change. In addition, from another standpoint, upon conception devolopement begins which will ultimately result in a child. If a person is to simply withhold the necessary things needed for sustained developement this too would be murder according to our own laws. If a child or person is not provided food and they die, this would be murder. In fact we do not even allow this kind of treatment to animals yet we do of a developing child?