Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[hedge]

Die...

[Dr. Strangelove]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/ ... AW20140703

Unemployment now at 6.1, lowest since Sept. 2008

"It’s an extremely bullish report. It's a report that really checks off all the positive boxes. I don’t think you could have asked for a stronger read," said Jacob Oubina, senior U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets in New York.

Listen to that socialist spread his LIES!!!!

[Dr. Strangelove]

Listen to this sickening puke liberal socialist commie over at that pro-Dem rag the National Review

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/38 ... bert-stein

Looks like the labor market started its fireworks a little early. Payrolls grew 288,000 in June, the fifth straight month above 200,000. So far this year, payrolls have grown 231,000 per month, the fastest first half since 1999.

The other good news was the decline in the unemployment rate to 6.1 percent, the lowest since September 2008. To put this in perspective, the Federal Reserve’s most recent economic forecast had the jobless rate at 6.1 percent near the end of the year, not the middle. The primary reason for the decline in the unemployment rate was a 407,000 gain in civilian employment, an alternative measure of jobs that includes small business start-ups.

[Johnette's Daddy]

Listen to this sickening puke liberal socialist commie over at that pro-Dem rag the National Review

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/38 ... bert-stein

Looks like the labor market started its fireworks a little early. Payrolls grew 288,000 in June, the fifth straight month above 200,000. So far this year, payrolls have grown 231,000 per month, the fastest first half since 1999.

The other good news was the decline in the unemployment rate to 6.1 percent, the lowest since September 2008. To put this in perspective, the Federal Reserve’s most recent economic forecast had the jobless rate at 6.1 percent near the end of the year, not the middle. The primary reason for the decline in the unemployment rate was a 407,000 gain in civilian employment, an alternative measure of jobs that includes small business start-ups.

The market sees through the Oprama Administration's manipulation of the data. That's why the DOW has plunged to barely over 17,000.

Oh, wait . . .

[Professor Tiger]

I am delighted if the economy is really producing jobs again. I hope it's real jobs that are being created this time, and not just the conversion of one real job with benefits into two the part-time with no benefits, and calling it job creation. That has been the case for years now.

But I won't get too excited quite yet. The BLS still might come along in a few months and revise the number in the bad direction by three whopping percentage points, like they did with GDP, and blame it on brutal spring weather.

But if this is real, and not more smoke and mirrors, nobody will be happier for the country than me.

[hedge]

I'm sure the country appreciates that...

[innocentbystander]

Listen to this sickening puke liberal socialist commie over at that pro-Dem rag the National Review

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/38 ... bert-stein

Looks like the labor market started its fireworks a little early. Payrolls grew 288,000 in June, the fifth straight month above 200,000. So far this year, payrolls have grown 231,000 per month, the fastest first half since 1999.

The other good news was the decline in the unemployment rate to 6.1 percent, the lowest since September 2008. To put this in perspective, the Federal Reserve’s most recent economic forecast had the jobless rate at 6.1 percent near the end of the year, not the middle. The primary reason for the decline in the unemployment rate was a 407,000 gain in civilian employment, an alternative measure of jobs that includes small business start-ups.

The market sees through the Oprama Administration's manipulation of the data. That's why the DOW has plunged to barely over 17,000.

Oh, wait . . .

As long as bank interest (on savings) remains at 0.01% people are going to continue to buy stocks (pushing prices higher and higher) because....... banks aren't giving you any money on your money. Don't put it in the bank, buy stocks. It wouldn't matter who the President is.

We all want the economy to do well (particularly for job seekers.) The easier it is for people to find jobs the more leverage our currently employed have in negotiating bigger money from their employers. We all win. But the people who are getting the good jobs are the same people who have been doing just fine since late 2007, the brightest and the most technical workers. Their skills have never stopped being in demand, they never skipped a beat. Sure they may have been fired from a job, but 4 weeks later they were working again (with the same or even better salary than they had previously.)

The real measurement of a great job market are the opportunities for people who little education and an IQ below 90. If they are able to find manufacturing jobs or a trade in which they can work with their hands or their brawn (and bring in enough money to feed a family of 4) then I'd say you are on to something. If (instead) they are flipping burgers or working security at a mall for $7.80 a hour, the economy still totally sucks for them, job or no job.

To be perfectly honest, the job market (whether it is good or bad) is not entirely the fault or to the credit of President Obama. I'll tell you what though, it would be much better for him (and this country as a whole) if he got behind the keystone pipeline instead of constantly cock-blocking it at the federal level (to appease the liberal weenies.) Those are very well formed jobs that pay big bucks to people who are not all that bright or educated. It would be like what we currently have in North Dakota with the Bakkan oil fields, stupid men who (just by working hard) are able to drive a truck and make $90,000 a year. That is really what we are after. Dow at 17,000 is nice, but that is gravy on the mashed potatoes that I am not convinced we have yet.

[Professor Tiger]

Should women be allowed to drive trucks and earn $90k per year?

[innocentbystander]

Should women be allowed to drive trucks and earn $90k per year?

Sure, as long as they don't get to vote.

[gule]

Should women be allowed to drive trucks and earn $90k per year?

Hell no! wimmen need to be in the kitchen & making babies.. that's all.

[innocentbystander]

Should women be allowed to drive trucks and earn $90k per year?

Hell no! wimmen need to be in the kitchen & making babies.. that's all.

wimmen need to do.... whatever their husbands tell them to do. That's a fact. That is Biblical.

Whenever I am counseling a young couple about to get married and we cross the part about her submitting/obeying him and she freaks out, my standard response is always "....let me ask you something, why are willing to marry this man if you are NOT willing to do whatever he tells you to do?" One of two things usually comes of that question: #1) she either realizes that she would be much happier if she surrenders her feminist imperative and do whatever he tells her to do OR #2) we come to find out that the only reason that she is marrying him is because she wants his money/resources (or more commonly, she wants him to make her "whole" on all her debt she amassed.) She does not love him, just loves the lifestyle she thinks she is about to get. And if it comes to that we usually tell them that if they want to get married, they will have to find another church. Most cases this question (if she refuses to submit) will (depending on how pussy-whipped he is) wind up ending the engagement of a marriage that should never have happened in the first place.

[hedge]

The idea of you counseling anyone about anything is simultaneously shocking and hilarious. Kinda how I would feel seeing you involved in a horrible (hopefully one car) accident...

[innocentbystander]

The idea of you counseling anyone about anything is simultaneously shocking and hilarious. Kinda how I would feel seeing you involved in a horrible (hopefully one car) accident...

Well the primary goal is to try and protect both parties (him and her) from the legal ramifications of marital threat point. This is best accomplished by having these types of discussions early on....

[Cletus]

Should women be allowed to drive trucks and earn $90k per year?

Hell no! wimmen need to be in the kitchen & making babies.. that's all.

wimmen need to do.... whatever their husbands tell them to do. That's a fact. That is Biblical.

Whenever I am counseling a young couple about to get married and we cross the part about her submitting/obeying him and she freaks out, my standard response is always "....let me ask you something, why are willing to marry this man if you are NOT willing to do whatever he tells you to do?" One of two things usually comes of that question: #1) she either realizes that she would be much happier if she surrenders her feminist imperative and do whatever he tells her to do OR #2) we come to find out that the only reason that she is marrying him is because she wants his money/resources (or more commonly, she wants him to make her "whole" on all her debt she amassed.) She does not love him, just loves the lifestyle she thinks she is about to get. And if it comes to that we usually tell them that if they want to get married, they will have to find another church. Most cases this question (if she refuses to submit) will (depending on how pussy-whipped he is) wind up ending the engagement of a marriage that should never have happened in the first place.

As usual, there is zero chance that any of this is true.

[innocentbystander]

wimmen need to do.... whatever their husbands tell them to do. That's a fact. That is Biblical.

Whenever I am counseling a young couple about to get married and we cross the part about her submitting/obeying him and she freaks out, my standard response is always "....let me ask you something, why are willing to marry this man if you are NOT willing to do whatever he tells you to do?" One of two things usually comes of that question: #1) she either realizes that she would be much happier if she surrenders her feminist imperative and do whatever he tells her to do OR #2) we come to find out that the only reason that she is marrying him is because she wants his money/resources (or more commonly, she wants him to make her "whole" on all her debt she amassed.) She does not love him, just loves the lifestyle she thinks she is about to get. And if it comes to that we usually tell them that if they want to get married, they will have to find another church. Most cases this question (if she refuses to submit) will (depending on how pussy-whipped he is) wind up ending the engagement of a marriage that should never have happened in the first place.

As usual, there is zero chance that any of this is true.

Its all true.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... nesis+3:16

Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

[Professor Tiger]

The Old Testament also commands that the following crimes be punished by stoning (Note to hedge: this refers to execution by a group of people trowing rocks onto someone until they die, not use of drugs):

Adultery (Leviticus 20:10-12, man and woman)

Lying about virginity. Applies to girls who are still in their fathers' homes, who lie about their virginity, and are presented to their husband as a virgin. The accused is guilty until proved innocent. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

The daughter of a priest practicing prostitution (death by fire) (Leviticus 21:9)

Rape of a virgin who is engaged. If she is not engaged you only have to offer to marry her and give her father 50 shekels. No mention is made of the girl’s opinion, and no punishment is specified for raping a single non-virgin female. (Deuteronomy 22:25)

Being the victim of rape, if one is an engaged female virgin and the rape occurs in a city. If it takes place in a field, the victim is spared because nobody would have heard her screams. (Deuteronomy 22:23-27) Presumably, virgins who scream for help inside a city will always be rescued.

Men practicing bestiality. (Both man and animal die). (Leviticus 20:15) [4]

Women practicing bestiality (Both woman and animal die). (Leviticus 20:16) [4]

Having sex with your father’s wife, as distinct from "your mother", as it was common practice for men at the time to have several wives. (both die) (Leviticus 20:20)

Having sex with your daughter-in-law. (Leviticus 20:30)

Incest with sister.(Leviticus 20:17) [5]

(for men): Sex with a man in the same manner as sex with women. Generally interpreted as male homosexuality. The text omits any mention of and punishment for female homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22)

Marrying a woman and her daughter. They are all burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_pu ... _Testament

Are you in favor of applying the punishment of stoning to these situations today? They're all in the Bible.

[innocentbystander]

Are you in favor of applying the punishment of stoning to these situations today? They're all in the Bible.

Well that is an excellent question. An excellent answer would be, that God has defined the laws here and if you violate those laws, HE will judge you. HE will punish you. I don't have to, I have no authority to do so.

You will note, that when I quoted Genesis, I did not quote Eve's punishment for breaking God's law. I only quoted The Law. Eve's punishment for The Fall is her terrible pain in childbirth. That was punishment for defying God's direct order to NOT eat of that tree. She proved she could not be trusted to follow God's Law (actually she did worse as she coaxed her husband into also breaking God's Law) so now she must follow the law given by her husband. Eve brought this on herself and all women would do best to follow the commandment that God gave to Eve. Don't you agree that a wife should do whatever her husband tells her to do? And if not, why not? Remember the man is still compelled to follow God's Law and if he does so then he is in perfect position of headship/authority over his wife.

You focused your question on applying punishment, not on what is God's Law. But now that you mentioned it (and so many of your examples relate to a woman's virginity) let me ask you, why do you think that is so important to God? Why did he harp on women remaining virgin until they were married? Why is it specifically spelled out that the rape of a virgin is sin but not the rape of a non-virgin? Why is that so critical? Why is that God's Law?

Thank good ness that Christ saved us. We are fortunate.

[Cletus]

Do you really think A&E were real people?

[Owlman]

Do you really think A&E were real people?

Yes. From other planets. Don't you watch Twilight Zone reruns?

[Professor Tiger]

Don't you agree that a wife should do whatever her husband tells her to do? And if not, why not?

No. That's because husbands, including (perhaps especially) the "good Christian ones," use this total authority you want to give them and use it for their own pure evil pleasure and at the total expense of their wife (and often their own children).

If a husband says he wants to practice wife-swapping, should the wife meekly comply? If a husband wants to take nude photos of his wife and post them on he internet, should she comply? If a husband has other women on the side, and he demands that his wife accept that situation, should she accept it? If a husband decides he doesn't want to work anymore because it's too hard, and he orders his wife to support the family all by herself, and she must also do all the cooking, cleaning and child-care all by herself while he sits on the couch, gets high and watches porn all day, should she meekly agree? If the wife objects, and he physically throws his wife and small children out of the house on a cold winter night, should the wife sit demurely? If the husband secretly sells all the family assets (99% of which were earned by the wife before she ever met him) and puts it into an account to which he only has access, hits the beach with his girlfriend, and orders his wife not defend herself legally, and she goes to the elders of their church, and they provide the same lunatic counsel to the wife that you do: "Sweetheart, he's your husband, you must do what he says, no matter what. It's biblical!"

That's exactly what happened to a woman I know very well, who married to a "good Christian man." BTW, he - like you - was assigned by his church elders to provide "Christian marriage counseling" in his church. A high school diploma from Selma Alabama and his firm belief if wifely submission was his only qualification for the job.

You, and the elders of that church who did that to this poor Christian mother of small children, who teach that blind total wifely obedience stuff, are all idiots.