eym_sirius

I won't correct you on any "muslim/black thing" because I'm not going to indulge your prejudices. I never said anything about using a negation to preface equalling an affirmation being in any way philosophical! Where'd that come from??? Regarding the way that you began this post -- "There you go again!" Come to terms with your prejudices. Nobody said the first thing about race until you brought it up.

You don't have a clue, do you? It's psychological, not political, strictly. A rationalization, it's when you say things like "I don't mean to be rude, but..." when that's exacly what you mean to be. "I don't want to butt into your business, it's just that ....." yeah, you're about to butt into somebody's business. So when you say, "Not trying to make this racial....." Yes -- that is exactly what you're trying to do and the fact that you affirmed it by beginning with a negation is proof-positive of your intentions. The question that remains is -- "What is your interest in turning the di

Have you ever heard that a negation equals an affirmation? Probably not.

Me - I think that there's no such thing as a supernatural realm, making unnecessary any discussion of the possibility of inhabitants. Like you, I'm a moral person who knows that abiding by the laws of morality (doing right by the other person) is the way that I conduct my everyday life and the only way to have a quality existence. It doesn't have anything to do with a payoff or reward or getting a chance at a second life in another form - It has to do with a quality life. Admittedly that includes abiding by the laws because punishment interferes with life-quality. It's just very perplexin

I agree with you in part about muslims. There are not "catholic gangs", but there are muslim gangs. I think that the numbers of people going into prison were not muslims going in, because the percentages of muslims are higher in prison than in the normal population. There's no evidence that muslims are law-breakers in general society any more than anybody else. As for people claiming religion - I think that these are people who would probably claim a looser association with religion outside prison than they do inside. But that's part of my point, too. These are people who are not REAL beli

So how do you explain that the self-identifying percentages roughly equal the outside percentages? If the millions of Americans presently incarcerated were those who were not religious before the arrest, why would they self-identify as catholic, for example? It's not like there are catholic protective gangs in prison...... Do you agree that the percentage outside of prison is about four out of five who self-identify with some brand of religion? If the percentage inside of prison is roughly four out of five, how can you say, "jailhouse religion" if the percentages mirror each other?

There's simply no reason to think that mormons are less moral than catholics, protestants, jews or muslims. It's interesting that Santorum, yesterday, brought up the "spectre" of polygamy in a speech. He was playing upon the prejudices of the gathering as he equated polygamy to homosexual marriage. I hope people can see that whether it's anti-mormonism, anti-gay marriage - or anti any personal choice that doesn't affect anyone else -- It's all improper discrimination. This butting into the private lives of free citizens is not any sort of "morality" that I have any interest in being a

That's not supported by any surveys of the general population, as far as I know. I think that roughly 80 percent of Americans self-identify with some brand of religion. Take the people on PCOM - about the same percentage, do you think? About 80 percent? There's no evidence that they are any less likely to be arrested and jailed than those who are not religious? Why not, if there's a moral standard that is supposedly connected to religion?

Does anyone want to attempt to explain the disconnect between Religion and the moral failures of its faithful? Considering the statistical links between religion and incarcerations, does it make sense to insist that politicians adhere to ANY religion?

I've never known a mormon who was not a decent fellow. However, ignorance doesn't surprise me and I've read many, many comments here and there where people say that they couldn't vote for a mormon because their christian values are not represented by the mormon. These "values" are always non-specific, because there's nothing lacking in morality from mormons, from an ideological perspective. Nothing, by the way, can help Newt, except a terminal case of dumbass by the American People.

It doesn't look like it. Actually the percentages seem to mirror society in general. Most prevalent are Catholics and Baptists. That's to be expected, except that much of christian teachings are related to "doing right by the other guy" - aka "morality". So why is there such a disconnect between doing right and those who self-identify as belonging to a religion, particularly Catholics and Protestants? Over 70 percent in this study from 1999 statistics, published in 2001, are Protestants and Catholics! How can this be so, if religion teaches morality and is supposed to be effective at impactin

Got news for you, Mei Lan - This is a sentiment that is not as rare as you seem to think. Romney should be running away with this thing. There are a significant number of christians who absolutely will not support a mormon, period. It's stupid, sure!! But there's no accounting for the religious zealots ideology.

Even if they are, I'm still not much of a joiner. I can't imagine myself needing an organization to make my deals for me. About your not needing work -- some people are just blessed with good genes!

Of course, PSD! And to LPPT - You know, I'm a little older than you, but for some reason I have not gotten AARP materials. I think that I wouldn't have any interest in joining an association of "retired persons" until I fit the category. Even then, I'm not much of a joiner. The thing about a facelift for me - I'm too vain to let anyone know that I had one, so I'd have to go into seclusion for -- however long it takes to fully recover. Or I guess I could just wrap my head in gauze and say that I had been in an accident.....

It's COLD out there. Good morning, all!

Yes, but the time to do all of that stuff is before now. The wind blowing hard makes a difference.

That's terrible!

If a person panhandles, he knows that it's illegal, which is why he offers something in exchange, many times. A person who is deaf rarely self-identifies as a "deaf-mute", but instead "hearing impaired" and occasionally "deaf". The stylized scam is too pervasive to think that it could possibly be real. A person approaches you with a note that says that he's a "deaf-mute" and needs money. Will you please buy _____ from him or otherwise contribute? You can't ask him questions about his disability or his condition -- because he can't hear and for some reason doesn't know sign language or

This is an old scam, but it's tried and true. Here's a report about a similar scam prevalent in Paris: [Authorities have acknowledged a huge increase in a scam carried out by Romanian gypsies in Paris, this one based on requests for money for so-called deaf/mute girls. The scam is straightforward. A young girl approaches the mark (usually a tourist) with a piece of paper and a pen, pretending to be deaf. The paper names a couple of charities, both real and fake, and bears the signatures of a few previous marks. The current mark is asked for money, and if he's naïve enough, he giv

It's a scam. Always. There are many services for the hearing impaired.

I think that the name in the title was invisiblized. And I think that there's a difference between mentioning a place and advertising for it. I just checked his content and most of his posts are advertisements for the same place. There are honest ways to promote a business for free. The guy even said that he was running an ad trying to help the "owner" out. I think that Mrs G summed things up well: ["A pcommer can't come on here promoting/advertising their own business, IF they aren't a commerce memebr. Obviously, the OP is either the owner, co-owner or an employee of the restaurant.

I think, Pubby, that it's not an "Either-Or" proposition. The choices aren't "investing" OR "gambling" Many people - maybe even most people who gamble have retirement accounts and otherwise invest. Besides that, it doesn't mean that those people who would gamble, won't. It just means that our neighboring states will capture that revenue! I'm not advocating gambling - I think that the nanny state does not need to make laws to keep adults from participating, if they wish, and to the degree that they wish to participate. See, just because I personally may not have the circumstances t

It's an excellent point about Wall Street, where in most cases the fix is in. It's not an excellent point about gambling because legal gambling is allowed in some of our surrounding states. In the presence of legal gambling (I'll get to the lottery in a minute) the State has an interest in quashing private gambling ventures for the reason that Pubby enumerated, as well as the lack of proper tax-paying by the gamblers or the establishment. A bit like moonshiners not paying alcohol tax, don'tcha know? In the absence of legal gambling (I'll get to the lottery in a minute) the state is left with t

I understand that the church might have an interest in having its parishoners attend church instead of sitting at the slot machines, but the question was about the STATE, not the church. Can the case be made that as adults we do not deserve to have the freedom to make these choices for ourselves and that we NEED a nanny-state to make them for us?