J

I basically feel like charities and other places or organizations are soliciting money or asking for donations from the average American who has a lot less income, simply because they can't change the fact that most of the nation's money is going to that top 1 percent. So since they can'r change that, they choose instead to compel the little man to have to pay out of their income, or make them feel obligated to give money, all while ignoring the top 1 percent just because they are unable to access the top 1 percent or solicit money from them. But I simply do not think that the lower 99 percent of Americans who combined make less than the top 1 percent should be punished or have to suffer simply because there is nothing else that those in need of money can do.

 Example, I received a ticket for $140 simply because I didn't think I had time to stop at a caution light so I went through it and it turned red, and I heard that the cops just purposely write high tickets and use the money to go to the cost of their local facilities. But if they are doing that just because they need money, then there would essentially be no need for them to do this if the top 1 percent was not taking up so much money and the lower 99 percent had more income as a result, because the cops and other facilities would also have more money. But cops and other facilities/charities can't control the fact that top 1 percent makes so much money, so they choose instead to pick on the lower citizens to get money

I basically feel like charities and other places or organizations are soliciting money or asking for donations from the average American who has a lot less income, simply because they can't change the fact that most of the nation's money is going to that top 1 percent. So since they can'r change that, they choose instead to compel the little man to have to pay out of their income, or make them feel obligated to give money, all while ignoring the top 1 percent just because they are unable to access the top 1 percent or solicit money from them. But I simply do not think that the lower 99 percent of Americans who combined make less than the top 1 percent should be punished or have to suffer simply because there is nothing else that those in need of money can do.

 Example, I received a ticket for $140 simply because I didn't think I had time to stop at a caution light so I went through it and it turned red, and I heard that the cops just purposely write high tickets and use the money to go to the cost of their local facilities. But if they are doing that just because they need money, then there would essentially be no need for them to do this if the top 1 percent was not taking up so much money and the lower 99 percent had more income as a result, because the cops and other facilities would also have more money. But cops and other facilities/charities can't control the fact that top 1 percent makes so much money, so they choose instead to pick on the lower citizens to get money.

Example, I would gladly walk anywhere if it was as fast as driving or it didn't take so long, but if I need to be somewhere fast or at a certain time then walking is not an option if it is going to take 2 hours as opposed to 20 minutes to drive. The same goes for instance if you are at the store, doctors office, etc. and you need to get in and/or out quickly due to time constraints so you try to park close to the entrance, this does not indicate laziness, it simply means that you are trying to save time. I know a lot of people do this so they don't have to walk as far, but this should not automatically be assumed to be the case since it is likely that a lot of people are doing it to save time, even if they are also doing it out of laziness. I just don't think anything can be assumed.

Example: businesses such as cable/internet companies, auto manufacturers, food manufacturers, etc. probably charge what can be seen as relatively high given prices for their products, which could be attributed at least in part the fact that they often can t make a good amount of money since most of the country s wealth is being funneled to the top 1 percent of income earners. But they also can t change the fact that most of the money is going to that top 1 percent, so since they can t do anything about that they choose to increase their prices or have what many Americans would consider unfair or unreasonably high prices. This results in the high price being passed onto consumers, even though they themselves are within the bottom tier of income earners and are in all likelihood making even less money than the business owners.

I have also seen people who have low income jobs who talk about how little they are earning or how they have to struggle to get by, without directly referencing the top 1 percent as a potential cause of how little they are earning or the fact that the average wage is not going up. Meanwhile we are all supposed to feel bad when we see or hear these kinds of stories, even when we ourselves have very little income and even though it can all be attributed to the exceptionally high earnings of the top 1 percent.

I have an early Kindle Fire tablet from 2013 which is the only tablet I have, but this tablet does not have the Youtube Kids app or the regular Youtube app available for download on it, and therefore I have installed a 3rd party app called Videos For Youtube. In any case, I have a 5 year old child who I allow to use the tablet sometimes, but the only way she can watch youtube videos on the tablet is by using that 3rd party youtube app since the tablet does not have the Youtube Kids app or the regular Youtube app available for installation on it.

I presented an argument in another question that God may not exist, or likely does not exist since He was undefined in the absence of religion. That is, at a time when there was no religion, there was also no God to speak of, and therefore God is likely only defined by religion. Of course there is always the off chance that God has always existed, even before any religion came about, but no human would know this to be the case. At any rate, in response to my initial argument, someone else replied that humans would likely still feel a sensation, or some type of presence even if there was no religion and no so-called God, and even if these things don't and never existed as we know it. So with that said, I believe that this offers no doubt that the first humans ever to form any religion were feeling the God-like "sensation" that it is said to encompass humans even in the absence of any religion or anything like it.

Moreover, these very first humans clearly used the concept of a "God" to explain this "sensation" that they were feeling without even knowing that this sensation is apparently a natural human experience, and things took off from there. What this means, therefore, is that there is effectively no "God", except as an idea that accompanies a sensation or a feeling of a presence which all humans would experience anyway. This "sensation" in effect was only given something to define it (God), which therefore indicates that this is what is to account for the concept of God.

I posted this question approximately a year ago (check the date) relaying everything that Trump had done to my knowledge up to that point, and asking why all of this was apparently being ignored and no one seemed to be actually doing anything about Trump's transgressions, but in fact were only going after his cabinet members and people like Robert Mueller while leaving Trump himself entirely alone. Here is my question: /question/index?qid=20180...

Now fast forward to today, and there was a statement made during the impeachment hearings which are FINALLY taking place after OVER a year (since this has been going on since even before I asked that question) but the statement made today was by a member of the panel who was shaming those who were present at the hearing for having previously done more or less nothing regarding Trump's potentially fraudulent behavior, not speaking of it even though it was known that he did engage in questionable behavior, and dragging out the process of impeaching him.

The panel member also said that the American people are starting to see what is going on, when I myself have seen it from day one, but I just gave up talking about it because no one who I talked to seemed to care or either they didn't believe that Trump should be impeached.

Of the three black female Democratic progressives who were told by Trump to "go back to their country," only the one who is a Somali Muslim whose name escapes me right now was even born outside of the United States. That being said, it is still completely ignorant of Trump in particular to make this statement with regards to them allegedly speaking out against the US when all but one of them was born in the US and (I'm assuming) they are all legal US citizens. Granted I am not entirely sure what was said by any of them to warrant Trump's statement, but in my experience there have been people who were born and raised 100 percent in this country going back generations and who have nonetheless been known to speak out when there was something that they didn't like about this country, including certain politicians.

I have been getting SSI for about 4 years and just this past April I also started getting SSDI. My SSI payment for April-July was $690 a month and my SSDI payment was $559 a month. This was my only income at all because my husband and I are out of work. We are both college graduates and have worked in the past, but it is very hard to find a decent job in this area. Anyway, this past Friday June 28th I got a letter in the mail saying that my monthly SSI payment will be lowered from $690 to only $154 a month, and the reason they gave is because my "other income increased." However, I have no "other income" because all I get is SSI and SSDI and my husband and I are both unemployed. I called the Social Security office and asked them what they meant by my "other income," but I did not understand their explanation and about the only thing that I could gather is that they intend to send me another letter in the mail at some point. So does anyone know why they may have lowered my SSI payment to only $154 a month, and what do they mean when they say my "other income increased"? Because the total isn't even enough to pay our rent alone since they lowered my SSI payment.

In this movie there is a scene where Lydia has to say his name 3 times in order for him to help her, but he says he can't tell her what his name is because supposedly she will tell other people if he tells her, so as an alternative he wants her to guess his name via a game of charades. But why does it matter if she guesses his name as opposed to him just telling her what it is? Because she can still tell other people what his name is even if she guesses it. I have seen this movie so many times and I have never understood this.

In this movie there is a scene where Lydia has to say his name 3 times in order for him to help her, but he says he can't tell her what his name is because supposedly she will tell other people if he tells her, so as an alternative he wants her to guess his name via a game of charades. But why does it matter if she guesses his name as opposed to him just telling her what it is? Because she can still tell other people what his name is even if she guesses it. I have seen this movie so many times and I have never understood this.

I HAVE TEAM VIEWER ON A COMPUTER AND MY BROTHER HAS THE APP ON HIS PHONE AND EVEN WHEN I CLOSE THE PROGRAM HE IS STILL ABLE TO START A SESSION AND CONTROL MY COMPUTER WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, LIKE IF I AM AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER HE COULD STILL BE DOING IT WITHOUT ME KNOWING OR BEING ABLE TO STOP HIM. DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY OR HOW THIS IS HAPPENING? DO I HAVE TO COMPLETELY UNINSTALL THE PROGRAM TO PREVENT THIS? I AM JUST CONCERNED ABOUT A HACKER OR SOMEONE WHO I DON'T KNOW POTENTIALLY DOING THE SAME THING THAT MY BROTHER IS DOING.

I am upset because I only ever seem to see people talk about children with autism where their parents are taking care of them and the parents are frustrated. However, my mom is living with her girlfriend in another state and refuses to take care of HER 34 year old son who has autism, so I have to do it because no one else will. I just turned 33 and my brother will be 35 in August, and I was watching an episode of Sesame Street where a character has autism and big bird was asking the character something 2 or 3 times and the character didn't respond and the man said he might have to ask a few times, and that is EXACTLY what my brother does and it irritates the hell out of me. I also feel like he is doing it on purpose, because he always does it and it seems like he never learns anything! Like I will try to ask him a question or ask if he can help me do something, and I could ask 2 or 3 times but he doesn't respond so I just feel like he is ignoring me on purpose. Then I get pissed off and end up doing it myself, and if I say anything later on he just says he could have helped me, but he wouldn't respond when I asked for help! I just want to know if there is anything at all I can do that might make my brother stop acting this way? I just really need help. And why is he acting this way when he is 34? Like why does it seem like he never learns to change his behavior even when he sees that it bothers people??

I'm going to say this once and only once. I already have a copy of this question and several others on standby, and every time you delete or report it or remove most of the answers I will just ask it again with a simple copy and paste. So you may as well quit while you are ahead, because I promise you I can play this game all night. I will also do the same thing if you delete it tomorrow or the next day. Try me. I am sick of this.

Now that I have covered that, this is in no way meant to criticize or intimidate anyone whatsoever, but (depending on reason(s) why you believe that it should be allowed), I believe you should know if you didn't already that Oprah was conceived by rape. It is a little known fact and is not commonly talked about, but I have known it for quite some time, and if you look it up I can promise you will find something. That said, if you believe that abortion should be allowed at least in the case of rape, then you are saying in a sense that the next Oprah or the next person of influence should potentially be allowed to be aborted. Of course this is not exactly the same thing, and I do still believe that it should be allowed if someone so chooses, but it's just something to think about when you realize that Oprah very well might not even be here today.

Last night I asked a question titled "Is it fair for people to compare themselves or their deeds to those of Jesus, when we only see a select part of Jesus' life in the New Tesament?" and I got 7 answers to this question, many of which were from people saying that we should not make that comparison and they agreed that it isn't fair because we only see portions of a 3 year period in Jesus' life in the New Testament. However I checked the question again today, and only 2 of the original 7 answers are still up, and those 2 answers are from people who are contradicting my statement and giving reasons why it is inaccurate, such as that apostles knew Jesus personally so you could also rely on their accounts of Jesus as well. In any case, I just would like to know how it is that all but 2 of the original answers have disappeared, and why it is that the two remaining answers are from people who are contradicting me and do not appear to agree with me. Does anyone know why this might be?

What we read about in the New Testament is only part of Jesus' life, and a small part at that since he lived into his 30s. That said, it would be quite easy to make anyone among us appear to be an overall perfect person, or an equally bad person if we were to pick and choose only particular parts of our lives and focus only on those as opposed to focusing on the good and the bad. So for us or anyone else to compare ourselves to Jesus or to take ourselves too seriously when it comes to following in Jesus' footsteps is highly unreasonable, and the truth is that nobody can expect to be entirely like Jesus because we haven't seen the good, the bad, and the ugly of Jesus' life outside of what we see in the New Testament. I believe that the New Testament attempts to make Jesus look entirely righteous as he goes around preaching and performing miracles, but what is happening in his life outside of that, such as on a regular basis? Nobody knows, and we don't know if he gets angry, upset, or does things that might actually be considered sinful. So as good as anyone might try to be, it isn't fair to compare ourselves to what we see of Jesus in the Bible, or for any church to expect anyone to make such a comparison.

For instance, can you think of any sane reason why anyone would insist that something or someone exists if there is no physical evidence or no reason to believe that thing exists or existed? This goes for everything from dinosaurs to historical figures from the past, which are said to have existed because actual physical evidence has been found to show that they existed, such as fossils and grave sites and the like. On the other hand, nothing like this has EVER been found AT ALL when it comes too ANY God(s) of any religions, and therefore I do not believe that it is unreasonable for anyone to suggest that God(s) does not exist, even though God(s) may in fact exist. The fact that God(s) might in fact exist in the absence of any physical evidence is already a bit of a stretch, so I think at the very least any Christians or other theists should be grateful that this is even taken into consideration in lieu of the premise by any atheist that God simply does not exist, no questions asked, since that could very easily be the verdict.

For instance, Hinduism is believed to be the oldest religion that s still practiced today, but odds are that other major religions that are or are not still practiced currently would never have came about in the absence of the example of Hinduism, since almost all religions follow the basic premise that there is a God who performs acts of goodness and should be worshiped for who He is and what He does. The fact that almost every religion has this premise as its central focus seems to suggest that any given religion probably took this premise from another religion that existed prior to it at least on some level, which in turn means that the religion only came about because (the creator(s) of Judaism, Christianity) agreed that there was a God(s) just as their is in Hinduism, and their religions were subsequently built around this premise. I realize that things are not as simple as I am making them sound, but the basic idea is that the God(s) of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. in essence only "exist" because God(s) also "existed" in other religions that were their predecessors. This would also explain why prior to the development of Christianity, for instance, the Christian God was not thought of, talked about, or considered by anyone on earth.

I don't know about anyone else, but at this point I have long since had the feeling that the president's team and/or Mueller himself is trying desperately to hide something, which is why they have yet to release the report in spite of having been issued a subpoena, and in spite of the fact that it has now been almost 2 weeks since Mueller claimed that the president was innocent of having any collusion with Russia to achieve his win in the 2016 election. In a lot of ways I am compelled to say that I do trust Mueller since he did convict the president's former lawyer and others without simply saying they were innocent of anything, but the fact that they are refusing to release the report which contains details of what was found to show the president is innocent of any collusion is just beyond suspicious in my opinion. Even if they were to release the report now or in the next few days, I don't even feel that I could trust that details have not been altered or edited since it is being withheld for so long without any apparent reason other than they are trying to hide

or alter details.

Old English is different from other languages in that it is no longer used and is difficult or impossible for most modern English speakers to read or understand, as well as the fact that there would be little or no purpose in trying to learn to understand it except to make sense of age-old documents which in most cases have already been translated into modern English anyway if they bore any historical significance or importance. Yet let us consider for a moment if the first complete English translation of the Bible, or the equivalent of the KJV which uses middle English, had occurred during the period of OLD English instead. Does this mean that Christians of today would be obsessed with or particularly keen on a version of the Bible that they basically could not even read or could make little sense of?