[Liberator]

No, there are far too many of us to make such a generalization.

Christians, everything else being equal, are flawed humans just like the rest of world, we just try to minimize certain of the flaws through the teachings and commandments of Christ.

That why I can't understand how some so called Christians can give support, in the form of they're vote, to leaders who openly and sometimes proudly denegrate they're faith and sometimes threaten it(see the recently publicized memo from the DoHS about the nature of so called potential Right Wing terrorist...that's a whole separate rant).

[Janos]

Gonna repeat this!

Children born to crack-addicted mothers and who have no other choice than to grow up in the violent and dirty inner city.

So the solution is to perpetuate the circumstances that lead to the mother getting addicted to crack in the first place?

What would you mean by this in this particular context?

[Nuclear1]

That why I can't understand how some so called Christians can give support, in the form of they're vote, to leaders who openly and sometimes proudly denegrate they're faith and sometimes threaten it

ARRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH THE EVIL LIBERALS ARE OUT TO GET CHRISTIANITY

Tell me when exactly Christianity has been persecuted in the US.  ...oh, it hasn't?  That's what I thought! 

Also the courts telling Christians they can't force their religion on others in public places (i.e. school prayer) isn't persecution so don't even try that

[Kosh]

That is the most inane, uneducated statement I've ever heard.

Humans of every generation have read prophecy from many sources and determined that they were living in the "End Times".  Most prophecy is like that, vague to the point of illegibility.  Only a few sources are detailed enough so that the faithful, and anyone else who cares to read it will recognize what is happening.

James Watt, the first Secretary of the Interior in the Reagan administration, testified before the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. “God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back,” Watt said.

source

Oh and then there's this one:

Ronald Reagan, in a 1980 interview with Jim Bakker, said, "We may be the generation that sees Armageddon." Before that, in 1971, Reagan commented to James Mills regarding events in Libya, "For the first time ever, everything is in place for the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ." Obviously, Reagan thought that the end would come SOON! And to think that a man with apocalyptic delusions like this had his finger on the nuclear button for 8 years. (Grosso p.8)

source

It's a wonder we made it out of the 80's with these psychos in charge.

Humanity Western and Muslim culture has this peculiar fixation with the world ending.

Fixed. In all the time I've been in Asia I have never seen or heard any sort of doomsday talk. When I tell people about these ideas, they rightly think it is crazy.

To listen to you, you make out like every Christian is working daily to bring the End Times upon us....

No but a good percentage in America are. Why do you think so many Evangicals so blindly support Israel?

To give another quote:

These millennialist beliefs about the end of the world are widespread in the United States. A Gallup poll taken in March 2002 revealed that "46 per cent of Americans describe themselves as 'born-again' or evangelical." In a 1999 Newsweek poll 71 per cent of evangelicals said they believed the world would end in a battle between Jesus and the Anti-Christ at 'Armageddon'.

Say what you will about surveys, but that does go a long way towards explaining many of the Bush administrations pro-Israeli and generally anti-environmental policies

[NGTM-1R]

That why I can't understand how some so called Christians can give support, in the form of they're vote, to leaders who openly and sometimes proudly denegrate they're faith and sometimes threaten it(see the recently publicized memo from the DoHS about the nature of so called potential Right Wing terrorist...that's a whole separate rant).

What? You miss out on the militia movement? Hell, you miss out on Timothy McVeigh? A terrorist requires belief. Any old kind will do, but the kool-aid is most easily imbibed through the method of religion.

However, you also make a cardinal sin.

Faith, in this country, is a personal matter. We have never had a state religion. Conformity is not a valued objective in the conciousness of the American religious. It never could be, considering the variety that were represented when the country was founded. This is why we host the Society of Pious the X (unfortunately).

[Liberator]

I'm just gonna say that I am flabbergasted that you are trying to link religion and the enviroment.

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Dominion is a funny word, there are 2 definitions that apply:

dominance or power through legal authority also a region marked off for administrative or other purposes

A literal explanation is that God gave man ownership of the world to do with what he saw fit.  The part of that that you will walk away with is that enviromental destruction is biblically endorsed.  Most people take the second definition to be the more literal one, that he handed the world and the beast of the field and every herb of the ground, to use the language from the book, and made it subservient to man as for food and for man to care for and maintain the world for his own benefit.

I adhere to the second one, BTW.

[General Battuta]

If you look at the first non-negative command in the bible, I believe it's actually to go forth and name all the beasts.

Looks like God's first non-prohibitory command was an endorsement of science!

[BengalTiger]

the free healthcare...

Nothing is free.

I'm not sure if it's misanthropy I'm detecting or a very cold, calculating logic devoid of any empathy. 

Democrats have no brains, Republicans have no hearts, or so it goes.

Also the courts telling Christians they can't force their religion on others in public places (i.e. school prayer) isn't persecution so don't even try that

I generally hear of prayers in schools being banned in general, not the just act of forcing others to pray, so you're pretty close to a blue on blue kill over there..

[Kosh]

I'm just gonna say that I am flabbergasted that you are trying to link religion and the enviroment.

So you're going to totally discount the words of two fairly influencial political figures?

Yes the bible says we should protect the environment, but in reality we typically cherry pick what things we choose to follow, and for the doomsdayers in this one of the things that gets left out.

[The E]

So you're going to totally discount the words of two fairly influencial political figures?

Being influential != Being right

[Herra Tohtori]

Democrats have no brains, Republicans have no hearts, or so it goes.

Can this be related to the following quote by certain Russian politician?

Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.

 

Anyway, I have to say that it's been a long time since I've seen GenDisc this busy with conversations, even though they are pretty controversial.

[Scotty]

That's why we bother talking about it.

What you're saying is essentially "**** them", right?

No.  Whatever gave you that idea </serious>

They are all privileges.

I have, basically, the right to have lived.  The fact that I am discussing anything at this point demonstrates that.  If you have not yet lived, there is nothing for it to apply to.  Part 2:  No matter what you say, do, or try to do to someone, they always have a choice.  You can't take away that particular exercise in free will.  You try to kill me, I can choose to either resist, or just go with it.  You try to take my stuff, same.  There is always a choice, even if not a particularly good one.

Tell me when exactly Christianity has been persecuted in the US.

   Where the hell did this come from?

I generally hear of prayers in schools being banned in general, not the just act of forcing others to pray, so you're pretty close to a blue on blue kill over there..

Yeah, they also actually banned moments of silence where people feel encouraged to pray, regardless of what the school is doing.  It seems to have become kind of a "yeah, you can do this, but only where you and your friends can see it.  Someone else could get offended."

[Blue Lion]

I have, basically, the right to have lived.  The fact that I am discussing anything at this point demonstrates that.  If you have not yet lived, there is nothing for it to apply to.  Part 2:  No matter what you say, do, or try to do to someone, they always have a choice.  You can't take away that particular exercise in free will.  You try to kill me, I can choose to either resist, or just go with it.  You try to take my stuff, same.  There is always a choice, even if not a particularly good one.

I can remove BOTH of the rights you've just mentioned. Depending on your definition of when life exists, I can most certainly stop it before that happens.

As for choice, I can shoot you in the head (I won't). Your choice is gone.

I can drug you and tie you to a bed forever and force feed you through a tube. What choice would you have in that situation?

[Bobboau]

nb4determinism

[Nuclear1]

the free healthcare...

Nothing is free.

Ok, the healthcare that doesn't cost an arm, a leg, and a kidney to get basic treatment.

Also the courts telling Christians they can't force their religion on others in public places (i.e. school prayer) isn't persecution so don't even try that

I generally hear of prayers in schools being banned in general, not the just act of forcing others to pray, so you're pretty close to a blue on blue kill over there..

Ok, you completely twisted everything I said.

Read this.  And how do you mean, "just act"?  Do you think people should be forced to pray in school?

[maje]

Kosh

Communism in those states ended up turning into a religion of its own. All of these states had huge personality cults, especially north korea. Rigid adherence to doctrine, blindly following the great leader's word to the letter, intolerance towards anyone who disagrees with said doctrine. All the hallmarks of a religious cult.

Ah, very good.  And because you've got it partially right, I will reward you with a passage from The Book of Exodus, Chapter 20, Verses 3-5 from the Hebrew-English Tanakh:   "3)You shall have no other gods besides Me.  4)You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth.  5) You shall not bow down to them or serve them."

I could've used the Catholic Bible, but because it's translated from two or three languages prior to English, I'd rather just go straight to original source, thus why I used a Jewish Bible instead.

But, more to the point, that was the First Commandment, which basically states that worship of false gods or idolatry is prohibited.  As you've pointed out, those communist states and Nazi Germany all began to follow blindly their leaders doing whatever they were told, regardless of whether it was right or wrong.  This goes to such an extreme, that these persons can be treated as having a "messianic personality" (well, Hitler anyways) by their people (thus, a false god).  A person can be interpreted as a deity such as a far eastern emperor, however, because he is human he is thus flawed, and thus, false in terms of being God.

However, it should be noted that lack of religion does not necessitate the absense of God.  Atheism itself is more of a belief that there is no deity, and it's exact opposite, which is theism, believes in God or gods (mono- or poly-).  Even if the Judeo-Christian faith is shot to Hell, God still exists, because He transcends religion.

Lack of any sort of religion or cults has never happened in the history of the world until now. Look at Sweden, they are the least religious country in the world and yet they are the free-est, most satisfied, and one of the most prosperous in the world.

Sweden's native population, as well as Europe in general is dying off and being replaced by mass immigration from primarily Muslim countries, and the Muslims by and large are rejecting atheism and keeping with their own traditions and culture rather than adopting secular ways.  Unified in their belief and faith, they adhere to what they believe are God's teachings and follow a more traditional morality that focuses on promotion of the family and keeping clear of perceived sins such as excessive materialism, promiscuity (I would not think of including polygamous marriage as promiscuity). 

Atheism in Sweden and elsewhere doesn't really espouse any specific morals or ethics that I know of.  There certainly are faiths such as secular humanism, but again, that places man as top dog in place of God, and man can justify anything he does or doesn't do for better or worse without being held to account.  And as the current behavioural mindset focuses almost specifically on an individual's preference, values are subject to one's point of view.  Some will decide that a traditional lifestyle is good, others will do what they feel like if it feels good, traditional morality be damned. 

Through the sexual revolution, people rejected the discipline required by celibacy (which is generally taught by most major religions) and with birth control and abortion available, most people have turned something that was pretty much kept for procreation as opposed for recreation.  After all, sex is enjoyable, is it not?  However, what if she gets pregnant?  I didn't intend to become a father, I just like participating in the act of creation because it feels good.  Raising a child is just too much responsibility.  And if I get married, I'll have to stay monogamous which may be something I'm not ready for, or I like having sex with this person, but don't wish to remain with her until one of us is in the ground.
The sad truth is that many native Europeans have adopted this mind-set to the point where simply put, they are not reproducing save, where a traditional faith is strong, such as Muslim Albania.  If demography is indeed destiny, the Islamic faithful are going to be replacing the native Europeans.  If the superiority of a culture is based off of accomplishments and longevity, Islam will have succeeded in the latter and will have time on its side to achieve the former.

nd the reason for this was because when it was written in the 19th century religion was still being used as a tool to keep exploited people in line.

"Exploited people" ?  No offense but you certainly sound like a Marxist.  Religion is still being used to keep people in line even in the 21st century if you take a look at the Third World.  It's not like after the switch to the 20th century religion in the First and Second World stopped.  The reason as I understand it, is that Marxism cannot co-exist with religion because absolute authority is to come from the state, not a faith that proclaims the existence of God who will hold those accountable for right or wrong.  Therefore, Marxism must eliminate the belief of God and convince people to look for a god in the state, which is of course, false because the state is run by humans who are prone to mistake.  In effect, the people may no longer be kept in check by a religion, but they will be kept in check by Big Brother.  A police state is not something most Americans or Europeans would like to live in.  Also, it should be noted that Marxism's state-enforced atheism mandate runs completely contradictory to the United States' Constitution's First Amendment.  America's own rules prevent the denial of freedom of worship.

out if it is based on major misunderstandings and scare tactics?

I'm not entirely sure I follow.
If you're referring to someone deceiving, guilt tripping or coercing you into belief, than that's immoral.  The conversion is false and thus is a great disservice to Him, you, and those who adhere to the faith because quite frankly, you don't know what you're getting into, and will have not arrived at that conclusion through honest means.

If I threaten someone with scary tales of getting their ass poked by some sadistic red-horned imp wielding a trident prancing around the lake of fire for unbelief, then I'm technically corrupting any potential conversion, because it'll have been done to avoid pain, as opposed to true and honest reasons.

As for major misunderstandings go, I have more or less begun to make it my personal practice to put religion and free thinking side-by-side in order to overcome things like mistranslations and so forth (I'm assuming this is what you mean).  As I mentioned earlier, I have a Catholic Bible and a Jewish Bible.  For the Old Testament I refer to the Jewish Bible simply because you're going from pure Hebrew to English, and thus are more likely to get a correct translation as opposed to the Catholic or King James Bible (which I have as well) since those went something like Hebrew/Aramaic > Greek/Latin > English (not counting translations to the modern forms of those languages).  In general though, all Bibles to my knowledge have the same basic message.

And I could refute that. By removing god it allows us to find our own answers to how things work. God did it is a total cop-out. I don't see anything about quarks or leptons in the bible, do you? Besides, there are many parts of the bible that are not followed, such as the part about selling your daughter into slavery. The bible is supposed to be "the word of god" and therefore infallible, so that also makes it the "absolute truth"?

This is illogical.  I could tell you that I modeled a Vorlon fighter without explaining how I did it in terms of workflow and tool sets, yet it wouldn't change the fact that I made it.  What you are essentially asking for is a scientific answer to a scientific question.  The Bible is not a science book.  Likewise, should I seek an answer on moral values from a book on botany?  Appropriate tools for appropriate questions.  Having God does not somehow prevent a person from exploring how the world around them works.  Look at Leonardo da Vinci.  A man of faith, yet considerable artistic talent and a curiosity of the world around him, attempting new ideas.  What you are most likely thinking of is intereference from clergies.

I don't recall seeing any passages in which God commands fathers to sell their daughters.  There are many rules in regards to the treatment, purchace, and freeing of slaves, if that's what you're getting at.  Things like if a man bethrothes a female slave to his son, she must be treated like a daughter, or if he himself marries her, and then marries another, he must still afford her food, clothes, conjugal rights, and so forth, or failure to do so will result in her freedom.  You can look this up in the Book of Exodus.  Chapter 21 goes into it all.  I also think there are some parts of Leviticus that also go into this, but I don't remember off-hand.  After that, I'm sorry, I've yet to finish the Book of Numbers.  I'm trying to get through the second census of the Israelites, and it keeps listing nearly every head person and their pet dog who was descended from Jacob's 12 sons.  I guess this is what happens when you have a wandering group of nomads numbering in the tens of thousands.

Not really. Things that hurt other people are wrong, full stop. Things that hurt yourself are things you shouldn't do, but it is your choice.

So, committing harm to another is wrong, no matter the circumstance, thus making it an absolute truth.  It can also be argued that it may be at times necessary to harm another, suggesting an absolute truth, however, I think we can agree that 'right' and 'necessary' are different from each other.

As for doing things that hurt yourself that one shouldn't do (from the Book of Numbers, Chapter 15, Verse 31: "Because he has spurned the word of the Lord and violated His commandment, that person shall be cut off- he bears his guilt."
The Catholic version reads: "Since he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken his commandment, he must be cut off.  He has only himself to blame."

Understand that humans possess free will to do whatever they wish.  However, different actions produce different results.  If I brake a law and get caught, who should I be upset with? law enforcement, or myself?  If I have free will and control over my actions and knowingly broke the law, then I only have myself to blame.

Based on the mythos in the bible god is no better. "Worship me OR ELSE", yeah, real mature.

Or else, what?  In all honesty, it seems that you have more of a beef with the Abrahamic belief system, rather than God Himself.  Also, God is not some personified deity such as the pagan gods of Greece and Rome, which are personifications of elemental forces and human nature.  God isn't meant to be worshipped as an idol like humans did of Ra or Maalak.  You Worship Him everyday by helping your neighbor, contributing to society, being the best person you can be.  Yes, you'll make mistakes, but that's all humans.  Only He Who Resides in the Most High is without sin.

Kara

But yet didn't give a toss about people who did die in accidents?

Furthermore if you're claiming that miracle saves are due to God then what causes freak accidents? God being a bastard and deciding to kill someone?

This seems more rooted in anger at God, as opposed to lack of belief.
A good reading with regards to "Why do bad things happen to good people?" can be found near the end of the Book of Genesis, Chapters 37, 39-50.  This chronicles Joseph, son of Israel, being sold off into slavery by his brothers.

Blue Lion

Without government, I decide I would really enjoy eating you for lunch. Where is the right to life at that moment
Your stuff looks really pretty. No cops to stop me, looks like they're mine. What right to property??

Wow, you really took that out of context, didn't you?  You mean, without government, you're really incapable of following any rules of morality?  That's not good.....

Herra Tohtori

It's funny how the idea about helping other people seems to originate from (and be preferred by) godless atheist scum whereas the ideal society of good Christians [generalization warning] seems to be a model where the state only has the most rudimentary functions (safety, jurisdiction) and everyone basically has to get along on their own or perish.

Just an observation of mine. Don't be flamed (I might've worded it a bit provocatively) but think about it for a while. What kind of a society would Jesus want to live in, a capitalist one or one with some socialist features?

You're going to have to explain why most charitable donations come from the Bible Belt as opposed to more secular states.

The difference between the Christian and the Socialist is that the Christian gives what he has of his own pocket; the Socialist takes from someone elses, drops a chunk of change into their own, and hands over what's left.

-Joshua-
Christ would NOT support socialism because it's the forced redistribution of another's wealth.  He would want people to voluntarily give to the poor rather than some state dictate the process because it is a corruption.  A wealthier person is doing it because he's forced to, not because he WANTS to.

[maje]

That why I can't understand how some so called Christians can give support, in the form of they're vote, to leaders who openly and sometimes proudly denegrate they're faith and sometimes threaten it

ARRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH THE EVIL LIBERALS ARE OUT TO GET CHRISTIANITY

Tell me when exactly Christianity has been persecuted in the US.  ...oh, it hasn't?  That's what I thought! 

Also the courts telling Christians they can't force their religion on others in public places (i.e. school prayer) isn't persecution so don't even try that

Apparently, you haven't heard of the new DHS report on supposed "right-wing" extremists from Janet Napolitano says need to be monitored.  It targets people who have pro-life, traditional marriage views, or conservative views in general as being suspected "domestic terrorists".  Also, this report includes returning military personnel, people who want border stability, anti-amnesty for illegal aliens, don't like losing their jobs overseas, etc.

[maje]

Wait, you're telling me a recession would last longer, but government intervention to help it is bad?

Considering government interference would exacerbate the problem further, yeah, any major intervention would be bad
Did you not understand why the Recession of 1921-23 was resolved in a year?  There was minimal government intervention
involved.

If you REALLY want to know what I think, is that the CEOs should be investigated for any illegal wrong-doing and if found guilty, have their assets seized and distributed equally among the employees who will lose their jobs when AIG goes under.

AIG going under will leave a vacuum needed to be filled, and thus some bright entrepreneurial Americans will come in and have their shot at replacing the former financial giant.

The reason I believe that the recession would take longer is because of our lack of a manufacturing base, thus taking longer for those jobs to be created (it is quite possible that I could be mistaken on this, and further research may be required).

Secondly, the stimulus package won't do what you say it does. The fact that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are now on the budgets (they weren't before) and health care is steadily increasing is what ruins the deficit.
As government bails out public companies and becomes the biggest "shareholder", it in effect has nationalized them.  If the companies fail to do what the government dictates, the money goes out the door.  Not everyone wants Big Brother micro-managing every little decision that's to be made.  Thus, the private sector is systematically converted over to the public sector.
This is nothing more than a classical socialist power grab.

You're misunderstanding the stimulus package with the overall budget projections. Yes, the budget will take a big hit in the next year or 3 due to this stimulus, but it is not what is causing this spiraling deficit.
Out of control spending is causing the deficit.  I mean, how can a person be pissed at W. for pissing away all that loot but look at Barry as the Be All, End All when his policies will TRIPLE the deficit.  This will NOT get us out of recession, but will put us in depression.

Firstly, the tea parties are conservative funded protests against tax changes that will LOWER taxes for 95% of the people (so all those people are protesting lower taxes) AND they won't even come into effect until next year. Right now, the taxes they are protesting are Bushes tax rates from last year.

Did you even attend a tea party? Lots of people are pissed off at BOTH Republicans and Democrats.  While it is indeed true that Fox News and more conservative media outlets are more supportive of the tea parties, it is NOT limited to those who hold to be conservative.

You really need to read the report released by the Congressional Budget Office.  It is projected that while the stimulus package may benefit the people or a year or two, it will ultimately come crashing down the moment Obama institutes new taxes to pay for all of this.  Did you not pay attention to him saying he would hold off on taxes for two years?  That means, come the end of 2010-2011, we'll be seeing massive tax increases which will decrease money exchanging hands.  Even if you tax the "wealthiest 1%" only, it's not going to work.  You are going to see an increase in income taxes across the board for everyone who pays them.

Also, it needs to be noted that the bottom bracket of the "wealthiest 1%" is hovering a little over an income gross of $200,000.
Most people get this ludicrous idea that the wealthiest 1% are composed only of earners of seven-figure salaries.
 This tea party thing is right wing pretend nonsense. Nothing more.
Poppycock.  CNN and MSNBC have been hammering the tea parties because it is perceived to be solely aimed at Barack Obama, whom they cheerleaded into the White House.  Perhaps we should expose Communist News Network's bias, hmm?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xWGvdRQ9Q.

No, no Soviet-style propaganda here.  For news one can trust, read Pravda.

Have you ever considered that most people voted for Barry because W. screwed up so bad, that when Barry offered "hope and change", people believed that Obama would not continue disastrous policies of fiscal irresponsibility and not piss away the blood and treasure for another 4-8 years?  And then he comes in and proposes that we spend even more recklessly claiming that will get us out of the crunch and keeps up with bailouts, despite that having not worked at the end of W's term.

People are pissed because they've been had.  All that "hope" and "change" has turned out to be a bunch of malarchy.  What, spending into oblivion is bad only when there's a Republican president, but it's okay now, because it's a Democrat?  Do NOT be an unthinking drone of either party that buys into all the crap.  This isn't "Good Republicans" and "Evil Democrats" or vice versa.

The rub is the systems you say should fail are vital systems to large swaths of the economy, including credit and funding. These failures would irrevocably harm lots of people. The auto industry for example, a lot of people are tied into that system. If it goes, you can't slap a new owner on it. It doesn't work that way.
Ah, here's the problem.  GM, after having received a bailout, invested $1 Billion overseas for manufacturing operations in Brazil.  This does NOT save or create new American jobs.  And I say this as a person who initially supported the Auto-industry bailout because I believe that it IS a vital industry to the U.S. economy.  The difference with the financial industry is that it's much easier to recover than say, the manufacturing industries, due to all the regulations, prep work, machine and parts costs, etc.

People are going to be harmed regardless.  It comes down to this:  How long do you want the hurt go on for?  When do you want it to happen? Now, or down the road?  It's unavoidable.  Preferrably, I would rather get it over with now, rather then prolong the inevitable.

When the free market and "the good of the people" butt heads, guess who wins? It's not free market.

West Germany after WWII BEGS to differ.  Only after the forces of the free market were unleashed did that country begin to prosper.

I'm no fan of Dodd or Frank (come on, voted out of office next time!) but I understand vital parts of the economy are just that: vital. I fully endorse not putting it in the hands of people who put it in that place.

Finally, we're getting somewhere.  This is partially what I was getting at with the whole "wolf and sheep" analogy.  Apologies for not having just come out with it in the first place.

No, I am perfectly upset about lack of regulation on things in the financial market and housing market. However these businesses screwed up so bad they needed great ol big checks from the government. I want better government regulation on things in the market like credit default swaps and credit ratings (my god, the credit rating fiasco). This implies I don't hold them in the highest regard now.

I'm not sure so much about lack of regulation, so much as rewarding bad behaviour.  I do have some ideas on how the private sector can be better self-regulated though; well, at least companies who have stock-holders involved, based on a one man - one vote system in which stock-holders may punish or reward CEOs as they see fit regardless of how much of the company an individual stock-holder owns.  The company didn't too well this quarter, but the CEOs want bonuses?  Too bad, the person in charge should be held accountable for their decisions.  The company did well next quarter, well, let's see how much of a reward the stockholders agree upon for services rendered.  What? You've consistently done poorly and are running your company right into the ground, yet think you deserve a pat on the back?  You're FIRED.  Now get the hell out and move over for someone else.  I WOULD be for Government imposed legislation of that sort.  It gives the stock-holder more direct control over what's going on.

I am not willing to give a pass to CEOs because "it's the nature of the beast". It's a recession, these markets and industries are faltering, they've needed giant government handouts, I don't think increased government pressure and control on these during this time is such a bad thing.
Understand I didn't say not to investigate any wrongdoing, I think I've made that clear.  However, as I don't currently trust the elected officials to do their job (considering how they've performed for the past 8+ years), I'm concerned about corruption among those who lead the investigation, especially when you take a look as to who received financial campaign contributions.

I'm not getting the logic here. CEOs are better cause they're a "pure" bad as opposed to Congress who is worse cause they pretend to like us or something so.... then I get kinda lost.
Third time's the charm? CEOs aren't so much better because they're a "pure" bad, as that Congress has been bought and paid for (or at least a significant portion of them) via contributions.  In order for Congress to effectively do its job, you must remove the corruption first, or at the very least, put it to more manageable levels (as there will always be corruption, it's just the variances of degree), then go after the "proper" bad guys.
If the politicians can't do their jobs due to corruption, then they need to be thrown out.  And if the government refuses to do that, perhaps its fire sticks and pitchforks time, because they are NOT serving the people.
I want ALL parties to be penalized, not just the CEOs.
I think that this is something we can find common ground on.
If I had been had, we wouldn't even be discussing the removal of their bonuses. The theory falls apart because the results are coming in.
And once again, the CBO predicted this would have some short-term positives, but in the long run, will result in something far worse.  Let's see what happens near the mid-term elections and presidential re-election.

[MP-Ryan]

The difference between the Christian and the Socialist is that the Christian gives what he has of his own pocket; the Socialist takes from someone elses, drops a chunk of change into their own, and hands over what's left.

Surely you jest?

Fact:  Christian charitable donations are politically motivated.  Christians don't tend to donate towards better health care for all, or increased access to sexual health clinics, or better sex education programs.  Christians buy political policy through donation.  Blunt, but unfortunately true.  Actually, it goes for any religious group - their donation patterns are heavily biased in favor of moralistic patterns.  Frankly, I'd prefer they donated less and decreased their corresponding political influence.

Socialism is about everyone chipping in for the benefit of all.  Sweden and Norway are socialist countries and consistently rate high among the top nation's to reside in.  Both enjoy standards of living considerably higher than the United States, I might add.

You seem to have socialism confused with Leninist-Stalinist Communism (which is a far cry from actual Communism as outlined by Marx which was never put into practice on a national scale anywhere).

[General Battuta]

Good God, maje, that was some triple post.

(I know, I know, off topic, but...it seemed worthy of comment.)