Not a women, but I know the answer:
The real answer: Biological impulses from hormones.
The fun answer: Our charming ways of misspelling the contraction of "we are"...
what is it about us that they find so irresistable?
not me personally of course, but men per se?
i guess one or two ladies must find me attractive, but thats women for you all over, overly-wrought-muddles-of-consciousness-on-two-legs.. women are all so weird, bound to get some weird replies now i guess too.. over to the ladies ....
Not a women, but I know the answer:
The real answer: Biological impulses from hormones.
The fun answer: Our charming ways of misspelling the contraction of "we are"...
having read some of the posts in the military tribunal thread make me wonder about the perspective of the american population in general.
it seems to be more egocentric then ever.
the understandable outrage and indignation caused by the despicable and horrible acts on 9/11 seem to have caused little or no global perspective.
Expatbrit,
Muslim extremists do not hate America for what America has done, but for what America is. The greatest threat to their continued acquisition of power. The freedoms of America, culturally, economically, sexually; freedoms for women and non-conformists, are the antithesis of their control system. Such attitiudes spread to the Muslim world would so obviously mean their own demise.I guess I agree with what you are saing, but not quite the wording you use in the second part of your statement above. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong and we do agree after all. This idea that they hate our freedom is just the propaganda that Bush has been pushing, but I don't think it's true. They do not hate our freedom. As you say, what they hate is what America represents -- the present world power that stands in opposition to their ability to convert the world to Islam. Islam has a continual world view of believers versus infidels, and that there will be a continual conflict between the two sides until one side (obviously for them, the believers) triumphs, either through conversion or the sword.
Throughout history, there has always been one country or group of countries in the Western world that has the most power, and that country thus becomes the focal point of fundamentalist Muslim animosity. America has that place at the moment, and thus became the target.
It isn't personal. It has nothing to do with our lifestyle, except in a very indirect way. They do not hate our freedom, as much as Bush blathers on about that. We merely represent the latest in a long line of infidel powers that block them from their goal. If that is what you meant, then we do agree.
ten reasons why i never wash. my mother made me wash as a child.
the soap makers only want my money.
there are so many different kinds of soap, i could never decide which one was right.
You no more understand the mind of the atheist then you do the mind of the Hindu.
there, i said it.. how can you leave one brainwashing controlling world view and dive right into another?!.
duh!!!.
see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17131&site=3 for a great example of why they suck.. aaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhh!.
Of course an atheist has a few problems of his own, however. For example has trouble adequately explaining why a human would willingly sacrifice his life for that of another.
Altruism helps the group.
He has trouble explaining how something that does not exist manages to inspire and move so many people.Most people live fantasy lives. The ancient Greeks were inspired by their gods, yet you don't believe in them, so why is it hard to accept that people today believe in imaginary beings? Humans have been doing that for millenia.
And when his work takes him far from home and he thinks about his family sitting in a semi-circle around the fire at home waiting for him to come back, it’s hard for him to think of this as just a chemical imbalance in his brain.Why? That's where emotions come from, on a physical level. You can make a person experience certain types of emotions simply by stimulating parts of their brain.
How are any of these questions hard to answer?
what do you all think of this guy?
he is bill o'reilly from fox.
i like him, i dont agree with his views on clinton but i do like his show.. there's a television program called america's black forum that runs on many abc stations across the country and your humble correspondent was a recent guest on the show.
The copyright laws are in the midst of being corrupted for Net use as we speak, but in general, and traditionally, here is what is considered 'fair use' and thus acceptable to copyright holders: Quote a portion of the article, with full attribution. Link to the rest of the article. Technicall, by posting the entire article you violated copyright. The copyright holders would ideally like you to be intrigued enough by the excerpt to go to the main site, read the entire article there, and see their ads, other content, etc.
Think of it as quoting from a physical book. If you type an except on the Net, the reader still has to go to the store to buy the book to read the rest of it if he or she is intrigued. If you type the entire book on the Net, the author and publisher have little chance of making any money.
As for the main topic of this thread, I don't care for Fox News one bit, and I'm not too familiar with O'Reilly. However, I agree that standards should be applied equally and fairly to all. When it comes to African Americans, sadly, many conservatives only want to apply fair standards when it comes to them receiving something good (e.g. Affirmative Action), but couldn't care less when societal standards block them disproportionately into getting something bad.
there, i said it.. how can you leave one brainwashing controlling world view and dive right into another?!.
duh!!!.
see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17131&site=3 for a great example of why they suck.. aaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhh!.
Damn! I saw the title of this thread and thought it was about cute fundy girls and their new-found interest in oral sex...
a few days back i made a comment on the collapse of enron on this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=16970&site=3.
an excerpt from my post read: "enron is a classic example of the hollow and predatory nature of the so-called new economy, which some imagine to be a new and improved way to make money!
instead of actually producing gas and energy products, enron got into buying and selling futures sales of non-existent gas and electricity.
LaRouche, in fact, is one of the most respected statesmen and economist in the world.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
jw statistics 2001:.
http://www.jwic.com/stat.htm.
teejay,
Yes, I think the generation change was part of the problem at that time -- it took quite a psychic toll on many JWs.
The other factor, right about that time: The emergence of the Net into people's living rooms. 1996 was the year things really began to explode in the online world. By '97 and '98, it was an inexorable force. By 2000, grandma was emailing her grandsons.
a few days back i made a comment on the collapse of enron on this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=16970&site=3.
an excerpt from my post read: "enron is a classic example of the hollow and predatory nature of the so-called new economy, which some imagine to be a new and improved way to make money!
instead of actually producing gas and energy products, enron got into buying and selling futures sales of non-existent gas and electricity.
To which Sneeker responded:
Get my handle right or else I'll assume you have nothing valid to say and must huddle behind cheap insults.
Yes, yes, I know, Larouche agrees with you and you agree with Larouche, and everyone else is either blind or in on the conspiracy. Kinda hard to argue with a mindset that paranoid (and yes, refiners fire, You Know does believe that the Queen of England is behind a vast conspiracy). However, the rest of us will hardly take your word on anything, for you've been wrong countless times. Find us some independent confirmation of your rantings, and then we'll talk.
i have a question.
i have asked it in a private discussion with a fundamentalist who cowardly ignored the whole premise of the thought and am hoping there is someone here who can address it.. i am aware of the fact that abortion is one hot button topic.
it is not my intention to make this a debate about abortion.
Gumby,
Come on seeker....I know your DYING to jump on this one.Why?
Rex,
Thank you for the varied explanations. I agree with you that those are various explanations that would make sense to various believers. I think Skeptic still had a point, though. Even if we accept God's sovereignty, and thus His right to do whatever He wants to do without question, wouldn't this still mean that He doesn't want us to perform abortions, but He can do the equivalent if it suits His larger purpose? It would still mean God ordered abortions, but He must have had a valid reason for doing so. Is that correct?
Julie,
I have often thought about the fundamentalist mindset on the issue of abortion. Essentially, they want every fetus to come to term and be born. They want to protect this unborn life without question. Then the children grow up and most of them turn away from fundamentalist teachings and thus deserve death! Sometimes you can't win for trying.