@thisrandomchannel No, I'm not anti religion, I believe everyone has the right to believe what they want, they just aren't allowed to impose it on other people or get tax deductions for it .I'm not pro abortion, I'm for a woman's right to decide herself. I think we are smart enough. I'm not anti war, I'm anti pro war. It's a weapon of last resort, not first resort. Republicans are radical Christian terrorists, not conservative.
Republicans, Democrats, and an apathetic electorate share blame in our current economic mess. The banking cartel that consists of the large Wall Street Banks and Brokers along with the central bank (Federal Reserve) rule this country. Also the military industrial complex along with the multinational corporations have great power over this country.
Oh, and Darlie, who cares if that is why he was impeached. He was the President of the United States, and a married man, and he shouldn't have let her do that to him.
@AWorldExposure Coming from the gender that an entire online porn industry for cheating husbands is built around do you really feel comfortable saying that ? Not one of you would have admitted cheating and you know it. A BJ was not worth 100 million spent when 3500 Americans died and republicans could only find 4 million dollars to investigate ! Tell me about it.
You aren't talking about record levels, you are talking about record low home ownership under Bush Reagan . It only looks like a record hi because NOBODY WAS BUYING HOMES! The speculation bubble didn't happen till after 2000 when Gramm deregulated banks and derivatives! Way too late to try and blame Clinton. Sorry!
AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobbies have too much power in Washington. This is why we are fighting wars and blindly supporting Israel even when it is dead wrong and the entire world knows it. Our bias has turned everyone against us and no, i am NOT an anti-Semite... i got no problem with Jews but i do have a problem with the Zionists whose dual loyalty is killing Americans.
Fox News (and others) only show one side of the story.... injustices inflicted on Palestinians go ignored.
Guess what! It was the Democrats that told all these banks to lend to those who could not afford to pay back. That's why we are in the shape we are in.
@AWorldExposure Oh baloney . 87% of the toxic loans were from banks not even under the CRA. The CRA actually made it harder to get subprime loans. Phil Gramm and the republican congress in 1999 and 2000 passed two acts. One eliminated the 1933 Glass Steagall that barred banks from getting into high risk gambling. The other deregulated derivatives, credit default swaps and removed oversight.Banks then picked as many poor suckers they could, sold them loans with a trip date.
The buyers could no longer pay. Then the banks packed these loans into securities and got credit agencies to falsify them as AAA. Under credit defaults you can sell off risk and they did, to China.Then they did "put orders" or bets these packages would default on the dates buyers loan costs would triple, betting they would default. So, the buyer defaults, the bank gets paid, they take possession of the home , the bailout and charge us money for the money we gave them to bail them out
@darliegoddess What about Bill Clinton’s 1994 “National Homeownership Strategy?" He was so desperate to get the national homeownership rate up that he did what he could to promote down payments and have lenders give mortgage loans to first time buyers with low income. It worked!
And what is wrong with Seasame Street? I like Seasame Street.
During the 1980s, as the national homeownership rate fell from its historic high
of 65.6 percent in 1980 to only 64.1 percent in 1991. The decline has been sharp-est among segments of the population for whom access to the homebuying market has traditionally been most difficult. The homeownership rate for very low-income families with children fell byalmost one-third, from 39 percent to 27 percent, between 1980 and 1991. He wasn't causing a boom, he was undoing the damage Reagabn had done.
Moderate-income households, homeowner-ship dropped by 10 percent. Rates stagnated at approximately 43 percent for blacks, whilehomeownership among Hispanics fell from 43 percent in 1980 to 39 percent in 1991 .Families under age 35, when most first-time home buying occurs and the preference for ownership is strongest. In 1980 almost 45 percent of families in this age cohort owned a home; by 1991, the percentage
President Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry G. Cisneros to work with leaders in the housing industry,
representatives of nonprofit groups, and officials at all levels of government to develop a strategy that would increase ownership opportunities among populations and communities with lower than average home ownership rates. Ths does not account for banks LYING on credit reports, toxic loans or investing in speculative buyers! Under the CRA it was near impossible to get subprimes!
I am disappointed that you are still laying ALL of the blame for the housing and/or credit crises on Republicans. There were many culprits on both sides of the aisle including those responsible for the CFM Act, Clinton, Bush, Barney Frank, Fannie, Freddie, lenders, and even the homebuyer share the blame. Each of these parties (and some others) stoked the fire during the run up in housing and pretty soon the fire was out of control. By the time we realized what was happening, it was too late.
Banks then picked incapable buyers, sold them loans with a trip date where rates would triple cause defaults. Packaged masses of these loans , got credit agencies to falsify them as AAA. Under credit defaults sold off risk .Then bought "put orders" or bets on these packages would default on the dates buyers loan would triple. So, the buyer defaults, the bank gets paid, they take possession of the home , the bailout and charge us money for the money we gave them to bail them out.
@darliegoddess All you have is a conspiracy theory. SOME loans were sold to individuals who were "incapable". In fact the banks that were stupid enough to loan to people that couldn't afford the houses they were trying to buy were the first ones to go. The banks that survived the crisis were the ones that stayed away from the more exotic mortgage products. Why would the banks collude to sink the housing market and sacrifice many of themselves in the process?
@UNCTPTGUY93 This is no "theory" ! These people we defaulting in the before the higher rates triggered ? To falsify their credit ratings the banks would lend these people 10,000 , have them pay it back over 3 months , viola , instant credit rating THEY FORCLOSED ON 4 MILLION HOMES !!! Stupid enough ? FOUR MILLION! Thats a whole new class of stupid.
WHY? Banks sold them loans with a trip date where rates would triple and destroy the buyers ability to pay. Then they packed these loans and got credit agencies to falsify them as AAA. Under credit defaults you can sell off risk and they did, to China. Then they did "put orders" or bets these packages would default t. So, the buyer defaults, the bank gets paid, they take possession of the home , the bailout and charge us money for the money we gave them to bail them out. Simple.
It has nothing to do with the CRA , Clinton or Frank. It was all the republicans and the banks. You dare to blame the home buyers? They were duped with lies. IN case you didn't know the banks were lending OUR money and they had the responsibility ti VALIDATE that the buyers were capable of paying the loan, not the buyer! The buyer isn't in the business of making loans and the BANKS falsified their credit . I can prove this.
@darliegoddess The CFM Act was passed under Clinton. You can call him lame duck but he is still responsible. Banks wouldn't have offered loans to borrowers unless they knew Fannie and/or Freddie were supporting them. If you want to blame the banks, then you have to blame the GSE's too. Efforts were made around 2005 to tighten restrictions on the GSE's but Barney Frank and his pals stood in the way. Not surprising considering that the GSE's are regular contributors to his campaign.
@UNCTPTGUY93 I'm not "calling " him a lame duck , he was. It's a fact. Republicans wrote and passed the bills that caused the crash. The only problems Freddie and Fannie had were loans they had become guarantors on from private banks went bad, that was why republicans seized them. You know hey were privat . They in fact lost the market as the bubble grew. Oh baloney , republicans had a majority and could have regulated F&F any time but they didn't. They knew the loans were going to crash.
There were two crises: the housing crisis and the credit crisis. The proximate causes of the housing crisis were ultra-low rates, abdication of traditional lending standards, the ability of originators to resell mortgages to be securitized, and the resulting lack of care the lenders took because they didn't keep the defaults on their books. The CRA did NOT cause the housing crisis but an increased focus on CRA loans during the run up of housing prices exacerbated the problem.
@UNCTPTGUY93 No, 87% of all those toxic loans came from private banks not under the CRA. In fact under CRA it was harder for to get sub prime loans . hil Gramm and the republican congress in 1999 and 2000 passed two acts. One eliminated the 1933 Glass Steagall that barred banks from getting into high risk gambling. The other deregulated derivatives, credit default swaps and removed oversight.
@darliegoddess The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards. The regulators charged with enforcing it praised the lowering or elimination of down payments. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. So basically no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.
@darliegoddess For every article that states that CRA had nothing to do with the crisis, you can find another one that states the opposite. I guess each of us has to read and decide for ourselves. Was the CRA at the heart of the crisis as some have claimed? No. But did it contribute to and exacerbate the problem. Sure it did. As for my qualifications, let's just say that I DO know what I am talking about.
@UNCTPTGUY93 Baloney! There are no "articles" that state the CRA was responsible. Right wing blogs maybe but no articles. The fact 87% of the banks issuing the toxic loans weren't under the CRA kind of closes that out. Republicans deregulated the banks and the banks faked the loans, the credit agencies faked the rating to sell the loans in packages then the banks bet the loans would default, got the homes, the put order bet, the bailout and the interest theycharged us to bail them ou.
The CRA had nothing to do with it at all, the banks lowered the standard so they could create defaulting securities they could sell of the risk to then bet on with "put" orders.
Also, do you know how Greece became bankrupt? By huge spendings, which is what Obama is doing right now! He's doing nothing but spending money and putting us under! I don't know what the puppet master has him doing, but none-the-less, we are heading in the same direction as Greece, because of spending!
So what other lies is NPR feeding to you liberals?
Well at least you fools can't wrongly blame the CRA AGAIN ! Even though it was all private bank NOT UNDER THE CRA . Even a dunce would have known that right ? Actually Goldman Sachs is to blame for Greece AGAIN ! BY deregulating derivatives Sachs set up another HUGE default they could bet against
The 1913 Federal Reserve Act turned our monetary system over to private bankers. That is the cause of recessions and depressions. Bankers PROFIT from bankruptcy. Presidents come and go. Rothschild and Rockefeller remain and pull the strings. In 1917, I believe, the bankers discovered they could control the news by buying 25 key newspapers. They did. They now control what we read, hear, see in the media. Follow the money down the rabbit hole. btw Obama is just another puppet.
@tomken8dy Explain to everyone why the corporations have to put so much money into defeating Obama if they own him ? Sorry, Obama had nothing to do with it.
Republicans have been in charge over every major banking crisis in the last 90 years. Medical bankruptcy is 65% of all bankruptcies and 75% of those are the insured. Bush got Greenspan to keep bank interest low so that people would be forced into the stockmarket . Then they crashed the stockmarket. Republicans deregulated derivatives so banks could sell defaulting loans, collect the insurance, the homes , get the bailout , get interest they charged our government to loan them money.Enjoy.
@darliegoddess FDR was a Democrat. During his administration the depression worsened. The point I'm making is that at the top levels of government, Congress and prez, Republicans and Democrats are on the same team. They have us fighting over Republican Congress, Democrat president, while the REAL problem is the PRIVATE BANKERS who own the Fed. They call the shots. The "Two Party System" is a sham. Smoke and mirrors. Dem and Rep both feed side by side at the sane $trough.
Corporations are dumped huge amounts of money into republican campaigns, republican supreme court struck down the laws against it so corporations could buy elections, changed the banking laws to INTENTIONALLY cause another great depression . AMERICA IS AND ALWAYS WAS A SOCIALIST COUNTRY ! When the R's are done police, no fireman, no welfare, unemployment insurance , no schools , our roads and bridges will collapse and the poor will be drafted in a holy war against Muslims.
EXPLAIN TO EVERYONE WHY THE BANKS AND CORPORATIONS ARE PUTTING SO MUCH MONEY INTO GETTING OBAMA OUT OF IF ALL HE IS IS A PUPPET! It makes absolutely no sense.
Yeah like burying dinosaur bones to test our belief in god. I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. they are spending big money to get him out. It's like in meet John Doe. The only thing being set up is our president and you all are helping.
I am so happy you made a new video. Everything you talked about is true in your video (I looked it all up) . You are always so smart and hot at the same time. Have a great day and Have a long and wonderful life. You earned it. Bye bye Anthony
@HALCALI777 Smart?! HAHA hardly! She's a typical liberal and if she was soo smart, how much business knowledge does she have to realize that bailing out large companies and putting small businesses under is not good for our economy because the majority of jobs are in small businesses.
@gamefreak1000000 Except I'm not a liberal. It's just you idiots only have two classes. Republican and liberal. Republicans don't mean "small business". By small business they mean sub companies of Coke or Exxon. Should have read a bit. By the way, what part of giving banks 1.4 trillion dollars is capitalist ? You and your boy Bush and your corporate welfare state ! Lol! True socialism. By the way, the US is already socialist dunce boy, always has been.
I think you have mixed up quite a bit of history. Clinton allowed the bank deregulation to happen and Greenspan supported the changes. This came from both side of the aisle because the are whores to business/banks.
Although Murdock is a horses ass he is not an American and cannot be guilty of treason. When Murdock isn't manipulating the media for his own gain the government is spewing its own propaganda.
So in your own words: stop it stop it shut up. Don't, don't, don't even try to say anything.
Clinton had no choice, the final vote was veto proof and he was a lame duck president for the last two years. Embroiled in fake scandals over White Water and a blowjo No this was a republicamn bill that repealed THE GLASS STEAGALL ACT OF 1933 . And yet again you are wrong, Murdock became an American citizen.
oh my god I'm sooo excited to see you're still posting videos! I used to watch your videos back when you first started. You are stunning beautiful perfect and yes a goddess xoxo love you MWAH princess
i said you had no original ideas, and you spouted of about Bush in return... classic liberal. Anyway, you are right that Bush is an idiot. Who doesn't know that? He was a progressive republican or as he would've said a "compassionate conservative". What a crock of crap. I suggest you read up on the founding of our country, in depth, from many different resources, and then perhaps you might understand why it is that some people out there don't like the "Messiah" Barry Obama.
Actually I spouted about the drunkard McCarthy first, I could have talked about Rush Bimbo the drug addict but instead I chose to point to the ex-coke addict George who mismanaged our country into financial failure the same way he bankrupt three companies that he had to have bailed out by the Bin Ladens. Funny that connection huh ? Oh please, I could take you to school on any subject. We don't have capitalism, we have corporate monopolies.
This has nothing to do with sesame street, I am very disappointed! Come on! Where's the democrat blue Elmo to teach me about spreading the wealth? Or the Communist Big Bird to teach me that the government can take better care of me than I can of myself? It's a shame that you wasted such a good premise on the usual ramblings of a liberal, but it goes to show how washed over liberals are with talking points. No original ideas. tisk tisk
You've just provided a a drunken McCarthy puppet to point out the communists. Oh and Bush spread the wealth alright, only none of it was here. He did though provide huge numbers of illegal immi8grants blackmarket jobs in the housing industry before he destroyed the economy and lost the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The only thing I take issue with in the text you wrote is Bin Laden's culpability. In November 2001 a tape was found in Afghanistan in which he described and bragged about the attack on the WTC. He expected the collapse to only go as far as the floor level where the planes struck and he enjoyed that the collapse went down almost to ground level. The media (msnbc at least) reported this.
Now I'm guessing our CIA faked it . We are well known around the world as the people who assassinate democratically elected leaders for our corporations. Usually a leader that hints at nationalizing oil or some other resource will first be smeared, ousted by an American backed coup and then murdered.
@darliegoddess If that's the case why didn't the CIA fake a video where Saddam Hussein admitted to 9/11 involvement? The sticking point for most of those who opposed invading Iraq was the fact that there was no real evidence tying Saddam to 9/11, because Saddam wasn't involved in it. The conspiracy notions don't make any sense. For example, if I was going to create an excuse to invade Iraq, then the 19 hijackers of 9/11 would've been Iraqis. In reality none of them were.
Bin Laden lives in a mountain cave, no witnesses. Saddam's was surrounded by people and media, it would have been impossible. Conspiracy theory ? The complete and utter failure of our defense system, the unbelievable games that left our entire country defenseless on the one day we were attacked ? Oh sure, they just got lucky. They hit the one day out of 365 that year, lucky.
@darliegoddess Our cold-war era defense system wasn't designed to stop a previously unattempted suicide attack with hijacked commercial planes. There was sheer incompetence in the intelligence agencies-an explanation that isn't very reassuring but life usually isn't. As far as hijackers being lucky, they simply took advantage of security weaknesses, this country isn't invincible. They could have attempted it on the other 364 days and still might have succeeded.
Lol! Oh please ! How lucky, to hit the one day of the year they were running simulations that our entire country was defenseless. Of course it was totally designed for that scenerio. It was ones of they were running in their simulations. It's why Bush saying "We never anticipated that attack" was so attacked. The hijackers were more than lucky , they took their time and hit targets dead on they weren't even good enough to hit,
It's too bad I didn't discover your intelligent analysis of politics -- be it sexual politics or political politics -- until after you stopped posting your YT blog.
There's no need for me to prolong this any longer. I'm sorry, but you lost, plain and simple. If it'll make you feel better, go ahead and have the last word.
Prolong ? Win ? You have misrepresented every article, lied about every situation misrepresented the opinions that differ from yours. According to most that behavior accepted among you evangelists makes you not only not Christian but a liar. You are a hypocrite who brags in public that you may be seen as "Christian".
@darliegoddess Oh please, I've already seen all AronRa's garbage. Nothing I've said is ridiculous. Indeed, all of my information has been correct, which is more than I can say for you or AronRa. You're simply afraid of the truth, just as AronRa is. What's funny is that he still argues on behalf of these transitional fossils even though they've all been proven false. But I guess everybody has to have some kind of hope.
TRANSITIONAL MODELS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED FALSE ! You are insane ! Kind of hard when you live among them. You lie in this endless streams saying people who humiliate you agree with you when none of them have. Everything you have said is ridiculous. I can't argue with insanity. I'm sorry. You know nothing about scientific method and yo you try and take a hypothesis and make it a fact so you have something to argue that is concrete but you cant. You fail because you aren't educated enough .
@darliegoddess You make multiple errors in your statement. First, I've been talking about transitional fossils not standing up to scrutiny, which is an accurate statement. All you're doing is manipulating the evidence to support your argument, but you fail to do any research, which is why you got beat in the first place. I'm taking something presented as fact and exposing it as a lie. You make claims about my intelligence, yet I've thoroughly dismantled your argument.
No, you are talking about "suggested "transitional fossils going through the debate process. Science starts with a hypothesis then throws it into an arena for the community to prove or disprove. Your ignorance of scientific method is a determent to any discussion . You are a liar because none of those ( except the hoax Piltdown from 60 years ago ) were presented as fact.
@darliegoddess Uh darlie, she said transitional fossils, not those models in the science books. Before responding to a comment, actually read what the comment says, because this one made you look completely foolish.
@TheKingsSoldier2000 I'm holding my temper with you but don't tempt me. Models /fossils , it makes no difference. If a fossil comes up and a scientist says they believe it's a transitional link that does not make it accepted by all of science. It does not mean it is an attempted fraud. It means that theory is up for the scientific community to debate. Claiming otherwise is a lie. It's not like the bible where child molesting old men make up stories to control fools .
@darliegoddess LMAO, I served in the Marines for eight years. Fossils are hard evidence, yet not true transitional fossil has ever been found. Of course, that doesn't stop evolutionists from saying they've been found. The models in the science books are based off pure assumptions without any evidence to support them. When numerous scientists say it's been proven, like they did with Ida and Tiktaalik, that does make it a lie.
LOOKI AROUND ! THE WORLD IS FULL OF NO)THING BUT TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS ! You crazy christians keep spouting the same baloney over and over again like repetition is proof. It isn't and suggesting a fossil is a possible link does not make it a lie. Science is based on suggesting theories and putting them out there to be proven or dis-proven by scientific debate. Religion just lies about everything.
@darliegoddess Ah the Michael Shermer argument. Yet they continue to point to one fossil, not every fossil. By they I mean evolutionists, so your argument is moot. This statement shows us clearly your disdain for Christians, so there's no point in even wasting my time, you're simply uninterested in hearing the truth anyway.
It's not anyone else's argument. You want me to link what you say to what every crazy crackpot religious wacko out there says ? Science isn't in the myth manufacturing business like religion. Science is ongoing and progressing where religion DEPENDS on suppression of facts. You haven't a clue what the truth is, you are like some tarot card reader trying to fit your vague fabrications into the real world.
cont. Sorry, but the only liar is you. You've yet to present evidence to support your argument, whereas I have multiple times. Like I said, next time you want to debate, provide evidence to validate your claim. It would also help if you didn't lie about the person you were debating with. That really destroyed your argument right from the get go.
But you haven't even read the articles you sent ! You have lied about everything. Of course you believe in creationism which makes you pretty much insane. Don't tell people you are Christian. It's insulting to the intelligent ones.
@darliegoddess See, there you go again. If I didn't read the articles, I wouldn't have sent them. Sadly, you chose to believe a lie in spite of the evidence. Don't get angry at me because I dismantled your argument.
@darliegoddess You're not even addressing my argument anymore. Yes I called them frauds. This means they aren't true transitional fossils, even though scientists claimed they were. Which means they either jumped the gun, or they lied.
There are transitional models everywhere , all around you EVERYWHERE. They didn't jump the gun, that is how science is done. You propose a fact and the community disputes or tries to find collaborating evidence for that theory. If you don't even have a basic understanding of how research is don't it's a waste of discussion.
THERE IS NO ARGUMENT TO ADDRESS ! You lied ! You called them frauds when they were mere hypotheses . That is how science works ! It's not like some baloney religious supernatural explanation you have to make up.
@darliegoddess I see you're making false claims about one of my friends. Are you simply a sore loser? All you've done in your arrogance, is shown that you can't stand to be proven wrong so you resort to using ad hominims against others. No, those fossils were heralded as true transitional forms and taught in numerous science classes around the world. The fact is they lied, not USChristianMarine.
No, these fossils were presented as "possible" links. Only religious lies are presented as "absolute" and no matter how many times you are slapped with the facts like good fanatics everything is based totally on blind faith and superstitions.
You haven't backed up a single claIm. In fact you have lied from beginning to end as I will demonstrate. There is no human foot print and dinosaur, no dating on the bell. That truly fits with Piltdown Man as being a carnival con. Then you openly lie about what evolutionists think. You lie about whats in the bible and yet you call yourself "Christian" ?
@darliegoddess So me sending you numerous links isn't backing up my claim? Again, I already said that the Glen Rose prints were fake, so you're simply lying about what I said at this point. Once again, you didn't read the article's I sent simply because you were afraid of the fact that you're mistaken. Nothing I've said is a lie. None of their precious transitional fossils have stood up to scrutiny. I've already clarified why homosexuality is a sin in both the old and new testament.
YOU NEVER READ THEM ! THERE WERE NO EVOLUTIONISTS ON YOUR SIDE, NO ARTICLES DISPROVING EVOLUTION , NO FRAUDS IN MODERN SCIENCE . Oh and by the way if science hadn't disproved things like Piltdown Man you would still believe them. Something religion can not claim because religion doesn't explore our understanding of god it retards it.
@darliegoddess Yes I did read them. Again, I wouldn't have sent them if I hadn't read them. I brought up the transitional fossils. I provided a large amount of evidence disproving them. Your lack of honesty is why you lost the argument. Things didn't go in your favor, so you resorted to attacks and lies. I'm saying this to try to help you, so you'll understand why you lost.
The first link you "claim " is a fraud is Ida. Had you read the article it was not a "fraud" at all, ONE journal claimed it to not be exactly the linage that the discoverers believed. All new discoveries are examined and debated over. That is science and you have lied. The last line from the article.
@darliegoddess If you read it, you would realize it was talking about the transitional fossil argument, not Ida. Would you prefer the term fake? Whatever the case, it doesn't negate the fact that no transitional fossil has withstood scrutiny at this point in time. I haven't lied at all despite your best attempts to say that my statements aren't true.
@darliegoddess Okay, it turns out the scientists jumped the gun, would you prefer that? How are the articles up for debate, simply because they don't support your viewpoint?
NO , it is science ! They make a hypothesis and everyone debates it ! Facts are discovered and searched for. Science is always changing as new things are found.
@darliegoddess I never said they weren't. Now you've given up entirely. You say facts, but the facts clearly don't support the transitional fossil argument. You say that religion retards our understanding of God, yet science searches for answers that keep God out of the equation. I don't believe in evolution, so why would I believe the Piltdown Man? That made absolutely no sense.
NO ONE KEEPS GOD OUT ! All you want to do is to inject god in where he does not belong. If you REALLY believe in god then why would you not want to understand his infinite universe ? Fear, fear that it could somehow kill him.
@darliegoddess Okay then, Tiktaalik turned out to not be a transitional fossil. Whatever the case, it's clear that Evolutionists are still searching for their precious missing link. Even you can't argue with that. You have the audacity to call me a liar, yet you've provided no evidence to back up your claim, whereas I have. It's becoming evident the only liar is you. You're not even attempting to rebut my argument at this point and have resorted to lying about me.
I've sent you some links. Hopefully, you read them thoroughly and realize that you're mistaken about the transitional fossils. But if you're going to make claims, I ask that you provide the evidence to back your claim up. You're not even rebutting my argument anymore. And certainly not using any evidence to support your claim. You couldn't argue my assertions about the Inca stones, nor were you able to provide evidence to support your transitional fossil argument.
Accuracy of the dating methods, which I've already explained. And let's not forget the paintings and drawings of the numerous "transitional fossils" because they don't have any actual fossils of these creatures. Or should we discuss the transitional fossils that have already been debunked? You know Ida, Tiktaalik, Lucy, Ardi, archaeoraptor, archaeopteryx, piltdown man as well as many others. I'm sorry, but the evidence clearly supports the Bible, and not the evolution viewpoint.
The only hoax in that group I know of is Piltdown. Ida and Lucy aren't so I'm assuming after having outed your false claims you are grab bagging this baloney. No evolutionist agrees with a thing you have said so I wish you luck on your waking up.
@darliegoddess Your reluctance to accept the truth is sad. I can't do all your research for you, but there are numerous articles all over the internet clearly explaining what I've stated and why. You're basing your claims off a preconceived notion without doing the research yourself. Even evolutionists admit there are no known transitional fossils. All you're doing now is ignoring the clear facts, and there's nothing I can do for that.
Also, there are the human prints found in limestone estimated to be over 100 million years old. Even evolutionists admit that humanity isn't nearly that old. According to them, the predates some dinosaurs. Again, the archeological evidence we've found indicates that humans and dinosaurs lived together. I'm going to send you some links.
The "human" foot prints are faked. Admitted to by the daughter of the creator of them. The only people that think they are human is those groups that still don't accept evolution and are grasping at straws for some kind of evidence. Whether you are a fundamentalist or not, the Glen Rose prints are fake and don't help the cause. Even the fundametalists said they were fake. No evolutionist ever agreed .
@darliegoddess Grasping for evidence? Send me the link that proves they're faked. Also, these prints have been found in numerous places all over the world. Not to mention, you still haven't explained the more than 50,000 Inca Stones that clearly portray dinosaurs, or the human skeleton remains found alongside a dinosaur. No it's pretty evident that only evolutionists are grasping at straws on this one. Lack of transitional fossils they claim are present, being one example.
"It is fortunate that some Tpaleontologists have examined firsthand the Glen Rose tracks. Wann Langston, Jr., pointed out that some of the "man prints" have distinct claw marks emanating from what the creationists call their "heels." (The creationists apparently reversed the direction of travel .) Langston also noted that one of the most widely reproduced footprint photos of Paluxy man shows a portion of a poor print of a tridactyl dinosaur;"
@darliegoddess Again, I wasn't talking about those set of prints. I already said that in my PM to you. All you have to do is type in any transitional fossil followed by the term debunked and you'll find numerous articles verifying my statement. It's also verified by both creationists and evolutionists. I'm afraid you're simply afraid to acknowledge the truth. Until you can actually provide evidence for your claims, it's best not to make them.
First, you make the mistake of thinking the Bible and science are mutually exclusive. The evidence shows that simply isn't the case, and numerous scientists agree that there is a supernatural force at work here. Scientists are arguing two points against the Bible now, the big-bang, and evolution. Even many evolutionists are Christians. Look at Ken Miller and Robert Bakker if you don't believe me.
It's no mistake, science and the bible are mutually exclusive. While there is such a vast text that the occasional word or sentence may fall with some similarity the one is actually arrived at by research, the bible by guessing.
I'm sorry, but the verdict's in and the evidence both scientifically and Biblically simply doesn't support your argument for homosexuality, and it certainly doesn't support your argument for dinosaurs. You're basing an argument off assumptions and probability. You do realize they found a Babylonian artifact that dated back over 300 million years, don't you? Does that sound accurate to you? I've got the link if you want to see it.
Actually both scientifically and even bibliographically I'm supported . Yes I know about the bell but you got that from a place that specialized in ghost hunting. The coal was that old but the bell was not dated. It's not Babylonian or anything else. Oh and 300 million kind of would blow away the 6000 year Genesis deal wouldn't it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
@darliegoddess I showed you that to get you to realize that your dating methods aren't accurate, therefore not a good indicator of the actual age of the Earth. You simply misunderstood where I was going with that.
@darliegoddess Actually, according to both articles I found, the bell was dated. Yes, the coal around it was dated at 300 million years, but to find an artifact inside that does raise some questions, don't you think? Especially concerning the accuracy of said dating method?
Both ? Where ? The Times, the Post ? NO. ghost hunters ! The bell was never datyed. Do you not think if this HADN'T BEEN DEBUNKED a credited newspaper would have brought it up ? Please!
@darliegoddess I'm sending the links. It was even dated at the University of Oklahoma to verify it's authenticity. So the truth is that it hasn't yet been debunked. You're grasping at straws at this point.
Here's a few verses I Corinthians 6:9-10, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:24-32, Deuteronomy 23:17 and I Timothy 1:9-10 all talk about homosexuality.
@USChristianMarine Sorry, but I'm not ignorant when it comes to gays. You see, this is a moral issue, or the church wouldn't have gotten involved. Also, the hebrews had multiple terms, like we have today for homosexuals. The term I think you're referring to is arseonkoitai, is this correct?
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 "nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute." Again this talks about being a prostitute , not being gay.
Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." It never mentions gays.
@darliegoddess You're using multiple versions of the Bible in these. You pick the one that isn't direct, though most people will argue that effeminate means homosexuals.
No , you are using later versions of the bible, there never was a word for homosexual in ancient Greek and you are using assumption for the word " effeminate" THERE WAS ALSO NO TRANSLATION AND DOES NOT EVEN MEAN HOMOSEXUAL ! You are trying to use your prejudice to somehow make a 20th century reconstruction of an ancient language you don't know. I repeat,m until 1958 there was never a word for homosexual. Get it ? This text is 2000 years old and we haven't a clue what particular words meant.
@darliegoddess Yet, you're making the same assumption I am. Only you're assuming we're wrong. Again you haven't addressed the terms sodomy or toevah. It's clear to theologians that both words mean homosexuality. Even they don't argue this point. Who's saying I'm prejudiced? I'm merely telling the truth. Don't get angry with me for that. And yes, there were words for homosexuality and I've already listed them.
And last Romans 1:24-32 .Roman prostitution and/or the temple prostitutes of Canaanite and fertility religions which were both male and female. The idea of a committed same sex relationship would have never entered Paul's mind. Therefore, it is quite a stretch to use these verses to condemn monogamous committed same-sex relationship in the 21st century.
@darliegoddess Yet it states in the text "men with men". It's evident that this simply isn't the case. Sodomy was one of the terms the Hebrews used, along with the term toevah, which has multiple meanings. I didn't say anything about condemning these people. You're trying to twist what I'm saying. The Bible's very clear on this issue. Homosexuality is immoral, just as murder is immoral, and stealing is immoral. It all has a basis in morality.
NO , not only is the bible not clear at all and you would knowv that with the real translation of the original text. What translators did was a "best guess " not an absolute interpretation and thats why there are so many different translations. But again it also states you can sell your daughter into slavery. kill people for eating shell fish on the wrong day, murder your neighbors for not sacrificing a goat , on and on and on and on. Are you saying that we should follow these as well ?
@darliegoddess Here's the problem with your line of reasoning. We're under the New Covenant. Yes, there are still sinful acts and it's very clear in the New and Old Testament. We no longer have to slaughter goats for sacrifice. We no longer sell our daughters or kill people for committing sinful acts.
Theologian Mel White argues that Greek scholars dont know exactly what it means, however, and that this simple detail is a big part of this tragic debate.1958, a translator for the New Amplified Bible set historical precedent by translating this mysterious Greek word into English as the word homosexuals, even though no such word exists in either Greek or Hebrew. It was that translator, according to White, who placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very 1st time.
@darliegoddess You mean aside from toevah and sodomy, right? It's easy for someone to say they don't know what it means, but he only answers for himself, not others. Again, the vast majority of theologians say it clearly means homosexual. Again, there's more than one term used to describe homosexuals, as I've already provided.
I'm sorry you are totally wrong. We are talking about the direct translations from the original Creek and Hebrew. Oh do you want to talk Sodom, you mean where Lots daughters got their father drunk on wine and seduced him ? Oh please INCEST ? , That's not only a disgusting male fantasy but entirely ridiculous. Are you trying to say the bible condones incest ?
@darliegoddess Give me the proper context, it told us what happened. It didn't say anything about it being condoned. You're simply trying to avoid the argument altogether at this point. Sodom was destroyed due to all the sexual perversion, including homosexuality. I'm sorry, but that's simply the truth.
Lets start out with the fact that there was no word for homosexual in greek so that every time it appears it is a COMPLETE FRAUD. Now I'm going to ignore Leviticus because it's were they tell you that you can sell your daughter into slavery and kill your neighbor for eating shellfish or not sacrificing a goat.
@darliegoddess I said that the word was in Hebrew. The word toevah, for instance, means homosexual. I gave you multiple verses. Some you haven't responded to, though I admit, it takes a while to do the research. But you're using multiple versions, not one version.
Well actually no it doesn't. In Lev 18:26-30 toevah is used four times and refers to adultery, child-sacrifice, men selfvabuse and bestiality. It means ritually forbidden and not homosexual. Also now we are back to Levitcus and that poor translation The original Greek is totally indecipherable and reads nothing like the bible. Still, Rembert Trulcuk states, "These verses refer not to homosexuals, but to heterosexuals who took part in the ba'al fertility rituals...". You are wrong.
@darliegoddess I never said it didn't have multiple meanings. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."Lev. 18:22. This verse clearly tells us that homosexuality is wrong. You used the wrong verse.
@USChristianMarine I apologize, it's Lev 20:13. Lev 18: 22 states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." But both these verses are from the KJV and both make it clear that homosexuality is immoral.
"Arsenokoitai" was created about 55 CE. No record remains of any writer using the term before that time. Some theologians are fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey, since the idea of a homosexual sexual orientation only surfaced in the 19th century after the start of the scientific study of human sexuality. "Arsen" in Greek means "man." Thus, it is most unlikely that "arsenokoitai" could refer to both male gays and lesbians.
@darliegoddess I didn't say there wasn't dissent amongst theologians, but those are in the very small minority. The overwhelming consensus is that the translation is correct. Also, it's mentioned in numerous verses, so I don't see why you're trying to go around the issue. True we don't stone gays, but that doesn't mean it's not a sin. You can't throw out some of the text because you don't like it.
Dissent ? It's not a small group at all ! In fact it is rather widely understood. You are basing 2000 years of persecution of people who have no choice in who they are on something without a basis in fact. The deaths, the suicides , the murders, the arrests and all the persecution based on . The only people who would agree with you say the earth was born 6000 years ago and god hid dinosaurs to confuse us. You feel good about that ?
@darliegoddess Where are you getting they have no choice? There are many young earth creationists, I agree. All the archeological evidence we've got of dinosaurs clearly indicates that dinosaurs and man lived together. Look at the more than 50,000 Ica stones that show dinosaurs interacting with humans. They're described in the Bible and both human and dinosaur skeletons have been found side by side. I'll send you the links if you want.
No, it's not a moral issue, it's a corruption issue. Morals do not come from the bible they come from you as a person. Notice any scandal going on at the catholic church these days ? Yes, the pope is going to be prosecuted for hiding vast number of child abuse cases. Religions as structures are corrupt, personal faith is not. What would you need the bible for if you really knew gods heart ?
@darliegoddess Yes it is a moral issue, because you must have a moral law giver to even have a moral law. In this case, it's none other than the Almighty himself. I didn't say the Church was perfect and made no notion that it was. I did say the Bible was the inerrant word of God. We know God's heart, we need to know what he views is right and what he views is wrong as that's how he'll judge us.
Not perfect ? They molest children and then not only hid it but threatened the children with excommunication if the talked ! I bet if it was your damn child you wouldn't say ridiculous things like it's "not perfect" ! It's corrupt and statistically CHRISTIANS ARE NO BETTER THAN ATHEISTS ! That's right, you church goers have no moral superiority atv all overthe godless heathens.
@darliegoddess Again, you're basing something the church does and saying it's a biblical argument. You're comparing apples to oranges. I did say they weren't perfect, I admit that what they're doing is wrong. You make the mistake of thinking there are no hypocrites on my side of the argument. I'm well aware there are. Moral superiority? We're all created equal and that means the same laws apply equally to everyone.
Actually Rupie Murdoch is Australian.
MsZeitgeist85 8 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Actually he is an American now. Look it up.
darliegoddess 8 months ago
@thisrandomchannel No, I'm not anti religion, I believe everyone has the right to believe what they want, they just aren't allowed to impose it on other people or get tax deductions for it .I'm not pro abortion, I'm for a woman's right to decide herself. I think we are smart enough. I'm not anti war, I'm anti pro war. It's a weapon of last resort, not first resort. Republicans are radical Christian terrorists, not conservative.
darliegoddess 10 months ago
@thisrandomchannel I totally agree.
darliegoddess 10 months ago
Republicans, Democrats, and an apathetic electorate share blame in our current economic mess. The banking cartel that consists of the large Wall Street Banks and Brokers along with the central bank (Federal Reserve) rule this country. Also the military industrial complex along with the multinational corporations have great power over this country.
JOConnor100 11 months ago
@JOConnor100 See Inside Job. I No one could have known. It was far too complex a crime and it's ALL the bankers.
darliegoddess 10 months ago
Pitiful
56jensen 1 year ago
@56jensen Wonderful!
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess
will you marry me?
I promise to never cheat. (OK... I promise to never get caught)
1love
X
farronx 11 months ago
@darliegoddess Well , hmmmm ok! I'll promise not to get cught either ;P
darliegoddess 10 months ago
Oh, and Darlie, who cares if that is why he was impeached. He was the President of the United States, and a married man, and he shouldn't have let her do that to him.
AWorldExposure 1 year ago
@AWorldExposure Coming from the gender that an entire online porn industry for cheating husbands is built around do you really feel comfortable saying that ? Not one of you would have admitted cheating and you know it. A BJ was not worth 100 million spent when 3500 Americans died and republicans could only find 4 million dollars to investigate ! Tell me about it.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess I don't reckon I would have cheated. :cP
AWorldExposure 1 year ago
@AWorldExposure Well that would be a good thing for your wife.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess I aint married. lol
AWorldExposure 1 year ago
You aren't talking about record levels, you are talking about record low home ownership under Bush Reagan . It only looks like a record hi because NOBODY WAS BUYING HOMES! The speculation bubble didn't happen till after 2000 when Gramm deregulated banks and derivatives! Way too late to try and blame Clinton. Sorry!
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess
AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobbies have too much power in Washington. This is why we are fighting wars and blindly supporting Israel even when it is dead wrong and the entire world knows it. Our bias has turned everyone against us and no, i am NOT an anti-Semite... i got no problem with Jews but i do have a problem with the Zionists whose dual loyalty is killing Americans.
Fox News (and others) only show one side of the story.... injustices inflicted on Palestinians go ignored.
bobshenix 1 year ago
Nice videos btw
bobshenix 1 year ago
Guess what! It was the Democrats that told all these banks to lend to those who could not afford to pay back. That's why we are in the shape we are in.
AWorldExposure 1 year ago
@AWorldExposure Oh baloney . 87% of the toxic loans were from banks not even under the CRA. The CRA actually made it harder to get subprime loans. Phil Gramm and the republican congress in 1999 and 2000 passed two acts. One eliminated the 1933 Glass Steagall that barred banks from getting into high risk gambling. The other deregulated derivatives, credit default swaps and removed oversight.Banks then picked as many poor suckers they could, sold them loans with a trip date.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
The buyers could no longer pay. Then the banks packed these loans into securities and got credit agencies to falsify them as AAA. Under credit defaults you can sell off risk and they did, to China.Then they did "put orders" or bets these packages would default on the dates buyers loan costs would triple, betting they would default. So, the buyer defaults, the bank gets paid, they take possession of the home , the bailout and charge us money for the money we gave them to bail them out
darliegoddess 1 year ago
It had nothing to do with the Democrats
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess What about Bill Clinton’s 1994 “National Homeownership Strategy?" He was so desperate to get the national homeownership rate up that he did what he could to promote down payments and have lenders give mortgage loans to first time buyers with low income. It worked!
And what is wrong with Seasame Street? I like Seasame Street.
AWorldExposure 1 year ago
During the 1980s, as the national homeownership rate fell from its historic high
of 65.6 percent in 1980 to only 64.1 percent in 1991. The decline has been sharp-est among segments of the population for whom access to the homebuying market has traditionally been most difficult. The homeownership rate for very low-income families with children fell byalmost one-third, from 39 percent to 27 percent, between 1980 and 1991. He wasn't causing a boom, he was undoing the damage Reagabn had done.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
Moderate-income households, homeowner-ship dropped by 10 percent. Rates stagnated at approximately 43 percent for blacks, whilehomeownership among Hispanics fell from 43 percent in 1980 to 39 percent in 1991 .Families under age 35, when most first-time home buying occurs and the preference for ownership is strongest. In 1980 almost 45 percent of families in this age cohort owned a home; by 1991, the percentage
stood at less than 38 percent.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
President Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry G. Cisneros to work with leaders in the housing industry,
representatives of nonprofit groups, and officials at all levels of government to develop a strategy that would increase ownership opportunities among populations and communities with lower than average home ownership rates. Ths does not account for banks LYING on credit reports, toxic loans or investing in speculative buyers! Under the CRA it was near impossible to get subprimes!
darliegoddess 1 year ago
I am disappointed that you are still laying ALL of the blame for the housing and/or credit crises on Republicans. There were many culprits on both sides of the aisle including those responsible for the CFM Act, Clinton, Bush, Barney Frank, Fannie, Freddie, lenders, and even the homebuyer share the blame. Each of these parties (and some others) stoked the fire during the run up in housing and pretty soon the fire was out of control. By the time we realized what was happening, it was too late.
UNCTPTGUY93 1 year ago
Banks then picked incapable buyers, sold them loans with a trip date where rates would triple cause defaults. Packaged masses of these loans , got credit agencies to falsify them as AAA. Under credit defaults sold off risk .Then bought "put orders" or bets on these packages would default on the dates buyers loan would triple. So, the buyer defaults, the bank gets paid, they take possession of the home , the bailout and charge us money for the money we gave them to bail them out.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess All you have is a conspiracy theory. SOME loans were sold to individuals who were "incapable". In fact the banks that were stupid enough to loan to people that couldn't afford the houses they were trying to buy were the first ones to go. The banks that survived the crisis were the ones that stayed away from the more exotic mortgage products. Why would the banks collude to sink the housing market and sacrifice many of themselves in the process?
UNCTPTGUY93 1 year ago
@UNCTPTGUY93 This is no "theory" ! These people we defaulting in the before the higher rates triggered ? To falsify their credit ratings the banks would lend these people 10,000 , have them pay it back over 3 months , viola , instant credit rating THEY FORCLOSED ON 4 MILLION HOMES !!! Stupid enough ? FOUR MILLION! Thats a whole new class of stupid.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
WHY? Banks sold them loans with a trip date where rates would triple and destroy the buyers ability to pay. Then they packed these loans and got credit agencies to falsify them as AAA. Under credit defaults you can sell off risk and they did, to China. Then they did "put orders" or bets these packages would default t. So, the buyer defaults, the bank gets paid, they take possession of the home , the bailout and charge us money for the money we gave them to bail them out. Simple.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
It has nothing to do with the CRA , Clinton or Frank. It was all the republicans and the banks. You dare to blame the home buyers? They were duped with lies. IN case you didn't know the banks were lending OUR money and they had the responsibility ti VALIDATE that the buyers were capable of paying the loan, not the buyer! The buyer isn't in the business of making loans and the BANKS falsified their credit . I can prove this.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess The CFM Act was passed under Clinton. You can call him lame duck but he is still responsible. Banks wouldn't have offered loans to borrowers unless they knew Fannie and/or Freddie were supporting them. If you want to blame the banks, then you have to blame the GSE's too. Efforts were made around 2005 to tighten restrictions on the GSE's but Barney Frank and his pals stood in the way. Not surprising considering that the GSE's are regular contributors to his campaign.
UNCTPTGUY93 1 year ago
@UNCTPTGUY93 I'm not "calling " him a lame duck , he was. It's a fact. Republicans wrote and passed the bills that caused the crash. The only problems Freddie and Fannie had were loans they had become guarantors on from private banks went bad, that was why republicans seized them. You know hey were privat . They in fact lost the market as the bubble grew. Oh baloney , republicans had a majority and could have regulated F&F any time but they didn't. They knew the loans were going to crash.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
There were two crises: the housing crisis and the credit crisis. The proximate causes of the housing crisis were ultra-low rates, abdication of traditional lending standards, the ability of originators to resell mortgages to be securitized, and the resulting lack of care the lenders took because they didn't keep the defaults on their books. The CRA did NOT cause the housing crisis but an increased focus on CRA loans during the run up of housing prices exacerbated the problem.
UNCTPTGUY93 1 year ago
@UNCTPTGUY93 No, 87% of all those toxic loans came from private banks not under the CRA. In fact under CRA it was harder for to get sub prime loans . hil Gramm and the republican congress in 1999 and 2000 passed two acts. One eliminated the 1933 Glass Steagall that barred banks from getting into high risk gambling. The other deregulated derivatives, credit default swaps and removed oversight.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards. The regulators charged with enforcing it praised the lowering or elimination of down payments. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. So basically no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.
UNCTPTGUY93 1 year ago
@UNCTPTGUY93 CRA had nothing to do with it.
businessweek*com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinvestment_act_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis*html
This is what makes me mad! You don't know what you are talking about
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess For every article that states that CRA had nothing to do with the crisis, you can find another one that states the opposite. I guess each of us has to read and decide for ourselves. Was the CRA at the heart of the crisis as some have claimed? No. But did it contribute to and exacerbate the problem. Sure it did. As for my qualifications, let's just say that I DO know what I am talking about.
UNCTPTGUY93 1 year ago
@UNCTPTGUY93 Baloney! There are no "articles" that state the CRA was responsible. Right wing blogs maybe but no articles. The fact 87% of the banks issuing the toxic loans weren't under the CRA kind of closes that out. Republicans deregulated the banks and the banks faked the loans, the credit agencies faked the rating to sell the loans in packages then the banks bet the loans would default, got the homes, the put order bet, the bailout and the interest theycharged us to bail them ou.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
The CRA had nothing to do with it at all, the banks lowered the standard so they could create defaulting securities they could sell of the risk to then bet on with "put" orders.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
number one reason
abandonment of the gold standard
marquisevirginie 1 year ago
You tell tell them like it is baby! so proud of you! ;-)
cdmarcie 1 year ago
Also, do you know how Greece became bankrupt? By huge spendings, which is what Obama is doing right now! He's doing nothing but spending money and putting us under! I don't know what the puppet master has him doing, but none-the-less, we are heading in the same direction as Greece, because of spending!
So what other lies is NPR feeding to you liberals?
gamefreak1000000 1 year ago
Well at least you fools can't wrongly blame the CRA AGAIN ! Even though it was all private bank NOT UNDER THE CRA . Even a dunce would have known that right ? Actually Goldman Sachs is to blame for Greece AGAIN ! BY deregulating derivatives Sachs set up another HUGE default they could bet against
spiegel*de/international/europe/0,1518,676634,00*html
Funny huh how this is all happening at once, isn't it Einstein ?
darliegoddess 1 year ago
I'd put NPR up against any of the lying scumbags from Fox any day. Any day.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
tomken8dy 1 year ago
@tomken8dy Explain to everyone why the corporations have to put so much money into defeating Obama if they own him ? Sorry, Obama had nothing to do with it.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess
Remember how Obama said he would work very closely with the Fed?
Call me cynical but I don't believe ANYTHING the media tells us about politics.
Since the passage of the Federal Reserve Act our money has devalued by 96 per cent.
In 1913 3 or 4 cents could buy what a dollar buys now.
Politics is a professional wrestling show.
It's all bullsh*t.
Wars are fought, recessions are deliberately engineered, disasters are purposely calculated to benefit the bankers
Presidents are $puppets
tomken8dy 1 year ago
Republicans have been in charge over every major banking crisis in the last 90 years. Medical bankruptcy is 65% of all bankruptcies and 75% of those are the insured. Bush got Greenspan to keep bank interest low so that people would be forced into the stockmarket . Then they crashed the stockmarket. Republicans deregulated derivatives so banks could sell defaulting loans, collect the insurance, the homes , get the bailout , get interest they charged our government to loan them money.Enjoy.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
tomken8dy 1 year ago
Corporations are dumped huge amounts of money into republican campaigns, republican supreme court struck down the laws against it so corporations could buy elections, changed the banking laws to INTENTIONALLY cause another great depression . AMERICA IS AND ALWAYS WAS A SOCIALIST COUNTRY ! When the R's are done police, no fireman, no welfare, unemployment insurance , no schools , our roads and bridges will collapse and the poor will be drafted in a holy war against Muslims.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess
Rothschild rules the world.
Congress and presidents do
what the Banksters tell them
tomken8dy 1 year ago
EXPLAIN TO EVERYONE WHY THE BANKS AND CORPORATIONS ARE PUTTING SO MUCH MONEY INTO GETTING OBAMA OUT OF IF ALL HE IS IS A PUPPET! It makes absolutely no sense.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess
It's all but a circus to confuse and
mislead us, Goddess.
Have you ever wondered why
the Fed has never been audited?
"Let me issue and control a nation's money
and I care not who writes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790
tomken8dy 1 year ago
Yeah like burying dinosaur bones to test our belief in god. I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. they are spending big money to get him out. It's like in meet John Doe. The only thing being set up is our president and you all are helping.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
I am so happy you made a new video. Everything you talked about is true in your video (I looked it all up) . You are always so smart and hot at the same time. Have a great day and Have a long and wonderful life. You earned it. Bye bye Anthony
HALCALI777 1 year ago
@HALCALI777 Smart?! HAHA hardly! She's a typical liberal and if she was soo smart, how much business knowledge does she have to realize that bailing out large companies and putting small businesses under is not good for our economy because the majority of jobs are in small businesses.
gamefreak1000000 1 year ago
@gamefreak1000000 Except I'm not a liberal. It's just you idiots only have two classes. Republican and liberal. Republicans don't mean "small business". By small business they mean sub companies of Coke or Exxon. Should have read a bit. By the way, what part of giving banks 1.4 trillion dollars is capitalist ? You and your boy Bush and your corporate welfare state ! Lol! True socialism. By the way, the US is already socialist dunce boy, always has been.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
I think you have mixed up quite a bit of history. Clinton allowed the bank deregulation to happen and Greenspan supported the changes. This came from both side of the aisle because the are whores to business/banks.
Although Murdock is a horses ass he is not an American and cannot be guilty of treason. When Murdock isn't manipulating the media for his own gain the government is spewing its own propaganda.
So in your own words: stop it stop it shut up. Don't, don't, don't even try to say anything.
poidog44 1 year ago
@poidog44
Clinton had no choice, the final vote was veto proof and he was a lame duck president for the last two years. Embroiled in fake scandals over White Water and a blowjo No this was a republicamn bill that repealed THE GLASS STEAGALL ACT OF 1933 . And yet again you are wrong, Murdock became an American citizen.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
oh my god I'm sooo excited to see you're still posting videos! I used to watch your videos back when you first started. You are stunning beautiful perfect and yes a goddess xoxo love you MWAH princess
pinkphlegm 1 year ago
i said you had no original ideas, and you spouted of about Bush in return... classic liberal. Anyway, you are right that Bush is an idiot. Who doesn't know that? He was a progressive republican or as he would've said a "compassionate conservative". What a crock of crap. I suggest you read up on the founding of our country, in depth, from many different resources, and then perhaps you might understand why it is that some people out there don't like the "Messiah" Barry Obama.
Disgruntalpunk 1 year ago
@Disgruntalpunk
Actually I spouted about the drunkard McCarthy first, I could have talked about Rush Bimbo the drug addict but instead I chose to point to the ex-coke addict George who mismanaged our country into financial failure the same way he bankrupt three companies that he had to have bailed out by the Bin Ladens. Funny that connection huh ? Oh please, I could take you to school on any subject. We don't have capitalism, we have corporate monopolies.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
This has nothing to do with sesame street, I am very disappointed! Come on! Where's the democrat blue Elmo to teach me about spreading the wealth? Or the Communist Big Bird to teach me that the government can take better care of me than I can of myself? It's a shame that you wasted such a good premise on the usual ramblings of a liberal, but it goes to show how washed over liberals are with talking points. No original ideas. tisk tisk
Disgruntalpunk 1 year ago
@Disgruntalpunk
You've just provided a a drunken McCarthy puppet to point out the communists. Oh and Bush spread the wealth alright, only none of it was here. He did though provide huge numbers of illegal immi8grants blackmarket jobs in the housing industry before he destroyed the economy and lost the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
The only thing I take issue with in the text you wrote is Bin Laden's culpability. In November 2001 a tape was found in Afghanistan in which he described and bragged about the attack on the WTC. He expected the collapse to only go as far as the floor level where the planes struck and he enjoyed that the collapse went down almost to ground level. The media (msnbc at least) reported this.
femstarlight 1 year ago
@femstarlight
The Bin Laden tape was fake.
/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs
whatreallyhappened*com/WRHARTICLES/osamatape*html
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@femstarlight
Now I'm guessing our CIA faked it . We are well known around the world as the people who assassinate democratically elected leaders for our corporations. Usually a leader that hints at nationalizing oil or some other resource will first be smeared, ousted by an American backed coup and then murdered.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess If that's the case why didn't the CIA fake a video where Saddam Hussein admitted to 9/11 involvement? The sticking point for most of those who opposed invading Iraq was the fact that there was no real evidence tying Saddam to 9/11, because Saddam wasn't involved in it. The conspiracy notions don't make any sense. For example, if I was going to create an excuse to invade Iraq, then the 19 hijackers of 9/11 would've been Iraqis. In reality none of them were.
femstarlight 1 year ago
@femstarlight
Bin Laden lives in a mountain cave, no witnesses. Saddam's was surrounded by people and media, it would have been impossible. Conspiracy theory ? The complete and utter failure of our defense system, the unbelievable games that left our entire country defenseless on the one day we were attacked ? Oh sure, they just got lucky. They hit the one day out of 365 that year, lucky.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Our cold-war era defense system wasn't designed to stop a previously unattempted suicide attack with hijacked commercial planes. There was sheer incompetence in the intelligence agencies-an explanation that isn't very reassuring but life usually isn't. As far as hijackers being lucky, they simply took advantage of security weaknesses, this country isn't invincible. They could have attempted it on the other 364 days and still might have succeeded.
femstarlight 1 year ago
@femstarlight
Lol! Oh please ! How lucky, to hit the one day of the year they were running simulations that our entire country was defenseless. Of course it was totally designed for that scenerio. It was ones of they were running in their simulations. It's why Bush saying "We never anticipated that attack" was so attacked. The hijackers were more than lucky , they took their time and hit targets dead on they weren't even good enough to hit,
darliegoddess 1 year ago
It's too bad I didn't discover your intelligent analysis of politics -- be it sexual politics or political politics -- until after you stopped posting your YT blog.
3souris 1 year ago
@3souris
I'm around =)
darliegoddess 1 year ago
oh this is really good!!!! I made this my fave! You are pretty by the way.
Peace.
PeterL524 1 year ago
Thank you much !
darliegoddess 1 year ago
Thank you Captain.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
cont.
There's no need for me to prolong this any longer. I'm sorry, but you lost, plain and simple. If it'll make you feel better, go ahead and have the last word.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
Prolong ? Win ? You have misrepresented every article, lied about every situation misrepresented the opinions that differ from yours. According to most that behavior accepted among you evangelists makes you not only not Christian but a liar. You are a hypocrite who brags in public that you may be seen as "Christian".
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@USChristianMarine
/watch?v=9RKQ7ukZKDk
Watch this and if YOU STILL BELIEVE we can talk. But right now everything you are saying is ridiculous.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Oh please, I've already seen all AronRa's garbage. Nothing I've said is ridiculous. Indeed, all of my information has been correct, which is more than I can say for you or AronRa. You're simply afraid of the truth, just as AronRa is. What's funny is that he still argues on behalf of these transitional fossils even though they've all been proven false. But I guess everybody has to have some kind of hope.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
TRANSITIONAL MODELS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED FALSE ! You are insane ! Kind of hard when you live among them. You lie in this endless streams saying people who humiliate you agree with you when none of them have. Everything you have said is ridiculous. I can't argue with insanity. I'm sorry. You know nothing about scientific method and yo you try and take a hypothesis and make it a fact so you have something to argue that is concrete but you cant. You fail because you aren't educated enough .
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess You make multiple errors in your statement. First, I've been talking about transitional fossils not standing up to scrutiny, which is an accurate statement. All you're doing is manipulating the evidence to support your argument, but you fail to do any research, which is why you got beat in the first place. I'm taking something presented as fact and exposing it as a lie. You make claims about my intelligence, yet I've thoroughly dismantled your argument.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
No, you are talking about "suggested "transitional fossils going through the debate process. Science starts with a hypothesis then throws it into an arena for the community to prove or disprove. Your ignorance of scientific method is a determent to any discussion . You are a liar because none of those ( except the hoax Piltdown from 60 years ago ) were presented as fact.
en*wikipedia*org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Uh darlie, she said transitional fossils, not those models in the science books. Before responding to a comment, actually read what the comment says, because this one made you look completely foolish.
TheKingsSoldier2000 1 year ago
@TheKingsSoldier2000 I'm holding my temper with you but don't tempt me. Models /fossils , it makes no difference. If a fossil comes up and a scientist says they believe it's a transitional link that does not make it accepted by all of science. It does not mean it is an attempted fraud. It means that theory is up for the scientific community to debate. Claiming otherwise is a lie. It's not like the bible where child molesting old men make up stories to control fools .
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess LMAO, I served in the Marines for eight years. Fossils are hard evidence, yet not true transitional fossil has ever been found. Of course, that doesn't stop evolutionists from saying they've been found. The models in the science books are based off pure assumptions without any evidence to support them. When numerous scientists say it's been proven, like they did with Ida and Tiktaalik, that does make it a lie.
TheKingsSoldier2000 1 year ago
@TheKingsSoldier2000
LOOKI AROUND ! THE WORLD IS FULL OF NO)THING BUT TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS ! You crazy christians keep spouting the same baloney over and over again like repetition is proof. It isn't and suggesting a fossil is a possible link does not make it a lie. Science is based on suggesting theories and putting them out there to be proven or dis-proven by scientific debate. Religion just lies about everything.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Ah the Michael Shermer argument. Yet they continue to point to one fossil, not every fossil. By they I mean evolutionists, so your argument is moot. This statement shows us clearly your disdain for Christians, so there's no point in even wasting my time, you're simply uninterested in hearing the truth anyway.
TheKingsSoldier2000 1 year ago
It's not anyone else's argument. You want me to link what you say to what every crazy crackpot religious wacko out there says ? Science isn't in the myth manufacturing business like religion. Science is ongoing and progressing where religion DEPENDS on suppression of facts. You haven't a clue what the truth is, you are like some tarot card reader trying to fit your vague fabrications into the real world.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
cont. Sorry, but the only liar is you. You've yet to present evidence to support your argument, whereas I have multiple times. Like I said, next time you want to debate, provide evidence to validate your claim. It would also help if you didn't lie about the person you were debating with. That really destroyed your argument right from the get go.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
But you haven't even read the articles you sent ! You have lied about everything. Of course you believe in creationism which makes you pretty much insane. Don't tell people you are Christian. It's insulting to the intelligent ones.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess See, there you go again. If I didn't read the articles, I wouldn't have sent them. Sadly, you chose to believe a lie in spite of the evidence. Don't get angry at me because I dismantled your argument.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
You called them frauds ! You lied.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess You're not even addressing my argument anymore. Yes I called them frauds. This means they aren't true transitional fossils, even though scientists claimed they were. Which means they either jumped the gun, or they lied.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
There are transitional models everywhere , all around you EVERYWHERE. They didn't jump the gun, that is how science is done. You propose a fact and the community disputes or tries to find collaborating evidence for that theory. If you don't even have a basic understanding of how research is don't it's a waste of discussion.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
THERE IS NO ARGUMENT TO ADDRESS ! You lied ! You called them frauds when they were mere hypotheses . That is how science works ! It's not like some baloney religious supernatural explanation you have to make up.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess I see you're making false claims about one of my friends. Are you simply a sore loser? All you've done in your arrogance, is shown that you can't stand to be proven wrong so you resort to using ad hominims against others. No, those fossils were heralded as true transitional forms and taught in numerous science classes around the world. The fact is they lied, not USChristianMarine.
TheKingsSoldier2000 1 year ago
No, these fossils were presented as "possible" links. Only religious lies are presented as "absolute" and no matter how many times you are slapped with the facts like good fanatics everything is based totally on blind faith and superstitions.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
As it stands we are COMPLETELY surrounded by examples of evolution.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
Lying only shows your lack of faith. Embarrassing.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
cont.
Next time we debate, please provide evidence to back up your claims.
Have a Blessed Week!
Anna
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
You haven't backed up a single claIm. In fact you have lied from beginning to end as I will demonstrate. There is no human foot print and dinosaur, no dating on the bell. That truly fits with Piltdown Man as being a carnival con. Then you openly lie about what evolutionists think. You lie about whats in the bible and yet you call yourself "Christian" ?
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess So me sending you numerous links isn't backing up my claim? Again, I already said that the Glen Rose prints were fake, so you're simply lying about what I said at this point. Once again, you didn't read the article's I sent simply because you were afraid of the fact that you're mistaken. Nothing I've said is a lie. None of their precious transitional fossils have stood up to scrutiny. I've already clarified why homosexuality is a sin in both the old and new testament.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
YOU NEVER READ THEM ! THERE WERE NO EVOLUTIONISTS ON YOUR SIDE, NO ARTICLES DISPROVING EVOLUTION , NO FRAUDS IN MODERN SCIENCE . Oh and by the way if science hadn't disproved things like Piltdown Man you would still believe them. Something religion can not claim because religion doesn't explore our understanding of god it retards it.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Yes I did read them. Again, I wouldn't have sent them if I hadn't read them. I brought up the transitional fossils. I provided a large amount of evidence disproving them. Your lack of honesty is why you lost the argument. Things didn't go in your favor, so you resorted to attacks and lies. I'm saying this to try to help you, so you'll understand why you lost.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
The first link you "claim " is a fraud is Ida. Had you read the article it was not a "fraud" at all, ONE journal claimed it to not be exactly the linage that the discoverers believed. All new discoveries are examined and debated over. That is science and you have lied. The last line from the article.
"So the debate is not settled among scientists. "
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess If you read it, you would realize it was talking about the transitional fossil argument, not Ida. Would you prefer the term fake? Whatever the case, it doesn't negate the fact that no transitional fossil has withstood scrutiny at this point in time. I haven't lied at all despite your best attempts to say that my statements aren't true.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
And neither is Tiktaalik a fraud. Frauds are intentional fabrications and these are articles up for debate.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Okay, it turns out the scientists jumped the gun, would you prefer that? How are the articles up for debate, simply because they don't support your viewpoint?
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
NO , it is science ! They make a hypothesis and everyone debates it ! Facts are discovered and searched for. Science is always changing as new things are found.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess I never said they weren't. Now you've given up entirely. You say facts, but the facts clearly don't support the transitional fossil argument. You say that religion retards our understanding of God, yet science searches for answers that keep God out of the equation. I don't believe in evolution, so why would I believe the Piltdown Man? That made absolutely no sense.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
NO ONE KEEPS GOD OUT ! All you want to do is to inject god in where he does not belong. If you REALLY believe in god then why would you not want to understand his infinite universe ? Fear, fear that it could somehow kill him.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Okay then, Tiktaalik turned out to not be a transitional fossil. Whatever the case, it's clear that Evolutionists are still searching for their precious missing link. Even you can't argue with that. You have the audacity to call me a liar, yet you've provided no evidence to back up your claim, whereas I have. It's becoming evident the only liar is you. You're not even attempting to rebut my argument at this point and have resorted to lying about me.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
I've sent you some links. Hopefully, you read them thoroughly and realize that you're mistaken about the transitional fossils. But if you're going to make claims, I ask that you provide the evidence to back your claim up. You're not even rebutting my argument anymore. And certainly not using any evidence to support your claim. You couldn't argue my assertions about the Inca stones, nor were you able to provide evidence to support your transitional fossil argument.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
Accuracy of the dating methods, which I've already explained. And let's not forget the paintings and drawings of the numerous "transitional fossils" because they don't have any actual fossils of these creatures. Or should we discuss the transitional fossils that have already been debunked? You know Ida, Tiktaalik, Lucy, Ardi, archaeoraptor, archaeopteryx, piltdown man as well as many others. I'm sorry, but the evidence clearly supports the Bible, and not the evolution viewpoint.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
The only hoax in that group I know of is Piltdown. Ida and Lucy aren't so I'm assuming after having outed your false claims you are grab bagging this baloney. No evolutionist agrees with a thing you have said so I wish you luck on your waking up.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Your reluctance to accept the truth is sad. I can't do all your research for you, but there are numerous articles all over the internet clearly explaining what I've stated and why. You're basing your claims off a preconceived notion without doing the research yourself. Even evolutionists admit there are no known transitional fossils. All you're doing now is ignoring the clear facts, and there's nothing I can do for that.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
Also, there are the human prints found in limestone estimated to be over 100 million years old. Even evolutionists admit that humanity isn't nearly that old. According to them, the predates some dinosaurs. Again, the archeological evidence we've found indicates that humans and dinosaurs lived together. I'm going to send you some links.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
The "human" foot prints are faked. Admitted to by the daughter of the creator of them. The only people that think they are human is those groups that still don't accept evolution and are grasping at straws for some kind of evidence. Whether you are a fundamentalist or not, the Glen Rose prints are fake and don't help the cause. Even the fundametalists said they were fake. No evolutionist ever agreed .
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Grasping for evidence? Send me the link that proves they're faked. Also, these prints have been found in numerous places all over the world. Not to mention, you still haven't explained the more than 50,000 Inca Stones that clearly portray dinosaurs, or the human skeleton remains found alongside a dinosaur. No it's pretty evident that only evolutionists are grasping at straws on this one. Lack of transitional fossils they claim are present, being one example.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
They were dino prints, look it up.
"It is fortunate that some Tpaleontologists have examined firsthand the Glen Rose tracks. Wann Langston, Jr., pointed out that some of the "man prints" have distinct claw marks emanating from what the creationists call their "heels." (The creationists apparently reversed the direction of travel .) Langston also noted that one of the most widely reproduced footprint photos of Paluxy man shows a portion of a poor print of a tridactyl dinosaur;"
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Again, I wasn't talking about those set of prints. I already said that in my PM to you. All you have to do is type in any transitional fossil followed by the term debunked and you'll find numerous articles verifying my statement. It's also verified by both creationists and evolutionists. I'm afraid you're simply afraid to acknowledge the truth. Until you can actually provide evidence for your claims, it's best not to make them.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
First, you make the mistake of thinking the Bible and science are mutually exclusive. The evidence shows that simply isn't the case, and numerous scientists agree that there is a supernatural force at work here. Scientists are arguing two points against the Bible now, the big-bang, and evolution. Even many evolutionists are Christians. Look at Ken Miller and Robert Bakker if you don't believe me.
SoldierofChrist2010 1 year ago
It's no mistake, science and the bible are mutually exclusive. While there is such a vast text that the occasional word or sentence may fall with some similarity the one is actually arrived at by research, the bible by guessing.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but the verdict's in and the evidence both scientifically and Biblically simply doesn't support your argument for homosexuality, and it certainly doesn't support your argument for dinosaurs. You're basing an argument off assumptions and probability. You do realize they found a Babylonian artifact that dated back over 300 million years, don't you? Does that sound accurate to you? I've got the link if you want to see it.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
Actually both scientifically and even bibliographically I'm supported . Yes I know about the bell but you got that from a place that specialized in ghost hunting. The coal was that old but the bell was not dated. It's not Babylonian or anything else. Oh and 300 million kind of would blow away the 6000 year Genesis deal wouldn't it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess I showed you that to get you to realize that your dating methods aren't accurate, therefore not a good indicator of the actual age of the Earth. You simply misunderstood where I was going with that.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
No, the coal is 300 million years old. The bell was not dated. It's that simple.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Actually, according to both articles I found, the bell was dated. Yes, the coal around it was dated at 300 million years, but to find an artifact inside that does raise some questions, don't you think? Especially concerning the accuracy of said dating method?
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
Both ? Where ? The Times, the Post ? NO. ghost hunters ! The bell was never datyed. Do you not think if this HADN'T BEEN DEBUNKED a credited newspaper would have brought it up ? Please!
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess I'm sending the links. It was even dated at the University of Oklahoma to verify it's authenticity. So the truth is that it hasn't yet been debunked. You're grasping at straws at this point.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Okay, I've sent you some links. Please let me know when you get them.
Have a blessed week!
Anna
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
Here's a few verses I Corinthians 6:9-10, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:24-32, Deuteronomy 23:17 and I Timothy 1:9-10 all talk about homosexuality.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
@USChristianMarine Sorry, but I'm not ignorant when it comes to gays. You see, this is a moral issue, or the church wouldn't have gotten involved. Also, the hebrews had multiple terms, like we have today for homosexuals. The term I think you're referring to is arseonkoitai, is this correct?
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 "nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute." Again this talks about being a prostitute , not being gay.
Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." It never mentions gays.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess You're using multiple versions of the Bible in these. You pick the one that isn't direct, though most people will argue that effeminate means homosexuals.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
No , you are using later versions of the bible, there never was a word for homosexual in ancient Greek and you are using assumption for the word " effeminate" THERE WAS ALSO NO TRANSLATION AND DOES NOT EVEN MEAN HOMOSEXUAL ! You are trying to use your prejudice to somehow make a 20th century reconstruction of an ancient language you don't know. I repeat,m until 1958 there was never a word for homosexual. Get it ? This text is 2000 years old and we haven't a clue what particular words meant.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Yet, you're making the same assumption I am. Only you're assuming we're wrong. Again you haven't addressed the terms sodomy or toevah. It's clear to theologians that both words mean homosexuality. Even they don't argue this point. Who's saying I'm prejudiced? I'm merely telling the truth. Don't get angry with me for that. And yes, there were words for homosexuality and I've already listed them.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
And last Romans 1:24-32 .Roman prostitution and/or the temple prostitutes of Canaanite and fertility religions which were both male and female. The idea of a committed same sex relationship would have never entered Paul's mind. Therefore, it is quite a stretch to use these verses to condemn monogamous committed same-sex relationship in the 21st century.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Yet it states in the text "men with men". It's evident that this simply isn't the case. Sodomy was one of the terms the Hebrews used, along with the term toevah, which has multiple meanings. I didn't say anything about condemning these people. You're trying to twist what I'm saying. The Bible's very clear on this issue. Homosexuality is immoral, just as murder is immoral, and stealing is immoral. It all has a basis in morality.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
NO , not only is the bible not clear at all and you would knowv that with the real translation of the original text. What translators did was a "best guess " not an absolute interpretation and thats why there are so many different translations. But again it also states you can sell your daughter into slavery. kill people for eating shell fish on the wrong day, murder your neighbors for not sacrificing a goat , on and on and on and on. Are you saying that we should follow these as well ?
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Here's the problem with your line of reasoning. We're under the New Covenant. Yes, there are still sinful acts and it's very clear in the New and Old Testament. We no longer have to slaughter goats for sacrifice. We no longer sell our daughters or kill people for committing sinful acts.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
Theologian Mel White argues that Greek scholars dont know exactly what it means, however, and that this simple detail is a big part of this tragic debate.1958, a translator for the New Amplified Bible set historical precedent by translating this mysterious Greek word into English as the word homosexuals, even though no such word exists in either Greek or Hebrew. It was that translator, according to White, who placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very 1st time.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess You mean aside from toevah and sodomy, right? It's easy for someone to say they don't know what it means, but he only answers for himself, not others. Again, the vast majority of theologians say it clearly means homosexual. Again, there's more than one term used to describe homosexuals, as I've already provided.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
I'm sorry you are totally wrong. We are talking about the direct translations from the original Creek and Hebrew. Oh do you want to talk Sodom, you mean where Lots daughters got their father drunk on wine and seduced him ? Oh please INCEST ? , That's not only a disgusting male fantasy but entirely ridiculous. Are you trying to say the bible condones incest ?
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Give me the proper context, it told us what happened. It didn't say anything about it being condoned. You're simply trying to avoid the argument altogether at this point. Sodom was destroyed due to all the sexual perversion, including homosexuality. I'm sorry, but that's simply the truth.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
Lets start out with the fact that there was no word for homosexual in greek so that every time it appears it is a COMPLETE FRAUD. Now I'm going to ignore Leviticus because it's were they tell you that you can sell your daughter into slavery and kill your neighbor for eating shellfish or not sacrificing a goat.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess I said that the word was in Hebrew. The word toevah, for instance, means homosexual. I gave you multiple verses. Some you haven't responded to, though I admit, it takes a while to do the research. But you're using multiple versions, not one version.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
Well actually no it doesn't. In Lev 18:26-30 toevah is used four times and refers to adultery, child-sacrifice, men selfvabuse and bestiality. It means ritually forbidden and not homosexual. Also now we are back to Levitcus and that poor translation The original Greek is totally indecipherable and reads nothing like the bible. Still, Rembert Trulcuk states, "These verses refer not to homosexuals, but to heterosexuals who took part in the ba'al fertility rituals...". You are wrong.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess I never said it didn't have multiple meanings. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."Lev. 18:22. This verse clearly tells us that homosexuality is wrong. You used the wrong verse.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
@USChristianMarine I apologize, it's Lev 20:13. Lev 18: 22 states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." But both these verses are from the KJV and both make it clear that homosexuality is immoral.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
"Arsenokoitai" was created about 55 CE. No record remains of any writer using the term before that time. Some theologians are fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey, since the idea of a homosexual sexual orientation only surfaced in the 19th century after the start of the scientific study of human sexuality. "Arsen" in Greek means "man." Thus, it is most unlikely that "arsenokoitai" could refer to both male gays and lesbians.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess I didn't say there wasn't dissent amongst theologians, but those are in the very small minority. The overwhelming consensus is that the translation is correct. Also, it's mentioned in numerous verses, so I don't see why you're trying to go around the issue. True we don't stone gays, but that doesn't mean it's not a sin. You can't throw out some of the text because you don't like it.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
Dissent ? It's not a small group at all ! In fact it is rather widely understood. You are basing 2000 years of persecution of people who have no choice in who they are on something without a basis in fact. The deaths, the suicides , the murders, the arrests and all the persecution based on . The only people who would agree with you say the earth was born 6000 years ago and god hid dinosaurs to confuse us. You feel good about that ?
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Where are you getting they have no choice? There are many young earth creationists, I agree. All the archeological evidence we've got of dinosaurs clearly indicates that dinosaurs and man lived together. Look at the more than 50,000 Ica stones that show dinosaurs interacting with humans. They're described in the Bible and both human and dinosaur skeletons have been found side by side. I'll send you the links if you want.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
No, it's not a moral issue, it's a corruption issue. Morals do not come from the bible they come from you as a person. Notice any scandal going on at the catholic church these days ? Yes, the pope is going to be prosecuted for hiding vast number of child abuse cases. Religions as structures are corrupt, personal faith is not. What would you need the bible for if you really knew gods heart ?
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Yes it is a moral issue, because you must have a moral law giver to even have a moral law. In this case, it's none other than the Almighty himself. I didn't say the Church was perfect and made no notion that it was. I did say the Bible was the inerrant word of God. We know God's heart, we need to know what he views is right and what he views is wrong as that's how he'll judge us.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago
Not perfect ? They molest children and then not only hid it but threatened the children with excommunication if the talked ! I bet if it was your damn child you wouldn't say ridiculous things like it's "not perfect" ! It's corrupt and statistically CHRISTIANS ARE NO BETTER THAN ATHEISTS ! That's right, you church goers have no moral superiority atv all overthe godless heathens.
darliegoddess 1 year ago
@darliegoddess Again, you're basing something the church does and saying it's a biblical argument. You're comparing apples to oranges. I did say they weren't perfect, I admit that what they're doing is wrong. You make the mistake of thinking there are no hypocrites on my side of the argument. I'm well aware there are. Moral superiority? We're all created equal and that means the same laws apply equally to everyone.
USChristianMarine 1 year ago