[peterv]

A combination of socialism and capitalism... like practically everyone. Everyone looks for that mix between socialism and capitalism. The more time you spend thinking about how capitalist we are, the more time you miss fixing big issues.

OK, i'll stop thinking about the nature of our systems. The combination of two systems of the 19th century is enough for me.

I don't get what you're saying here. Free market was taken to "limits" by conservatives because of what Democrats did? When did Democrats do anything? They haven't controlled anything in any serious capacity since 1994.

globalization-free market-neoliberalism crap is not free market. Check out when this propaganda started.

Do you even understand what the current problems are?

No and i still expect an explanation from those who obviously do.

If public money fails, how did the New Deal work?

This i understand because it happens to be one of my favorite political reactions in history. Perhaps we can at least agree that it started four years after the 29' crash. And were exactly did i say that public money fails?

1. People just don't understand soclialist programs or government and do whatever the big heads on TV tell them to do.

That's the main problem of modern democracies, propaganda. IMO it turns them to "democracies" and i still don't know what exactly are we.

[Blue Lion]

Actually, the outrage is from both sides.  Dems and Republicans are pissed that the government is putting the nation so far into debt that they're grandkids will still be paying for it.  Contrary to what you seem to think, most people don't like being told that they have to give money to people who won't work it themselves.

"A majority of Americans (53%) approve of the U.S. government’s expansion to help fix the current economic crisis, but most of this group would like to see the government’s role reduced once the crisis is over."

53% coincidence? Maybe. This is a most recent Gallup poll.

People mostly aren't stupid. They know big spending isn't great, but they also know big spending is needed to get out of the recession.

Show me polls that say people are unhappy with Democrat's or Obama's plans to fix the economy. Everything I've seen shows fairly high numbers. Republicans meanwhile are at pretty nasty lows (recently I saw only 28% identify as Republicans).

The simple fact that people are complaining NOW about government spending (to get out of a recession) as opposed to the previous 8 years (or longer) and that these grass roots parties are sponsored by conservative lobbyists (I have all appropriate links) leads me to believe this is NOT a protest against spending or taxes. This is a protest against Obama.

There is no plan, no alternate ideas to what's being done. It's just outrage. Outrage at Obama by the right wing, and it's dismissed by the majority who see it.

I'm not mad at Obamarama, he's what he is.  I am pissed that he's lying about it and can't come off the teleprompter or he'll get himself and his political supporters(not the rank and file but The Usual Suspects) into so much hot water, they'll get boiled.

First off: the teleprompter bit isn't used anymore. That got a lot of play recently about how he was somehow stupid. Until people pulled up videos and links of him talking without one (he did it during the debates somehow) On top of that, there are TONS of images showing all recent Presidents and current right wingers using it themselves. It's tired and beaten.

He's not stupid or an empty suit. Hang it up.

Secondly, what is he lying about? Taxes? The budget? Do you have inside information about a super secret budget or something? They've been very clear about the budget and tax rates (ever since he was campaigning). What exactly has caught you by surprise?

[Kosh]

I hear this quite a bunch from atheists,

Because it often happens. You obviously are not one of us, how could you know?

I'm sorry that you've had poor experiences with other Christians if you were being pressured into something you're not ready for.  If atheism is where you are in you spiritual development as a person, then, quite frankly, that's where you are.

Typical christian arrogance. We know "The Truth" and everyone else is wrong. How could you possibly think such absurd things as "atheism is a precursor for christianity"? Oh wait, that's right, you're christian.

I fully support people converting over to Christianity

In other words you support blatant imperialism.

Atheism can be oppressive and imperialistic (Soviet Union sent all the clergy to Siberia and the churches became "musuems"; after all, 50+million dead Russians can't be wrong, can they?).

That was Stalinism.

and I'm going to have to ask just what is so oppressive and imperialistic of Christianity that cannot be found in other belief systems.

Which shows that all religion is bad. I only mentioned christianity because that is what I have the most experience with and because that is what we are talking about.

[maje]

I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with the oppresive and imperialistic nature of christianity. As much quotes should have proven, the founding fathers greatly mistrusted christianity's general influence.

Oppressive and imperialistic nature of Christianity? Okay, I hear this quite a bunch from atheists, and I'm going to have to ask just what is so oppressive and imperialistic of Christianity that cannot be found in other belief systems.  Islam can be oppressive and imperialistic (The Ottoman Turks, anyone?), The pagan Roman Empire can be oppressive (slaughtering Christians and Jews for refusal to burn incense to Caesar), Atheism can be oppressive and imperialistic (Soviet Union sent all the clergy to Siberia and the churches became "musuems"; after all, 50+million dead Russians can't be wrong, can they?).

Those don't sound like much better reasons to trust any religion or ideology, Christianity included.

Actually, this is probably the reason you have so many offshoots of Christianity.  Having exploited peoples willingness to eagerly repent and wash themselves of sin, clergy of the Roman Catholic Church effectively guilt tripped faithful followers into paying the Sale of Indulgences.  Disgusted with what he considered an abuse of Church authority and warping the Word of God, Martin Luther created his own Church which was meant to restore Christianity back to its roots.  Later on, the Pilgrims would leave for the New World because they believed that the Church of England had begun corrupt and wanted to move back towards a more Biblical form of Christianity.

I myself, am interested in finding a form of Christianity that's closer to what the Apostles would've practiced, because most forms of modern Christianity have too many thing borrowed from pagan Rome back when the Church was being integrated as the dominant religious force in the Roman Empire.  If you go back throughout the history of Christianity, there was quite some debate in regards to the incorporation of icons, images, or any real visual representation of God or Christ, simply because it could be in violation of the commandment "You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth.  You shall not bow down to them or serve them".  Now we have statues of the saints, the Holy Mother Mary, and Jesus on the Cross.

This is a flaw of human nature.

Yep.

I think it's erroneous to claim that the Founding Fathers mistrusted Christianity's general influence considering many of them had studied to be clergy of their respected churches while others had participated in Christian freemasonry.  I think that this needs to be clarified that some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were critical of the religious establishments run by the clergy (such as the more mythological elements) as opposed to the beliefs and values espoused by Christianity.

I'm sorry that you've had poor experiences with other Christians if you were being pressured into something you're not ready for.  If atheism is where you are in you spiritual development as a person, then, quite frankly, that's where you are.  I fully support people converting over to Christianity, but only if it is an honest conversion (knowing what they are getting into, what the beliefs are and why) and not simply "going with the flow" because it's the trendy thing to do (though that's a poor reason to do anything).

Please restrain from personal attacks, my friend. For all you know he's had excellent experiences with Christians and simply doesn't agree with the ideology. Atheism is not some kind of larval stage of spiritual development.

GB, Kosh posted earlier that he has had some poor experiences with other Christians.  As this is coming from him, I take him at his word.  There is no personal attack intended.  I think you also misinterpreted what I meant by atheism being where he is at in his spiritual development.  As we grow and expand our knowledge of the world around us, our perceptions change.  One friend I had in college went from his Roman Catholic upbringing to atheism until after college, took a brief dabble in Islam, and then became a parishiner in the Greek Orthodoxy.  There is no "stage" of spiritual development in the sense you define it because it is not linear.  I apologize for any lack of clarity on my part.

[High Max]

><

[Blue Lion]

At a guess, I'd say longer considering we no longer are the big exporters that we were then, nor the manufacturing powerhouse, but I could be wrong.

I do know that the Congressional Budget Office claimed that the Trillion dollar "stimulus" package will Triple our debt in 10 years and that the private sector will shrink considerably.  It's already been stated that our grandchildren will be mired in debt and paybacks to China for the money we borrowed, so that's approx. 60+ years. assuming that each generation comes about every 30 years (I'm taking into account that if born this year, our children will have children in 30 years, and when their children are in the workplace, 60 years will have passed from this year).

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

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.

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.

Voting does not mean the government equals you, as you, do not make up the whole of the people.  If the government really equaled the people, then I think you need to ask yourself why today, on tax day, we have over 2000 national tea parties going with pissed off Americans protesting the very actions of the federal government bailouts and tax and spend.

No, I don't ask that at all. Because I know those people voted in elections. (I hope they did. If they didn't vote and are pissed, we're screwed).

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. This tea party thing is right wing pretend nonsense. Nothing more.

I think that investigations into the financial industry should be sanctioned independently and guilty parties found doing something illegal to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  Normally, I'd actually have the government do this, BUT considering the lack of stewardship of Fannie and Freddie by such renowned boobs like Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd, I'd prefer to NOT have them part of the investigation.

I would NOT bail out failing companies.  If you wish to reap the rewards of a capitalist system, you must also consider the possibility of failure.  It IS a risk-based system.

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.

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

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.

I think you misinterpreted this analogy as I was comparing the natures of government and the CEOs.  What you're supposed to get from this is that Government (or more accurately, the politicians running the government) basically claim to be helping you, while doing the opposite and rewarding bad behavior (due to political contributions, no doubt).  In other words, you seem to be pissed off only at the CEOs and dismissive of those in government who allowed for this fiasco to happen, which suggests to me, a double standard due to an ideological belief that government can do no wrong (which of course if hogwash, because government is run by man who is a corruptible creature and thus prone to imperfection).  Now, if I am wrong about my analysis of your perceived anger limited only to one party and not the other, please say so and I'll retract that statement.

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 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.

Ironically, the politicians who run the government don't much care for your freedom or liberty either, because if they did, Congress would NEVER have allowed language to be put into the bailout that created this situation where AIG execs are entitled to their bonuses.  Face it, you've been had.

And I do agree that the logic is horrible, especially because one must consider the reality that government is corrupted.  The approval ratings of the House and the Senate haven't been in the toilet for the past two years for no reason.

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.

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.

[Blue Lion]

globalization-free market-neoliberalism crap is not free market. Check out when this propaganda started.

You're not really clarifying what this "crap" is or what the propaganda is. That's what I'm asking. Please explain.

The system is not entirely free market.

No and i still expect an explanation from those who obviously do.

Short version (I expect corrections from others later on. This is not gospel)

Essentially, overvaluation in the market has led to people holding large amounts of bills they can't pay. This applies to both normal people and big businesses.

Normal people have debts like mortgages they can't afford for houses that were overvalued and have fallen in price (see: Sub prime mortgages), credit card debt with rising interest rates (lots of credit companies are raising rates), and of course job losses and 401k losses.

Businesses in the market, which rely on normal people paying bills to pay THEIR bills. These companies go under. No one is handing out credit.

The government is basically forced (insert argument here) to shell out massive amounts of money to let these businesses pay bills and, in turn, give out credit.

Nutshell: everyone ran out of money but still had bills. The only place that still "had" money was the government.

I obviously expect someone to come in and correct me on parts of this. I am not an economist.

1. People just don't understand soclialist programs or government and do whatever the big heads on TV tell them to do.

You talk of the failure with the use of public money. What is this failure you're talking about?

[Scotty]

Regarding the religious arguments:

Drop the entire f*cking thing!  It's not what we're arguing about.  Save religious arguments for religious argument threads.  Dang, I want to reply to some of those, but it's NOT THE POINT!

The simple fact that people are complaining NOW about government spending (to get out of a recession) as opposed to the previous 8 years (or longer)

I complain NOW because the spending to 'get us out of the recession' has already tripled the debt left by Bush.  I enter the workforce in about two years, and I do not want to have to deal with that for my entire working life.

no alternate ideas to what's being done

Have you missed all the other stuff on this thread?  Seems every other page we get into a 'we should stop spending' little bout.  I would call that an alternate idea.

Secondly, what is he lying about? Taxes?

Bingo, got it in one.  Just this month he increased taxes on tobacco, which broke his promise not to raise any taxes for those under 200,000 a year.  He lied during his campaign.

No and i still expect an explanation from those who obviously do.

In the 1990's, congress ruled that every American 'should be able to own their own home.'  What this did was force banks to provide loans to them, even on risky returns.  Enter, the infamous "sub-prime mortgage."  Housing bubble expands, people build lots of new houses, more people take loans to buy houses they shouldn't have been able to take.  Loans are defaulted on, loan and housing companies start losing money with banks.  Insurance companies lack the money to cover insured assets, insurance companies start going down.  People start panicking, stock goes way down.  Stock going down ruins consumer confidence, now people don't want to go and buy anything they don't expressely need.  Cars stop being bought.  Car companies report losses, people panic again.  Pick any step after defaulted loans and liberally sow bail-outs.

My take on our little crisis.

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.

Oh, no!  What ever would Americans do without credit cards and loans!  Goodness gracious, now we can't all live beyond our means forever!  

No, I am perfectly upset about lack of regulation on things in the financial market and housing market.

See my explanation for the crisis.  Government "regulation" is sort of what caused this.

When the free market and "the good of the people" butt heads, guess who wins?

At this point, "the good of the people" are polar opposites for short-term and long-term solutions.

@Blue Lion:  Good explanation.  Mine's more of a gathered theory, but I think it works.

[Liberator]

Atheism can be oppressive and imperialistic (Soviet Union sent all the clergy to Siberia and the churches became "musuems"; after all, 50+million dead Russians can't be wrong, can they?).

That was Stalinism.

No that was a violent assault by a socialist/communist organization bent on obtaining power.  Yes I recognize there is a difference in socialism and communism.  Socialism is an economic system.  Communism is the enforcement of that system on a populace, usually with force.

The anger you see in the demonstrations in the USA today is an example, not of partisan politics or socialism vs. capitalism, it's anger about how large government has gotten.  About how much power it's accumulated over our lives.

I don't dislike socialism for what it is, on paper it sounds like a fine idea.  I dislike socialism for what it brings along with it, things like a sense of entitlement on the part of the people who don't produce things, which leads to ever more oppressive government, which in turn leads to a denial of the freedoms that are inherent in all people.

Liberal Socialists, not Democrats, run around claiming how much they love they're fellow man by giving them "free" stuff.  

Conservatism, not Republicans, love they're fellow man so much that we'll give them a hand up, not a hand out, into providing for themselves instead of relying on someone else to give them something.

Capitalism, by it's nature, inherently benefits mankind AS A SPECIES over the long term because it allows ANY member of the species to provide as much or as little as they want for THEMSELVES without having to be ruled over by someone "with your best interests at heart".

That's difference, Socialist are inherently the Ruled.  Capitalist inherently Rule.

I'm sure you'll take that out of context, but whatever.  The idea scares you on some level or you wouldn't yell so loudly or long about it.

BTW, you can't spend your way out of a recession, President Roosevelt tried it in '34, the Depression lasted until the War Footing on the part of American industry got going in 42-43.

[Blue Lion]

I complain NOW because the spending to 'get us out of the recession' has already tripled the debt left by Bush.  I enter the workforce in about two years, and I do not want to have to deal with that for my entire working life.

Triple yearly deficit or triple overall deficit? If you mean overall, you're overlooking Part D prescription coverage by Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan payments (which are not included in budgets), and rising health care costs.

Bush had some big ol 3+ trillion budgets. The Obama plan (and I have looked at it) is supposed to CUT the yearly deficit spending to about half.

Have you missed all the other stuff on this thread?  Seems every other page we get into a 'we should stop spending' little bout.  I would call that an alternate idea.

Please forgive me for being blunt but "stop spending" is such a half assed vague comment it makes me spit.

Stop spending on what? Defense? Health care? Schools?

I saw and read the Republican Road to Recovery that offers no numbers, no plans. "Stop spending" (while spending) and lowering taxes on the rich is NOT a solution. In fact, it's what got us here.

I would love to see an alternate budget for lowering the deficit whilenot increasing short term spending.

Everything I see is "Cut spending.. somewhere, cut taxes. Magic happens. Tada, problem solved!"

Bingo, got it in one.  Just this month he increased taxes on tobacco, which broke his promise not to raise any taxes for those under 200,000 a year.  He lied during his campaign.

Where on my paycheck does the tobacco tax come out of my pay? I've never seen that before.

In the 1990's, congress ruled that every American 'should be able to own their own home.'  What this did was force banks to provide loans to them, even on risky returns.  Enter, the infamous "sub-prime mortgage."  Housing bubble expands, people build lots of new houses, more people take loans to buy houses they shouldn't have been able to take.  Loans are defaulted on, loan and housing companies start losing money with banks.  Insurance companies lack the money to cover insured assets, insurance companies start going down.  People start panicking, stock goes way down.  Stock going down ruins consumer confidence, now people don't want to go and buy anything they don't expressely need.  Cars stop being bought.  Car companies report losses, people panic again.  Pick any step after defaulted loans and liberally sow bail-outs.

My take on our little crisis.

I enjoy how businesses didn't want to do it! We didn't want to not ask for income verification (among other things) they MADE us! The list of things businesses did in this thing to get money would make you sick. That you pawn off this process (which I might add made these guys more money than we've ever seen here) as a FORCING on them by the government is insane. These companies wanted to get in on money making, and they did. But they couldn't get out in time and now it fell.

Oh, no!  What ever would Americans do without credit cards and loans!  Goodness gracious, now we can't all live beyond our means forever!  

No houses, no small businesses, no student loans, no cars. Do you just not know how credit works?

See my explanation for the crisis.  Government "regulation" is sort of what caused this.

Yea, lack of government regulation and full tight pants on the parts of the market looking for a quick buck caused this. Your passing off of the problem to government is laughable and flat out wrong (except in lack of oversight)

[peterv]

Short version

Long version (in the pdf, crap included) : http://www.networkideas.org/featart/oct2008/fa24_Financial_Architecture.htm

You talk of the failure with the use of public money. What is this failure you're talking about?

I'm talking about the extention of the system's failure in this particular crisis with the use of public money. This is a personal opinion, i'm not an economist either and my english are lousy 

[Blue Lion]

I'm talking about the extention of the system's failure in this particular crisis with the use of public money. This is a personal opinion, i'm not an economist either and my english are lousy 

How can you make a verdict about a plan that has literally just started?

[peterv]

I can't. Neither can you i suppose. All i'm doing is comparing the very spirit of it with the "new deal".

[Blue Lion]

I can't. Neither can you i suppose. All i'm doing is comparing the very spirit of it with the "new deal".

Which worked? It's two different systems and two different failures. I'm just gonna watch it closely and see how we turn this around.

[peterv]

That's why i wrote "the spirit". I  don't recall Roosevelt protecting people among those who created the crisis.

[Blue Lion]

Didn't the New Deal put in banking and stock market regulation?

[peterv]

Yes, it did (from wiki):

"With strident language Roosevelt in 1938 took credit for dethroning the bankers he alleged had caused the debacle:

"Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men....The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization."[16]
By March 4, nearly all banks in the country were closed by their governors, and Roosevelt kept them all closed until he could pass new legislation.[17] On March 9, Roosevelt sent to Congress the Emergency Banking Act, drafted in large part by Hoover's Administration; the act was passed and signed into law the same day. It provided for a system of reopening sound banks under Treasury supervision, with federal loans available if needed. Three-quarters of the banks in the Federal Reserve System reopened within the next three days. Billions of dollars in "hoarded" currency and gold flowed back into them within a month, thus stabilizing the banking system. By the end of 1933, 4,004 small local banks would be permanently closed and merged into larger banks. (Their depositors eventually received 86.14 cents on the dollar of their deposits.) In June came the reform which has proved the most significant; Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insured deposits for up to $2,500.

In March and April in a series of Acts of Congress and executive orders Roosevelt and Congress suspended the gold standard for United States currency. Under the gold standard, the Federal Reserve was prevented from lowering interest rates and was instead forced to raise rates to protect the dollar. Actions to suspend the gold standard included Executive Order 6073, the Emergency Banking Act, Executive Order 6102, Executive Order 6111, the 1933 Banking Act and House Joint Resolution 192. Anyone holding significant amounts of gold coinage was mandated to exchange it for the existing fixed price of US dollars, after which the US would no longer pay gold on demand for the dollar, and gold would no longer be considered valid legal tender for debts in private and public contracts. The dollar was allowed to float freely on foreign exchange markets with no guaranteed price in gold, only to be fixed again at a significantly lower level a year later with the passage of the Gold Reserve Act in 1934. Markets immediately responded well to the suspension, although it was assumed to be temporary.[18]

The economy had hit bottom in March 1933 and then started to expand. As historian Broadus Mitchell notes, "Most indexes worsened until the summer of 1932, which may be called the low point of the depression economically and psychologically."[19] Economic indicators show the economy reached nadir in the first days of March, then began a steady, sharp upward recovery. Thus the Federal Reserve Index of Industrial Production hit its lowest point of 52.8 in July 1930 (with 1935-39 = 100) and was practically unchanged at 54.3 in March 1933; however by July 1933, it reached 85.5, a dramatic rebound of 57% in four months. Recovery was steady and strong until 1937. Except for employment, the economy by 1937 surpassed the levels of the late 1920s. The Recession of 1937 was a temporary downturn. Private sector employment, especially in manufacturing, recovered to the level of the 1920s but failed to advance further until the war".


And i wrote people, not organizations. Persons.

[Blue Lion]

Doesn't this entire process protect people? I'm missing the point of what we're talking about here?

[maje]

I hear this quite a bunch from atheists,

Because it often happens. You obviously are not one of us, how could you know?

I know several people who are atheists whom have never claimed that they were being oppressed by their peers to join Christianity or any other religion.  Granted, it's not the same as actually being an atheist, so in that regard, I can never truly know until having found myself in that situation.

I'm sorry that you've had poor experiences with other Christians if you were being pressured into something you're not ready for.  If atheism is where you are in you spiritual development as a person, then, quite frankly, that's where you are.

Typical christian arrogance. We know "The Truth" and everyone else is wrong. How could you possibly think such absurd things as "atheism is a precursor for christianity"? Oh wait, that's right, you're christian.

I wouldn't say it's arrogance because I haven't told or coerced you to convert.  Oh, I won't deny that I think Christianity is superior to atheism anymore than you would argue vice versa.  However, as I realize that you don't share that belief and nothing I can say or do will convince otherwise, it's a decision I leave to you.  If you decided to believe in Christianity, simply because I told you to,  that would result in something disengenuine at best.

I could also argue that Atheism is arrogant in that it claims that because there is no God, there is no Absolute Truth, and thus it is all man-made nonsense, to which man decides what is right and what is wrong, and thus standards of morality are subjective to one's point of view.  This allows man to make himself as God and decide what is moral and what is not(after all, man is a reasonable and rational creature and thus knows best!)  The fallacy with this line of thinking is that one must neglect to take into account man's flawed nature and thus making his judgement erroneous.  This can be especially dangerous if such a person is in a place of power.  The idea that only man knows what's best can be construed as arrogance.

And finally, if the belief that one thing is superior to something else is considered arrogance, how can one consider the belief of no god to be any less arrogant than the belief that there is a god?  After all, they are in direct conflict with each others positions in which (unless you're agnostic) the one you go with, you decide is superior to the other, and thus are displaying arrogance.  Anytime a person makes a decision they are going with what they believe to be a superior choice.  After all, it is illogical to choose something that is inferior.  If arrogance is due (or at least in part) to the result of excessive pride, I'm afraid we have a problem, since it's a big teaching among Catholics to never be too full of oneself (how this plays out in reality may vary person to person as, once again human beings are flawed and prone to make mistakes).

I fully support people converting over to Christianity

In other words you support blatant imperialism.

Not at all. If someone converts to Christianity through their own choice, then its their own.  I'm not terribly interested in forced conversions because they're corrupt and dishonest.  This is hardly the mindset of someone who wishes to "willfully" impose their value system on other nations.  How other peoples rule themselves is none of my concern until it starts affecting me.  However, I still retain the right to form my own opinions of them and their systems, just like you.  I believe this is called "Freedom of Speech".

Atheism can be oppressive and imperialistic (Soviet Union sent all the clergy to Siberia and the churches became "musuems"; after all, 50+million dead Russians can't be wrong, can they?).

That was Stalinism.

The Communist Manifesto dicates state-enforced atheism is a primary tenet.  This isn't something that is unique to the regime of Josef Stalin.

However, despite this, while all major communist nations are atheistic in nature, that does not mean all atheists are blood-lusting megalo-maniacs who are evil incarnate.

and I'm going to have to ask just what is so oppressive and imperialistic of Christianity that cannot be found in other belief systems.

Which shows that all religion is bad. I only mentioned christianity because that is what I have the most experience with and because that is what we are talking about.

And yet communism practiced by the USSR and PROC, North Korea, and a slew of other nations combined that mandate state-enforced atheism mass-murdered something like 100 million people in under a century.  I can easily argue that lack of religion is bad.
This really has more to do with man being an imperfect creature and having a flawed nature.

Kosh, let it be clear, that asides from certain philosophical disagreements, I really don't bear you any ill will.  I do apologize for any lack of clarity on my part or improper articulation.  Understand that I can support your right to come to your own conclusions without having to agree with them myself.

[peterv]

Doesn't this entire process protect people? I'm missing the point of what we're talking about here?

People among those who caused the crisis. You want names?