Youtube comments of ncwordman (@ncwordman).
-
2900
-
1200
-
1200
-
1100
-
637
-
That was great. Quantum Physics is really weird. It takes a lot of math. I went from knowing no physics and very little math, all the way through my bachelor's and master's, just so I could understand Quantum. Part of my study focused just on the giants of physics, in general, and quantum specifically. Brian Cox mentioned Richard Feynman. There are lots of great quotes by the big names in Quantum, but this one from Feynman is one of my favorites:
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.”
Here's another good one. I could go on and on, but this is the last one:
"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet." Niels Bohr.
Okay one more, because I have so many in my head. This one is from Erwin Schrodinger (of the infamous cat thought experiment):
"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
That one always cracks me up. He did the cat thought experiment because he wanted to show how absurd Quantum Physics is. But Heisenberg and all of them applauded him, and went wild for it, saying, That's it exactly! Poor Schrodinger. hehe!
558
-
488
-
399
-
392
-
302
-
276
-
275
-
233
-
225
-
Arthur Kay She was not just a bartender. She graduated cum laude from Boston University, which is Latin for "with honors" or "with praise," and requires a GPA of 3.7. People who call her stupid, or ignorant, I wonder if they graduated cum laude.
And she took an extra job as a bartender, to help her mother, after her father died. How awful of her! During that time, she also worked as a house cleaner, and a school bus driver. This is a real person, doing real things. You'd think the right, if they were genuine at all, would love her.
204
-
195
-
191
-
188
-
185
-
170
-
168
-
166
-
165
-
159
-
156
-
140
-
136
-
135
-
134
-
133
-
127
-
The delays started right after Emancipation, and haven't ceased. That's been the whole point: not during their [white racists'] lifetime, will they allow any of this equality. From 1865 to 1955 (90 years), civil rights went at a "snail's pace," as Rep. Richmond said: separate but equal, Jim Crow, sharecropping, slums, KKK, lynchings, burning crosses, and so on. Then came Rosa Parks, Dr. King, Malcolm X, and others. And then came the water hoses, jail for the speakers, pipe bombs, and eventual assassinations. Here we are, 80 years later, and many people still unwilling to admit we even have a racial problem. So very little will get done; the problem won't be faced, and, therefore, will continue. Unless we focus on the obvious existence of racism, we can't move toward fixing the problem.
127
-
125
-
122
-
121
-
118
-
I used to believe in conspiracy theories, 20-30 years ago. It was fun. This was before the internet really took hold, so you had to actually do research. You had to pour through books, looking for a grain of corroboration for your theory.
What I finally realized was that these conspiracies gave me "special knowledge." It made me superior to those who didn't know "the truth." And that's what kept me doing it. I was a small boat in a vast ocean of people. But this made me feel special.
It was then I also realized how impossible it was for a know-nothing bozo like me to have access to the secret plans of the world's elite. If I did know anything, then I'd be a target, and they would kidnap me or brainwash me, to prevent me from telling their secrets. Of course, that never happened.
Even if I just assumed they thought no one would believe me, what was I to do with the secret knowledge? It was unthinkable, back then, for us JFK, Bigfoot, and Philadelphia Experiment conspiracy theorists to storm Congress--maybe the library of Congress, for more books to read. But even assuming it was all true, never mind debunking it or using Occam's Razor, what was I going to do with it? Go to the New York Times?
Eventually I realized I just enjoyed reading. So I turned in all my conspiracy books for Dickens, Henry Miller, Kurt Vonnegut, Carl Sagan, and so on. And my life is so much more...relaxed.
117
-
107
-
105
-
104
-
102
-
102
-
100
-
99
-
98
-
98
-
86
-
84
-
83
-
78
-
76
-
74
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
69
-
66
-
65
-
So 4 minutes in, and Kinnett is already implying, in a heavy-handed way, that David (and a bunch of other leftwing pundits) hasn't done his homework. I paused to write that observation. And I'm betting it's only the beginning with Kinnett. And, by the way, this claim from Kinnett is a straw man, since that's not what David said at all. Talking with conservatives is so painful these days. Edit: 11 minutes in, I'm seeing a pattern. Kinnett is not only defending Trump at all costs, but is also turning this into a guy-with-a-conservative-show-throws-mud-at-guy-with-a-leftwing-show debate. And he makes it so they can't agree on basic reality. Don't know if I can watch much more. Edit 2: 30 minutes in. The host deserves a medal, while also frustrating me. She cuts off the debate to move on, which is nice; but that also leaves much of Kinnett's "fire hose" of disinformation (lol David nailing it) unchallenged.
65
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
The main problem isn't the education system. It's people NOT continuing to educate themselves, on their own, throughout their adult lives. Knowledge doesn't stay intact and whole forever in our memory. We need to review, sometimes starting from scratch; we need to test ourselves on what we reviewed. And that's just for what we've already learned. We also need to be learning new things, building on what we've reviewed and learned. This is why learning on our own is the most important thing. No school can teach you everything. In fact, the job of formal education is to show us how to teach ourselves, and keep learning throughout life. And we do that by studying all subjects, reviewing what we learned once per week, testing ourselves, going back if we failed or forward if we passed...into new and more difficult concepts. This should never end. It's impossible to know everything, and so education continues forever. If we don't do this, it's like not getting out of bed for years and/or decades: but for your ability to think, instead of walk.
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
The Trump supporter "doublethink" must really hurt, at times like this. You know your party abandoned you, in favor of large corporations, and you see Democrats sticking up for you, and you hear Trump talking about injecting disinfectants. In private, your head must shake, like it's going to explode; you cry, and babble, "It's not true. KAG!" And you wake up fine, the next morning, only to hear a new Republican horror story.
I hope you all come back, return to America. You balance us; we balance you. But that won't happen until you admit you were wrong to support Trump, wrong to defend this party of bought-and-paid-for crooks, who care nothing for you, or the country. We've all been wrong. It's not a weakness: It's strength. Get strong. Come home.
40
-
40
-
Concerns me when I read people quote him, especially when there are so many awful things he said that aren't really part of his messing around with the audience at a rally. With this one: Hot day in Vegas, temperatures exceeding 100 degrees. Secret Service expressed concerns about the crowd's safety. Trump joked about not wanting members of the crowd to leave, claiming he didn't care about them, only their vote. The crowd met this with laughter. Full quote: "And by the way, isn't that breeze nice? Do you feel the breeze? Cause I don't want anybody going on me, we need every voter. I don't care about you, I just want your vote. I don't care. See now the press will take that, they'll say he said a horrible thing." First, DonaldMcCheese rarely makes any sense: He's like a dumas(sp) Beat poet, riffing, improvising at a coffee shop on open-mic poetry night. So to act like he's literally, deliberately saying he doesn't care about them, TO THEM, at a rally, after he said he needs "every voter," just seems like a shortcut to thinking to me, confirmation bias, and parroting what others have said. Do I think he cares about them? No. Do I think he was telling them that when he spoke there in Vegas? No. Do I think he showed how he doesn't care with this story, and that man's poor wife? Yes. That's where he showed it, not in that parroted quote.
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
We forget that we're all human. We might see each other as road blocks, speed bumps, anything impersonal--like I'm just a passing character in a story about you (or vice versa). A person typed these words, and you, another person, are reading them. Simple and obvious, yes, but apparently we need to be reminded that the lives of others matter. It's not just about me, or you, or whites, or blacks, or whomever.
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
I met a Dom once, in Berkeley. This was, like, 25-30 years ago. I was in town to visit an old friend, and one of her friends was this Dom. She had a very outgoing personality, was super friendly. She shook my hand when we met, and, with a flourish, told me her name was Dica (pronounced Dee-sa)--Acid spelled backwards, she said with a wink.
We all rode motorcycles around the state, spending the day together. I talked a lot with Dica, fascinated by what she did. She told me all about it, even took us to her favorite sex shop. I liked her. She was really cool. And I thought about taking her up on her offer to go to that special place of hers.
Alas, I chickened out, not that I regret it...too much. I'm pretty sure I would chicken out to this day. But I admire people who aren't scared. Regardless, my point is this: Dica was a real person, and a Dom, and really awesome to talk with. It takes all kinds to make a world.
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
@nickonoma What will happen, when a pregnant woman dies during some botched coat-hanger type abortion? You pro life for her? The reason we, and every other first-world country has legalized abortion is to protect women, who will feel the need to do it anyway. We are moving toward not doing what every civilized country does, if/when we outlaw abortion.
All those people, the world over, have looked at this situation, and come to the decision that life is indeed precious. They are at least as religious, moral, spiritual as you...or so I'd assume, at least on average. They see it. Why can't you?
27
-
27
-
I would get Chik-Fil-A now an then, 30 years ago. The waffle fries were good. But their classic chicken sandwich, which I always got, was mediocre at best. When the CEO came out as being a Christian, and would therefore do all the stuff that has nothing to do with being a Christian, all the conservatives lined up around the block for Chik-Fil-A. So it stopped being an option, given the mile-long double lines at the drive thru. That declaration of their religiosity came across to me as a sleazy marketing gimmick. Remember Cartman's Christian rock band? Like that.
Can't really see Jesus working at a cheesy fast food chain, refusing to serve LGBTQ, let alone posting a too-little-too-late internet message about corporate-owned diversity, equity, and inclusion. So it's just more cow pies from people who want to make money, while pretending to be caring and understanding.
27
-
@jaspjody-wb9ef Snopes looked into this last year:
"We found no public records or credible sources contradicting Omar’s account of her past, nor any substantive evidence corroborating claims that Elmi is her brother or that their marriage was otherwise fraudulent. In addition, some of the claims offered in support of the rumor don’t seem to add up."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-marry-brother/
You're answering a quote from the Bible, by bearing false witness. This actually goes against the 8th commandment. There's a reason it's a commandment, going back thousands of years, to the early days of Judaism: People do this when trying to justify their hate, and influence others to hate too, based on a lie.
1st John is my favorite epistle. Here's another really good one:
"But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes" (1 John 2:11).
Hate blinds us. We believe we're not blinded, and so walk on, normally. But our hate has made it so we don't actually know where we're going. So, by hating Representative Omar, people have, psychologically and spiritually, corrupted their morality, as well as their ability to think clearly.
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
The state of the two parties astounds me. Republicans look at this governor, and totally agree with her; democrats, totally disagree. The Republicans see the Dems as being dangerously out of touch, subject to propaganda, and willing to destroy the country; the Dems see the Republicans in exactly the same way. In fact, pretty much whatever way one side sees the other, that other side sees them: down to being "snowflakes," or "triggered," or seriously stupid people, who are racist, fascist, and deserving of a swift kick.
I'm not saying the old "both sides" thing, exactly, but, rather, each side. Now, are we both right? Both wrong? Both partly right? Or neither right, wrong, or even partly right? And we can't even talk anymore. Or I can't, at least, speak to a Trump supporter (which is how I see the modern Republican), without thinking, 'This must be the dumbest person I've ever spoken to!' And I'm sure they see me similarly. We're in a mess.
24
-
24
-
24
-
The simplest explanation is that sex and gender are different words with different meanings. Since YouTube doesn't seem to like links anymore, I'll copy/paste this from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, which is part of their government's website:
"Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society."
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
@jacka602 I did the same as you, but came to my senses even later. So don't worry. We're all on our own paths.
Calculus is a great place to start. I paid so little attention in high school, that I had to go back to basic algebra and trigonometry my freshman year as a physics major.
So if you have a good understanding of those, and are studying calculus, you're doing great. At some point, I suggest looking into statistics and probability. There's a lot of that in Quantum.
Learning statistics is really fun too. Everything has a probability attached to it. I learned the term "non-zero probability" my freshman year: That refers to anything that is virtually impossible, but still has like a 1 in a million likelihood.
The more basic physics you have under your belt, the better. The people who developed Quantum Theory were those who had a great understanding of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. They just took it to the next level.
Also, finding some layman's books on Quantum will help get you used to the ideas.
"In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" by John Gribbin is a fantastic book to get you started. It goes over the history, ideas, and how strange everything is at the sub-nuclear level of reality. I got my copy in 1988, and still have it. It's underlined, dog-eared, yellow-paged, and I've written several essays on its contents.
One thing I did along the way was learned how I learn. Everyone has a different way of learning: pictures, repetition of speaking aloud or writing the material, or listening to the material. When I studied Relativity, I recorded myself reading the books out loud, and listened to the recordings in the car, while going to sleep, and so on. You need to find out how YOU learn. That way, no matter what you want to learn, be it Quantum, how to fix a bike chain, learning a foreign language, or a musical instrument, you'll know the best way. So experiment, and take notice of what helps you learn and retain the knowledge.
For me, it's a combination of taking notes, and writing and rewriting those notes over and over, as well as speaking it, recording it, and listening to it over and over.
Last thing, don't get down on yourself. This is the hardest, weirdest, but coolest science there is. It's what happens when Alice in Wonderland trips on acid, while doing Eastern meditation on the cosmos, and calculating the probability of what quantum level electrons are on right now.
Have fun with it. Learn to balance your learning so you neither burn yourself out, nor go too slowly. Good luck!
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
@latrinemarine826 They are not. First, have to realize the Bible is a compilation of different books by different writers, spanning a period of roughly 1,500 years. It also wasn't written in English, but for a completely different culture, at a totally different time. There was no experimental science back then. So who condemned those things? The Bible, as a whole, doesn't condemn or support anything. There are 66 books in that compilation. Which one(s) are you referring to? Guarantee Jesus said nothing whatsoever about those things. So you'd have to refer to either Paul (who was a Pharisee, who knew nothing of Christianity), or the Torah. If you don't want to vote, that's on you.
19
-
19
-
19
-
I remember, back when Charlottesville happened and Trump said that. Trump supporters were quick to say, No, that isn't what he meant. Trump, too, blew it off. They always do that. They act the part of the victim: Oh, how dare you say that; "I'm the least racist person." But Trump and his supporters are so obvious, so childish in their cover-ups. We see right through them. They aren't fooling anyone. They are racists, fascists, and xenophobes. They always have been. And these past four years have been a field day for them. Yes, we have Americans who want a fascist government. We need to realize the reality of that.
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
Critical Race Theory is not being taught to children in schools. No one wants to teach it. CRT is about looking at the law, seeing if there is racism remaining in laws that were enacted when there was slavery in this country. So the only student who would learn this are those who study the law. It's an academic theory. Children are not in academia.
Now, maybe there is something else going on in these schools, which these parents are calling Critical Race Theory, because they've heard their politicians and echo chambers call it that. But it is not CRT. CRT is not taught to children. So they are wanting to ban something that isn't even happening.
Of course, what they're really doing, in the language of these bans, is ensuring that nothing about race gets taught at all. And they're doing it in the guise of helping their children, who I doubt are anywhere near as upset about the idea/reality of race, as their parents are. Far from teaching "both sides," as they claimed with creationism in science class, these parents don't want their children learning to recognize racism, or that racism is bad. The reason why is obvious.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. / But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
(Matthew 6:5-6.)
The Bible is against what the coach is doing. Specifically, Jesus was against it. But none of that matters, because the coach is still paid by the government, and his school is supported by the government, and we have separation of church and state. Why do we have separation of church and state? Because the founding fathers came from a Europe that was filled with theocracies, where power hungry dictators used the buzz words of Christianity to torture, kill, and conquer. And the founding fathers did not want that to happen here.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
Part of the weirdness is the appropriation of this 2,000 year old set of ideas and texts, from the other side of the world. Another part is how much has been modified by first the Romans, when Emperor Constantine converted the empire to Christianity, then through the Middle and Dark ages of Bishops and inquisitions. And, finally, the first English translation in the 16th century. And further complicated by literal interpretations of obviously metaphorical ideas, most of which have been lost to either translation, change in cultures, and the various revisions to satisfy the various monarchs. So unless you know all of that, and have researched every step, and know the Greek texts, and are familiar with Jewish culture from 2,000 years ago, your interpretation of the Bible is going to be...problematic.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
@michaelgallup4185 "Also 250 kids died from the virus 0ver a years span which is only like 100 some more then the average flu year and of those 250 had underlying health issues/co morbidities."
I checked that figure about the number of children who've died from Covid. As of April this year:
"More than 3.6 million children in the United States have tested positive, and at least 297 have died, according to the latest report from American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association. One reason schools require masks is to try to prevent kids from giving the virus to other people, which can happen even if kids become infected but don’t show symptoms."
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/04/26/fact-check-covid-19-less-dangerous-kids-children-are-impacted/7384455002/
You forgot to mention 3.6 million children got sick from Covid, which is no walk in the park. You were pretty close to the number that have died (although the 297 figure above does not account for the past 3 months).
But, I have to ask, are you okay with 297 children dying, when they don't have to, when it can be prevented? I'm not. The fact checking article I quoted above continued:
"Moreover, because adults are being immunized and new variants of the virus are more likely to infect children, "children are rapidly becoming the major reservoir of COVID in the United States," said Dr. Mark Schleiss, professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota Medical School."
So, Mr. Scientist, are you taking into account the Delta Variant? Your figures are less than the known figure from 4 months ago. So it doesn't sound like it. Regardless, it's a heartless way to think of children. As for your claim that children fidget, and so would remove their masks: I looked that up, and nothing. Nada. It wasn't even mentioned, even among the crazy garbage on Facebook. So spare me your scientific acumen.
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
Keep in mind, this whole thing is happening because some (most?) young Con men don't know what being a man means. So they go to the internet, where SnakeOil salesmen bombard them with balderdash, for money and popularity. Seems to me, if you don't know how to be a man, you should just be yourself, and NOT OTHER MEN. You think guys who are actually tough have to be told how to act, especially by people who aren't really tough, like DonaldMcCheese, who's the biggest crybaby in the world. Sounds like these young men have been led astray, and need to start thinking for themselves, doing their own homework.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
How I got over being a conspiracy theorist: First, asked myself how did I come by this information; who told it to me, and who told them, etc. Where a "theory" originates is very important. For example, if it came from Facebook, or other social media, versus a scientific peer-reviewed journal.
Second, (if it didn't come from a peer-reviewed journal) what good did it do, or what purpose was served, to tell me, or other people on social media? I'm nobody. What am I going to do with such information as who shot JFK, what really happened on 9/11, or a bio-engineered Covid? Why didn't that "insider," who leaked the information, tell someone in the FBI, the news, anyone but dumb ol' me?
Finally, if the conspiracy theorist slips through all that, ask them (as I asked myself), assuming it's all true, what are you going to do about it? Back in the old days, you'd never see a mob of angry Bigfoot researchers storming Congress, trying to find out the truth. But these days, the answer to the question is pretty scary, as it's liable to be acted on. Even if they did storm congress, so what? Nothing came of the last insurrection, and the next one will be just as stupid, and poorly planned. So the answer is "nothing." The so-called theorist will do nothing.
All that time spent worrying could've been spent on something, anything, that would actually bear fruit, and improve your life. In the end, ostensibly "secret knowledge" is fascinating, because these people have such small lives otherwise.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
@mgreen2372 Stop blaming "the public education system." We are each responsible for continuing our own education, after our formal education ends. As the years pass (10, 20, 30, 40 years), and we don't exercise our intellect, learn new things, practice critical thinking, then whatever we learned in school (including how to learn) evaporates. That's not the fault of our 9th grade chemistry teacher, or the school board, or government funding---from 10, 20, etc. years ago. It's our fault, our responsibility: yours, mine, and theirs.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
So this thing is 4,100 pages. Right? Out of curiosity, I checked for the longest novel ever written. According to Guinness Book of World Records, this goes to Marcel Proust, and his 13-volume "A la recherche du temps perdu," which clocks in at 1.3 million words, and 3,031 pages.
13 volumes. Longest novel ever written is shorter than this bill.
I tend to read an average of 50 pages per day, 10-15 pages per hour. I'm a little slow, but I want to digest what I'm reading. So that's about 4 hours of reading per day. At that rate, it would take me 82 days to read this bill. That's just shy of three months, reading every day.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@mmr9366 It's not "Australia," but someone (a citizen) in Australia "urging Americans to vote blue," in the comment section for a video. Big, huge difference, which your hyperbole ignores. And no one has the "right" to be indignant, especially when they weren't actually treated unfairly--as I've said three times now. That's not in the Bill of Rights. And, even if it was, then those rights are to protect us from the government, not private citizens. That's why you claimed it was "Australia" as a country (and/or its government) who commented, not a single, private citizen. So you're hiding behind your supposed victimhood, and using it to justify your hatred--by calling it "righteous indignation." As for scripture: Thou shalt not bear false witness.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
I didn't see much Native American history in my classes. We have to educate ourselves. I started learning about Native Americans from Ken Burns' series "The West." From that, I got some names, times, locations, and went from there. There a lot of great books: Black Elk Speaks, Blue Jacket, Little Crow, Saga of Chief Joseph, Geronimo: My Life. There's the poetry and music of Joy Harjo, and Supaman. And fiction too, like The Education of Little Tree.
And don't underestimate how much information is available on the internet. You can find what tribes live(d) in your area, and learn their history. There's so much out there, but we have to search for it. And they are Americans. What happened to their ancestors shaped our country today. This is crucial, if you want to know who we are.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Okay, let me get this story straight:
1. The gun was "secured."
2. The kid had some "acute" mental and emotional problems, which had required his parents to actually accompany him to school every day. And this was the first day they didn't do that.
3. Someone tipped off the principal/teachers that this kid had a gun.
4. They searched his backpack and didn't find the gun.
Secured how? Acute in what way? Why didn't they go to school with him that day? Who tipped them off? Why did they just search his backpack, instead of calling for the parents to come to school to help supervise him, or send him home? These details are coming far too slowly--or, more likely, being revealed slowly to the public, but are known by the authorities.
1. "Secured" is obviously not enough.
2. "Acute" problems don't just end. Mental/emotional problems aren't like a flat tire, which works fine when you fill it with air again.
3. Being tipped off about someone with a gun in your school should require all forces to mobilize, and remove even the possibility of a shooting.
4. Searching the backpack wasn't enough. If there is a possibility of a shooting, that possibility is a threat, and the threat must be removed.
There are way too many people in this country who cannot handle the responsibility of gun ownership. I'm sure you who are reading this are responsible, but there are many others who aren't, and people are dying because of this assumption that everyone is responsible. Therefore, the assumption is obviously wrong, gravely, terribly, awfully wrong: We need a new assumption.
13
-
13
-
13
-
I see a few possibilities here: The cop who fired was so on edge and/or trigger happy, that he mistook an acorn dropping as shots being fired; and/or secondly, he believed those shots were coming from a master escape artist, who was just handcuffed and strapped down--inside a police car; or, finally, this was a setup to shoot the black man in the car. What would have happened if they had shot him? Could they somehow plant a gun on him, making it look like he had fired shots at the police? While possible, I find that unlikely, given they had body cams. The simplest explanation is the officer was not acting, but, against all logic and reason, believed the handcuffed man who was just strapped down was firing at him. Of course, that leaves me to wonder why he was arrested in the first place, and handcuffed, and put in the cop car...alone.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@countryfriedgamer15o Misspelling is called a "typo." It's not "low information," as in the case of voters. Should I workshop your reply? You had a run-on sentence after "stuff up," using a comma instead of a colon. Should have a comma before "while simultaneously." Used an emoji, like a child. Either a comma, period, or colon should have followed "Wait." Four errors in all. And those aren't typos, but a butchering of grammar, form, and punctuation. Finally, what you wrote is really just a deflection away from the point. One that, I imagine, must sting quite a bit for you to deflect.
12
-
Johnny Fash America was built by African-American slaves, the Chinese (especially the transcontinental railroad), Irish, Germans, and many others, including Caucasians.
But, even with that, all along there have been plenty of people turning against all of those groups. Though America claims liberty and justice for all, that is not what a lot of its citizens want, which makes me think they'd be happier somewhere else. They obviously don't want to live in a land of the free--unless it's freedom to not wear a mask during a pandemic, or the freedom to discriminate and deny freedom to others.
12
-
12
-
12
-
Woke has an actual definition. Here it is: "Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination". Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights."
So MAGA people are against those things, when they say they're against "wokism." Well, we already knew that. It's just they can't come out and say it, because then they'll be admitting how bad and evil they are. They want to be seen as Christian patriots, the moral majority. But their actions speak otherwise.
The crazy thing about "woke" is it's just "awareness of social inequalities," the ability to be able to see and admit there are inequalities. You don't even have to do anything about it, necessarily: just not deny it. But MAGA can't even do that. They see awareness as "demonic," equating it to the worst possible conspiracy theories.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
What the MAGA guy was talking about was Eye For An Eye. This is a very old law, going back to the Code of Hammurabi, in Babylon. Most ancient civilizations had it, including the Jews--and that's where these so-called Christians get it. Yes, Eye for and Eye is in the Bible.
But, and here's the important part (which the Bible doesn't spell out): It was never taken literally, at least not in any semi-civilized society, and certainly not with the Jews. Instead they figured out a monetary value for whatever "eye" was damaged, and they paid that. Life was not given for life, nor (as the Biblical text says) foot for foot, and eye for eye.
But these people don't really know history, or the Bible, and take the text literally.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@CityBoiATX True. The great irony here is that some (most?) of these conservative evangelicals on the religious right are atheists.
If they actually believed there was a God, then they'd also believe that, that God is long overdue to smite them and their hypocritical party to hell and back.
If they actually believed in Jesus, then they'd love everyone, instead of hating so many; they'd be humble, instead of arrogant; mindful of others' feelings, instead of contemptuously mindless; they'd welcome the people coming across the border too:
“Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt (Exodus 22:21).
Instead they are against everything the Bible spells out, while interpreting its vagueness in the worst, meanest way possible, for their own selfish ends.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
These MAGA people are a great learning experience. If you find yourself saying such-and-such is the best ever, or worst ever, you're probably wrong. "Ever" means for all time. So unless you know every example of that particular set, then you'll likely be incorrect. Secondly, if you are willing to support someone no matter what they do (even, as he specified, committing murder), then you're not thinking clearly, and are likely an enabler of terrible deeds. Finally, never assume you're correct, and always check your math. Stop and think. Otherwise, you could one day be wearing a red hat of your own.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
That story about Biden's daughter has been debunked. It came from two Florida residents, and a diary they stole and sold. They both pleaded guilty already. Conservative group Project Veritas got ahold of this diary. The conspiracy made its rounds on Facebook, which flagged and removed the posts, because it was misinformation. The conservative groups and posts on Facebook claimed the FBI verified the diary as belonging to Biden's daughter. That's a lie. The FBI reported they said no such thing. So, complete fabrication.
You got a lot of nerve posting this, given that Trump was actually found guilty of r--ing a woman, and had to pay her millions. And Trump has mooned over Ivanka since before he was elected. And he walked in on beauty pageant contestants, in their dressing room, knowing they were changing. And has stated, "When you're famous, you can grab any woman by the you-know-what."
What a lame attempt at whataboutism.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I love David's point, that the DNA is already there, in the man and woman. So if the DNA is what's important, and not the humanity, then shouldn't we consider all life sacred? So the Right should have no antipathy toward Democrats, "illegals," or even people who want abortion--because that woman wanting (or needing) an abortion is sacred. To refuse her would be to go against an actual human being, as opposed something that's not even a fetus yet.
Yeah, the anti-choice argument breaks down upon any consideration; it only works if you're given some idea (like the DNA is what matters), and then don't question it any further. It's these people being so ignorant of science, but believing they understand anyway, that resulted in denial of Climate Change, and the hoax "cry of wolf" that got us where we are today: the most cases of Coronavirus in the world.
Listen, if you want to speak scientifically, you have to study science. It doesn't come automatically. Nor do you inherit it genetically from your uncle. It's okay to not understand what you have yet to study and learn; you just can't say that you do.
10
-
10
-
10
-
"America first" was never about patriotism, but nationalism. It means nobody matters to them, except Americans, and not even all Americans. Where is there American exceptionalism with anyone who isn't a vocal, ostentatious diehard of their party? Same thing with "All lives matter." All lives do not matter to them. They're up in arms, literally, about the Senate approving the election, ready to hang their own party's VP; they are outraged at transgender people getting their rights. Mexicans crossing the border? Forget it: Mexican lives don't matter. I could go on and on, like them being unwilling to wear masks, or get a Covid vaccine, even though that puts the lives of their fellow Americans at risk.
"America first" is really about them appropriating liberal-styled terminology, something blameless (like patriotism), as gaslighting.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@cybertoe1221 "Everything isn't always about you."
Trotting out that tired old cliche? I didn't say it was about me. I used me as an example, but referred to "the majority of the citizens." And I also said, "Maybe you don't mean it that way."
And, no, what they wrote about "America" was in no way clear that they meant "the American judicial system." But, as I said, they probably did mean that. They just weren't clear. It's just that, as I wrote, I felt the distinction should be made.
Sometimes someone will say the world is evil, for example, when they really mean something like, "Evil happens in the world." But see how different those statements are? Worlds apart, if you'll pardon the pun. Same here.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@douglaswright9701 What did some people back then think of freeing the slaves, or giving women the freedom to vote? Did everyone think of it as freedom, common human dignity? Or did some make light of it, turning it into a farce?
Did they come up with talking points, like the girl's changing room? What kind of person, back then, echoed those talking points? Their place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant; Curse of Ham, sub-human. If you ever wondered how you'd react, during that time...well, let's just say history repeats itself. What's past is prologue. And here we are.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Trump's base, who "support our troops," stayed with him after the bone-spurs story broke, after he spoke poorly of McCain--because Trump likes "people who aren't captured"--and after the laughable claim that our military was out of ammunition ("the shelves were empty") before he ("your favorite President") stocked the shelves. The list of terrible, un-American, and immoral acts and tirades, childishly holding grudges and insulting his enemies on Twitter, calling the Press "the enemy of the people," goes on and on.
*
Trump's base does not care! If they were fine with everything else he did, including his terrible handling of the Coronavirus, his hawking of unproven pills, suggesting the injection or ingestion of bleach and disinfectants (which a lot of people tried), his paying off the porn star, patting Ivanka's butt, and saying they had "sex in common," and on and on, then they will never leave him. They will die for him. They have deliberately thrown their entire lot in with him. They form constant conspiracies, deny all news that isn't pro-Trump, and constantly doublethink, just so they can continue to believe he is "the best President ever."
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@ShellShock11C "Maybe you should read through this comment section and tell that to a few of your friends here."
That's the problem with whataboutism: It's okay for you to do the thing that you say others are doing. It's not wrong for you to do it, since they're doing it.
"Not one issue can be brought up about Biden without you people flying into a tangent about Trump."
Did I do that? No. But since someone else did it, and you obviously think of it as "flying into a tangent," then why does that make it okay for you to fly into a tangent?
"If J6 was an insurrection (it wasnt) then your side is 300x more guilty."
Insurrection definition: "a violent uprising against an authority or government."
140 police officers were injured; government property was stolen and vandalized; the rioters broke through barricades, broke windows, and trespassed into Congress; they did this so they could stop the certification of the presidential election by Congress, to "stop the steal." Members of both parties in Congress were escorted to safety, as they evacuated Congress, to escape the mob.
That is, by definition, an insurrection. Oh, and your last sentence ("then your side is 300x more guilty.") is also whataboutism.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Imagine being so upset, stewing in your juices, because of a Youtube political commentator, that you take the time to write them, about how much you hate their content. How long has that person been crying, you reckon? They must have pictured David crying, many times, and the joy of owning the Libs, when the election results are released. They thought out the whole scene, down to the "safe space" and the "support gerbil." Finally, they couldn't wait, and just had to share their sad, demented excuse for an imagination--only to have David laugh it off.
9
-
9
-
The place discussed in the video is privately owned. It gives a place for (as they termed it) POC--people of color--to live. Those people would need to be immigrants, or from such a situation that they would appreciate not having unaccompanied white people around. That's right, white people can go there. Fox even said that, but then glossed over it. So white people aren't barred from entering.
Since it's privately owned, and not run by the university or the government, it can have whatever rules it wants. That's why you don't see a lot immigrants, fresh off the boat, so to speak, living in the suburbs, in gated communities. That's why people who live in ghettos aren't members of elite country clubs--or even why there are elite country clubs.
If you went to another country (for whatever reason) to go to school, and found there to be a lot of hostility against you based on the color your skin, then wouldn't you be glad to find a place where you wouldn't be attacked in bed, say, in the middle of the night, because of your skin color?
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
This isn't hard to understand.
"Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society."
https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@mainelyoutdoor "No the whole believing something your not was huge in this"
You assert that this person "believes" that they're male, that their gender is male, and because of that...what, exactly? And while you're thinking about that, Dr. Freud, since you believe that this is her belief, since you take it for granted that her gender is a belief, without really knowing, then aren't you also believing something that isn't real?
What else do you believe? Knowing is the absence of believing, and vice versa. You don't know this person's mind. You can't. So it isn't that you know, but you believe what you stated there. And you base that on a prejudicial generalization.
So whatever else you might believe that also isn't at all factual, here you're showing a psychotic break from reality. And yet you want to talk about this happening to someone else? Pull the plank of wood from your own eye, before worrying about the mote of dust in someone else's eye.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The thing about LGBTQ+, like BLM, is that it shows how there are people not being treated fairly in "the land of the free." They want equality. I want equality. When the Republicans are ready to talk equality, and stop with the BLM hate, and the AntiFa hate, and hating Dems so much they call us "demon rats," and stop with the transgender hate, and the hatred of Muslims, and people seeking asylum in "the home of the brave," and so on, then I'll be happy. I long for the day when we can stop this stupid culture war, when the right-wing mouthpieces stop spewing propaganda that makes Republicans hate others. I will welcome it with the greatest joy.
But if Republicans can't even acknowledge their racism, and their bigotry, and prejudice, xenophobia, and homophobia, and so on, then they'll be unable to ever solve the problem.
Freedom is for everyone. Respect and kindness is for everyone.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@kirkpeters8043 "If he voted without foresight, that's on him." That isn't the point. The point is not feeling sympathy for him and his wife. The point is the lack of morality and humanity it takes to not feel sympathy, even brag about how they feel nothing at all, except maybe happiness that justice (or karma) was served. And why? Because that man didn't have the sympathy to care about others, when he voted for DonaldMcCheese. And that makes him wrong and immoral. Just so: It makes the people feeling no sympathy for him and his wife...also be immoral and wrong. This isn't about "foresight," but insight into the human condition, and the hypocrisy that these people see themselves as good and right, and that man as bad and wrong, when they are just as bad and wrong: We all are. We're Human! We mess up. And that's why sympathy and empathy is not only moral, but logical, a sign of intelligence.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@milavargas1031 "I'm sorry but...." Then you aren't really sorry. That conjunction, joining two contrasting ideas, negates the claim of being sorry; or, at the very least, puts a condition on it, a condition that has already come true. Do you believe yourself to be "a good Christian"? A good person? With morals, sympathy and empathy for people who're suffering? You'd feel sorry for them, BUT, except...what? They got what they deserved, what they had coming? So it's good for him to suffer? Everyone who suffers deserves compassion, sympathy, mercy, and forgiveness: because we all suffer: It's the one thing we (for sure) have in common.
8
-
They weren't let into the building by the police: maybe some were, but if the great mass of them were, then they wouldn't have needed to break through the barricades, past the police, break through the glass in the windows and doors, past the police. But yes, quaint way to put it: "things got out of hand."
Hours of video shows them breaking in and going through the halls, chasing the police, who were trying to lead them away from the members of congress, who hid huddled in storage closets. Those videos were posted on Facebook. And Babbit was shot as she was trying to climb through the broken glass of a doorway. And the "management of the government" was "disrupted," because they fled for their lives.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
"Do you believe in Freedom, or don't you believe in freedom."
This. This exactly. But we know Republicans' hypocrisy. They insisted they should have the freedom to not wear a mask, during a global pandemic. They even had the gall to say, "My body, my choice," before they turned around and ripped away a woman's right to an abortion. So we know they don't believe in freedom, except the freedom to do whatever they want, no matter whom they harm. In fact, they love to harm others. Can't sleep at night unless they know they harmed someone. Made in God's image.
And that Ana was struggling to see this, when Cenk did, just kinda broke my heart. I usually identify more with Ana. But let me tell you, anyone in Florida these days is in the mouth of the beast. It is unholy land, with outright fascism just a heartbeat away. How can Ana expect people to stand up to these redneck, wannabe Natsies (sp intended)? I think the Furries made a mistake keeping their convention in Florida, actually.
Whatever convention I had planned, all you convention people, I wouldn't hold it in Florida. You could be thrown in prison there now, for what you used to do in times past.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Yeah, no, see, no one want's to "legalize abortion til 9 months." That's hogwash, just crap you get from Republicans who want you to hate Dems, so you'll mindlessly support Republicans. Also, since you assumed Dems were for that 9-month thing (which they aren't), what does that say about why Jesus would vote for Trump? You didn't list any reason(s) why he'd vote for Trump. Right? Did you forget?
So, to summarize, there's no reason Jesus would vote for Trump, and the reason you said against Dems is a lie.
8
-
@yarpenzigrin1893 Can't let go of CRT, huh? That's what critical pedagogy is right? It applies concepts from critical theory to fields of education.
I'm impressed you know that term, though. I take it you know what critical theory is, and to whom it is taught, then.
Oh, and @Colleen Barcheski is NOT doing critical pedagogy in the least little bit. First, pedagogy is teaching. Colleen is not teaching here. And while CRT does look at the world thru the lens of what woke points out (namely prejudice and discrimination based on race), critical theory does not.
That's right: Critical Race Theory is only one part of critical theory, the teaching of which is called critical pedagogy. Critical theory looks at society through any given framework or reference point. You can look at society relative to anything, like music or food. CRT looks at society relative to race. And it's only taught to grad students. And it does not pass judgment, but merely points out the facts.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@UCo7U0W3Ua3B4VSMZKCGS5Tw "You think taking guns away from responsible gun owners and letting the criminals have a hay day?"
Why is it people like you always result to this straw man argument? No one said anything about taking your guns. So your combative attitude isn't for protecting your rights, but for attacking others. Crazy part is, after making this assumption, you make a lot more.
"YOu're saying to restrict legal gun owners right? You think regulating guns will solve all these scumbags from shooting other people?"
Let me ask you a question, Mr. Riddler, Do you think doing nothing is going to solve anything? Because I don't see you offering any solutions.
"Do you know how many guns are in america?"
People in this country of ours own more guns than the numerical value of our population. 328 million people (in 2020), more than 390 million guns (as of 2018). The year 2020 saw 5 million new gun owners. Can you vouch for them all? Are they responsible gun owners like you, who attack strangers only on the internet? Or are they scumbags? Because, if they're scumbags, we should do something. Right?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
"Do you know how many shooting are thwarted on a daily basis due to legal gun owners having proper access to their guns?"
I looked this up. In 2019:
"According to the data, citizens stopped shooters 50 times in the 316 attacks. But in only 10 out of those 50 incidents did citizens actually stop the shooter by using a gun. The other 40 times, it was with their hands or another weapon."
https://www.kxan.com/texas-mass-violence/do-good-guys-with-guns-stop-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-statistics-say/
You mean you don't have to use a gun to stop a shooting? Anyone else ever thought of that? Those were just mass shootings in Texas, mind you. So, 1/6 of the time, citizens stepped in. Citizens armed with guns stopped shooters 1/30 of the time.
Calling yourself Liberty Patriot, and being a patriot who stands for liberty, are not the same thing. When your stance involves people dying (pretty much) everyday from mass shootings, and your defense of this is that people are coming to take your guns. and that doing nothing is better than doing anything, and that other people need you to have your gun (because of all the gun shootings), when, in fact, they don't, then that leaves you looking less like a Liberty Patriot, and more like a psycho nut.
8
-
8
-
Republicans love saying, "It's okay that our people are such bastages, because so were people in the Bible." And then Carson goes on to say that the people on Wall Street are wolves, and you can't have someone nice as President. That's why God chose Trump. Talk about putting out fire with fire. Also, the Bathsheba thing was, first of all, fiction. Secondly, it has a whole story to it, and the comparison with Trump breaks down immediately.
Even given that it's a story, Bathsheba was David's great mistake. And God punished him for it. It's similar to how Delilah was Samson's greatest mistake. The human writers of the Bible lived in a patriarchy, and it's extremely evident.
But, besides Bathsheba, David was unbelievably cool and awesome. He was courageous (where Trump is a coward), and admitted his mistakes (which Trump never does), and he wrote music--so he was an artist. But he was also a great general, and led his troops into battle. Trump can't even dance to YMCA, and wouldn't be able to fight his way out of a wet paper bag--where David as a boy took down a man who was 9-feet tall.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
"No one knew...."
Doesn't that sound just like something Trump has said? Gov. Kemp knew, just like Trump, who said it would go away magically. Is this outright malice, evil, or is it spite, against Democrats, who support science, and, therefore against science, itself. How far does this hatred of 'all things that Democrats do' go? Because Democrats want to protect and save lives, during this pandemic, does that mean Republicans are against that?
Whatever their motivation, the end result is death.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Being a believer in the Bible has nothing to do with governing. Or it shouldn't. First, there's no way to prove anyone actually believes what's in the Bible. I can claim to believe in anything. The only way to show belief is with your actions. So if you believe that all life is sacred, then that means ALL LIFE. That means no more war, capital punishment, animal testing. It means feeding the poor and tending the sick WITHOUT CHARGE. How do we know? Because that's what Jesus said and did IN THE TEXT. (I'm not saying in real life, but in the text.)
In other words, belief in God, and that God made everything and everyone, and therefore loving all that God made MUST BE SHOWN. Belief isn't something that should just be in your own head, or, if that's the way you want it, then KEEP IT IN YOUR OWN HEAD. We don't want to hear it, because it's hypocritical.
These Republicans use the Bible to appeal to gullible voters. And they use it to say, "Look how kind and wonderful we are! We believe that all life is sacred! Now just ignore the evil we actually do, and focus on us hugging the flag, and holding the Bible...upside down."
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Think about this. Really think. Obama: Constitutional law scholar, 8 years as President without a scandal, besides the mustard he liked, pants he wore, and Trump's crusade about the birth certificate. Hillary: Lots and lots of hearings on Benghazi, never charged, did nothing wrong. But suddenly many many people "don't trust her."
Trump: elected so he can run America like a business. He went bankrupt multiple times. He was a cheesy Reality TV star. Cheated on all (I think) his wives. And how do you run a big business in America? Come on, you know the answer: You cheat, lie, steal, blackmail, threaten, and try to get around safety regulations.
Now, this Obamagate thing? This Flynn thing? Trump's awful handling of the Coronavirus? What seems "in character," for all concerned, and what seems to be total BS? Think. Really think.
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
If you're going to ban a book for sexual content (including incest, having a husband sent into a dangerous battle to be killed--because the King had gotten that man's wife pregnant), or mass murder (of men, women, children, cattle, etc.; leave none alive!), or depictions of practicing witchcraft (as Saul had ordered for himself, after he had already banned witchcraft for everyone else); or a book about a god (The God) wanting to destroy all humanity because they were annoying him by asking for food and water in the desert, or killing all humanity because God had let his lecherous angels impregnate mortal women (and those women gave birth to incredibly sinful people)....
I could keep going for a very long time. The Bible is messed up, man. It's storytelling as it was popular circa five thousand years ago, to a race of people that was enslaved over and over--apparently because they kept making their God blind with rage, because of their selfishness, ignorance, close-mindedness, and cruelty. The Bible's heroes aren't very heroic at all: The guy God named "Israel" tricked his brother out of his birthright, just because Esau was hungry, then lied to his blind father in order to trick him too, all because his mother thought it would be a good idea.
Nowhere in it does the Bible depict anything like what Fox or its ilk would call "Christian family values." But it does show what the actual family values are like. The Bible is brutal in its portrayal of humanity, never pulling any punches. If anything, for that reason alone, I think the Bible should be taught. But it wouldn't happen that way, and the modern Christians would just use it to persecute everyone who isn't Christian--which, interestingly enough, is exactly what happened to the original Christians. Lions' pit, anyone?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@fredo69ification Washington Times ran the story.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/22/white-liberals-more-likely-have-mental-health-cond/
Tucker Carlson also covered it.
https://www.facebook.com/TuckerCarlsonTonight/videos/no-justification-for-outdoor-mask-mandates/763023751074018/
Tucker I know all too well. Washington Times leans right.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/washington-times-bias
The Times only mentioned one thing the people said who did the survey, and came up with theories of their own. The people who did the survey said Liberals were probably more likely to seek psychiatric help than conservatives.
It was a "Pew Study [and] was published last year, Zach Goldberg, a doctoral candidate, consolidated the data on Twitter, which sparked a column by news magazine Evie trying to dissect why this actually is."
As for Zach Goldberg, he apparently posted this to Twitter.
https://twitter.com/zachg932/status/1248823584111439872?lang=en
The "Pew Study" reference Pew American Trends. Here's their link:
https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/u-s-survey-research/american-trends-panel/
As for what I think: First, these are NOT FACTS. This is not what a fact is. This is a survey. Zach Goldberg posted this to Twitter, which is not a scientific periodical. It is Twitter. Since Washington Times was the only one to cover it, and they had some choice opinions to fill in the conclusions for why this survey is significant, it further brings the matter into question.
At best, it's a curious survey.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Someone, somewhere must have told them this story about Trump still being the President: They're obviously parroting it. And that person must've also given them the excuse that things were bad because Trump wanted people to see what it would be like without him.
Fine. But what I don't get is that, apparently, then, Trump is blackmailing, extorting, and punishing the country, by showing how bad things would be without him. How is that okay with MAGA people? And them blaming Biden, when they know (or believe) it isn't Biden, is so dumb-stupid that I'm surprised their brains don't short-circuit, leaving them to flail in an epileptic fit on the ground. Or just spontaneously combust.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Right-wingers: They broke down a gate! That means we can open fire!
Let's look at something comparable: the January 6 riot. Those people broke through the gates the police and security had set up. Did they get shot then? No. Did police have their guns drawn? No. When did they get shot? Well, one got shot while breaking through the glass of a door/window, thereby forcing entry into the building.
Let's go back to the BLM protesters. The pink golf pro and the little tea pot were not police, meaning they were not trained, at all, which you can tell by the way they carelessly point their guns at each other. The protesters broke through a gate to enter the neighborhood; they didn't break through the pink golf pro's gate, to enter his private property. And the protesters certainly didn't break through their windows, to force their way inside their house. Actually, they weren't even concerned with that castle, and were making their way down the street to the mayor's mansion.
Right-wingers: But they broke down a gate! And a person has a right to protect their property!!!1
Their property was never threatened. Their property was passed by. I dare say, out in the open like they were, with no cover, if the BLM protesters had been the dangerous armed thugs the right believes them to be, and the protesters saw that they were threatened, they could have shot the pink golf pro and the little tea pot deader than fried chicken. Since that didn't happen, those people weren't protecting their property. As for the gate, not all gates make it through the day.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Do you really think (or believe) that anyone who is anti-mask to start with will listen to calm rationality? They had to surrender rationality, in order to be against wearing masks. And, similarly, they had to be against looking out for their fellow citizens, since we wear masks to keep from infecting others; so it doesn't work if approximately half the population isn't wearing one.
How about those people giving the finger to the nurses in this video? Threatening nurses, who just came to explain the simple, inevitable science involved? You think they'll be swayed by rationality? by (as Jesus put it) loving your neighbors, even/especially when your neighbors are of a different belief system (as the Samaritan was to the Jew in the Good Samaritan parable)?
Martin Luther King Jr said, "Hate cannot defeat hate. Only love can do that." And I want to believe he was right. But when hate is so stupid as to threaten those nurses, and insist that children go to school without masks (if that's what the parents want), just to satisfy some political/cultural cult, then I don't think loving kindness will make their Grinch hearts grow. I don't know what to do, either, or what to advise. But I do remember something Malcolm X said:
"If the white man (Malcolm was speaking about police brutality) cannot get his house together, then he shouldn't have a house. It should catch on fire, and burn down."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_uYWDyYNUg
7
-
7
-
7
-
It's a test, true. But if she fails the test, her pregnancy is terminated: hence, abortion. That's the actual point. So, you're right, it doesn't SHOW an abortion, like in real time, happening in that passage from Numbers. But the elixir, or whatever that is, did exist. The priests had it and used it. And if the person was pure, then supposedly it wouldn't cause her to miscarry. But if she wasn't, then the child would be aborted.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Why do so many people overseas assume the U.S. is one homogenized group, with a single set of identical characteristics, all doing, thinking, and wanting the same thing? Is it the name United States? Are they taking it literally? Our country rarely, if ever agreed on any one thing, let alone the host of balderdash you see from maga: They do not represent even the majority of voters, let alone majority of voting-age public, or the entire population. I don't assume everyone in the U.K. (for example) thinks, likes, and wants the same things in politics. Asking "what's happened to the US" (as they did here) is a lot different than "what's happening in the US."
7
-
7
-
A person doesn't wear a mask for themselves. When I wear a mask, it stops the water particles from leaving my mouth, and going to someone else. A person wears a mask for other people. When someone doesn't wear a mask, if I get within the average of 6 feet distance from them, and they are infected with Coronavirus, then their droplets can cling to my clothing, get on my skin, etc. If I then, unknowingly, touch that area, then touch my eyes and mouth--bingo!--I have Covid-19.
So these "brave" people, who refuse to wear a mask, because they have the American freedom to do so, aren't risking their lives; they're risking the lives of everyone around them. The hard-fought American liberty is not a thing so that YOU can get ME sick, and vice versa.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I loved seeing Emma return here. Emma and Ana make an awesome combination. More of this please.
Onto the substance of the video: America and Americans lose their mind(s) when it comes to large sums of money. Everything from the gold rush, to the transcontinental, to big companies making big money in war.... We are a money-grubbing society, and always have been. Think of the greed the average Joe six pack has (yours and mine), then imagine if your earnings could be raised by a million, or hundreds of millions. What wouldn't you do for that kind of money? What if you were already getting hundreds of millions, and could get more? What wouldn't you do?
Big Pharma is not the only Big corporate powerhouse. These corporations are kings, gods even. And since their absolute power has absolutely corrupted them (as it would us), then they are capable of anything. And they are certainly capable of taking advantage, and stoking the already existing fires of hate and fear...by offering their product, their consumer therapy--a big, shiny gun to protect you from all the whatever-it-is the other corporations are telling you to fear. And there's no reason for them to slow down or stop, until they are forced to do so.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
This is yet another stupid thing Trump said, that Trump supporters will insist everyone is misinterpreting. We can't help that he says stupid things (like injecting bleach), really inappropriate things (like dating Ivanka, if she wasn't his daughter), that should be considered more carefully (blood coming out of her whatever), and spoken of with gentleness (this hurricane is very wet, from the standpoint of water).
Remember, "This is their new hoax!" Which Trump supporters raved about, saying he wasn't calling Coronavirus a hoax. Then Trump said he was being sarcastic. So even Trump supporters didn't know what to say. If he was being sarcastic, then he actually said Coronavirus was a hoax, but was being sarcastic?
Now this. He said it. We all know what he meant. Trump is no poet, or statesman. It's more of his war-time-president garbage. He's a cruel, thoughtless, narcissistic, egocentric, know-nothing bozo. And the image he painted of nurses going into battle, like soldiers, was insulting, and stupid. He called the image beautiful. That, too, was insulting. However he said it, whatever you interpret his dumbo words to mean, he painted the image, and called it beautiful. That's it.
Nurses deserve better than that, even before Coronavirus, but especially now.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Never say Trump is "too insane" for something. Everything is possible with him, especially the lowest, most base, horrible, inhuman, raunchy, gnarley thing that no one else would do, even the worst example of a human you can dream of. I don't think we've seen how tremendously low Trump will go--not can, but will. He tops himself every day, and has done so for four years.
Don't forget, they tried to keep Hope Hicks' positive test secret.
7
-
7
-
"Police are the wrong authorities to handle a mental health crisis."
That is, indeed, the problem. Here, at least. I've seen videos of police calming a person down who was having a mental episode. So it's not impossible, but is nevertheless dependent on the person having the breakdown and the officer--and who knows how many other factors.
If you're "freaking out," just in general, having people yelling at you, pointing guns at you is not likely to calm you down. If the police want the person to be calm, then the cops have to be calm. On the other hand, if the cops are violent, then they will likely be met with violence. I know the tendency of some people might be to think that the opposite is true. But the citizen isn't invading the cop's world; rather, the cops are invading the citizen's world: This is especially true far someone having "a mental health crisis."
Most people don't understand mental disorders, let alone a crisis moment. Heck, most doctors don't even get it. So to expect the police, with their guns, black outfits, and air of assumed authority to be able to show enough empathy to put themselves in the heart and mind of someone who isn't thinking clearly--is clearly too much to ask.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Repubs aren't interested in helping babies. If they were, they'd want paid time off for the parents for maternity leave, paid school lunches, Head Start, and so on. All of this 'caring about babies' is a shield, same as every time they claim some moral high ground. They also aren't interested in freedom, since they want to take that away from women. And they aren't interested in the sanctity of life, since they're willing to sacrifice the women, who might need medical procedures to save them during a complicated or failed pregnancy. Their entire position is a lie: It's based on antipathy for women, science, and morality.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
RadiantPunk "People that voted for him aren't prophets or clairvoyants who could see into the future and predict the stupidity that this President was going to show at this time. It's his fault and only his."
But if they continue to support him, they are most definitely at least complicit. If they don't fact check what he says, because they believe "facts" are "fake news," they are complicit.
Their support not only enabled Trump to be President, which, indeed, does make them responsible, but their continued support continuously enables him. If they messed up, and own their mistake, by withdrawing their support, then, yes, they aren't responsible for what he does, from then on; but they would still be responsible for what he did, until they withdrew their support.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
In the old days, like when the Babylonians/Persians freed the Jews, they made reparations. Otherwise the free slaves would have nothing. When that wasn't done here, our country left those people way behind everyone else. Imagine a monopoly game starting, where all the players had money except one--because another player had taken all their money.
So, going forward, this influenced all the other generations. Some of them did manage to become wealthy, even with the triple K burning stuff in their yards, even with the hangings, pipe bombs, threats, segregation, and so on. But many of them didn't.
6
-
6
-
Or...Or..!.., stick with me here, Newsmax fans: Since Fox is doing it, then maybe it ISN'T "woke." It's normal. It's real. Did I blow your mind? Maybe this whole appropriation of an African-American English-Vernacular slang word is just propaganda. Maybe, since you Trumpists elected really unqualified, mindless people, for the sole reason that they used all the right buzz words, and are committed to your insult-comedy reality-TV show...uh, I mean conservative politics and news...that those ultra maroons you elected can't actually do the job. And so there's nothing for them to do but culture war. Can't you at least try to elect qualified people? Can't you stop watching "news" that is nothing but hateful and fearful propaganda? Stop buying into conspiracies, and read some astronomy, learn some math, crack open a novel, and dust off your brains! And, for goodness sake, try to find your morality again.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
All this reminds me of what William Tecumseh Sherman said about the South:
"We are not fighting a hostile nation, but a hostile people....You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it....You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors....We can make war so terrible and make them so sick of war that generations will pass away before they again appeal to it."
Those generations have come and gone, and now these neo-Confederates are right back at it. Don't they understand how Sherman doesn't even need to march, in person, through their land; he can obliterate it from so high up in the sky, they'll never see him coming. And all for what?
They pretend/believe that they are patriots protecting America, from those who would destroy it, when they are the ones who want to destroy it. The Confederate states believed the same thing.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
When AOC was first elected to the House, Fox ran a 24 hr smear campaign for weeks, months. Because of that, right-wingers obsess over AOC. She has been made out to be a left-wing satan, so that's how they see her. In other words, they're victims of propaganda, as usual. Otherwise, why would they care what a representative of the House, from New York, has to say?
For them, hatred is recreation, sport, and is the only reason why they follow politics. Their politicians and mouthpieces know this, and use it all the time. That's all Trump was/is. That's all the Republican party is: no policy, no plan, just have fun hating what they call the left, and making who they call Libs cry. Sad and pathetic, really.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"Petty little b-t-h" has to be, hands down, my favorite description of Trump. Good job, Ana! And I looked up the etymology of milquetoast. And it's pretty cool, if you're into what words mean, and why we use them:
"From the character Caspar Milquetoast of the comic strip The Timid Soul, created by American cartoonist Harold Tucker Webster (1885–1952) and first published in 1924; the character was named after the American dish milk toast (“a food consisting of toasted bread in warm milk”)."
So, while I'm normally a stickler for using the correct word and spelling, both of them kinda work here. Milquetoast was named after milk toast. Personally, I prefer the word with a q in it, since we don't have enough of those, and the k-like sound of q is neat. But since it was named after actual milk toast, it can be argued that milk toast came before milquetoast, so...knock yourself out. :)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Langkowski Do you have names, places, times, video proof (posted by many of the terrorists)? Because that's what the FBI has on the January 6th insurrectionists.
By the way, you know what an "insurrection" is, like the basic definition even? Here ya go: "a violent uprising against an authority or government."
They went to Congress to stop the government from certifying the election, to "stop the steal." They injured 138 police officers, stole items, damaged property, chanted "hang Mike Pence," and were calling out for AOC and Pelosi.
They forced their way past the barricades, through the police, into Congress, breaking windows. They were violent, and they were there against the government. That's an insurrection, hoss. And you're dismissing it, which doesn't make you look like a good, lawful American either.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@williambonac8157 "To what extent does public heath overrule individual rights is the real question"
*
What individual rights are you talking about? And, actually, we could reverse your question, and ask:
*
To what extent does the individual overrule public health?
*
See, a person's rights shouldn't be something that endangers someone else; nor should they even come into play, if they endager someone else. If a person near me isn't wearing a mask, because they consider that their "right," then that person could be a-symptomatic, and exhale onto me, my clothing, my skin, and kill me. Does a person have that right? I don't think so.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@THRASHMETALFUNRIFFS It's unclear what he actually meant, especially if you listen to the sentence before that one. The apostrophe explanation falls into the "plausible deniability" category, at best. Unless you phrase the sentence carefully and correctly, an apostrophe showing possession cannot be obvious when spoken aloud. So, at best, he didn't phrase the sentence correctly. The only logical conclusion, then, would be for us to say we don't know what he meant, since everything else comes only from bias or spin. I'm a democratic voter, and, personally, I hope he did mean it. Nine years we've tolerated these people, and they've done nothing positive, compassionate, or in love of their country and its citizens. And now they want him back in there, knowing about P25? Gaaaarbaage!
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@jimohara The question is "Why do Republicans Love the Migrant Busing Stunts?" Right? It's the title of the video.
If you want to talk further, look deeper into what we do with the immigrants, fine. But that's not the question here.
Does immigration need to be better handled? Without a doubt. But everything in the U.S. is broken. So where do we start? With immigration? Not education, law enforcement, mental health, gun control, widespread propaganda, minimum wage, or the general anger and hopelessness so many Americans feel?
Odd, I'm a leftist sounding like an "America First" stooge. But that's no accident. The only time the "America First" people want to think about any other country, or people from any other country, is how we can keep them out.
I want them to come, like it says on the Statue of Liberty. But what do we do with them? The only say I have over that is who I vote for. And I'm for sure not going to vote for people who bus immigrants to other states, without warning that state, and abandon them.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Great point Ben Gleib made there, which I've never thought of: Random killing and torturing of animals as children is a sign that the person is mentally unstable. But when they grow to adults, then it's suddenly okay.
As for hunting, if you have no access to money, or groceries stores at which you can spend that money, then maybe you need to hunt and kill an animal to survive. But then you'd need to pay for the gun and bullets. And where would you buy them, given that you supposedly don't have access to a grocery store?
We are not a hunter/gatherer society anymore. We don't need to follow the elk or bison through the seasons. That's done. It's over. But, okay, sure, you want to do that, and who am I to say you can't. I'm not saying you can't. Okay? I'm saying using that lame excuse to keep the government from legislating new laws to make it harder for psychopaths to get guns...is pretty psychotic too.
So if you're willing to let innocent people (or animals) die, just so psychopaths can get guns, then maybe you're a psychopath.
6
-
How can they claim it was antifa, when actual Trumparrots filmed what they did, and streamed it on social media? And that was how they were found. Plus, how would they know it was antifa, if the Trumparrots were there too? Did antifa introduce themselves? Did the Trumparrots watch outside as antifa scaled the walls, broke the windows, chased the guards through the halls, and defecated all over congress? What were they doing? Singing "Kumbaya"? And since they had to be tried in a court, were all of those jurors, judges, and arresting officers fake? I swear: They lie like children, with the worst excuses that can easily be proven false.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Talking about Asperger's was pretty lame. But everything else he said was stunningly perceptive. Of course, he's trying to get this so-called shaman off, like the insurrectionist who claims that Fox made him do it. While I think these people should all, each be held personally responsible, they have a point. They chose to watch the propaganda, yes, and accept it as true. But propagandized they were, heavily. The source(s) of all the BS they ingested should be brought to trial, and labelled as enemies of the people. But those short-bus jerks need to take responsibility, and pay to the full. They attacked the government, and should be punished in a way fitting to that crime. And, let's just admit it, if they had found AOC, or anyone else, they would have beat the holy crap of them, if not raped, kidnapped, and killed them. These are sick people.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Not so much in the past, if 4 people voted against it. Not so much in the past, if you're making it a point to comment, and say it's in the past. And are you not thinking of your race, when you refer to "black people [who] only think of their race"? The race is theirs, as you wrote, so not yours, which means theirs is different than yours, which implies that you're thinking of your race, by pointing out the difference.
The point of bringing up the past: to make sure it doesn't happen again. And it very well could, since you seem to be here commenting on how TYT is "race baiting pos," just because they posted this. They're only race baiting, if you felt baited. And, if you did, then race is still an issue.
6
-
6
-
6
-
I'd like to point out what I think is a common misconception about "reparations." I think some people are maybe taking this too literally. Sure, part of what we who support it mean is that descendants of former slaves were not given a fair and equal playing field to start with. So they have always been behind, and some can't seem to catch up and be regarded as equals.
But reparations also means acknowledging that simple fact, and adjusting our society to see that the field is skewed, so we can repair the damage. While this could be seen as giving the descendants of slaves money or property, what we're really talking about is acknowledging the racism and bigotry that came with slavery, and how it never really ended. Relations have improved, for a great many Americans. But for at least as many Americans, the bigotry is the same or worse, even.
And reparations isn't just about race. It's about sexism too. Because, similar to race, many Americans are now more "awake" to this tendency within ourselves, the primitive tendency to be racist or sexist. We have fought against these bigoted angels of our nature, and are doing our best to overcome this mental weakness. But there are also many Americans who are just as sexist as their forebears, if not more so. And it's not just racism and sexism, but nationalism as well. So this includes bigotry against Native Americans, immigrants, even people from other countries who aren't even trying to immigrate to the U.S.
The repairs we need to make start with admitting that supremacist thoughts exist. This is a real thing. Even though slavery has ended, and women can vote and own credit cards, we still see the refusal to accept that the bigotry continues. If we can't acknowledge the problem, then we'll be unable to fix it. And that is, perhaps, why those people don't want to admit there's a problem: So they can continue feeling superior to others. This is extremely primitive, and it needs to stop. And that's what a reparation is: seeing the problem and repairing it.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@GEORGE PARKER Yes, hate of any kind, for anyone. The reason why this idea of hate blinding us showed up so many times in the Bible is that it's extremely common to human nature: so common, that we have to be mindful of it, even (or especially) in the 21st century.
So, yes, this includes people who hate Trump, or hate Biden, or hate the media, or hate people they don't know anything about--such as Trump supporters, liberals, BLM, etc. See how many blind people are bumbling their way around America?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"on no occasion, have I seen the opposite side actually listen to what their “opponents “ are saying."
Are we not listening to her? We've heard what they had to say for years now. Interviews with these people is a regular thing. And, while I can't speak for anyone else, I mock them because what they say is worthy of being mocked. I don't just mock them because...reasons, or rather no reason at all.
"Simply making fun of another’s position not only is not helpful, but actually adds to the division that already exist."
Yes, the division already exists. You got that part right. You think just because we don't say she's insane, as she clearly is, that division will go away? Do you believe that's how it started? She divided herself away from reality. Let me repeat that: SHE DIVIDED HERSELF AWAY FROM REALITY. Nothing we do or say will bring her back to reality.
"I don’t have a dog in this fight."
If you're in this country, or somewhere else in the world, you certainly will be impacted if Trump should win, and insane people like this woman are further empowered. That's what made the division. Right? Trump empowered them, and they seceded from reality.
6
-
6
-
6
-
Since parents need to approve what's in a library, don't you think they can also approve to take their kids to a drag show "FOR KIDS"? I mean, the parents have to approve, first of all, and the shows are for kids, so we aren't talking XXX or something. Seems to me the people doing those shows, and the parents who take their kids to them, have both accepted responsibility.
But, unlike the library book situation, MAGA evangelicals want to say parents shouldn't be allowed to take that responsibility, but those people should be driven away by masked, armed civilians...as we've seen on numerous occasions.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I don't know about studies, but I do know basic psychology. If you repress something, it will surface. Mostly our brains our satisfied with just admitting a thing is real, and facing it. So I'm really talking about denial of the obvious existence of a thing, such as sex.
That's why admitting you're an alcoholic, or that you have any problem, is the first necessary step to overcome the problem. Sex is real. We all got here because of sex. The only bad thing here is an adult being embarrassed because their kid saw something related to sex, and the kid might ask them a question. They live in great dread of that. They don't want to have to explain sex to their kids.
I'm sure this is partly to blame for Christians assuming sex outside of marriage is bad. They want their kids to be grown adults, and married, and figure it out on their wedding night. But that's not going to happen. Their children, sick of being repressed, will seek knowledge of this natural urge, which allows for all mammalian life on the planet, at all costs. It will become an obsession to them. And who knows where that obsession could lead.
To prevent your children from being sickos, talk to them, bring it out in the open, explain how sex is natural.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
They act like victims, and claim to be such, so that (in their minds) they can justify attacking others. Also, these people would be very small, with insignificant lives, if not for the MAGA cause. Suddenly, they are fighting the good fight, defending America from the libs--who are drinking baby's blood, or so they believe. They believe all kinds of garbage, and are unable to differentiate between fact and belief. So they act on their beliefs, as if they were facts.
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Police need to be monitored, psychologically. Attacking someone handcuffed to a stretcher doesn't come out of nowhere. But just think of all cops have to deal with: criminals, the worst of all of us. How long before the cop gets jaded, antsy, angry that he can't just punch a kid on a stretcher for spitting at him? I feel for cops. Truly. It's like a tour of duty in a war zone, in some cities. How long does their tour last, before they get ptsd, and lash out at someone for selling cigarettes on the street?
They're ticking time bombs who should have gone off years ago, but are still ticking, ready to blow their tops at any moment. It's like we have insane people going around with guns, and the authority to do pretty much whatever they want--with only some paid leave, and the very rare firing or extremely rare imprisonment, to keep them from taking out their fears and frustrations on the people they're meant to serve and protect.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
DeSatan should have stuck with being governor. How could any Republican hope to flank the MAGA cult? He should've focused on Florida, made it the best state in the country. He could have spoken about the woke stuff here and there, throwing that red meat to the base, while not governing on it. Then, whatever happens in 2024, he's set to make a strong bidding in 2028.
In the meantime, he does his homework, puts together a winning team, and figures out exactly how to become the next MAGA messiah. But no! And, really, thank goodness. I hope Trump scrambles his pudding and humiliates him, so that he vanishes from public sight. He's an evil person.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ennykraft Thank you! I've thought this for a long time too, in that exact language. I had to double-check, and make sure this wasn't a post of mine.
There is a good percentage of Americans who completely and totally support Trump. Among them we have people who would side with Trump, and stick with him, no matter what. No matter what! Among them, there are people who believe he's the Messiah, or the reincarnation of Cyrus the Great: chosen, sent, and controlled by God, for the purpose of destroying the great evil in the world, which is the United States--with all its "baby killing" and weird, lustful sex stuff.
There are people among them who want a strong, authoritarian leader: a king, or dictator. They've said so in interviews from the beginning. We have people in the U.S. who want a dictator, and they would continue to support Trump, if he declared himself one. We have some insane people here, and they're teaching their children, as their parents taught them.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@WilliamKingbillaking "Where exactly did you learn about Jesus' likes and dislikes?"
Straw man, considering that what we know comes from the text, whether you believe it's literally true or not. And he did talk about the Bible all the time, i.e., the Tanakh: specifically Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah. The Bible hasn't been changed, as in completely, but it has been translated. "Life is not in the scriptures but in me, but you won't come to me." That's not in the text. Here's what it said: "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life" (John 5:39). So you rewrote to suit your narrative.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@BL4CK KN1G8T Why don't you just write, "I have no idea what's going on."
That would at least be honest, and I (and others) would probably like your post, for it's refreshing honesty. Instead we have this gem. Let's look at it. Shall we?
"Unfortunately far leftits don't blame the cops"
(Oops, your spell check didn't catch "leftits," or else you ignored it.) Since you believe it's unfortunate, that implies you aren't far left, and you blame the cops. Good for you. It's pretty far left to want to hold the police accountable.
"they only think gun laws are to blame."
"They." So you're definitely talking about other people, despite your left-leaning tendency to blame the cops. Who is the single, solitary group of people with all the same thoughts and characteristics? Who is they? Because you don't say. You give no specific examples. This is also the phrase where you show what you truly have a problem with: blaming gun laws.
Your comment isn't about the children. There's not a mention of anything having to do with students in an elementary school being shot dead, while away from their parents. Nothing. You just want the far left (whoever all that refers to) to start blaming the cops, and stop blaming gun laws.
I got news for you, Sparky. I'm so far left that I ask what Jesus would do, in most situations. And I say the cops are to blame. I also say gun laws are to blame. See how we can blame two things? We can walk AND chew gum.
5
-
5
-
Imagine what being told you're superior to the smart people does to an obviously mentally, socially, philosophically, morally inferior person.
America has always had its ignorant people and its educated people. That disparity is part of who we are. But the pioneers who weren't educated in cities had next to no access to an education. Today, it takes an act of will and pride to be without critical thinking or logic. Even people who don't go to college can read on the internet, and teach themselves anything. So these Trumpists have deliberately made themselves vulnerable to obvious con men, if, for nothing else, because those politicians and right wing mouthpieces preach two things to them: first, hatred for all things different, and secondly, as the reason for that hate, they are superior to the liberals, LGBTQ, African-Americans, immigrants, women, etc.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Here's how I recovered from being a conspiracy theorist. Maybe it'll help someone else.
First, ask yourself how a know-nothing bozo like you, with no power, money, or influence got clued into all this "secret" knowledge. And how did the people who told you about it find out, themselves?
Secondly, if this is such a big conspiracy, stretching across the country and/or the world, why are you blabbing about it on social media? If you've somehow stumbled onto the secret plots of powerful people, then wouldn't they see you online, revealing their plans? Wouldn't they have spies in place, or algorithms that looked for key words? And if they saw you, wouldn't they remove you from the planet, to keep their plans secret? And since that hasn't happened, shouldn't that tell you that no one cares what you believe, because what you believe is utter nonsense, and there is no one spying on you to report you?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"1776 was not a violent movement."
One of the most uneducated things I've ever heard from a MAGAt. It absolutely was violent. Our founding fathers were insurrectionists, terrorists, slave holders. How do you think they beat the British? Certainly not one-on-one, in open combat, on an open field. They betrayed their government because of "taxation without representation." And they figured they'd be safe enough with an ocean between them and their government.
What they had was a dream, an ideal of how a government and nation should be. They were a bunch of murderous hippies with pie-in-the-sky dreams. (Kind of like the Manson family. lol!) And I love them for it! They were some crazy people to travel here by boat, brave the natives, wildlife, and untamed wilderness. No sane person would've done that. They never got to see their full dream come to fruition, and, so far, neither have we.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
After formal education ends, a person can choose to not educate themselves on their own. They can allow years and decades to pass without learning or reviewing science, math, history, and literature. When that happens (and it does), whatever they learned evanesces like the dew on a hot summer morning. One can even forget how to learn, how to think critically, and to have the good sense and humility to know what they don't know--and how to admit it, so they can actually learn.
Teachers can't be expected to visit everyone in the country, and make sure they're learning on their own. And, even if they could, they'd never be able to insist that people keep exercising their intellects.
What we have in the the U.S. are tens of millions of mental invalids, who can't even take a step, or lift their head from the pillow.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@kk33613 "There is no such thing as a "press pass.""
Yes there is. Of course there is. Try harder to invalidate someone's point.
"There are five rights that are enumerated in The First Amendment, freedom of the press being one of them. Do you know the other four?"
That's cute. Trying to show how smart you are, right after you said there's no such thing as press passes. Anyone who doesn't know those "other four" off hand can look them up, as I just did. Here you go, all five even: speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. I'm so smart!
That you happen to know a fact about something doesn't make you smart. If it did, everyone would be smart, because everyone know some fact or another.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The modern Right really reminds me of the old Confederates. I remember William T. Sherman said, about them, "You cannot coax them, or meet them halfway." And he also said, "We aren't fighting a hostile government so much as a hostile people." Oh, how they hated the Union, the Yankees, anyone from a big city, who went to school. And they were all for state's rights: mostly the right to be as prejudiced, violent, and stupid as they want.
5
-
5
-
5
-
So...if you put a loaded gun to your head, and pull the trigger, then you'll die, if the good Lord wants you to die? If you step onto a busy street, in a crowded city, while wearing a blindfold, and several cars hit you, and run you over, then, if the good Lord wants to squash you like a grape, His will be done? Do these "Christians" not read the Bible?
"Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test'" (Matthew 4:7).
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@beatsboxdrebeats7512 That Trump was joking is a common excuse for the garbage he says. We could go back and forth, interpreting what he said. But let's look at the results: Fox's Trish Regan (and other Fox personalities) ranted about how Coronavirus was a scam; 30 Republican governors still haven't instituted social distancing for their states (with Florida, recently, reluctantly, starting it); some evangelicals are holding services, claiming the virus is a hoax, and getting arrested for it.
And if you do look at what Trump said: "First it was RussiaRussiaRussia, then it was a perfect phone call. Now it's Coronavirus. This is their [the Democrats'] new hoax." That was a joke? If it was, many (or most) of his supporters took it at face value. Fox had to fire Trish Regan, because Murdoch was concerned he'd be sued, when Coronavirus was shown to not be a joke...at all.
Personally, I haven't seen anyone yet refer to what he said there as a joke. They usually say that he didn't mean Coronavirus was a hoax: rather, the Democrats' claiming that Trump wasn't doing nearly enough was the hoax, since Trump was obviously, totally on top of this from the beginning. If anything, him claiming that is the joke. So spare me the Trump's-just-a-misunderstood-comedian routine. And maybe explain that joke to the families of all the people who have died.
5
-
5
-
5
-
For those who don't know:
Nationalism means to put your country first to the detriment of others. Meaning, not just "America first," but America "only." When it's modified by "Christian" it means, first, to make Christianity the national religion, then to put the "church" (whoever/whatever that is) in charge of government. That would, I assume, include the military as well. So the church would be able to declare war or martial law.
After putting the Christian church in charge of the military, and courts, and police, and press, they would then be able to do whatever they wanted to anyone who wasn't a Christian American--by whatever criteria they used to define themselves. They could also turn the military loose on other countries, anyone who wasn't Christian American.
And they could define "Christian American" however they wanted. For example: white, straight, non-smoking, non-drinking, must believe and pray, in public, as they dictate.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I miss how Pakman used to play that recording every time he said, "bonus show." How'd it go? "Oh, the bonus show, where you make a lot of money...."
Republican politicians and media talking heads know what kinds of things keeps their base engaged. Maybe, or mostly, because they were the ones to program those things into those people's mostly empty heads, or maybe because they recognized that there was this untapped demographic. What demographic? The one that has no interest in politics, but loves the National Enquirer, pro Wrestling, monster truck rallies, and the Jerry Springer Show.
If Republicans could give those people the political equivalent of that, and make it like an unending reality TV show of an us-vs-them team sport, mixed with equal helpings of feelings of fear and superiority to a certain group of people, then they could own that base completely. And they do. All other news is fake. So no facts can get through.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@nappel6496 "If there is someone else in my house, they are a threat."
I know this is a bottomless pit, a circular argument, and neither of us will ever admit the other has a point. Nevertheless, I can't resist what I quoted above. It's an example of one of the many things that can go wrong, just with wanting to protect your family with a gun, to say nothing of overthrowing the evil governors, who are wanting to protect citizens from themselves.
What if the intruder finds your gun, and silences your dog? What if you can't get to your gun in time? What if they take your daughter as a hostage? What if there's more than one, and they wouldn't have shot their weapons, except you threatened them with your gun? When you brandish your gun, you turn what could be a non-lethal situation, in to a deadly one.
Plus, that really isn't what's being talked about here. Is it? What's going on is a bunch of ski-masked gun nuts are yelling at cops, and going to neighborhoods, and the capitols, with their guns. Is this the kind of evil government that such people have been stocking arms against? Is this the government that needs to be overthrown, because they're protecting citizens from the virus?
Now go ahead and call me names. "Libtard" works. Give me your circular arguments about the 2nd amendment, tell me how threatened you feel in your home, from other people with guns breaking in. I'll do my best to not get drawn in any further, as I know it'll lead to nothing.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
They love whataboutism. Some people fall for it, or are distracted by it: not everyone, but enough. It's like the Gish gallop, which they also use a lot. The point is to switch the conversation to something, anything else. Most interesting thing to note here, though, is that, while also being a logical fallacy, and a childish debate strategy, whataboutism is a Russian propaganda tool.
"Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about ..." followed by an event in the Western world. According to Russian writer and political activist Garry Kasparov, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Good job twisting it around. Let's try a little exercise to examine how you worded this.
"So a little punk"
You negatively label this person right away. How different would it be if you called him what he actually is, and not what you believe him to be: a student?
"gets in an adult's face"
He didn't get in the adult's face. He was walking by, walking out.
"shocked by what happened next."
Yes, the adult grabbed the student in a headlock. Since the student was not getting in the adult's face, as you claim, but just walking by, then putting the student in a headlock was not at all justified. The teacher (not just an adult, but the teacher) put his student in a headlock.
So, after this brief look, already your entire view of things falls apart. Let's look at what really happened, then, again: A student tried to walk by a teacher, who was screaming at him, making forceful gestures, and the teacher puts him in a headlock.
Quite a bit different then your biased perspective. Wouldn't you say?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Imagine that Next News Network (and others like it) was how you got your news. You believed them, and dismissed the actual news as fake and liberal. You're inundated every day by garbage like this, and worse. Every day, all day: listening to talk radio while driving, tuning into Tucker, Hannity, etc. And you follow the online chatrooms, where you know all about the Q stuff.
Imagine what that does to their brain, their ability to even differentiate fact from faction, belief from knowledge, good from bad, patriotic from fascistic. Is it any wonder they stormed Congress on Jan 6?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@balla2828 "You are the one who has made up your mind without exploring people like Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk."
I haven't made up my mind, at all, about those people. I don't know anything about them. Screw 'em. They have nothing to do with me. Nothing. You're assuming, again.
And what does AOC have to do with you? How does she impact your life? Does she, at all? You sure you aren't making up an enemy, or accepting what you've been fed about her?
You can't KNOW that she's "absolutely afraid and running" away from debates. You're assuming this. You're reading into her not debating, as her "fleeing." And you're reading into that as her "protecting herself," which leads you to believe...God only knows what.
Don't project yourself onto me. Accept responsibility for who you are, and don't assume to know the first thing about me, or AOC, for that matter.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@dru70292 "the science of physics"
Really? As opposed to what? The art of physics? And which physics would that be? Newtonian? Was it in the General or Special theory of Relativity? Let me guess...in the standard model of quarks and gluons! No, really, I remember studying this in my freshman physics lab. We put on masks, went to a mirror, and showed that, through Brownian motion, water particles left my mouth and went onto the mirror.
I'm kidding, of course. I just did that experiment: first, without the mask; then, with it on. Guess what? My water vapor showed up on the mirror without a mask. And it didn't show up with the mask on. Know what that means, Schrodinger? That means I just used the scientific method to prove masks do work. Sorry, kiddo.
5
-
5
-
@Ty-Telco How is that critical thinking? I see no logic, or deductive reasoning. And you're obviously biased against "progressive run cities." Further, I see no "conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication"--which is the definition of critical thinking.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@AaronOkeanos Well said! I either know, or I don't know. Since it's impossible to know everything, I see no reason to pretend I do. Even with that impossibility, though, we can learn about whatever might cross our path. We can learn as the opportunities present themselves. But the only way to do that, the only way to learn, is to admit we don't know. Also, some people will know things we don't, and vice versa. I love admitting that to someone, and having them explain this thing they know: I learn something, and they feel good sharing what they know.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
After formal education ends, a person can choose to not educate themselves on their own. They can allow years and decades to pass without learning or reviewing science, math, history, and literature. When that happens (and it does), whatever they learned evanesces like the dew on a hot summer morning. One can even forget how to learn, how to think critically, and to have the good sense and humility to know what they don't know--and how to admit it, so they can actually learn.
Teachers can't be expected to visit everyone in the country, and make sure they're learning on their own. And, even if they could, they'd never be able to insist that people keep exercising their intellects.
What we have in the the U.S. are tens of millions of mental invalids, who can't even take a step, or lift their head from the pillow.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@patmahinie5728 "Hi Laurajean Wullson, I come here to try and mitigate the damage. Mr. Pakman is intentionally trying to anger you so you will fight his battle. We need to treat others fairly and Mr. Pakman is dehumanizing people in order to provoke civil unrest."
May be a troll. But this is too rich. I have to comment.
So Pakman is trying to rile up, and anger his base, so they'll fight? He's dehumanizing, and provoking civil unrest. Okay....
First, you're thinking of Trump, and the other right-wing mouthpieces, who have been blamed by the January 6 insurrectionists, for their crimes. Has anyone ever, will anyone ever blame Pakman for any such thing?
Secondly, this is an independent program, not MSM. People who listen to Pakman are intelligent, most likely well read. They use critical thinking. Pakman encourages critical thinking, not violence.
Finally, so I very much doubt you're here to "mitigate." You saw something that spoke of right-wing "militia" as terrorist. Yes? So you came here to...what? Troll? Maybe, or just defending your tribe with projection.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
It's a good question with lots of possible answers. My two cents: In WWII we had actual villains to fight: evil nationalists out to actually take over the world. People came together, putting aside petty differences. FDR's New Deal saw rich people paying 75% in taxes; the British switched to socialized medicine; Hitler's Nazism showed everyone alive the end result of a dog-eat-dog world.
Their children (the actual Boomers) inherited a time of plenty. But already the rot bubbled to the surface, which was met by Rosa Parks and Dr. King, and finally seemed to come out well in 1965 with LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act. But that made a lot of people angry. Plus Viet Nam wasn't exactly a war against obvious evil, like Nazi ovens and Pearl Harbor. Then Nixon came back. And things went really bad.
Then there was a period after Nixon and Nam, when everyone caught their breath. But, all the while, there was Wounded Knee in '73, mixed with a post-hippy time of weirdness, sex, and drugs. Then came Reagan: the founding father of the modern GOP. He dissolved the unions, took away money from mental health. And money became the driving force, to which humanity took a back seat.
Cycles came and went, the pendulum kept swinging: good, bad, outrage, relief, hope, overwhelming cynicism. By then the '80s were gone, leaving a kind of cultural embarrassment, like waking up beside an ugly person you didn't mean to sleep with.
So the '90s saw a dissolution of a cultural center. There were hippies and metal heads, valley girls and rappers, dumb and smart: the lion lying down with the lamb. Everyone went off on their own trip. But then 9/11 happened: Dubya and the WMDs. And at least half the country rallied into camps of left and right, while the other half shrugged and went on about their lives.
Is there a point to all that, a direction, a purpose, an endgame?
Without actual villains to fight, we invent villains. Most of us have to be fighting for something/against something. Rich people only pay 23% in taxes now (down from 75% in that New Deal), so infrastructure falls apart. Young people don't know what a Boomer is anymore.
There have always been people doing bad things and good things, and people responding to those things in good ways and bad ways. I know this probably didn't help, or even answer your question. But I enjoyed it, and maybe you did too.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I figured out what to do about these Republicans. Douglas Adams wrote about the Golgafrinchans in his awesome book, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." The Golgafrinchans were from another planet, and wanted to get rid of all the useless, dumb people. So they invented a story about a giant mutant space goat, which was coming to eat the planet.
In order to survive, they would make three spaceships: three "arks," if you will. These arks would (supposedly) carry all the Golgafrinchans to another planet, to escape the space goat. They said that arks A and C would carry all the smart people, the leaders, and the people who did actual work. The B ark would carry all the useless, dumb people.
What those in the B ark weren't told, of course, was that the other arks would stay behind: because there was no giant mutant space goat. In this way, the Golgafrinchans rid themselves of their version of Republicans.
I'm all for doing this. And as much as they love conspiracies, I think they'd buy it and board the B ark gleefully.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ericnix6266 No, that's half a fact. Here's the 2nd amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
See how it starts with well regulated militia? The right of the people is because, waaaaaaaaay back then, there was no national guard, and no police. So all the people were responsible for protecting themselves and each other from Indians, bears, etc.
But in 1903, the national guard officially replaced the militias of each state. That's why the militias aren't called out for state emergencies, the national guard is.
So the whole concept is antiquated.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@wienerlips4240 Parties change after a couple centuries. Republicans are no longer the party of Lincoln, even in Reagan's time, but especially with the Republicans since.
Have you missed this entire conversation, forgetting everything that was said in this TYT video? Let me summarize:
Reagan armed and trained the Afghanistan nutjobs who are such a threat today. Then he (well, his administration) radicalized the Muslims into being the very thing which xenophobic Republicans complain about--namely, that Islam hates white people and foreigners, which is what Reagan and his administration convinced them of, so they would fight against the Russians.
To say this is like Lincoln...well, Lincoln would have had to radicalize the southern states, convince them to leave the Union, armed and trained them to fight the Union, and the Confederates wouldn't have turned on the nation for another 20 years. And, by then, people would have forgotten, or glossed over how Lincoln brought this bloodshed on our country.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
This has nothing to do with investing in education. Yes, we need to do that, but it won't change how ignorant people are (or can become) in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. Do you expect "education" to go door to door, checking to be sure everyone continues to educate themselves? Over a decade or two, after formal education, you start to forget what you had learned, if you don't reinforce it. And if you spend 3-4 decades, after graduating, neither reading nor practicing critical thinking, then your brain does the mental equivalent of physical atrophy.
Imagine these people lying in their beds for decades. You think they're reading to run? Or even walk? The responsibility is on them to continue to educate themselves. And since we don't require continuing adult education in this country, they chose long ago to be unintelligent.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
What's up with that, indeed. I've always questioned whether or not a person believes what they claim, or, in Trump's case, practice the xenophobia he preaches. It could be that he says all that racist, nationalist garbage because his base eats it like candy.
So, does he pretend to be a jerk, so jerks will support him, to the point that he becomes a cultic god to them? Or do they support him, because, like them, he's a jerk? And not only is Melania part of that uncertainty, but Trump's first wife, Ivana. Trump reminds me of the old pro wrestlers: Rowdy Roddy Piper, and that lot.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@wescaldwell4323 "And the lefty's don't burn anything down"
First, whataboutism. Secondly, the apostrophe symbolizes possession, but I don't see what you're saying that a single lefty possesses. However, I assume you mean multiple "leftists." And that should be the word you use: leftists. It's easy, if not completely misunderstanding what a leftist is.
Isn't English fun? While we're on the subject, I've been meaning to ask you: Is English your second language? If it is, then congrats! I don't remember much of the other languages I learned, besides my native-born English. I'm extremely impressed by people who learn English as a second language.
But if it isn't...yikes, dude. You really, really, really (ad infinitum) need to take refresher courses--starting in about...oh...let's say 2nd grade.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Having theories or secret knowledge that's contrary to established, proven, accepted reality...makes those who have the theories feel better about themselves. Their lives would have to be really dull, to join an alternative-reality community, which is what they do: They aren't even coming up with this stuff on their own. If they were, I'd give them points for creativity. But they're just repeating what they read and heard. At least they get to feel like they belong, like they're in a group, an extended family. And, naturally, they see themselves as smarter than those who don't have the secret knowledge. It really seems like a psychological cry for help, except they don't want to be corrected. They must enjoy the conflict: fighting the good fight against the big lie. Pity, really, since they could be spending all that time learning how the universe actually works.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
First, there's no such thing as biological gender. Gender is societal and how one feels about oneself; sex is biological. Secondly, in case anyone hasn't guessed, this is an old school religious idea. By old school, I mean Old Testament.
"A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this" (Deuteronomy 22:5).
This is what the English used to justify burning Joan of Arc at the stake. Seriously. That was back in the year 1431. See, Joan had to dress like a man to fight in the French army, and lead it to victory over the English--which was why they really burned her at the stake. Their specific charge against her was heresy. The Catholic Church apologized for this, and made Joan a Saint in 1920.
No one takes the Bible literally, and out of context like this, except to cover their own sins. Heresy, by the way, is different from blasphemy. Blasphemy is going against God; heresy, going against the church. So what those people in Texas are evoking is the charge of heresy. Think about that.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Part of the problem is there's no "left." It's a misnomer: It's more like center-right. The only reason some people see it as left is because the right is so far to the right, that center-right is relatively left, even far left, or "radical left"--as Trump called it.
So the right mischaracterizes the "left," not just in this fundamental example, but all the time. And that's what you've done in your post, not that you're rightwing: You might be one of those people who claim to be neither.
Also, I have no idea who John Lewis is/was. Or that he died. Now, since you claimed "the left wanted ppl to mourn him," and yet I didn't (and I'm very far left in how I think) then you're wrong. Speaking in such sweeping terms makes it easy to be proven wrong. And since you're wrong about that, what else are you wrong about? A lot, I bet. Don't assume you know things you can't know.
5
-
5
-
"...what you see is what you get."
Well, he stabs his old business and political partners in the back, claims he barely knew them. He lied all the time. He made over 30,000 false or misleading statements in his four years, and half of them were in the last year in office. He even lied about making mistakes, like when he used the sharpie to extend the hurricane out to where he predicted it would go.
I could go on and on. He's totally dishonest about himself, with the size of the crowd at his inauguration, or that he won this last election. Now, if you mean he's up front about being a jerk, and you never see him be anything but insulting to others, then yes, what you see is what you get.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
First, a patriot doesn't need to claim they are patriots; if someone does, you know that they're trying too hard, probably to compensate for being the opposite. Secondly, a Christian Conservative cellphone company...sigh...whose real objective is to get involved in politics, starting by getting people on local school boards. All of that sounds very deceptive to me.
Third, God doesn't need your help. God is everywhere; God made everything and everyone: That's the definition of God. You're just claiming to speak in God's name. Plain and simple. People have done that before, going back to the pharaohs, or the kings of Europe. The pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution by people who claimed to be speaking for God.
Finally, if you want to bring God back into our culture, then love your neighbor. If you can't even do that, if you can't do the earthly thing, then how (as Jesus said) can you hope to do the heavenly thing?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@5APPH_13 "Florida is one of the best states in the U.S. Miles better than any left-run state."
Well, let's see. From the U.S. News and World Report, as reported by the Florida Times-Union:
"The Sunshine State — not seen with an overly sunny view in this case — came in at No. 24 after more than 60 metrics across seven broad quality-of-life categories were put into consideration.
"Florida ranked 31st in health care, 29th in education, 37th in crime and corrections, 11th in infrastructure, 43rd in opportunity, seventh in economy and ninth in government.
"Massachusetts was ranked as the best state in the country, followed by New Hampshire, Minnesota, North Dakota and Washington. Louisiana was determined to be the lousiest state."
Democratic states in that listing: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Washington.
Swing states: Minnesota.
Republican states: North Dakota, Louisiana.
So you're a little uninformed. Aren't ya? Of the top 5 states, 3 are Democratic, 1 is a swing state, and the other is Republican. So Florida isn't "miles better than any left-run state."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@fuelbasti Yes, the Hebrew God, which, I assure you, some, if not most, believe in. At least I'm assuming they do. And, yes, psychologically speaking, their religious thoughts about the Promised Land, and God's vengeance on the "heathen" might very well play a role.
4
-
4
-
The only way to show and prove that you actually believe in Jesus is to love everyone.
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. / By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:34-35.)
Without that, your faith or belief doesn't even matter, according to James:
"As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." (James 2:26.)
So if these Trumpists really wanted to "bring God back," then they're not doing it right. And by "everyone," Jesus meant just that:
"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, / bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." (Luke 6:27-28.)
God doesn't need you to ban what God made. God doesn't need you to hate those whom God made. What God needs is for us to love what God made. Because, without that, and since we're a part of all that, then we aren't even loving ourselves; by hating others, we hate ourselves: because we're all what God made.
"He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Matthew 5:45.)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Back then, Trump said that the Democrats' urgency over Coronavirus was a hoax. When he said that, Trump politicized the virus. If 100% of what Democrats think isn't 100% wrong, then Trump loses his base. So, since Democrats thought Coronavirus was serious, Trump let his supporters know that it wasn't serious at all.
Sure, the Trump supporters tried to gaslight that, claiming Trump didn't call it a hoax, or downplayed the virus. But, now, with the armed protests, and states opening, when we're nowhere near ready, and with months of hindsight, we see just how seriously Trump and his supporters take this virus.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The right needs to learn about "loaded language." Let's start here:
"If we continue to bend the knee to appease the masses...."
First you can see the hyperbolic language, easily, especially when written down. I advise you Trumpists to write down everything you're told, and then look at it. To start with, no one is asking anyone to bend the knee or appease the masses. And the right certainly has never bent the knee to the masses, let alone done it so much that it became a problem. Finally, what this statement is really saying is clear, if you take the opposite of the literal interpretation: which is called irony (Get used to irony with the rightwing talking heads; the opposite to what they say is always, exactly, completely true).
So what they're saying here is this: Don't even come close to respecting the opinions of others. But if they disagree with you, tell them they aren't respecting others' opinions; reject whatever others tell you (if they don't agree with your politics); in fact, attack them to start with, preemptively, because they're all out to get you!
See, if others are out to get you, that makes it okay to attack them, strip away their rights, and support politicians who want to do that and only that. This message of fear and hate is meant to not only scare you into voting for people who have no other policies, but turn you against your fellow Americans. It appeals to your "Us vs Them" human tendencies (which we all feel because outsiders used to pose dangers to our tribe), and makes you part of an exclusive group. That's how Genghis Khan and Hitler united their people: by turning them against everyone else.
Now, if the first phrase was that loaded, imagine what horse pucky the rest is. Don't allow these snake oil salesmen to turn you against your fellow Americans.
4
-
4
-
Jack Fisher Okay, let's do a risk analysis. If I'm wrong, and yet people wear masks while around others, what happens? Nothing. If you're wrong, and people don't wear masks, what happens? More people die from the criminal ignorance of their fellow Americans.
If you assume you know everything, then you don't need to learn anything, and you're arrogant, instead of humble. This leads you to assume that everyone else is wrong, and, therefore, you're naturally, without even trying, absolutely correct about everything. So, when you're wrong, you won't know it, and you'll continue as if you're right.
Oh, and you mentioned something earlier about "people that want to seize more power with this “pandemic.”" Who wants to seize power? Who would want to seize power? Doctors? The Jews with their laser satellite, which started all those California wildfires? (That's an actual conspiracy. Look it up. lol) You're skeptical when you shouldn't be, and gullible when you shouldn't be. You believe lies are true, and the truth is a lie. This happens when you assume that your beliefs are equal to knowledge, and that the knowledge of others (including science) is nothing but beliefs. You assume your conspiracy theories are the truth, and that what everyone else thinks is actually a belief, a conspiracy theory. This backwards, inverted thinking happens when we continually invert opposites, when we see what's sweet as being sour, and what's sour as being sweet; what's darkness as being light, and what's light as being dark.
Sorry, bud, but you're deep in the rabbit hole. The only thing for you now is to ask yourself: How would a know-nothing bozo gain access to the secret plans of the world's elite? And since you (and others) actively "reveal" these secret plans, why hasn't the elite, the deep state, kidnapped you and locked you away for life, or just killed you? Further, what are you going to do with this secret knowledge? Nothing. Even if it's all true, you're still a know-nothing bozo, trolling on Youtube, screaming that the sky is falling. I used to be a conspiracy theorist, back during 9/11. Finally, I confronted myself with what I wrote in the previous paragraph, and, thereby, climbed out of the rabbit hole. Good luck. I hope you're as intelligent, and capable of critical thinking as you believe you are, and can reverse the damage you've done from your "inverted" thinking.
4
-
@EfrenRomero-k6s Your whataboutism is such an obvious admission that Trump is guilty. Don't you trolls realize that? Instead of somehow defending Trump, instead of focusing on what is being discussed here (which, if true, means that Trump is everything you're claiming Biden to be), you're ignoring all that. Instead, you're talking about someone who isn't under indictment, who didn't recently have to pay off a woman he sexually abused, who isn't facing 3 different criminal trials for being a traitor.
By deflecting in such an inane, obtuse, and obvious way, you're making your desperation clear, and the reason for it crystal clear: Trump is obviously guilty. So maybe think a little next time, before you post.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@NPC-fl3gq So way back in the 19th century, the party called Democrats had a separate faction, called the Southern Democrats. The Southern Dems were the slave holders, plantation owners, or (if in the North) were against freeing the slaves, or giving them any rights. This continued until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Keep in mind this was 100 years later. In '63, then Democratic President JFK began insisting on civil rights. After he was assassinated, Democratic President LBJ pressed hard for a civil rights act. When it was passed the Southern Democrats freaked out, and rage-quit the party. Guess what party they went? Hint: Their new political party became the home of racists and terrorists that had been the splintered group formerly known as the Southern Democrats.
Yes, the Republican Party. So today's "Libs and democrats" did NOT give you Jim Crow. The people who gave you Jim Crow are dead, and they were racist Southern Democrats back then. The people who continued to support Jim Crow became Republicans, because the Dems moved against their beliefs with the Civil Rights Act. LBJ actually said, about the turncoat Southern Democrats, who had become Republicans: "We've lost them for a generation." Longer than that.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@HopkinsIsNotAVictim "In other words,
no true Scotsman teaches CRT to little kids!"
Wrong use of the fallacy "no true Scotsman." Though you get points for the attempt. I just tried to show, logically, how it can't be taught, since young kids don't learn about relativity. The fact is: It's not taught. So whatever you try to say to counter that, it doesn't work.
But let's imagine an analogy: Conspiracy theorists say the sun shines at night, at (and on) a location on the earth where it is night. Your reply would fit that too.
Now, the sun does shine at (and on) a completely different location, other than the one where it is night--just as CRT is actually taught in grad school, to a limited number of students, in a specific major(s), who choose to take the class. But the sun doesn't shine where it's night.
And CRT doesn't even teach what conservatives claim it does, that "Caucasians should feel guilty." So they don't even know what the class does teach. Though I find it very telling, their Freudian slip, that they believe they should feel guilty.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Intelligent design isn't science. So, no. As for the "cosmic fluke," I know it's hard to wrap your mind around, but a lot can happen over the course of billions of years. Think of how much you've changed in the few decades since you were born, or how much society has changed during those decades; think of how quickly mold and dirt accumulate, if you don't clean it; or how quickly music comes in style, and goes out of style.
Now multiply all of those things by a 100, then a thousand, a million, hundreds of millions, and then billions. It's okay if it doesn't make sense. We're mortal, and live for only 100 years, at the most. So we can't see the really really big changes. But all the big stuff is made up of little changes, which we can see.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@juice2691 This comes from the passage in Genesis 19:30-36, about Lot and his daughters.
"One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. / Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father"" (Gen. 19:31,32).
This comes from 1 Samuel chapter 15. God had ordered King Saul to kill everyone and everything: all the men, women, children, cattle, destroy the crops, everything. Saul spared King Agag, though, and brought back some of the plunder for him and his soldiers, which infuriated God. And so God's prophet Samuel has to speak and act on God's behalf.
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" (1 Sam. 15:3)...."Saul took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword" (1 Sam. 15:8)...."Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: / “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions" (1 Samuel 15:10,11)...."Why did you not obey the LORD? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD?” (1 Samuel 15:19)...."Then Samuel said, “Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites.” Agag came to him in chains. And he thought, “Surely the bitterness of death is past." / And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal" (1 Samuel 15:32,33).
Let the church say AMEN! So far we have incest and dismemberment. Shall I go on?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
First, Anna is absolutely right: A religious person should not be able to impinge on another person's life, with their religious preferences. Christians, think if the shoe was on another's foot, and Islam, for example was forced on you.
Secondly, if someone claims to be Christian, but does not love their fellow man/woman (whatever race, gender, nationality, etc.), then they aren't Christian. If they judge others, they are not Christian. That's it. That's what being a Christian means. It is a way of seeing everyone, and everything, as equal, as made by God, as part of God. Heaven is within, and among us.
So to be against anyone, or anything, is to be against God. That's why you love it all. That belief in God is synonymous with loving everyone and everything. It doesn't mean "belief," as in I believe in something that I can't prove. It means loving the world, and using Jesus as he taught, which was to use him as an example.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@calvinjase7442 You're deflecting from the point, making a logical fallacy, called whataboutism. But since we're here, allow me to explain.
If you're saying the rallies are okay, then the rioting and the protesting is okay too, since you're equating them. If they aren't equal, then you're using a false equivalence.
If you're saying the rioting and protesting is okay, since the rallies are okay, then why did you bring it up, as an obvious negative? In other words, the rioting and protesting is obviously not okay. Right? They're running around unprotected, supposedly, and risking themselves and each other. Not okay! Therefore, the Dems are being hypocritical, as usual, since they allowed, and approved of, these protests (but not the riots. No one approved a riot.). Right?
That's the point of whataboutism: to deflect the argument, by accusing the other person of hypocrisy. But the person who uses whataboutism is the one guilty of hypocrisy. You are equating two things, to prove your illogical point; but, in equating them, you have to insist that the negative comparison (the rioting and looting) is equal to the positive one (the rallies).
But, to avoid false equivalence, you would have to say the two are not equal. And if the two aren't equal, then they're different things. And if they're different things, then there's no comparison whatsoever. So no matter how you approach this, it makes no sense. Hence, logical fallacy. Oh, and it's a Russian propaganda tool, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
4
-
4
-
4
-
Here's a good example of that:
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside, but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of impurity. / In the same way, on the outside you appear to be righteous, but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness." (Matthew 23:27-28.)
In case you don't know, the Pharisees were the most religiously minded people, in that they followed every single scrap of Scribal Law (which was an in depth, enumerated explanation of every law/rule even hinted at in the Torah, or Old Testament). More than that, they were were judge, jury, and executioner for heretics--which was how they were in position to see to it that Jesus was crucified.
4
-
There's a lot of this I don't understand. First of all, CRT is a graduate level class you can take, and not something they teach in K-12. Critical theory is a way of looking at society relative to whatever lens you choose to use: so relative to wealth, geographic location, etc. And, in the case of CRT, they look at society relative to race. But none of that matters, since her son can't be learning it before he gets to grad school.
So he must be in a class, and studying a subject where race plays a role: like history, with slavery or the Klan, and of course the Civil War. We aren't told what the teachers taught to his class, or what the subject was, or how, exactly, he felt "singled out." If anything, he would've been taught that slavery was wrong, or something along those lines. So how did it make him feel bad about himself? I can understand the weak argument that it would make a white southern kid feel bad about himself; it's a dumb argument, and probably not sincere, but at least I understand it.
And now the kid doesn't want to do his chores, because he feels singled out at school? I'll go ahead and assume the obvious: He wants to get out of doing his chores.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@liquidmagma That's not what they mean by judging. Judging is, to use your example, calling someone's argument stupid. And of course we judge people every day. We do a lot of stupid things every day. Just because we do them every day doesn't make them right.
In fact, if they're stupid things, and we do them every day, it makes us exceedingly stupid.
In other words, judging someone is to take our opinion or perception of them, or what they do, as absolute fact and not just our uninformed opinion. Judging is our assumption that our ignorance is genius.
That's why judging is so wrong, not just because it hurts others, but it hurts us too. It causes us to not see correctly, and therefore (or thereby) not think correctly.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I'm sorry she died. She died, though, not just for believing in a stupid, obvious lie, but for acting on it, as if it was true. All the Trump supporters believe similar lies. Republicans know how to rile up their otherwise apathetic, uninformed base: by declaring the opposite party to be evil, not just wrong, but evil. These Q people see themselves as crusaders in a holy war.
Their insurrection was logically consistent with their illogical beliefs, which they confused for facts. We should all learn a lesson here: Be careful what you believe, and never confuse beliefs for facts; always question yourself, and be humble enough to admit when you've been taken in a lie.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
For those who don't know:
Okay, let's break out some definitions! First, the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
So the United States was never a Christian nation. That would require the establishment of a national religion, which is against the 1st amendment. The colonists and founding fathers fled Europe and sailed across the vast ocean, and settled here to ESCAPE RELIGIOUS TYRANNY. That tyranny was caused by...wait for it...Christian nationalists.
All righty, on to Nationalism: "Identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."
Note the part about exclusion or detriment. You might be confusing Nationalism with Patriotism: "the quality of being patriotic; devotion to and vigorous support for one's country."
Notice how the definition for Patriotism does NOT include "to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." They are different words, with different meanings. Nationalists love their country, and are against all others.
"Christian" is a little harder to define, since there are all sorts, and all believe in different things. But if Christian Nationalists were to run our government, then they'd be in charge of the military, and able to declare war or martial law. They'd be able to include in the definition of Christian whatever they chose. Whatever that would be, they'd be able to make war on anyone who wasn't a Christian Nationalist--That's what happens when you modify "Nationalist" with "Christian."
A Christian Nationalist loves their country and religion, and are against all others.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
OMG "wonton" killing is hilarious. Is she reading it for the first time? Because, sometimes, when I initially read something, I might be reading too fast and not thinking too much. But by the time I reach the next sentence, my delaying thinking catches up, and I say: Wait, did I just read what I think I just read? And I would definitely read the text many times, and practice it over and over, before saying it in public--especially if I was prone to make stupid mistakes, as I am, and as Boebert obviously is.
But all Trumpists suffer from Dunning-Kruger, and believe their idiocy is genius, and their idiotic mistakes are really just them nailing it.
4
-
4
-
Assuming there is a Jesus (as evangelicals and literal minded Christians imagine him), then why would He need help in ushering in His 2nd coming? There's nothing in the Revelation at all about that. There is no rising up of Christians. In fact, the Christians, who don't have the mark of the beast in their hands/foreheads, are the ones who are abused. And they take it stoically. They don't form militias and declare war on the beast, or whatever.
God will avenge, the Bible says, and, in the Revelation, God will avenge the blood of the saints. The saints don't avenge themselves. Because then they'd no longer be saints, but those with the mark of the beast. The only battle is on the hills of Megiddo. And there is no battle: The beast's army approaches the saints, and God immediately destroys them. The saints don't destroy them; God does.
So all of this conservative conspiracy crap is totally made up. But there is something in the Bible that speaks about such murderous idiots: "...the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God." (John 16:2.)
4
-
When anyone starts with "I believe," they undermine whatever they were going to say. Belief is the absence of knowing, but is taken to be fact by the believer. Even Jesus, in the Biblical next mind you, said:
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. / But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you" (Matt. 6:5-6).
These MAGA conservatives are what Jesus (in the text) called hypocrites. Keep it to yourselves, Christians. If you want to share it, then love your neighbor; we don't need to hear what you believe. Know why? Because what you believe only makes sense inside your own head. To the rest of us, it's nonsense.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I have to give it to Liz Cheney, being a Republican and heading the committee that has revealed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Trump's actions before, during, and after January 6 were worse than any of us thought--which is saying a lot. She would have to know the Trump cult leaders would dismiss it as a "show trial," that they would ignore any evidence, and willingly continue their big con. Because, let's face it, otherwise they'd have to admit they were complicit--all of them, down to the voter who only, always votes for the person with an (R) by their name.... And that doing so had resulted in them electing a charlatan who organized a mob, which he wanted to lead personally, into Congress to do...who knows what kind of damage.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
When anyone stops to wonder if sexism still exists, remember that it was only a century ago that women got the right to vote in the United States. Our country was the last to do this. It had already been done in Australia, Norway, New Zealand, Denmark, Russia, Germany, and Poland, etc.
As with racism, cultures have norms that don't just end. So when the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, the Civil War ended, it was another century before the Civil Rights act. And even that didn't end racism. Same with sexism. Our culture stigmatized African-Americans as less-than-human slaves, and women as objects of desire and/or caretakers of ones home and children.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Don't even engage."
This goes for Trump supporters on the internet too. I know, believe me: You want to explain just how incredibly, terribly wrong they are. And they are, wow! So terribly wrong about...pretty much everything. But engaging them solves nothing. Being engaged is not (I deduce) their point, even. Their point is is to believe stupid stuff, and say thoughtless things, if, for no other reason, than to get a liberal's attention. They're neglected children, essentially. But they're also vicious as snakes, and will bite your hand, as soon as you offer it. Believe me; I've tried for years. There's nothing for it. As the Simpsons said, Just don't look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlKao_Pox5A
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
He hardly looks at her, when talking to her. At first I thought maybe he's addressing the public, the people who are watching, but then he said, Marjorie. And when she talks to him, she hardly looks at him. So this is really as insincere as it gets. It's political theater, with bad actors who look at the camera. Also, aren't conservatives typically against feminism? Isn't feminism woke to them?
Also, also, just an aside: I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but what kind of beholder, with what kind of eye, would find this insane, dumas (sp), antagonistic, butch conservative even a little bit pleasing to the senses?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@kevinogracia1615 "What a big ol' goofy world."
I love that. Well put. Education system, hmm. I think that, for some people, after they finish school, they can and do choose to stop educating themselves. When that happens, when we stop reinforcing what we've learned already, then we eventually lose all that knowledge and understanding.
It just evaporates, unless you have a photographic memory. But, also, we not only need to review what we've already learned, but we need to be learning new things. Otherwise, we forget how to learn.
When that happens, we lose the ability to think critically, to know the difference between facts and beliefs.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@georgyboi4487 "I already know you can’t but is there any chance you can define fascism correctly then successfully apply it to Desantis?"
I'll take a shot at it. 4 am and I'm up late watching cat videos. So, fascism, in short:
"an ultranationalist, authoritarian political philosophy."
That's from the Holocaust Encyclopedia. So is DeSantis ultra-nationalist? Essentially, a nationalist is similar to a patriot, except the nationalist "identifies with and supports their country to the detriment of others" (the dictionary definition of nationalist).
I can't say I've seen any of that from DeSantis. Granted, I haven't followed every thing he ever said and did. I do know he was in the military, and spent some time at Guantanamo. But has he spoken extremely negative of other countries, like Trump did? Is he in favor of isolating the U.S., because of our supposed national superiority over the "s--t hole countries," like Trump did?
Not sure. So let's put a pin in that, and come back to it.
Is DeSantis authoritarian? Let's look it up:
"favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom" (dictionary again).
Yes. Absolutely, he's a total authoritarian. He's telling schools what they can't teach, removing hundreds and hundreds of books from K-12 libraries, stripping away rights. Total authoritarian.
And part of that is because he was a military man. He's into authority. He "served in Iraq and at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention camp as a Judge Advocate General officer."
Yikes. Judge advocate general officer? Definition: "a principal judicial officer for a military branch or the armed forces at large, typically the most senior judge advocate."
Whoa. That explains and reveals some things about him. Guantanamo Bay ain't no pleasure cruise. It's bound to mark the souls of anyone who was there. And DeSantis is clearly marked. I think we can safely assume you would have to be a nationalist to do such a job, that or completely heartless and soulless.
The only piece missing here: Is he a nationalist extremist like Trump? Well, he was a soldier, and he worked at (far as I know) the only American detention camp that could imprison people indefinitely without trial. The prisoners there were enemies of the U.S. Hmm, sounding more than a little nationalist. But still not sure.
I'd say he has the makings of a textbook fascist, and may yet reveal himself as one. But, perhaps he hasn't done so yet. He's an authoritarian, with extreme views that include views of the nation. But an extreme nationalist, exactly? hmm.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
sb Well, let me explain the order of events to you.
1) The OP wrote, "I swear Doug Collins shouted for like an hour and I never understood what he was on about." 2) You replied to them, "Next time put the crack pipe down open your ears and you might learn something but I doubt it CNN has propagandized your brain into mush." (You see here how you didn't say what Collins was talking about? You see how your reply was just to insult the OP? As to why you would have to respond to what Collins said, that's what the OP wrote about, and you replied to that post. But you didn't explain what Collins said; you didn't respond to the OP; rather, you insulted them.) 3) I noticed this classic move in right-wing trolling, and so I wrote my post: "And you didn't say what Collins was on about, either, just insulted them." (I was unclear in my pronoun "them," which referred to the OP; my mistake there.) 4) Then you responded with a long insult to me, and the Democratic party.
Seems like all you can do is insult. Have you noticed that? Now do you understand? Instead of engaging in a discussion, you trolled the OP. That's the point. Then, when I pointed this out, you turned on me, insulting my writing skills, and my reading comprehension, which is absurd. Meanwhile, I agree with the OP, and still don't know what Collins was on about. Basically, he obfuscated, so as to muddy the waters, insult the Democrats, and prevent any kind of discussion. That is what you did, too.
I have two questions for you: 1) Why did you respond to the OP, when you didn't want to reply to what they wrote? 2) Why are you on a CNN video, when it turns "your brain to mush"?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@gabrielacruz7814 "So it’s bad to be a Christian and proud of your country?"
No one said that. Nationalism doesn't mean proud of your country. Look it up. It means putting your country first to the detriment of others. And when you modify it by "Christian," it means putting your national religion first, to the detriment of others. That isn't pride, in the good sense, but pride in the bad sense: as in arrogance and lack of humility.
Nationalism isn't just about putting your country first, but then also giving your love and kindness to other countries. It's about your own country, and to h--l with everyone else, matter of fact, declare on them. And when you add Christianity to the mix, then you got the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Dark Ages.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I used to be a conspiracy theorist, way back in the day. Here's what cured me:
If there is such a national and/or international conspiracy, devised by the wealthiest, most powerful people, kept secret from the rest of the world, then how did my dumb a-- find out about it?
And even assuming, for the moment, all of it's true, then what is a know-nothing bozo like me going to do about it? Further, given the widespread use of conspiracy theories on the internet, then wouldn't the conspirators have discovered that you know their secret plans? Wouldn't they then move against you, to stop spreading their world-altering schemes on Facebook?
If I did happen to stumble across such a conspiracy, I'd keep my mouth shut. But no! They're blabbing it everywhere.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Jamie-so7li Bold claim, coming from someone who assumes elementary school libraries have lewd books in them...because DeSantis said so. Tell me, do you read much? How much? What are you reading right now? Who are your favorite writers? Do you know science, history, literature, math, art, music, poetry? How much? What were your degrees in? Or are you self-taught? It's cool if you are, by the way, depending on how you learn what you learn.
Given your vast intelligence, what does science have to say about astrology?
4
-
4
-
I do like that Boebert said the quiet part out loud: The gun nuts collect guns because they want the firearms to defend themselves against a tyrannical U.S. government. Now, let's keep in mind that there hasn't been anything close to a tyrannical government here since the days of Washington. And even then it was mostly taxation without representation. So for roughly 250 years, a tyrannical government being in charge in the United States hasn't been an issue.
But it's because of this fear that the gun nut citizens don't insist on common sense gun laws, to take steps toward ending the mass shootings. That is, people are actually dying, because the gun nuts are afraid they might be oppressed in some unknown future: real vs. unknown; fact vs. fiction.
Now I don't deny that our government could still turn tyrannical. Though, if it did, it would be a conservative, and not some latte sipping, tree hugging liberal who would do it. But I doubt that these bozos with their guns would stand a chance against a tyrannical U.S. military, with drones, orbital strikes, and who knows what all. So their delusions are not just insane, but stupid. And insane, stupid people shouldn't have guns.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
If I remember right, during the Satanic scare of the 70s and 80s, an upside down cross came to symbolize Satan. But it's foolishness, because "satan" is the Hebrew word for "adversary." It's an improper noun, and so not someone's name.
And, what's more, legend has it that Peter (Jesus' "rock" and number 1 apostle) was crucified in Rome. When the time came, he insisted that he be crucified upside down, since he didn't deserve to die in the same way as Jesus--out of a sign of respect.
So, really, it's just ignorance on parade.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I've reached the point where I can't watch videos about Trump supporters anymore. I used to love it, for all kinds of reasons, which changed over time. But the assumption they have, that they know exactly what's going on--with policies, or constitutional law, science, or with other countries--comes across as insanity to me now. They're insane. Their minds are broken, out of gas or running on fumes. Hearing them blather, as if they're experts, and as they're completely oblivious to the fact that they have no experience, or even the intellect to have gotten the jobs which would give them the experience, is like watching people in an insane asylum.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@IhateCCP I see. So you're here to save us, in the YouTube comments? I noticed you skipped answering the rest of my questions, which were needed to explain your position. If you do truly want to help us, you can start by elucidating your position. I'll copy/paste what I wrote here, to help:
*
"That's quite a leap: from Trump is horrible, to he is Luke Skywalker (New Hope, get it?). And what you have between one, and the far leap to the other, is that there is a "stealth war" by China. Not sure what a stealth war is. You didn't say. And I don't see how Trump has what it takes to defeat such stealth. You didn't say. And I don't see how you can go from voting all Democrats to "Trump is our best hope." You didn't say."
*
One other thing, you said your name was banned in China. Are you from China? If so, how did you vote for all Democrats? If you're not from China, or even if you are, how did you discover Communist China's plans for a stealth war? And if you did uncover such a conspiracy, why haven't they killed you yet, or kidnapped you and locked you in a secret prison?
(A lot of questions here. Please take the time to answer them, and not just ignore them all.)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@mkuehn5450 Are you referring to: "If you can't explain something in simple terms, you probably don't understand it"?
I've heard the quote before, but didn't know it was Feynman. I looked it up. General consensus is that Einstein said it. There are lots of variations on the quote, apparently.
Also, you got the quote wrong. It goes:
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
Not that a person is without any understanding, if they're unable to explain. That would be silly. Lots of people understand things, but lack the pedagogical skills needed to explain it.
I guess I reacted too strongly to your post. Looking at it again, I can't really see what point you were trying to make. Maybe you were just sharing quotes? I assumed you were saying something negative about Feynman. Was I in error there?
Next time, if you have a point, make it. I can't read your mind.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"What kind of idiot votes for higher taxes"
Only the super rich will have higher taxes. Little facts like that just slip by you?
"open borders"
You mean in the sense that Biden isn't going to gas mothers and their children. That's what Trump did to the caravan.
"defunding the police"
Defunding the police doesn't mean what you believe it does. It just means to not give them tanks, and military hardcore hardware. They will get funding, of course. But no more tanks.
You've bought into all the rightwing propaganda. Sooner or later, you're going to have to realize that Trump misled you on the "fake news" thing. Trump told Leslie Stahl, when she asked him why he calls the news fake. He told her that he wanted to discredit the news, so his supporters would dismiss it, if the news said anything that wasn't gushing praise for Trump.
You have been lied to. Don't you want to know what's really going on? Fact check too. Always fact check, if you believe, or disbelieve. Dems don't hate Trump, just because he's Trump. That's the dumb thing Trump supporters call TDS. Speaking for myself: my dislike of Trump has to do with his policies: not because he's a Republican, as you and Trump hate Dems and Libs. See? You're projecting.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This is actually part of the standard right-wing mindset: "People don't want to work, and, if they were given welfare, or some other social "free money," then they would refuse to go to work." I think it comes from Ayn Rand? Also keep in mind, the Trump administration wants us to pretend, in typical Orwellian doublethink, that the Coronavirus isn't happening. And, since it's not happening, we should go back to work. "Why are you not working? Pandemic? There's no stinking pandemic." And, as Cenk said, they are out-of-touch, an elite ruling class, not very far at all from the let-them-eat-cake crowd, who all got beheaded. You would think they'd have learned from that piece of history: I know I would've.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
As a Springsteen fan, I can understand how, if someone ran for the Presidency talking vaguely about him, it might catch my attention. But when asked what their favorite Springsteen album was, and they said "Born to Come on Home," I'd get more than a little worried. Later when they gassed a crowd, so they could take a picture in Asbury Park, holding a Springsteen poster upside down, I'd be done with them for sure. But even if I stayed, because they promised to replace the National Anthem with "Jungle Park," the very last straw would be when asked to talk about their favorite song, and they said, ""Thunder Drive" was the best song ever: So let's deport everyone from Jersey."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
All Republicans need history lessons these days. And science lessons. And math. Really, we need to start mandatory adult continuing education. Everyone loves to blame education. But within a decade or two, you forget most of whatever you learned as a child. And after more than two decades, without honing and practicing their critical thinking skills, even straight-A students will be know-nothing bozos.
You ever play guitar? When you stop playing for a year or two, then pick it up again, don't your fingers hurt? When you don't run for a long time, then try running, it doesn't go so well. And so on. This is true for anything, but especially for knowledge, and the ability to learn new things.
That isn't education's fault. Those teachers aren't there in that adult Trump supporter's life, to make them read and study. It's the adult's fault. You think Trumpists are reading Dickens, or Vonnegut, or Carl Sagan. Heck, they obviously don't even read the Bible, or the Constitution. They've replaced knowledge with beliefs.
They need to go back to school, for the rest of their lives. We all do.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This is an old Trump line. But just now, hearing her say it, I thought of the old South Park: "They're coming right for us." See, hunters had to say that to justify shooting animals, because, by saying it, they were claiming they shot the animals in self-defense. Dumb Maj Greene, Trump, and other Republicans want to attack others, but they need to justify it, by claiming they were being attacked themselves.
"They're coming right for us!"
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
A lot of my fellow Dems seem to be suffering from mass hysteria. I understand there's reason for it: I've felt it too. Let me give some examples. They hope his supporters suffer, as his policies take shape, and will laugh at them...while they (the Dems who are laughing) suffer too. Where's the sense in that? None that I can see. Also, they have no sympathy or empathy for his supporters. Having sympathy or empathy doesn't mean you approve of what they've done, or would do it yourself in your own Democratic life. But your life isn't their life: You aren't them, by definition and identity. And that lack of understanding doesn't hurt them, or teach them a lesson. But it hurts the person without it, because you can't just turn compassion on and off. If you turn it off once, and again and again, then it will eventually stay off. That hurts you, and the people around you. Finally, this inability to think and reason logically (like compassion) will eventually stay turned off. This is dangerous and obtuse.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
If rights came from God, then we wouldn't have been granted certain rights (by the government) at certain times, and had other rights taken away (by the government). How do these people think God could grant those rights? Man wrote the Constitution, not God. And why are rights different in different countries? And what magical transformation do they believe will take place, by posting the 10 whatchamacallits, or making a "moment of silence" mandatory, i.e., forced by the government? So did God give dictation to all governments, throughout history, telling them each something different? And why didn't God give us access to proper medical care, and an understanding of science millennia ago?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@giesyw Yes, these "Southern Democrats," as they were called before and just after the Civil War, were the slave owners. They ran plantations, and urged violence to maintain their livelihood, even to the point of civil war.
When the Civil Rights Act was passed, the Dixiecrats (as they were known by then) left the Dems, furious that the Dems would allow integration, and give any rights to people that the Dixiecrats saw as less than human. So they left the Democrats. Where did they go? That's obvious: the only major party remaining.
If that doesn't convince you, let's resort to logic. This racist cop is going to run as a Republican, not a Democrat. Why wouldn't he go to the Dems, if they were the truly racist party? Hate to tell ya, bud, but political parties change, especially over centuries. The party that freed the slaves is not the party of Trump.
4
-
So true. The whole "liberal media" thing is really a pre-emptive justification for right-wing propaganda. If the "lamestream" news outlets were really so leftist, they would have easily buried Trump, as everything he has done is obviously harmful and criminal. The "liberal" reporters would never have let Trump get away with one lie per sentence. Trump tells the same lies so often, the reporters would be prepared, and have the facts on hand, negating every single one of his lies, as he told them.
But that's not what has happened. Very rarely do the reporters ever follow up, when Trump lies during his answer to their question. And never do the reporters tell him that he didn't even answer the question. Democrat politicians are, for the most part, also assuming that they need to be bi-partisan, and neutral, even though Fox frames them as the "radical left."
Like it or not, Trump supporters are waging a war against the Democrats, and actual American values, and way of life, by claiming that Democrats, and "liberal media" are waging that same war against them. But the only ones actually destroying our 1st amendment, and the right to vote, and nixing regulations meant to prevent pollution, and so on...are Trump supporters. And they're just following Trump.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"throwing flares in a library is not big deal"
That's not what they said. They said the flare didn't do any damage, and, besides that, they doubted the lawmaker arrested had anything to do with it. Antifa doesn't think they're above the law. The police think they, themselves, are above the law. I'm not saying all police, everywhere, the way you're saying all Antifa, everywhere. But these cops, who arrested that lawmaker, and the others like them, definitely think they're (which is how you spell it, not "their above the law") above the law.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Belief is the root of the problem. You believe something when you don't know it, but feel like it's necessary to take a stance on something you don't know. Over time, that stance equates belief and knowledge. This might not be so bad, if people kept their beliefs to themselves. Beliefs make sense ONLY inside the heads of the believer. To everyone else it's nonsense.
And the worst part of it is, when a believer finds someone who doesn't see eye to eye with them, no matter how slight, the believer will often be offended: They are reminded that their belief is not a universal fact, but something that exists in their imagination. Even apart from religious beliefs, it is beliefs in general that are responsible for many (or most) of humanity's problems. But, when they believe God is on their side, then they must have a holy war and convert the heathen (i.e., bend others to their will).
Take beliefs out of the equation, and I bet most of the world would know peace and plenty.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@AngryGnome87 MAGA, yes. But MAGA people are Americans. So not all Americans, true, about 25% of the whole public, yes--but almost half of the voting public. And, of course, the voting public barely makes up half the adult population. In any case, they are Americans.
I feel for ya, Michael Sisson II, and agree with you. But this is still going on here, in the United States, and is believed by millions of Americans--I'm guessing. So do you think people from other countries should not look at what happens here as done by American people? Okay, not ALL of us, just millions of warped crazies...who are American.
But since they are Americans, then we can't just deny their place in the overall culture of this country. And that culture is American.
3
-
3
-
Why? I have a theory. When a single person is bullied, traumatized heavily, kicked and beaten, and then, later, they build a support network, get friends: A single person might learn to forgive, over the short span of their life, and move on to other things. But a nation of people, God's people, who were either born into being bullied, or into bullying others, might just want revenge. And they'd see their friends, allies, and support network as enablers, guaranteeing unlimited, unconditional support. Maybe they'd want to finally claim the Promised Land, promised to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob--who was renamed Israel, which means "wrestles with God."
Note how it doesn't specify whether they wrestle for or against God. Though, in the story, Jacob is wrestling against the angel. And their Scriptures show them to be all-too human, and not above exterminating their enemies, anymore than the other countries, including the U.S.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Why would you take something other than the actual vaccine, or why go without a vaccine? I can guess. You don't trust the government, big corporations, etc. Right? Well, here's a newsflash: very few people do. But, unless you want to live off the grid, you're going to need to trust people who sell you food. You're going to need to trust doctors and big pharma. Or, rather, you'll have to go through them and their businesses, to get medicine for diabetes, ulcers, etc.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
America is a very confusing mix of ideas, backgrounds, beliefs, lifestyles, etc. At our best, we compromise and combine all our differences, into a better, more formidable whole. At our worst, we hate each other for being so different, even go to war with each other. For example: The Whiskey Rebellion, Bleeding Kansas, and, of course, the Civil War, Kent State massacre. What makes us America, can also break us.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@johntomasini3916 "My choice of words doesn't come close to what I think America's problems are, but I recognize the point you make."
Good, thank you. But then you go on to say
that it is American citizens, after all, who you're thinking about. Aw man.
Well, let me say that, in theory, I agree with you. More than half the people in the country who are eligible to vote...don't. So, yeah, that's a problem.
However, and I can't believe I'm going to write something so corny, just know I'm being sincere: They are free to not vote. So while their not voting is a major problem, it's something that you and I have no say in. It's their choice.
I agree with you, though, on most every point you make...in theory. I really do. We can't actually have an accurate democracy if the citizens don't all show up to elect people to represent them.
Still, less than half the country does vote. And that is our choice. Freedom again. And yes, the judiciary is corrupted by politicians. That's not really about freedom. That's about all the worst angels of America's nature.
Basically, I think you're right on the money, and I'd sign my name to your perspective a lot faster than I would those apathetic citizens. America does have a massive amount of problems.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
First, Jesus spoke only in parables. So nothing he said was literally true. Secondly, there is nothing, anywhere in the Gospels, about being covered in his blood. (If I'm wrong about this, please show me.) I've never heard that before. At the last supper, he told his apostles to drink his blood, and they needed to do that, to reach the kingdom of heaven. But, again, that wasn't a literal thing.
If you go into the Old Testament, you see that God not only made all things, but is all things. This is one of my favorite parts of the Bible, as it does away with that whole devil nonsense:
"...I am the Lord, and there is no other. / I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things" (Isaiah 45:6-7). So, for a Judaeo-Christian, God made Coronavirus, and is Coronavirus, as well. Everything is God, and that's why we love everyone.
That woman is not protected, in other words. Her own Bible spells it out. It's a shame she hasn't read it more closely.
3
-
3
-
3
-
In so far as the text goes, the apostles were absolutely not "all trash." First, the text doesn't go into all of them. It says the brothers James and John (who were Jesus' cousins) and Peter were fishermen. Since the story has them living on the Sea of Galilee, it was a pretty standard profession. At worst, they were what we call "the working class." The fourth we know from the story is Matthew. He was a tax collector, a Jew who was collaborating with the Roman occupying force. While they were thought of badly by the working class, tax collectors were very wealthy. The only other one we know about is Andrew, who was Peter's brother: I'm pretty sure he was a fisherman too. That's 5 out of 12 we know anything about. Those other 7 barely have a single line of dialogue. So claiming they were "trash" is an absurd assumption, based off of nothing from the story.
As for Jesus dating a hooker, that's also not in the text. I assume the MAGAt was referring to Mary Magdalene. There is hardly anything about her in the story. We're told Jesus removed 7 demons from her. But we aren't told what she was doing before she met Jesus. In one gospel, it says she and 4-5 other women, including Jesus' mother, James and John's mother, and a couple others traveled with the group. That's it, until the very end, when she visits Jesus' tomb, and is the first person he speaks to after his "resurrection." There are movies with her as a prostitute, while also claiming she and Jesus had a thing (Last Temptation of Christ, and Dogma mentions it). But "Last Temptation" straight-up says at the start that it does not follow the Bible. Good movie, by the way. And Dogma also has a disclaimer to not take it as "gospel."
So, no surprise that the MAGAt is either lying, unaware of the details, or has made up his own "head cannon."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It's either explain things to your kids, or make them repress their curiosity. If you tell your kids something is bad, or even refuse to talk about it, without explaining why, then the kids are going to want to see what the big deal is.
If you tell them about something, don't influence them into thinking it's good or bad, then they have nothing to rebel against, nothing to be curious about. The problem would be solved.
But, for parents, their parents didn't explain everything to them, just like their parents, and their parents. Adults learn to deny their ignorance with beliefs. Kids don't have that luxury. They want to understand. They have lots of questions, which they hadn't been taught yet to repress.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@LMAODOODZ "If you dont think his race played a major role into it, you're delusional or in denial." and, again...
"A major reason he was elected was because of his race, just accept it."
Why is this so important to you? His race DID NOT play a major role for me. Therefore, it didn't play a major role for everyone, logically speaking. So, again, how major of role was it?
"I was in college and that's the major reason people liked him, besides his speeches."
That's what you're basing this on? Again "major reason [for how many] people?" Do you recall how many there were? Did they admit this to you, or did you just assume it? Think really hard.
"...besides his speeches."
Ah, so these people in college (you included?) liked his speeches. Why? Did they just like the sound, or rhythm of his words? Or did they like what he had to say? If so, why did they like what he said in his speeches? And how do you differentiate between Obama moving them with his words and ideas, and his race motivating them?
See how many questions I have? This is just a small sample. If what you're saying is true of some people, fine. There's no accounting for what some people believe. But there's a major difference between saying that, and that his race played a major role.
But I doubt very many felt that way, if any. I'm not delusional. Denial? Maybe. That's hard to tell about oneself. Are you sure you're not in denial? How do you know?
Sounds to me like you're trying to say that people liked (and voted for) Obama, because of a dubious, insincere reason; and, therefore, support for Obama is based on a lie. And anyone who thinks differently is delusional, and in denial. Or do you deny that?
3
-
3
-
@coolcat6341 Are you still on the public bathroom thing? It's only one part of a wide array of discrimination. Right now, trans people can be refused service or accommodations in hotels, arenas, theaters, etc.
It used to be that such places could refuse people based on race. That's obviously bad. Right? You aren't for discriminating based on race? I mean, that would be stupid. Now we move on to gender identity.
I know "gender identity" can be confusing, and you might not agree that there should be such a thing, or that they're making it up, or just "confused." But it's been going on for a long time, and they're being discriminated against, denied basic American and human rights, despite being American and human.
So if you want to refuse them the right to be treated with dignity, on the grounds that they'll use the public women's restroom, well...sounds like an excuse to me. The women will be in stalls, not out in the open. What exactly do you believe is going to happen to them? Stop pretending this is about public restrooms. It's about discrimination. Plain and simple.
It's about America either living up to what it claims on paper, or admitting that freedom under the law is a failed concept.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
As a poet, I study the Bible. It really comes across to me as poetry. It requires interpretation. So you can look at Jesus saying, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." And then you read, "A new commandment I give unto you: that you love one another as I have loved you. In this way will all men know you are my disciples (i.e., that you're Christian), if you love one another." What does the first one mean? You have to ask that if you want to fit it into the framework of the second one. And it gets even weirder when Jesus says, "Put down your sword. For he who lives by the sword dies by the sword."
So, once you fit them all together, he didn't literally, actually come to bring violence, to bring the sword. Jesus even said we don't have to commit violence to have sinned, but just have hate in our heart to have sinned.
My point is that, if you're not careful, you can interpret the "open" poetry of the Bible to mean all kinds of things--especially when you get into the Old Testament. And this is partly because the Bible was written 2-3 thousand years ago, in another language, and intended for a completely different culture. Even the first English translation was written in the 16th century--using an old form of English, and written for a different culture.
Part of the difference lies then in the language, since Greek and Hebrew are worlds apart from modern English. But also we in the 21st century have a different means of storytelling. We use metaphors, analogies, and mix fiction and nonfiction differently than the ancient Jews and Greeks. (The Old Testament was written in Hebrew; the New, in Greek.) So if you interpret the Bible literally, and cherrypick your verses, you'll think God wants you to kill all the non-believers, and Jesus has a sword coming out of his mouth (from the Revelation).
I don't really think the Bible was ever meant to be decided on, to have a concrete interpretation. I think it was meant to pray about, i.e., to meditate on--as it shows the ever-changing (a word translated into "everlasting" in the King James), always growing state of humanity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This saddens me. I'm American, so I'm pretty ignorant about the world beyond our shores. But I like this person. I like what she did. I took notice every time she came up in the international news. However, I also understand what she's saying here. And, as always, I respect her decision.
This is a weird analogy, but bear with me: I've heard TV shows always last (at least) one year longer than they should. They see they're still going strong, and feel like they can keep going. A lot of us think that way. We think the zenith of our time is just the beginning. And maybe sometimes it is. But often we find ourselves going down hill from the zenith, by it's very nature, and we "jump the shark."
I have nothing but respect for people who refuse to jump the shark, who know their limitations, who (as Kenny Rogers put it) "Know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em."
I wish her all the best, and hope the good people of New Zealand continue to show the great heart and intelligence Jacinda Ardern always had.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So many times Trump could've come out looking like a great leader, if he would have done nothing, but let the experts handle the crisis. He always insisted that he knew everything there was to know, that doctors were amazed at how much he knew...naturally, without any studying whatsoever. Or so he claimed. Anyone at all could have been a better President, as long as they let the experts handle things.
No, you can't nuke a hurricane; no, you can't sweep the forest; no, you can't "find a way" to inject cleaning products, and give Covid "a cleaning." If I was President, I wouldn't have even shown up to those daily Covid press briefings, or, if I did, I'd keep my mouth shut. When I did speak about Covid, I'd ask Fauci and the others what I should say; I'd have the scientists write my press briefings for me. Or, better yet, I'd stay out of it. Why? Because I don't know squat about any of it! And Trump doesn't even know that much. He has no one to blame but himself, for his dismal ratings, and all the deaths that happened due to his interference.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Lovelyharp7811 Neither of those quotes say it's a necessity to go to church. If you believe in God, then you know God is everywhere, everything. To believe God's in one place, and you have to go there to worship, just doesn't hold any water.
But, hey, if you don't limit your belief = knowledge point of view to there being a God, but extend it to mean that whatever you believe is the truth, however you interpret the Bible (which had no churches like we do today), then nothing anyone says will make any difference to you.
And, yes, Jesus was talking about prayer, but he was talking about praying in public, in a group, and in a gathering of other people praying. There was no church back then. A few people would gather at a neighbor's house (outdoors, even; often on the roof). So none of your quotes refer to the large meetings at church, where people will be breathing, singing, during a pandemic. That's the big thing here: Pandemic. Nothing in the Bible commands you to go to the one place where God is, during a Pandemic.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@davidkruse4030 "I am not sure why they couldn’t stand for their own national anthem."
Some of them did stand. Some didn't. That's life. No one is forced to stand and sing. That's freedom. Welcome to the United States.
"I don’t care about their political views."
And I don't care about yours, but here you are. So what was their grievance? Been a while, so I had to look it up. You ever bothered to see what some (and only some) of the team was upset about?
They said: "Being a gay American, I know what it means to look at the flag and not have it protect all of your liberties."
And that's why they didn't want to sing and praise the flag. Makes sense to me.
"They represent the nation and play a sport."
A human being doesn't cease to be a human being, just because they're playing a sport, or singing a song, or whatever else you feel they should shut up and do.
"Plus those women are no saint themselves."
Neither are you a saint. You are human, and so are they. You assume you're right, and so do they. Sounds to me like they're like you, only you allow yourself to use your political thinking, but you don't allow them to use theirs...because they represent the nation. But so do you. You're representing it right now.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"It’s America. It just isn’t Trump."
Okay, it isn't just Trump. I'll buy that. But Trump is included in what's exacerbating racism, nationalism, etc. in this country. That's what you're saying. Right? While I agree that this problem will never get dealt with properly, until all of what's fueling the fire is quenched, we can't deal with everything at once. Can we? It is America, after all. So, just this once, in this one video, here and now, can we focus on the violence against Asian Americans, and how Trump has convinced his hate-filled base to direct that hate at innocent people...who most definitely did NOT release the virus, themselves, even if we assume China did release it on purpose?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I think if Republicans and Evangelicals really believed in God, then they'd be terrified by how they're treating people. You have to love one another, to be a Christian, according to the Gospel of John. Even if they do "love" the unborn babies, they aren't loving the mothers, or the poor women who had God-only-knows what happen to them. Can't love and hate, and be a Christian.
That Republicans and Evangelicals ignore this is the surest sign that they don't believe in God, or Jesus' teachings of loving kindness. They're like the so-called judges who put on the witch trials in Salem. They'd test the women, to see if they were witches, by hanging them or drowning them. Of course, they knew these women weren't witches, and just wanted to use some obscure Bible text to take the land of those poor widows.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Let's see, since the 1980s until he was elected President in 2016, Trump was "involved in over 4,000 legal cases in U.S. federal and state courts, including battles with casino patrons, million-dollar real estate lawsuits, personal defamation lawsuits, and over 100 business tax disputes."
Such an obviously upstanding citizen! I love how he never pays his bills, and when people try to take him to court, he puts it off and puts it off until they have to give up--because they can't afford to keep suing him. Such a perfect phone call! At present, he's facing 40 active legal actions: a mere 1% of what happened to him before getting elected.
What kind of slime would defend this slime?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nappel6496 I don't understand how your first and second paragraphs are connected.
To the first, I don't know about China lying, and keeping it secret, but I do know that Trump knew back in January. And he dismissed it. He had fired the pandemic response team, cut money to the CDC, including funds that aid other countries (including China) in preventing and dealing with viruses. He knew. The whole world knew. It's only Trump's BS propaganda, in which he claims no one knew. Welcome to the world of the real.
To the second, what is all this for? Do you believe it's because of foreigners that we have the Coronavirus? A virus has no nationality. Just because it starts randomly somewhere, doesn't mean it'll restrain itself from our lily-white butts.
If anything, China is getting ahold of this thing, while Team Trump hasn't even produced enough tests to check 1% of our country. We don't know how many people have this thing, who is just carrying it (without symptoms), or how many will die.
So, instead of placing blame, ask for responsibility on whom is in charge right now, right here. Instead of wasting your time on pointless hate, how about realizing that a pandemic affects the whole world. We're all in this mess together.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@gowdsake7103 The story of King Saul and King David is epic. And before that, there's the epic story of Father and son, passing down through generations.
You have the rise and fall of humanity in paradise, because they want to "be like God." And the rise and fall of the Israelites: from tents to slavery to a massive kingdom. And that ends with the destruction of their temple, cities, nation, culture, and them being either taken away into bondage, or scattered throughout the world.
Then, 500 years later, the messiah they were waiting for to rescue them finally comes. But their religious leaders have already made it a rule to expel and kill anyone who claims to be the messiah. So they don't see it; they can't see what's best for them, due to their own religion.
So they kill God! Then the whole collection of 66 books ends with the weirdest, trippy, Alice-in-Wonderland apocalypse a hermit living in a cave can imagine.
Dude! That's "not in any way good"? Have you just not read it? Or maybe you haven't read the whole thing? Do you not read much?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nappel6496 It's not whataboutism: That's when you're talking about one thing, then the person uses another thing to counter it. I'll admit, my reply does somewhat meet that criteria, but the "other thing" needs to be totally different to qualify.
For example, Trump did X. What about Obama? He did Y. So X is then okay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
"Basically what you’re arguing for is that private law abiding citizens should not have guns, because the intruders may have guns and take your family hostage, or they may find your guns."
I didn't say anything about not having guns. Thank you for asking for clarification. My point is that guns won't save you, unless you're in an ideal scenario of a terrible situation. Things have to work out just right for the gun owner, who is being threatened. Otherwise, the gun won't help, and will probably make things worse.
"Have you ever shot one? What kind have you shot if you have? Owned one? Been to a training class?"
No. I admit I am totally ignorant about handling guns. My dad tried to teach me, when I was about 14. He let me use his double-barrel shotgun. I aimed at a bird, and blew it to pieces. I didn't realize that guns meant killing. Call me stupid. I just didn't understand. I do not want to kill. And never used a gun again.
I've lived in the worst neighborhoods, in the worst cities. I never faced a situation in which I wished I had a gun. I'm not saying that, therefore, no one else should have them. Some people need guns to hunt, because they don't make enough money to buy food.
Plus, if you want a gun, fine. What I am saying is that we're not talking about JUST owning guns, or the 2nd amendment. THAT is whataboutism. We're talking about guys in ski masks, yelling at cops, and carrying rifles, protesting social distancing, and the virus itself. THAT is the issue, not owning a gun, but using it in such a way.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Why is justice so rarely satisfying? First, the Sandy Hook shooting happened ten years ago. Jones has completely gotten away with siccing his stupid followers onto the families whose children died in the shooting, for 10 years.
Second, that we allow such destructive garbage to disseminate among the population, leading some to make death threats to those parents, and others (perhaps) to storm Congress on January 6--because there are lizard people in there! This isn't something that should be protected by the 1st amendment. It isn't some innocent, fun dance in the tulips; it's mind poison.
Finally (to cut it short), when one of these purveyors of conspiracy smut is brought to face justice, he isn't chopped down and buried. But allowed to pay his fine and go on poisoning minds, and siccing his fans on more parents whose children were murdered.
As a citizen, I need to know that justice is served. I need to know, like the old saying goes, that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Long? Yes. Justice? Justice...?
3
-
"I'm a Democrat"
I seriously doubt that, especially since you're beginning your statement with it, probably because you know that what you're about to write is very, very right wing.
"this channel is two left for me"
Well, that's better that one left for you, which is the loneliest number.
"I'm not about to be ashamed because of my race"
No one is saying you should be. I'm Caucasian, and I'm not ashamed because of my race. So, you're using the same argument as that Republican in the video, to which the person hosting the video already spoke. Did you not watch it? Also, do you have something against punctuation? Maybe you're using one of those devices that doesn't add punctuation? It makes your rant even harder to read.
Also, the idea and use of the word "race" was invented by English speaking people in the 18th century to help with the slave trade.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It's just like the GOP to pretend they care about one group, while denying rights to another. They apparently love the unborn fetus, but the mother's life, or even the life of the baby when born is of no concern to them.
And here Gohmert wants to ostensibly protect the woman in a public restroom, who has been traumatized by rape, on the off chance that such a woman is in there and sees a transgender whose biological sex is male, but whose gender is female--and that seeing such a person in passing, in a public restroom, will trigger her ptsd.
I'd like to point that the GOP is not that big on feelings. They flaunt this repeatedly. But here, suddenly, Gohmert has total empathy with rape victims, and imagines what it be like to be one, and how badly he would suffer (if he had such ptsd), if he happened to be a female rape victim, and see a transgender in the public restroom.
These conservatives don't care. Period. They don't care about the fetus. They just want to deny women their rights. They don't care at all about ptsd or rape. If they cared about rape, then they would be okay with abortions in the case of rape. They just want to deny transgenders their rights.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yes, Ana! Well said. One of the reasons the "police culture" is so bad is that it's not just a few bad apples. Who hired the bad apples? Who all turned their backs on what those cops did? And who hired those people, who approved the bad cops? And so on. But it's not just the police. So much of America is the same way. Corruption and heartlessness, in the name of business, is everywhere: education, politics, the news, medical insurance, hospitals with abusive nurses. How many millions of people turn their backs on evil every day? We are hammered, every single day, by sociopaths in positions of authority. It's no wonder we've let it happen, because we, ourselves, have allowed it, out of fear for losing our jobs, or losing friends, colleagues, spouses.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke.
3
-
3
-
@williambonac8157 "the elite hero with a 2% death rate and the world working on a vaccine for this time next year the virus isn’t going to cause an extinction you imbecile."
*
At 1%, we're looking at over 100,000 dead Americans. Hyperbole? No, fact. What Lynn wrote might seem dramatic now, as 100,000 deaths seemed, when Trump claimed our cases would soon be down to 0.
*
I'm not saying extinction, mind you. But that many people died in a couple of months. How many more will die, before the vaccine? And how many didn't have to die, but did, because some jerk thought it was crucial to their American liberty to not wear a mask? That's the point. And it's irresponsible to put someone else's life at risk.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If they cut his mic, what will Trump do then? He's a clown, wearing clown makeup. He has no policy, or substance; and his supporters want to be entertained, not to discuss policy. He was there to troll Biden, and, by interrupting everything, shut down any possibility of debate or discussion. So, if you cut his mic, Trump will still do that. I shudder to imagine what he'd do, exactly: I have visions of Trump screaming at the top of his lungs, pounding on the podium, stepping between Biden and the camera.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yes, belief is very dangerous. Normally, if a person says they "believe" something, that means they don't have the facts. Otherwise they'd say, "I know...." But, especially lately, beliefs have become synonymous with facts, replaced facts. And such people can claim to believe anything, then shrug off the proof against them by saying, "Just a personal belief."
So I totally agree with you: At that point they're capable of believing anything is a fact, especially if they're told so by someone with authority, who insists what they're saying is factual.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The Trump supporters and Russian trolls descended on this comment section, like the locusts they are. I guess they saw "racially-charged" in the title, and had to denounce it. Well, let me explain the title to you very stable geniuses.
Did you see the African-Americans in the video? Did you see how they were sitting with someone, whose head had been replaced by Obama's? Did you see how they were being influenced to not vote for Biden? All of these things are about race, specifically, African-Americans, with whom Trump, largely, has a bad standing.
You say, but wait, what about Biden and the roaches, and the leg touching? Yes, that was very weird. But it was playing in the background. Wasn't it? The African-Americans sitting there, they were center stage: their facial expressions, their movements, their vote being swayed. The video was about them, being African-American, sitting with the fake Obama, and that they shouldn't vote for Biden.
It was representative of their race, and aimed at their race, and used what the Trump/Pence team considers that race's leader. So, in the end, hence, "racially-charged ad." Now, you had to have seen all that. It's all really obvious. Isn't that why you had to swarm in here, and do your Trump supporter/Russian troll thing? Isn't that why you cry "fake," in general, because it's real, and against your propaganda?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
OK, "satan" is the Hebrew word for "adversary." Any adversary would do. In the Old Testament, it was not a proper noun or the name of an individual. In the OT, "God is one God...and there is no god beside [God]." God did everything, all the good and bad, as Job attests to, and Isaiah as well: "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand" (Deut. 32:39.)
This began to change when the Babylonians enslaved the Jews. Where the Jews had only one God, the Babylonians had a good god and an evil god: the sons of light, and the sons of darkness. The Jews began to incorporate this into their beliefs. But even by the time of the New Testament, Satan was still just an adversary in general. Jesus told Peter: "Get behind me, Satan."
After the Romans got a hold of Christianity, and the Church began to be established, about a thousand years later, certain bishops took it upon themselves to create a mythology for Christianity. Originally, Jesus was shown only in a collection of sayings, similar to Confucius. But the Church, now the head of a theological empire, decided God needed an immortal "adversary."
They took the Jews' idea of Gehenna (a burning trash dump outside of Jerusalem), and made it into Hell: where damned souls burn forever. They put their ultimate adversary at the head of it. They invented the Mary and Joseph virgin birth, and the crucifixion of Jesus, and his rising on the 3rd day. I guess they thought Christianity would be much cooler that way. Plus, the idea of the God of love being responsible not only for all good things, but all bad, was distasteful to them.
That's how we got Satan, and the 100 years war, and the inquisitions, witch hunts, and so on, all the way down to these Q people.
3
-
3
-
@sndspderbytes "moses did not loan out money! The people who loaned money did it professionally it was q guild and only allowed if done the way Rome wanted it done. There had to be documents that allow you to be a lender it was a regulated industry with the involvement of the roman government."
I'm not sure where you're going with all this. Everyone loaned money. Anyone could loan money, all the way up to Jesus' time:
"When people ask you for something, give it to them. When they want to borrow money, lend it to them" (Matt. 5:42).
So I don't know where you're getting the idea that Moses couldn't loan money. Besides, I wasn't saying he could before. I said, if he did, then this 7-year forgiveness would apply to him.
Rome didn't come into the picture for the Israelites, until they became known as the Jews, when Rome conquered Palestine. We're talking about being in the wilderness with Moses. So Roman creditors don't matter here.
I'm really tired of discussing this. It has nothing to do with anything, and I'm getting nothing out of it. Certainly I'm not learning anything new.
But, in parting, let me say that the Bible is obviously open to interpretation, since we see 3 different points of view right here in this single comment section, with just 3 people.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Here's a hint to you who want (or claim) to be Christians: If you don't love everyone and everything, then you're not a Christian. That's from Jesus' "new commandment," seen here:
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. / By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:34-35.)
That includes even people who hate you, as seen here:
"But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, / bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:27-28.)
Why? Because everyone and everything if of God, as King David sang:
"...The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it" (Psalm 24:1.)
So when you hate or mistreat anyone or anything, you're hating and mistreating God, because that's what God is: everyone and everything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Why would someone interpret what Trump said as "calling it a hoax?" As we see in that initial recording, of him at his rally in SC, he said, "And this is their [he's speaking about Democrats] new hoax." The next day, when a reporter in the White House asked him about it, Trump said that he did not refer to the Coronavirus as a hoax. What he meant, apparently, is that (as Cenk said), the way Democrats were saying that Trump wasn't doing much, if anything, was a hoax. "The hoax is on them [the Democrats]." Whatever that means.
Really, he wasn't at all clear, in either of these cases. So Fox took up the call that Coronavirus was a hoax perpetuated by the Democrats (just like Russia and his perfect phone call), as a way to make Trump look bad. And Trump supporters also believed it was a Democratic hoax. Now, did they get Trump's exact meaning? Were they saying that the way Dems were referring to Trump was a hoax? I don't think so.
Because he wasn't at all clear, people can look back at what he said, and interpret it in those two different ways. What really matters is this: Were Democrats lying about how badly Trump was handling (or not handling) the Coronavirus? No. Therefore, it was not a hoax. So, even if Trump was trying to say that, he was wrong, lying, as usual, and many people ran with the hoax idea--such as the Republican governor who went out to eat with his kids, or the 30 states who are still not practicing social distancing, or even Trump by wanting to pack the churches on Easter, etc.
No one is to blame for Trump's inability to form a coherent sentence, while speaking to his base, but Trump. Even his followers didn't understand him, but now they're playing their victim game again.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@annakingry9157 Educated vs uneducated, i.e., knowledgeable (and willing to learn) vs ignorant (and hostile to learning). It's been that way in this country all along. The pioneers, the Daniel Boones and Kit Carsons, lived apart from civilization: either some, a little, or most of the time. They stopped going to school in their childhood. Of course, Kit Carson and Billy the Kid received education that fit their lives, but it didn't come from books. (Though Billy did learn to read.) There was no science, almost no literature.
Then there were people who lived in the cities. They went to school, such as it was. They learned to read, and read quite a bit. The gulf between the two groups grew over time. Finally, we have MAGA, which is cave men living in the 21st century. What they call "research" is reading conspiracy theory message boards. They refer to college as "liberal indoctrination."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@isaacazminov8733 Why are you so fixated on what (legally) can and can't happen on a street, when you apparently don't know the laws about it or just don't care to? What difference does it make to you? This scene actually happened a while ago, and isn't new. So you're obsessing over something that's been and gone. Why?
You ever wonder why all those white people were saying All Lives Matter, in response to Black Lives Matter? They had no other way to counter the BLM message, without overtly and obviously coming out as racist. They had no other way of saying: No, you're wrong; black lives don't matter.
Similarly, here you (and a lot of other people) are responding to their protest about yet another black person being needlessly killed, by saying: No, you shouldn't be in the street, regardless of having a court order to do so, because people are on their way somewhere, and they don't really care about a black life cut short.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The term "Fairy tales" has a definition. The Bible's stories don't fit that definition. Also, the Bible was written a couple thousand years before Galileo, Newton, and the scientific method. So of course it isn't science. Nor is it history. What is it then? That requires reading it with an unbiased point of view. It requires an understanding of fairy tales, mythology, legends, story telling of all kinds, history of the region, the language(s) in which it was written, to see what it is, and what it isn't. So it does require reading, which a lot of people don't do today. It's the same reason most people don't know anything about science. It's why they label things incorrectly, like "fairy tales." We either want to learn, or we don't.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jefflibby6680 "They found plenty mass upon mass,the courts full of Obama holdover did not take it up. Believe me mass cheating, thank God the house and senate will again be red and stop alot of this bullshit."
You ever wonder if, maybe, framing Democrats as "the radical left" and a "threat to Democracy" is meant to justify a preemptive (and otherwise unjustifiable) attack on Democracy by the Republicans? They got all you guys totally on board with their behavior. They primed you to not care about your government, American institutions, or education (except no teaching about race, but both sides of science should include creationism).
And they showed, on January 6th, that they can make their puppets dance right into Congress. All because, as many of the accused rioters have claimed, Trump and Fox painted this picture where immediate and violent action was necessary to "stop the steal." You ever stop and think that you're being played? You're so into fake news, but don't question certain news, from specific sources. You're so into fake politicians, but readily accept the word of others. And now you're ready to dance again? I suggest you stop and think.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@saulhernnadez9203 Spencer is correct. The Proud Boys have ties to white supremacy:
"The group believes men and Western culture are under siege, their views having elements of the white genocide conspiracy theory. Members have participated in multiple racist events and events centered around anti-antifa, anti-left and anti-socialism violence."
And it's well known enough to be on Wikipedia, with references. Though I can see why it would be confusing.
"The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has said that "[w]hile the group can be described as violent, nationalistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and misogynistic, its members represent a range of ethnic backgrounds, and its leaders vehemently protest any allegations of racism."
So they aren't exactly white supremacy, per se, but are "violent, nationalistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and misogynistic."
That's much better, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Of the Trump-supporter type, Trump is king. He is the apotheosis of all they believe. So, whatever he does, we're seeing what Trump supporters would do, in that situation. He isn't their candidate, but their golden calf. Now we get to see how they would handle a pandemic. And, of course, it's terrible. We don't even know how terrible yet, because Trump rejected the tests the WHO would've sent, then the CDC bungled theirs. How many people will die because of that, because of how Trump is handling this, and how Trump supporters would handle it, or, at least, how they absolutely agree with what he's doing?
This is the acid test of their philosophy, their politics, and their ignorance.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Trump supporters have been threatening violence, and a second civil war for a long time. While, in reality, I don't wish violence on anyone, I would love the irony of a Kent-State style massacre by the troops; but instead of hippies, it would be Trump supporters, who, instead of putting flowers in the troops' rifles, are attacking soldiers and citizens. Just that they are threatening the country in this way (imagine Liberals doing that), they should all be considered public enemies, possible terrorists.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It isn't just that they like him. That's okay. I like Darth Vader, Billy the Kid, and Genghis Khan. But I wouldn't want them to lead the country. And even when they do want that, okay. But then they see him as doing no wrong, secondly only to Jesus, an expert at everything, honest and truthful, and incapable of making mistakes. Everyone messes up. We all lie at some point. So to believe he doesn't, and that he's magical, or sent by God to save whitebread, is not at all okay.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@42872 First, that's whataboutism, which you'd learn if you read books on logic. Secondly, it shows what it shows: That's called an "identity," in that it's basic reasoning. And what it shows is that those people don't read, and some of them don't even watch movies. So what are they doing? They're online looking up conspiracies, and talking trash about the people they're told to hate. Finally, if you read, you have the chance to learn. So when you don't, you lose the chance to learn. And they don't read. That means they have stopped learning.
It doesn't matter if millions of democratic voters don't read either. (Maybe you can find the statistic to prove that?) And that's because, even if it were true, it wouldn't change how these people absolutely, for sure, by their own admission...don't read.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Dragon1717 He was unclear as to what he thought the hoax was. He said, after Russia, and the Ukraine, "this is their [the Democrats'] new hoax."
So was Russia and his "perfect phone call" not a hoax? Because that's what he compared it to. Was it just that the Democrats were taking something that actually happened, and was true, and they made a hoax out of it?
Also, did Fox News' Trish Regan think it was a hoax? "A scam," I believe she called it. What about all those Republican governors (who refused to enforce social distancing), and Trump supporters (who dismissed it as a scam), and those evangelicals who were arrested for unlawful assembly? All of them thought it was some Democratic scam, to hurt the president.
Now Trump's team of lawyers is trying to erase all instances of him calling it a hoax. You need to accept who your President is. The media isn't fake, but calling out what he says and does; so he calls it fake, to discredit them. The Democrats aren't perpetuating a hoax, TRUMP IS.
The point isn't so much what he said, but how people (namely his supporters) took it. Is it Trump's fault that he was so unclear, and malicious against the media and Dems? Yes, yes it is. Whatever he meant, he said it in such a way that EVERYONE, except the people trying to make excuses for him, understood what he meant.
3
-
3
-
3
-
For the moment, let's assume this ZZ-Top wannabe is 100% correct. He has just revealed the secret inner workings of a vast conspiracy...on social media! He has revealed himself to the conspirators: They know who he is, where he lives, and that he knows the truth; and he's telling everyone!
Wouldn't that then mean the conspirators would take this guy on a long drive in the desert, make him some cement shoes, put a horse head in his bed, flash him with a Men-In-Black Neuralyzer? Something, right?
If I discovered a conspiracy by the world's (or nation's) most powerful people, then I would either never tell anyone, or find some sort of Bob Woodward type, who could record my story, just in case I get "disappeared"--which, as I said, would be inevitable. But since none of that happened, wouldn't that show Mr. ZZ that he has nothing but some paper airplanes?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Really, crying election fraud so soon after Trump did, and after it was proven there was no fraud in 2020, is stupid on their part. I know MAGA still pushes "the big lie" and "stop the steal," even after it caused the January 6 riot, but they don't have a leg to stand on. Kari Lake even implied, heavily, that she would contest the election like Trump did, if she lost.
So she's full of it, obviously. And the only people who could believe her would be the MAGA base. And if they were to try another capitol insurrection, then I doubt the law would be as kind to them as it was before. It's just a really dumb plan.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"They are NOT mental health professionals who can diagnose illness."
You have to be a professional to see that she has problems? You can't just read the situation? She walked out of a Walmart without paying for her 15 bucks worth of goods. Was she a thief? Did she make a break for it, running past the door alarms? Or did she just wander out? Why did she just wander out? Could something be going on there?
Maybe just stop her, and get the goods. Or, how about this, follow her home. She's freakin' walking. She's not going to the next county. If she ignores the police, and wants to go home, follow her. When you get there, find out what's going on, get back the stupid detergent and t-shirt. The stupid detergent and t-shirt are not worth hurting her!
I'm not a mental health expert, but I know that EVERYONE has something going on, usually something major. We all need to tend to that, in each other. But, more than that, the health and well-being of any one person, when threatened, becomes everyone's problem: because you could be next, or your mom. And if the police can't handle that responsibility, and want to laugh at someone else's suffering, then they are NOT professionals.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
In the U.S., our countrymen enslaved Africans with dark skin. To do so, they had to dehumanize them, otherwise "the land of the free" and "all men are created equal" would wear on them. And so they established themselves over a whole race of people, and anyone else with differently colored skin. This idea of supremacy was passed from father to son, who passed it to his son, and so on, since the former Africans were enslaved for a couple centuries.
By the Civil War, their superiority was ingrained in the slavers, who thought they could not only get along without the Northern free states, but could declare war on them--which they did. Toward the end of that war, the President of the U.S. declared all slaves in the country were freed. When the South lost, because they didn't have anywhere near the means to sustain themselves that they first believed, their military leader surrendered on their behalf--because their southern President had skedaddled.
But the southern people, who had watched their homes and lands get destroyed by a certain Northern general, never wanted to surrender. Never! And they never wanted to free the slaves. Never! This was forced on them, without their consent. And so they hated the United States, hated the Africans, and hated themselves for losing. That hatred was passed down from father to son, and so on, all the way to now. And there you have it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Republicans have to somehow balance how ludicrous and stupid the Democrats (ostensibly) are, with how devious and cunning they are; peace loving, but warmongering; in favor of rights for everyone, but taking away Republican's rights; college educated, but colleges are just liberal indoctrination; inclusive, yet exclusive; in charge of all the (liberal) media, which is ubiquitous and corporate owned, except for all the media Republicans agree with and use; grooming kids, while also being against conservative evangelicals indoctrinating kids.
It goes on and on. The amount of "doublethink" required to be a Republican, all the instances of "accusation in a mirror" (look it up), not to mention the "tremendous" amounts of fear being pumped into them daily...must surely leave the Republican voter brain dead and without an ounce of empathy for anyone who isn't a Republican--all while they moan about the Dems attacking Repubs. It must be exhausting.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@1987BillyBob "He isn't talking about the people, he is talking about people like Harris." Don't you ever get tired of lying? He starts by saying, "They are a party of...." So that includes the whole party. You even did it there, not specifying politicians, but saying "people like Harris." Besides, even assuming you're right, it changes nothing: He still wants to turn the military on "people like Harris." At the very least, he's talking about his political enemies. At the most, that's the entire "party," as he said, the Democratic party.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
1. People did not hate David. Everybody loved him. This actor even claimed David's father hated him. That's dead wrong. Saul was jealous of David, but still loved him.
2. Interesting historical fact: King Herod (who supposedly ordered the "Slaughter of the Innocents") died in 4 B.C., i.e., 4 years before Christ. (Think about that.)
3. Satan is the Hebrew word for "adversary." It means anyone who is against what you are doing. It is an improper noun, and so not a name.
4. The Hebrew word for "evil" means "hardship." It is the noun for what results from anything that causes you hardship. So the aftermath of a hurricane would be evil.
5. The Christian idea for Hell came from the Hebrew "Gehenna," which was the trash dump outside of Jerusalem. It was always burning (hence, burning for eternity). There were rodents, and a horrible stench.
6. In the Middle Ages, the bishops thought Christianity needed a mythology. So they took "satan," and made it Satan: the ultimate adversary to God and man. They took "evil," and made it the result of Satan. (In the Bible, God is one god, "and there is no God beside me. I kill. I make alive. I wound. And I heal." So God did everything. Everything that happened was because of God. And the medieval bishops took Gehenna and made it Satan's home beneath the Earth.
3
-
@jamieparker8362 He addressed that he eats meat, and is therefore (in his words) still responsible for the deaths of those animals. So he's not a hypocrite. As for "Most hunters eat what they take while hunting": There isn't much meat left when you kill the animal with an AR-15. And what percentage is "most"? Even if half the hunters killed food to eat, because they have no other way of feeding themselves, that would leave the other half which is killing because...what? Yeehaaa, ride 'em cowboy?
Still, all of that would be fine, even if killing innocent animals as children is a sign of psychosis, but somehow thought okay if done as an adult, EXCEPT the main thing we're talking about here is that such hunters make it so psychopaths can get guns easily, by fighting legislation. (Whew, long sentence.) And therefore "hunting" is just an excuse to stockpile arms, to do mass shootings, or (more likely) for people who sell guns to make a ton of money from paranoid psychopaths.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Let's have some fun, and take all the loaded words from your post, and see what you're actually saying. Calling someone a d-bag is an ad hominem, and accomplishes nothing. So drop that. "...narrow minded biased" are your loaded words. That means you're showing YOUR bias...which is funny, because you were claiming someone else is biased. Isn't that funny? So what are we left with?
"Ben...views on Israel."
Hmm. Not much. And, oddly enough, this has nothing to do with the video. He didn't talk about Israel, and the video is about Trump, MAGA, and the MAGA talking heads wanting violence if Trump is sent to prison.
Oh! I see! So you're just trying to deflect away from that. Well, I'll still clean up your whataboutism, while I'm here: "I don't like Ben's views on Israel." That's it. That's all you said. Thanks for you input, and maybe try to say something, anything of value next time, now that you know how to edit.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Boomer "What is the Republican party wrong about?"
Lately, vaccine denial and refusal to wear masks. They're wrong because they speak as if its "their body, their choice," when it's a highly contagious variant of a virus that's already killed half a million Americans.
With Black Lives Matter, their denial only shows that black lives do not matter to them. Which shouldn't be a surprise, given that no lives matter to them, since they refuse to take the vaccine.
Finally, with abortion (in Texas), though the right appropriated "my body, my choice," they blatantly ignore where that saying came from. They believe they're saving unborn babies, but they're doing so at the cost of the mothers' health and well being, and, therefore, the baby's life with that mother.
I understand that it's likely a Christian thing to them, to save an unborn baby's life. But for every unborn they "save," they throw the mother under the bus, and, therefore, ruin that baby's life.
Republicans are wrong, not just because they believe they're right without possibility of error, but because they see being wrong as their right: the ultimate expression of their American freedom.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@boydnorfleet8985 "point is you don't even consider you might be wrong."
How can you claim to know that? In fact, I do consider it, all the time. And, no, we who see Trump as he is (because we've stopped to consider what he has done) are not in the minority. The popular vote did not go to Trump. The polls, now, do not support Trump. You are in the minority. Trump is minority rule.
What you've written is called "projection." So if it's not whataboutism, Trump supporters on media resort to projection. The reason for this, of course, is that Trump does these things all the time. What Trump does/says, his supports follow. That's the point. How many times have you, personally, used the words "scam" or "fake," in connection with politics, or the media?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
When the Right makes everything political (e.g., Nike shoes, windmills, and the coronavirus), then they MUST next assume that ANYTHING Democrats, or the "fake news" says is wrong; it's wrong because, (il)logically speaking, the opposite (the Right) is therefore automatically correct.
That's my take on how Trump officials and supporters "think." Otherwise, they would have to admit the "fake news" is telling the truth, in this case. And Democrats are correct in being upset that Trump dismisses the coronavirus. If the "fake news" or Democrats are EVER correct, then, logically, they cannot always be lying, and simply out to get the President. So Team Trump must always cry "wolf." But this virus is an actual wolf, which could, and probably will, sweep through our population. Captain Trips, anyone?
3
-
3
-
"he shut down flights from a China"
He only shut down flights for Chinese nationals, who were coming from China. First, anyone could come from anywhere else, just not from China. Secondly, 40,000 Americans flew from China to the U.S., after this "ban." 40,000. And, coincidentally, it was after this "ban" that our infections and deaths went through the roof.
It was not a ban, but a very slight restriction. And that was all he did, through January, February, and March, to prepare for the Coronavirus. He did not take it seriously at all.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@danielcrafter9349 Split hairs much? Female is easy to define, as that comes from biological sex. But gender is different from that. And that's where conservatives lose their freaking minds. Being uneducated, they tend to not know that science says gender is different from biological sex. Gender is, as science defines it, how we fit into society; how we see ourselves.
Gender is a spectrum. What you call a man is probably not what I think of the kind of man I am. That's a very simple example, and not exactly what gender is. But it's an analogy that we can easily see. So just as gender further specifies biological sex, so then does a person's individual gender further specify the individual's place within the spectrum. We aren't talking 0 or 1 here, black or white, man or woman.
This is why conservative trolls like @Big Picture Thinking love to trot out the cliche of "what is a woman." Because they don't get it, and they assume it means liberals have mental health problems, when it is the conservatives who are in denial and without a shred of scientific literacy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
How can ignorant people stop being ignorant? To learn something new, we have to admit we don't know that thing yet. So, Part 1: admit ignorance. Then we have to find out where available knowledge begins, and where our knowledge ends. So, Part 2: honest self-evaluation. Then we have to start from the beginning of our ignorance, and cover every detail from scratch, with the assumption that we know nothing. And, with this, we have to learn how we learn, since we'll probably be teaching ourselves. So, Part 3: discover how to learn.
Everyone dumps on schools, because people are so ignorant. But schools teach us how to learn, and, more importantly, how you/I specifically learn. In school, we take the facts home, and figure out how to learn them. That's our responsibility. If people stop doing this after they graduate, and go for decades not learning anything new, and forgetting everything they learned (including how to learn), then that is their fault.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"What he's doing is right out of the Trump playbook."
That's what the Republicans do, though the smarter, more clever ones are realizing that ship is not just sinking--but has already sunk. I know everyone knows these MAGA people aren't really Christians, or they are what has become the evangelical/MAGA definition of a Christian. But just to clarify, Christians don't judge. That's one of the cornerstones of what Jesus taught. They are also humble, which is part of why they don't judge. And they love everyone and everything, because God made it all. So the real Christians have the axiom that by loving everyone and everything, they are loving God--and vice versa. All of that is basic Christianity.
Also, I'm sick of people selling themselves as Christians. Jesus said (when he drove the capitalists out of the temple with a whip): "My house was to be a house of prayer, and you have turned it into a den of thieves." Besides being fake, they are bringing faith into government, where it has no place being.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jamespgray6928 "a woman is an adult human female(xx chromosomes). Facts can't be "ignorant"."
That's just biological sex. That's the easy part.
"There are feminine men, and there are masculine women, but being a masculine woman doesn't make you a man."
No one said it did. That's not gender.
"How you "feel" is irrelevant."
Now we're getting down to it. You're wrong. I have the science to prove it to you. This copy/paste comes from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research; it is their government's website, and the work done by scientists all over the world:
"'Sex' and 'gender' are often used interchangeably, despite having different meanings:
"Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@krunoslavkovacec1842 "destroy someone's identity"
Whoa, dragon, whoa! (Search "Yosemite Sam and the dragon" for the reference, and a laugh.) I didn't say that, or even imply it. I said, using the right "pronouns matters very much."
You asked why, though. As I also said, I'm not transgender. I'm just a dude who likes chicks. But practicing empathy is important to me: It's hard to be moral without it. And I find being moral to be healthy, physically and mentally. One needs humility to feel empathy though.
So let's humble ourselves for a moment. Do I know everything? No. Do you? No. Is it possible for anyone to know everything? No. So we're all basically fumbling around in the dark, with no real hope of understanding it all.
That's a good start. Welcome to humility. :)
Now that we're humble, and realize we're ignorant, it's not so hard to see that we don't know what's in another person's thoughts. We don't their past, present, and certainly not their future. They don't know very much about any of that stuff either. So we're all equal.
What we do have to go on is how we feel, and we can think about how we feel. We aren't completely without knowledge and understanding, after all. So the transgender people must have had a feeling. (I'm guessing here, trying to use empathy, by putting myself in their place, and going off how I guess that they might react, instead of how I'd react in their life.)
And with that feeling of theirs, they felt what was good and bad, right and wrong, something that worked vs something that didn't work. Just like us.
Somewhere in there, their biological sex (sex is the anatomy we're born with) didn't feel right with their day-to-day gender (gender is how we feel in society). It felt really out of place; it just didn't work.
I can't imagine how that would feel with me. But with empathy, and putting myself into their life, I can see it a little. It must have been weird to them, and scary. They must have taken careful steps forward. But those forward steps felt right. They probably took a few steps backward, at times, which felt wrong. In that way, they decided/realized/understood what was right for them.
Now imagine someone telling them it was wrong, unnatural, a figment of their imagination--like anyone would know that.
So part of their realization of who they are came to be tied up with pronouns. I'm a writer, so the understanding of who I am came by writing. If anyone told me that my writing was just my imagination...well, I don't know what I'd do. Of course it's my imagination: Everything is. But it's real too. We can imagine things that are real. Therefore, pronouns are important to them.
(Sorry this was so long.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@whyamimrpink78 That's just not true. Biological definition is for sex. The personal/societal is for gender. Here's what the Canadian Institute for Health Research has to say:
"Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
We still need proof. Anecdotal evidence just doesn't cut it. Anyone coming forward with only anecdotal evidence has to know this. I don't want to just believe: I want to know. That said, if our world (especially our United States) ever needed some perspective, and a reason to think about what's going on beyond gerrymandering, race, sex/gender, fascistic ideation, etc., it's now.
If we are not alone, I don't know why this has been kept from us for so long. I've heard some say "it would change everything," including religion. But if you believe some god created everything, then that god could've created aliens too. So I don't see the problem there. For decades we have watched movies about this visitation idea, so it wouldn't totally shock us into a collective catatonic state.
If it is true, the only reason I can think of to not reveal it would be something pernicious. Who knows what? But if it isn't true, then this whole thing needs to be laid to rest. Once and for all.
For example, are those crafts which can't be identified actually experimental, top secret? And that's why they can't identify them to us? Or are they truly beyond the comprehension of all earth's scientists? Because if they're beyond their understanding, then our scientists need to be funded better, and our politicians need to focus on funding their research, for our own national (and worldwide) security.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Many?most?some? (not sure of the statistics) Americans freak the fudge out, when in a crisis. I mean stark raving bonzo, bats in the belfry, surely gone fishing. Spend some time in the grocery store people watching. When we don't know where, when, or how the threat will come at us, then we're forced to either fill in the blanks with uninformed beliefs, or run around like a chicken with its head cut off. At such a time of crisis, one may find comfort in blindly following a leader, even (or especially) if that leader is orange, stupid, narcissistic, sociopathic, nationalistic, and completely and obviously in over his head.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I enjoy reading, playing music, and petting my cat. None of those things can possibly cause as many deaths as mass shootings. Maybe these people need new hobbies.
As for defending yourself, your home, children, and puppies: If someone breaks into your home, in the middle of the night, and they catch you going for your gun, that'll make a bad situation worse. Unless you keep your loaded gun by your bed, or in bed with you, then you won't be able to get it in time, and fire warning shots, or shoot the intruders; but if you did that, if you kept your gun in such an easily accessible place, then your kids could get a hold of it. Or, if someone breaks in, but doesn't wake you, then they could find your gun first. Or, if someone breaks in while you're not carrying your gun (like during the afternoon or something), then the entire exercise would be pointless. And so on.
The chances of all the right, necessary pieces falling into place, in order to kill the intruders in front of your children (including not missing when you shoot), and thereby psychologically scarring your kids, must be absurd: To be generous, and give it a nice round number, let's say you have about a 1 in 10 chance of succeeding. The other 9 possibilities include something not working to your advantage.
As for taking on a tyrannical U.S. government: First, there hasn't been enemy soldiers on the ground here since the war of 1812; and U.S. soldiers have never attacked the citizenry at large. To be generous, let's say it was in the 19th century when Geronimo or Jesse James might have given you some trouble--but the government was after those guys. These days, your AR would have to fight against drones, chemical warfare, air strikes, and who knows what all.
The reasons used to justify doing nothing for people actually dying, are all some pie-in-the-sky, possible-in-some-unknown/unlikely-future scenarios, when you likely won't succeed anyway.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@brushe8025 Not entirely, but certainly changed a lot. When King James says "by," it means "of, from." But, yes, I agree: Just updating the English brings all kinds of problems, namely shortcuts in approximating the words used, which changes the meaning of the phrases.
It gets worse when going from one language to another, and then compounding it by updating the English. It's hard to list many examples here, but there are 4 words for "love" in Greek. (Greek being the oldest and perhaps original language of the New Testament.) So which word did Jesus use in the text? It helps to know that.
The Bible isn't cut and dry. No doubt about that, beyond the notion that it's folklore and mythology. Imagine someone listening to one of our hit songs today, not knowing our language and culture.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I agree with the people who commented above me, but I also agree with @Adrian. I know it's difficult to understand, or work with in conversation, but rape creates ptsd in a person. And saying things that trigger the trauma is dangerous.
I know Cenk wasn't talking about that. He was making a completely different point, and I don't fault him for it. We can't be aware of every facet of every thing we say all the time. I get it.
I'm not sure what the alternative here is. Just, first, know that what we say can affect others in ways we neither conceive of, nor intend. And those ways can be terrible: bad enough that people here noticed it.
We aren't talking about being sensitive and getting offended, or being a snowflake. Trauma is very real, and often out of the traumatized person's control. People here heard what Cenk said, and took it in a way that I didn't consider.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yahoo8493 Was there a first time that's not in this video? Because, in this video, he talks about AOC, then goes straight to Ilhan, and says what you denied he said. So when was the first time? And what is this point you continue to argue? Why can't you admit he said what he obviously said?
Is it really that hard to believe your own eyes and ears? Do you have to keep making up lies, obfuscating the truth? YOU are the one doing mental gymnastics, and have shown nothing to the contrary. NOTHING.
I guess if you have to admit that Trump is a xenophobic jerk, who's doing nothing more (or less) here, than encouraging his equally xenophobic base, then you would have to admit to being xenophobic yourself. And I doubt you could do that, because then you wouldn't be able to pretend to be a kind, decent American.
You wouldn't be able to maintain the victim fiction that Ilhan is a danger to the country, and would have to accept that Trump is everything (and worse) that you're pretending about Ilhan. And that would mean that you're probably, exactly opposite on more things--like everything you believe about the Democrats is actually true about Republicans. Yes, I can see why you have to belabor an obviously lost cause, with your argument here.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To still be a Trump supporter, after January 6th, ordering Pence to violate the constitution by overturning the election results, the top secret documents in his bathroom, being found guilty of sexual assault, found guilty of fraud and being banned from doing business in NYC, and on and on.... Yes, they are monsters.
Well, correction: They are humans who are ultra maroons, who love his insult-comic reality-tv shtick, love the racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, being against any LGBTQ, immigrants, being educated, and loathe facts and fact checking. They are know-nothing bozos with an affinity for cruelty.
So forget about "cherry picking." What matters now, even for Trump supporters we never see or hear from, is that they still support Trump, regardless of all that, and there is NOTHING he can do that will change their mind.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@B1Chronixx Man, think you struck a serious chord. They'll all deny it, as the comments here show. But we all revert to primitive thinking, unless mindful of it. Racism, nationalism, egotism, etc., these aren't just traits of certain people. They are in all of us, until we fight consciously to, first, admit they're real, and, secondly, overcome them. Just as fear and anger overcomes logic, so does logic usurp fear and anger. So, for people who believe (or act as if) they aren't that way: Yes, we are; and we will continue to be, until we admit it, and stop it. Thank you for your post.
2
-
@waterlife.1905 The poster you replied to there told you like it is. So will I. You saw yourself in Trump. You saw the loser you are, and the wealthy, powerful person you wish you were. But it was all a scam, right down the line. It's okay to fall for scams and trolls. We all do, now and then. But you have to accept that you were trolled (and that's all Trump was), at some point. He wasn't trolling the libs, as you hoped. He trolled his base.
Who sent him all that money? What did he do with all that money? You've been had. You been took, bamboozled. Now you have to either go back to being pathetic, or take responsibility for your own life. You live in a community with others, with libs, with a whole world.
You can be part of it, or you can troll from your mom's basement. Up to you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@H.P._Lovecrafts_Cat "just wanted to pop in to say that I know a conservative that has done lots of engineering for NASA and graduated with a friend that now codes for NASA, also right-winged. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative."
I never trust anyone who uses the phrase "doesn't fit your narrative." They are taking a shortcut to thinking.
So you know a conservative who works for NASA, and have a friend who codes for NASA. Ever heard of the term outlier?
Besides, I wasn't really talking about conservatives, but, rather, MAGA specifically. I'm talking the people who stormed Congress on January 6th, or support the politicians who said, alternatively, that it was just people touring the building, or that they were FBI; the people who believe Trump was sent by God to stop the Deep State; or are election deniers, climate change deniers, people who don't believe in science--and so aren't likely to be working for NASA.
Those people aren't reading books, or working for NASA, your anecdotal evidence notwithstanding.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sconiersclan "He would accepts the repented sinner, not an active one and that goes for straight, gay or other"
"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full" (John 10:10).
"You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one" (John 8:15).
"...“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her"" (John 8:7).
"And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners? / I came not to call the righteous, but sinners"" (mark 2:16-17).
See, the problem is, when you label someone a sinner, you're judging them. Judging is so wrong, because we don't know everything about the person, their past, present, future, and so our judgment of them would be wrong. Nor do we know God's will for that person. Even Jesus said he doesn't judge them. If Jesus doesn't judge, then how can you claim to know what Jesus wants, when you're doing what he said to not do?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"IF YOU DIDN'T VOTE OR VOTED REPUBLICAN OR EVEN THIRD PARTY, YOU DID THIS." First, blaming others isn't going to change anything. Secondly, assuming that the people who chose a 3rd party, or to not participate, would have voted for someone other than him is faulty reasoning (to put it kindly). Third, we are not required to vote, or to vote for 1 of the 2 main parties. Fourth, dismissing all the many different reasons people had for not participating is extremely faulty reasoning. Here are a few: They were in the hospital, in surgery, sick at home. Stop pretending to know what the lives of others are like, and what their reasons are. Finally, each of us is responsible for what we do, but not for what others do. Even if what we did put him in the position to do what he did, he is the one who is responsible for himself. No one else is responsible for HIS CHOICES. Blame him for what he does.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Everyone has an opinion. You just listed yours. But it isn't just opinion, because the opinions need to be about something. Right? Can't just be opinions about nothing. It has be about something that is factual, or not factual. And you can verify for yourself, whether or not it's factual. But if you walk away from the news, just because you don't like how they have an opinion on the facts, then your measurement of being informed will drop, plummet even. The news doesn't just cover politics, but local and world events. So you'll just end up NOT knowing about what's going on, except what you hear on smaller platforms like this one. And platforms like this one are commentary. That means they talk about the facts even more than the news does, sharing their opinion. Honestly, it seems like critical thinking is already taking a header right into the john.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Another "90% of the time" claim. Listen, people can change. Just because we did bad or stupid things, doesn't mean we'll only do bad and stupid things forever. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." None of us is without sin, i.e., pure and unadulterated of cruelty, malice, let alone tribalism. In fact, we're practicing tribalism by always harping on Trumpists. Granted, they deserve all the harping we do. But we're all hypocritical at some point, not just capable, but guilty of all sorts of wickedness.
The man came clean. What do you want? Blood?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rumdog117 "name calling"
I didn't call you any names. I said you were trolling, which you are obviously doing. You said you were just asking questions. Just innocent questions, right? Wrong. You said there was no definition. So if someone gave you a definition, you'd reject it. If they didn't give you a definition, you'd claim they didn't know what they were talking about, just as you did for me here:
"So you don't know what you want to ban, you don't know who will decide what you want banned, but in order to do something about a subject that you know nothing about, you are certainly for someone doing it."
That's what trolling is. And now you want to spin it some more, to drag along our conversation, and stall any real conversation. You're obvious. And I'm muting you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kenharrison4704 It's whataboutism, which is a logical fallacy. I'll give you a relevant example of whataboutism, to help you understand what you're doing here.
Now, say, in response to your first post, I wrote something like: "Oh yeah? Well Republican President Nixon had men break into the Watergate."
See how that's a true statement? It's not even a half-truth, with lots of qualifying statements needed to explain it. Do you also see how it has nothing at all to do with your post, even though it was supposedly a response to it?
And do you see how I'd be excusing the thing you wrote, even justifying it, and saying it's okay, because Nixon had men break into the Watergate:
"Dems are bad; Repubs are bad. So what?" But I wouldn't be trying to say my side is bad. I'd be trying to deflect away from anything bad my side is doing. Regardless, I'd be saying my side is bad for the thing you mentioned, and your side is bad for the thing I mentioned.
That's whataboutism, and why it's a logical fallacy. You set out to prove the other guy is hypocrite, but only show yourself to be one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A lot of times Christian conservatives quote the Old Testament. Not Jesus. They're especially fond of Leviticus. Ever read through that one? It's mostly a list of laws for the Levites, the priestly tribe of Israel. But it also has laws that the priests are to enforce among the people, like stoning to death a disrespectful child.
If they did stick strictly to Jesus, then they'd see things like: "Put away your sword, for he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword"; "love one another, in this way will all men know you are my disciples." But even in the Old Testament we get things like: "Do not vex a foreigner, because you are all sojourners with me." And the Golden Rule comes from the OT, like most of Jesus' teachings.
And, in the OT, God is one god, and there is "no one beside me." No Satan to blame for banning books. “See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand." "All the earth is mine," said God. All of it. So these numskulls banning books and abortion are banning what God made.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism"."---I'll stick with the left, thanks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Check this out: What if LGBTQ is NOT "mental illness and depravity"? No, seriously, bear with me. If you assume something that is incorrect, and use it as the starting point (i.e., axiom) for your reasoning, then everything you derive from that false assumption is also false. And I mean EVERYTHING. So you want to be sure, right?
Well, if it isn't mental illness, then they're just human beings. And you're just hating human beings. Huh, well I'll be.... Try that as your axiom for a while, and see if it fits reality better.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'll just copy/paste my response to this copy/pasting troll comment:
What does how she voted elsewhere, in the past, have to do with how she sees Trump now? Nothing! She's right in what she said about him. She looked at evidence and drew conclusions, in order to be right.
No analogy is perfect, but I have one for you: Sir Isaac Newton gave us the foundations of the laws of physics. Yet he was also an alchemist.
So do we ignore all the work he did on physics? He engaged in pseudoscience, after all. Well, his work on physics was based on evidence, and it is still provable. He was wrong with alchemy, but absolutely right with mechanics. See how he can be wrong in one case, and right in another, even though both have to do with science?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I tend to forget that big movies are corporate run, corporate owned, with casting done by corporate, hiring and firing, funded, and release or canned...all by the focus-group, money-driven whims of faceless corporate stooges. So when I wonder: Where's the art? Where's the heart? Why are they making something about Boba Fett, or the Adams Family? And why are those shows empty, vapid, stagnant, and forgettable as a Big Mac (as Drinker once so eloquently put it)? One word: corporate.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@0pp841 I see. So God knows all the details, enough to kill all the first born of Egypt? I guess they would all grow up to be evil? So that's why God killed them?
You know, it wasn't just the first born of the royalty, but all of them. That includes the slaves (except for the Israelites), and the cattle. Yes, the Bible states explicitly that God killed the first born of all the animals.
"At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well" (Exodus 12:29).
So were those evil cows? And it wasn't just the cows, but all the livestock. So what did God know about what those animals would eventually do?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
First, satan is the Hebrew word for "adversary." It applied to any adversary at all. That's why Jesus referred to Peter as satan (Matt. 16:23). It's not a proper noun: not an actual name. There was no arch-nemesis to Jehovah anywhere in the Old Testament. A satan shows up at the beginning of Job, but since Hebrew has no case in it's letters, there was/is no way to tell if it was capitalized or not. It wasn't. A satan, then, is anyone who is against what you're doing.
Secondly, in the Old Testament, there is only one god. And that one god is responsible for everything: "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand" (Deut. 32:39.)
This idea of an anti-Jehovah began when Babylon enslaved the Jews. The Babylonians had "the sons of light" pitched in an eternal battle with "the sons of darkness." Some Jews absorbed this idea into their culture. But it wasn't until 'round about the 13th century that certain Christian bishops decided Christianity needed a mythology. Before then it was just a collection of sayings by Yeshua (the English spelling of the Aramaic form of Jesus), kind of like Confucius.
They took the trash heap outside of Jerusalem, which was always burning and stinking, and which the Jews had named Gehenna, and turned Gehenna into Hell. They transformed the improper noun "satan" into an actual entity named Satan, and put Satan in Hell to rule over the dead who had done evil things in life.
There was no afterlife of heaven/hell in the Old or New Testaments. Jesus said, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man" (John 3:13.) If you take the Revelation text literally, then the dead stay dead until they're risen up on the last day, and judged.
So where is Jehovah/God during all this? "...Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, / nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst” (Luke 17:20-21.) The King James (which is the most literal interpretation of the ancient texts has it: "...the kingdom of God is within you."
Before the bishops messed with everything, there was no Jesus story: no virgin birth, no crucifixion, no risen on the third day. It was just lessons on how to live a good life, how what was best for you was to do good to others, as doing bad things actually hurts you. But the bishops thought the common man needed a story. So they invented it. And in this story all the things that Jehovah had done that were thought to be bad, were credited to Satan. They didn't want the "god of love" to do anything wrong. But Jehovah is everything, and that includes all that we think as good or bad, fragrant or stinking, everything.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@liv328 Oh boy, a philosophical/religious discussion at 1:30 am, my time! Should I make coffee?
First, let me say I'm not religious. I'm a writer, though, and I've written over 50 essays on the Gospels. I've read the Bible straight through over a dozen times, and read individual books within...I don't know how many times.
I got by bachelor's of science and master's in physics. I got BFAs in saxophone performance, and creative writing: poetry. So I read a lot more than the Bible. A few favorite writers off the top of my head: Kurt Vonnegut, Henry Miller, Joy Harjo, Carl Sagan.
Just wanted you to know with whom you're conversing. Shall we dance? :)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HopkinsIsNotAVictim "You mean like The 1619 Project?"
No. The 1619 Project is, in one way or another, intended to be put into the K-12 classroom curriculum. But CRT is a branch of graduate level programs called "critical theory."
Critical Theory looks at history, economics, anything and everything relative to one idea. For example, let's say there's a Critical Music Theory: In that class, grad students would look at history, and how it relates to, or was shaped by music.
Critical Race Theory would do the same using race a lens. It should be obvious, since we're talking about relativity, that this isn't for K-12. It's not eve for freshmen, juniors, sophomores, and seniors in college. It's a possible course in some grad school programs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I see two major reasons for why nothing is being done to stop/curb climate change, which is obviously happening, regardless of who/what is responsible. One, corporations, especially big oil, have influenced politicians, who have used their typical smear campaigns against climate change. Two, even given our will to survive, humanity has this instinct, or whatever you'd call it, to convince themselves that what they're seeing isn't what they're seeing. Orwell called it "doublethink." I call it arrogance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ghostfenrir2338 I found the link to what the OP refers to. Talk about "questionable." What is Trump saying? He didn't say exactly what the OP wrote, and put in quotes. Did he imply it? He said:
"Let's take a pass on Abraham Lincoln, because he did [Trump pauses here] good, although it's always questionable, you know, in other words, the end result..."
Then Harris Faulkner interrupts: "Well, we are free, Mr. President."
And Trump responds: "But we are free."
Faulkner jumps in again: "So he did pretty well."
And Trump says: "You understand what I mean."
So what did he mean? He's such a horrible speaker. So many times, when I have to prove what he said, to some Trump supporter, or even myself, I can't prove what he said by quoting him. It's what he implies.
Here's the entire interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ja8QEp0SkA
And here's just the relevant section:
https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1271520035090190337
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There are some built-in problems with our country's freedom. First, we have to allow Fox News to bombard its audience with fear and cause hatred of all people and things different from them; when really, Fox should be shut down, being a brainwashing propaganda tool. Then we have minority rule, in which things like common sense gun laws and the right to an abortion get controlled by the minority of citizens; when really, we should be a country of the people, by the people, and for the people. And while I could go on and on (as most everything is broken and no longer functions, since the constitution was written in the 18th century, and we're having to follow interpretations of it in the 21st century--like it's Beat poetry), I finally want to end with the idea that apparently we have the freedom to be as ignorant as we want, subscribing to insane conspiracy theories, and yet get to vote as if we're totally sane, and our judgment can be trusted.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stevekombolis3197 I think one of the reasons you're seeing some resistance here is that intellectual design necessitates a designer. Also, as I've just double checked to confirm, ID is pseudo-science, and assumes that science doesn't explain life on this planet.
One of my favorite writers, Douglas Adams, once talked about a mud puddle. See, as Adams described it: Imagine a mud puddle could become sentient. It looked at its surroundings, and saw that it fit around him perfectly. "It must have been designed for me," said the mud puddle.
I believe the video of that full talk is here on YouTube, as part of Adams' talk with his friend Richard Dawkins.
Besides denouncing science, and saying there must be something more, some other reason, intelligent design falls victim to this mud puddle analogy. Of course, no one designed the hole in which the puddle found itself. Nor did anyone create the water to fill the hole. Whatever you might believe, the bottom line is such thinking ISN'T NECESSARY.
A designer isn't necessary. But, if we stop there for a moment, we find the next big problem with intelligent design: Who is the designer?
If you're curious as to why people here have assumed you were talking about the Christian God, even though you said you weren't Christian, then it's probably because you didn't mention anything about this designer's identity.
I would think not knowing the designer, and, therefore, anything about him/her/it, would quell any further thought about intelligent design. Without knowing who did it, and why, guessing as to what the design is becomes (or should become) impossible.
Sorry, I wrote a lot. But there you go.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Why does someone's sexuality need to be anyone else's business?"
Here's my theory: Some men, when they look at others, imagine being intimate with them. I think such a habit started with them looking at a woman by herself. And then they looked at women who were with other men. But that lead them to thinking about the man with the woman, which introduced them to thinking about men. Then LGBTQ became a more well known thing, a topic of everyday conversation. So these men were faced with their imaginations running wild.
However, being conservative, and likely from a religious background, it would be a sin against Jebus to follow their curiosity. So they were left with no recourse but to hate and bully LGBTQ people, and seek to outlaw them and remove them from society, lest those conservative men do what would come naturally to them, and thus no longer be "a man," and wind up burning in lakes of fire and brimstone.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kevinkelly2162 Yes. J is what scholars call the original fragments of what became the Bible, or the Tanakh (Christian Old Testament), to be precise. These still remain, in parts, in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers. Other than J, there is E, D, P, and R: E, D, and P followed J in the next 500 years, culminating in the Babylonian exile. After the return from exile, roughly 2,500 years ago, R (the Redactor) combined J, E, D, and P to form the Torah. But it started with J 3,000 years ago.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@perryroberts4353 You need to give specific dates and examples to back up each of those claims. I was going to fact check for you, but saw that Trump went back and forth in 2016, first accepting the triple K, then rejecting them, only to accept them again, etc. So I can find no clear or steady stance from him on this.
As for the connection between Biden and Clinton to the triple K, I looked that up too. It was debunked by fact checks years ago. These are old memes you're trotting out. Plus, given that Trump isn't as perfect as you claim, then it makes you claims about Biden and Clinton nothing but whataboutism. And those claims against Biden and Clinton came from one source: Trump. Those are Trump's lies.
As for blacks kicked from Trump rallies: Here's a story about 30 black students being kicked from his rally. Story was published 8 March 2016. Granted, I can't find any other instances of this. Apparently they were protesting. And as they were escorted out by law enforcement, the crowd screamed at them. So maybe they were kicked out just because they were protesters. But all the white MAGA people were screaming at them, as the cops escorted them out. Who knows the truth there. But it looks bad.
So there's nothing to back up your claim that Democratic voters are the racists. The only truth in anything mentioned above is against Trump and his supporters, not for them. So you're projecting the "ignorance and willingness to believe anything the far [right] media tells you" onto Dems.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's hard to tell with Republicans what they really believe, and who they really are. It's hard to tell what anyone truly believes, really, or if their definition of "believes" requires any action to confirm/actualize that belief. A lot of Christians don't act like Christians, for example. But it's especially hard with Republican politicians and talking heads, since they come across as performers for their base. And bad, obvious mustache-twisting performers at that.
Is this the real Greene, who is stuck playing a cliched character for her base, who loves cliches? Is that the real Hannity we see, or a mask he wears to make money? This is true of all politicians, and heck, even most people in general: Are we seeing them as they are? Do they even know who they are? Or are we seeing a mask? And what is the mask, and what is real?
Kurt Vonnegut wrote: "Be careful what you pretend to be," because in the end, "we're all what we pretend to be."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Computer User Careful. You know the Greek word for a king sent (or anointed) by God? Christ. Also, Trump is not a king, let alone "the KING." That's blasphemy.
*
You know what Jesus had to say about people who didn't believe?
*
"Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. / But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:37-38).
*
And,
*
"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full" (John 10:10).
*
And he spoke of false Christians:
"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me" (Matthew 15:8).
*
And he warned how to spot these people:
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. / By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? / Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matthew 7:15-17).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Calling out Trump, or Trump supporters, is a double-edged sword. If you show them how wrong they are, they'll deny it. They'll spin, and attack you, use Gish gallop, and you'll eventually have to give up trying to convince them that they're wrong. So the entire time was wasted, for nothing.
But, on the other hand, if you let Trump, he'll do nothing but praise himself, ignore the dead, and the threat to the living; and Trump supporters will spread their disinformation like a virus. So we have to say something. Reporters have to call out Trump. We...I have to point out to Trump supporters that they're wrong. We...I...the reporters can't do it every single time. It's like trying to put out a forest fire, just by spitting on it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I wasn't friends with any of them before 2016. But, if I was, theoretically, then it would depend on why they support him: I guess. What's their reason? Sorry to play the both-sides card, but it would be difficult to be friends with any of the people who are ostensibly Dems, in these comments. They are judgmental, exclusionary, refusing to accept anything different (all of which are the opposite of "liberal"), and sure of their obtuse reasoning and assumptions; they also seem to be suffering from mass hysteria after the election. That's understandable. I've been lethargic, and having to be sure I don't make any big decisions, since my brain was damaged by the shock and horror of what happened.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Even if they didn't have the "identity politics," the writing and presentation would still fall flat. Granted, a lot of that flatness comes from the identity cliches. Drinker has already covered this, but I think it necessary to point these out again:
First, characters need to want something, even if it's just a glass of water. And they have to overcome obstacles, both outside of themselves and from within. That's what creates the drama and drives the plot. Everyone has weaknesses, even (or especially) the supposedly strong protagonist. There's nothing wrong with having faults, since it's perfectly human; unless you never face them, and at least try to overcome them. But a character (especially the protagonist) with no faults isn't human. This creates all sorts of problems, all of which are the main focus of my point here:
Without faults, we can't connect with them; and they have no personality; and they never learn to actually develop strength. Being strong can't really happen, until a person overcomes their weaknesses, or at least tries to. That's why Luke Skywalker got captured and nearly eaten by the wompa, and why Vader whipped him in Cloud City: Because he was young, inexperienced, and had never faced his own mortality, which would make him treasure life--and therefore fight for it.
Without those faults, there would be no experience, which would mean a very boring story.
Secondly, those obstacles have to be real and not easily overcome. If you win your first battle, and every single one after that, then there's no drama, which means no investment or interest from the audience. This is how storytelling works.
So you can't just have a Mary Sue blast through everything. Nor can you have any male character just blast through everything. If a character doesn't lose again and again, and thus never reach the point of the ultimate defeat, when all hope is lost, then they can't overcome their own fear and weaknesses. And anyone who can't overcome their own fear, especially in order to save others, is no hero at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@_mark_3814 "he’s anti illegal immigration not anti-immigrant"
Given that he bussed, flew, and abandoned immigrants on two separate occasions, immigrants who weren't "illegal," then I think your reply is a pile of cow pies.
I've never bought for one second this supposed distinction conservatives claim to have, between "illegals" vs "legals." First, if you're referring to human beings as "illegals," you're already dehumanizing them. And if you can dehumanize one group, you can do it to another. Secondly, if conservatives were really okay with "legals," then they would treat asylum seekers differently than "illegals," since it's legal to seek asylum. Finally, given the overwhelming nationalist rhetoric and practices of conservatives, it's plain to see that what's really bugging them is that these people are from another country. And conservatives don't want to be "replaced." And if conservatives were really about law and order, then there would be no modern Republican party at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ericdressen Also Revelation 21:8 said, "all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."
What you quoted is from the Psalms. It does NOT say that people who say there is no God will go to hell. There was no such thing as hell in the Old Testament. For the ancient Jews there was, at most, Sheol. And the ancient Jews had no Satan.
God is one God, to them, and is responsible for everything that happens. "Satan" is a Hebrew word for "adversary." Anyone who is against what you're doing is a satan. The word is an improper noun, and so not a name.
That's why Jesus told Peter, "Get behind me, satan." Peter was against Jesus going to Jerusalem and being crucified. So Peter was a satan to what Jesus needed to do.
Regardless, it stands that Jesus said calling someone a name was worthy of hellfire. And that's because you don't have love in your heart for that person, when you say that to them. And loving everyone is what Christianity is all about. In fact, Jesus said,
"By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35).
So you aren't a Christian by what you said here. You can still repent and change your ways, though. Return to Him, and He will return to you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jsesteves But how are they both promoting it? What are they saying? Let's review:
Republicans: Millions of mail-in ballots will cause a false election result. And, according to what Pence said in the video, they are prepared for this, having the Supreme Court, with Trump's new pick, ready to decide the matter.
Democrats: Here's what Trump is saying, and here's the proof that the million of ballots claim isn't true. So what's Trump up to? Seems like he's positioning himself to protest the election results, or worse.
That's just my general, quick recount of what I've seen--which, granted, is limited to my experience watching some of this. Is there more to it? Probably. But I don't see these two "promotions" of the idea as being at all equal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
First, don't get me wrong: The statues need to go; we need to change the names of those bases; and slavery was the most immoral thing our nation did, out of a long, sad history of immoral acts and institutions. That said, Lee was not a loser.
*
In the final days of the war, Lee didn't get the supplies or reinforcements he asked for, because there were none. The Confederacy never had much in the way of supplies, and should never have started the war, because of that. The citizens and troops ended up starving. There were "bread riots."
*
On the other hand, since the North produced all the goods, Grant had everything he needed. He played a chess-type waiting game with Lee, countering every move Lee's troops made.
*
Confederate soldiers knew it was a lost cause, and were deeply disturbed by reports of Sherman in the South. So they went AWOL by the dozens, scores, and hundreds, leaving Lee with fewer and fewer troops. Finally, when the promised supplies didn't come, Lee surrendered.
*
Bottom line: I have to say that Ana's portrayal of Lee was painful to watch. He was a hero on both sides of that war. After he signed the surrender to Grant, and was leaving on his faithful horse, Traveller, the Union troops lined up on both sides of the road, and cheered and saluted Lee.
*
I didn't know about Lee saying that stuff concerning slavery. Does it change anything for me? No. He was a great leader, and there were very, very few decent leaders in the Civil War--let alone great ones. The only reason he left the Union army, was to fight alongside his fellow Virginians.
2
-
2
-
First, Jesus said no one knows when the end will be: "not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows" (Matt. 24:36). So even if there was the imagined end of the world coming, you can't know when; not even Jesus could know, or the angels, but only God. Secondly, you'd have to take Revelations literally (which is absurd), and add to it a bunch of junk not even taken from the Bible (like Nostradamus and Left Behind): a cherry picking buffet. When "the end" that Jesus and the Revelation was talking about could just as easily have been the spiritual death and rebirth you feel, when you realize the wisdom of loving your neighbor, instead of hating them, and are so reborn.
Finally, even if we ignore all of that, and accept what this woman (and many others like her) believe, that the literal "day of the Lord" is near, then they should be happy about that. They shouldn't be fighting against the "signs of the times," such as, I dunno, Democrats or Bud Lite for example. They should be rejoicing that the literal God's literal kingdom is on the verge of literally joining with us on Earth, as it is in the literal Heaven. They shouldn't be fighting what they perceive as demons or the beast, or whatever. They should be singing and dancing, because their suffering is ostensibly over and Jesus is literally returning to reward them with a white horse, their own golden throne, and lots of sexy M&M's.
2
-
@britaom3299 "Jesus and his followers weren't running around saying "Agape! Agape!""
I didn't say they were. And while I applaud you knowing that they would've spoken Aramaic, you're also assuming this really happened: that the Jesus story really happened.
You're free to do so. The Bible can be interpreted all kinds of ways. But what we're talking about here, now, in this comment section, is how people TODAY do or don't follow what Jesus taught about love. Right?
So what he taught, i.e., what the character said IN THE TEXT (which is all we have to go on), is this idea of unconditional love for everyone. And since the TEXT (which is all we have to go on) was written in Greek, a specific Greek word was used.
I really don't know that I want to go into all the other crap you said. Chances are you aren't going to believe me, or even understand me, no matter what I do or say. Your mind seems made up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Republicans love mindless conspiracy theories. But they aren't even creative with it. Let's have some fun: Be creative and come up with an at least somewhat believable conspiracy; it doesn't have to involve the government. Just make it something an intelligent person won't sigh at with contempt. I'll go first....
Since conspiracies usually involve stuff the person doesn't know anything about, and I don't know anything about carburetors, my conspiracy will involve them. Now, since I want this to be more intelligent than the normal rubbish, I'll actually look up the basic definition first, then base my conspiracy on that: "A carburetor is a device used by a gasoline internal combustion engine to control and mix air and fuel entering the engine."
Okay....The way it's able to mix the fuel and air is really done by invisible, microscopic...penguins! Yes! Being microscopic, they don't need to live in the cold anymore, or go swimming. Instead they can fly now, being so light of mass. Fly, I tell you! And they mix the fuel and air in our carburetors for the purpose of powering our vehicles, because...they hate the large, actual penguins, and want climate change to destroy their habitats. And that vroom-vroom sound you hear from your vehicle is really billions of these microscopic, hateful penguins laughing maniacally! You heard it here first.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Slavers hired Africans to catch other Africans. So, the Africans wouldn't have caught other Africans to be sold into slavery, except that the white slavers paid them. Right? Follow me? And, more than that, it was "help me catch others, or become a slave yourself." Which would you do?
Also, reparations for released slaves had always been done. It just wasn't done in the United States. Reparations goes back to Biblical times, and is shown when Babylon released the Jews. And why? Because otherwise the released slaves would have no way to support themselves. And the reason they had no means was because the slave holders had held them captive, and made them work for free.
So the slave holders owed them back-pay, so to speak. And, more than that, it was an act of kindness. Remember kindness?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
When a person is upset, especially grieving or enraged, their reasoning ability is diminished. It's like being really tired, or intoxicated, but much worse, because there's no obvious reason to suspect that they're impaired. At best, this is what I'm seeing with so many of my fellow Dems. I'm upset too, grieving and enraged. But I know it. And I'm not trying to do any complicated thinking right now, or jumping to any conclusions. And I'm watching myself very closely to make sure I don't assume anything, because paranoid assumptions run rampant at such a time. The person feels under attack; it's fight or flight, us vs them. I'll tell you what I tell other conspiracy theorists, what cured me of conspiracies: Even if you're right, there's nothing you can do.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@faybrianhernandez2416 Ah, a verb form of disinformation. I never knew there was such a thing. My handlers? If there is such a vast conspiracy, run by rich, powerful, secretive men, what makes you believe that YOU, of all people, have somehow tapped into that big secret?
If such a conspiracy was underway, don't you think it highly unlikely that you would know about it? Or were you informed by someone else? How did you learn? How did they learn? Would that information not lose some of its truthfulness, as it was passed down the grapevine to you? How far away are you removed from that initial source--which is, obviously, some highly placed individual, who, certainly, wouldn't be playing you (or the people beneath him, and above you) for a fool?
Instead of concerning yourself with MY handlers, maybe you should think (not believe, but seek data) about how you're getting your information, and whether or not it is, in fact, YOU who are disinformed--which is actually how you spell it, but Youtube spell check doesn't recognize it.
2
-
@davidbarr4065 But that has nothing to do with a pandemic. It has to do with forsaking gatherings during a pandemic. And, yes, worship in spirit and in truth. The truth, indeed, the facts and science, is that people gathering in a church could touch the pews, which someone else could then touch; or they could spread Covid when singing, unless they don't sing, or, if they do, they keep their masks on, and stay six feet apart.
Plus, they are praying in church. All of what you say ignores the pandemic, when the pandemic is the whole point. No one is trying to make a law that people should never go to church. This isn't a war on the church, like the supposed war on Christmas. As Christians, loving your neighbor is equal to loving God. And you aren't loving your neighbor, if you risk infecting them, and killing them, with the Covid you (and others) might not know you have.
2
-
D. Almighty If people get infected in a church, and then leave church, and infect others, who have nothing to do with that church, then it is something to be interfered with. A church is not above the law.
And if you believe "mass hysteria...better describes our current situation than the word pandemic," then that is all the more reason why this threat, of church goers spreading Covid, should (and has been) taken seriously.
You say I should respect the rights of others. What about the lives of others? Spreading Covid in church, and getting infected by it, then spreading it to others outside of church: That doesn't sound like respect to me. And it certainly doesn't sound like respect for "even those you disagree with."
But, you and I don't make the law about public gatherings. Nothing we comment on Youtube will have any consequence on that law. I just wish we could quarantine people who don't want to quarantine, and make them stay around only each other. Unfortunately, after attending such super spreader locations, then can potentially infect others, who never chose to go to that church. Talk about mass hysteria.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nice theory. But it falls apart here: "You are blaming the victim instead of helping them ."
How do you suggest we do that? We can't appeal to them with science, facts, or empathy. We'd never convince them they were duped. And I say we can't do those things because we have tried. And it doesn't work. So, from your ostensible outsider's perspective, what do you suggest we do?
And I have to ask that because you didn't say. If you're going to critique something, at least add suggestions about how to fix the problem. And, by the way, you saying we aren't intelligent is NO DIFFERENT than what you claim we're doing to Trump supporters. Did you not consider that? Proof reading is not your enemy. And, by your logic, doesn't that mean "you are displaying no more intelligence" than we are, than Trump supporters are?
"your whole stick"
That should be "shtick." Again, proof reading is not (or should not) be your enemy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Trump's constant, stupid remarks make much more sense, when we realize he's speaking ONLY to his base: It's propaganda for them, and them alone. Trump supporters love to talk about how stupid "libtards" are. For them, it's not just that a Democrat's politics are not to their liking, but that they're stupid. This is, of course, projection. Their propaganda is that Democrats (or "the radical Left") are the complete opposite, the mirror image, of Trump supporters. So, in order for Trump's base to see themselves as smart, the other side must, by definition and necessity, be stupid.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
sb "the great Messiah barrack Hussein Obama thought Hilirary KKK Clinton was going to take over oops that didn't work out to well did it😂😂 that's how stupid Obama is he can't even win when he cheats and spies."
That's your response to the dumb conspiracy theory not being true? They tried to do what your conspiracy claimed, but failed? Isn't it just as likely, if not more, that your dumb conspiracy theory was BS? What's worse, it's actually happening now, with Trump, who, by his and Pence's own admission, are stacking the supreme court, in order to side with Trump, in case your new conspiracy--with the mail-in ballots being fake--means Trump doesn't get elected?
You're on the wrong side, either purposefully or not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@finjay21fj "They are hardly gurus, they're the new Roman Catholics, the latest medieval outrage"
As the poster before me said, and you ignored, scientists aren't intending to be gurus. They follow the scientific method. You should look up what that is, and how it eliminates the need for beliefs.
They are also not the new Roman Catholics, whatever that means. Science is not a religion. It isn't something you believe in, or worship. You can prove it, demonstrate it by as many tests as you wish to perform.
In medieval times, people were like the woman in the video: They followed their beliefs, or what the church told them. They did not follow science. The Catholic church had Galileo arrested and put on house arrest for the the remainder of his life, because he went against their beliefs: He demonstrated, with his telescope, that there were moons orbiting Jupiter--which meant they weren't orbiting the earth, which meant that the Catholic church's insistence on an earth-centered universe was wrong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
After all the investigation into her emails and Benghazi, the FBI didn't raid Hillary's home. Why? Because if there was anything to be found out about Hillary, Republicans would have trotted it out by now. Instead, the whole thing was obviously to defame her. And it worked, to the extent that she lost the electoral college, but still won the popular vote. Kudos!
But I'd like to remind you of the present, in which the FBI raided Trump's home. I'm sure you can spin that into whatever conspiracy theory you like, paying no attention to the conspiracy the Republicans perpetuated--which was to sell Trump as the messiah. He isn't. He's an idiot, bigoted, prejudicial, classist, racist, born with a silver spoon, who is only interested in hiding his own inadequacies by making himself more powerful.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The war on Christmas is a big deal to Fox News viewers, because Fox News invented it. But there is something more.
When minsters were first visiting the Native American tribes (way back in the day), they wanted to "bring Jesus to the savages to save their souls." (There are many fascinating diaries we still have from those ministers.) Of course all the natives reacted differently to these "black robes," as some called the minsters. But one stands out from my reading:
So a tribe had welcomed the black robe, and set down to eat and talk with him. Through an interpreter, the black robe told about the virgin birth, the crucifixion, and rising on the third day. The tribal elders listened, and, when the black robe was done, they said, "That's a good story. Now we tell you our creation story, and about the coyote, and...."
But the black robe interrupted them, and heatedly told them that Jesus was Lord, the one and only God. And he wouldn't listen to anything more from the tribal elders about their take on spirituality.
The war on Christmas goes back at least that far. It's really about intolerance from so-called Christians, and about how close-minded and selfish they are. Their story matters, not yours; their holiday, their Jeebuz.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Dan P Sure, if you cherry pick, and don't actually read the Old Testament. I could easily cheery pick Jesus, and prove...well, anything I wanted. For example, randomly, I'll show that Jesus was for violence:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).
And he was against the idea of family!
"For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:35).
Of course, Jesus wasn't for violence, or against the family. But I can still cherry pick, and claim he was. Do you know that most all of Jesus' teachings came from the Old Testament? I mean, of course, he was Jewish. Right? These teachings came not just from the Old Testament, but God in the OT, including the "golden rule":
"'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD" (Leviticus 19:18).
Now, I know why yours is a common perception. But, when you read through more of the OT, you see God reacting to the Israelites. More, you see God, as written by the ancient Israelites. There's always more going on than we think. Don't ever assume otherwise.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Bible was written (Old Testament, at least) roughly 7,000 years ago, on the other side of the world. And that means, of course, in another language, for people with a completely different culture.
Imagine if those people, back then, in Palestine, heard one of your favorite songs. What would they make of it? They'd have no context for it. None at all. Now what if your favorite song was badly translated, through several other languages, and millennia, before reaching them? So that it was a garbled mess.
And then some moron, wanting to simplify that incredible music from the future, just accepted one of those messed up words in the translation. That's you, @thedrumfreak97.
2
-
2
-
So much today is about PR, sound bites, or the title in a link. If a person can't get the gist of what you're saying, in a sentence or two, then they'll go to someone else, who'll give them what they want. The GOP and conspiracy theories are really good at this. Democrats, scientists, or anyone whose ideas require you to think, are really bad at it; and their ideas aren't really suited for the length and width of a phone screen. Here are some examples of bad PR.
Global Warming: Remember the guy who brought the snowball into Congress? That one move eclipsed everything else. Even today, with the winter storm in Texas, a lot of people dismiss it because of it's title. Changing it to Climate Change only fanned the flames, and was too little, too late.
Defund the Police: A lot of people believe we actually want to give the police no money, at all. I've seen commercials of empty police stations, and a lone answering machine, telling the people that the police can't help, since they received no funding.
I could go on, but I'm already way past the succinctness needed to capture the average modern reader.
2
-
2
-
@Greyskymorning395 Here's something interesting:
"According to an early 1968 Harris Poll, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr died with a public disapproval rating of nearly 75%...."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/04/04/martin-luther-king-jr-50-years-assassination-donald-trump-disapproval-column/482242002/
""He was not searching for popularity," Clayborne Carson, director of the Martin Luther King Jr. Institute at Stanford, told Newsweek. "What he was trying to put forward was what he thought was the right course of action.""
https://www.newsweek.com/martin-luther-king-jr-was-not-always-popular-back-day-780387
"But during his life, King faced the suspicion and outright animosity that a swath of America has often bestowed on protest leaders, especially those advocating against racial injustice."
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/in-1968-nearly-a-third-of-americans-said-mlk-brought-his-killing-on-himself_n_5ac51373e4b0aacd15b7d37b
All of those articles are worth reading. I'm not sure if the point is obvious, as it is to me. Permit me to paraphrase, and summarize: A lot of white people have always gotten nervous about protests arguing for racial justice; this was true even of Dr. King, whom I see as possibly the only American saint.
How much harder is it today, for similar such people, that protesters point out how we still have racial injustice in America, in the 21st century, even after all that King did--and all the streets named after him.
As King said, “The time is always right to do the right thing.” Now, some may think the time, or the way BLM and others protest is wrong. But the protesters don't. King didn't. Food for thought.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What I find telling about those conservatives is that not one has said, "Maybe we were wrong about Trump." Let's do the shoe-on-the-other-foot thing: What if this had happened to Obama (Obamna)?
Same details of what Trump did. So while running for President, Obamna recordings surfaced of him saying 'grab them by the' you-know-what. And reports came to light of him having been with a pron (sp) star. But he denied it, etc, and so on. And then we find out he was indicted for making hush money payments to that woman, whom he then claimed he would never be with, because she was a "horse face." (Was that supposed to be proof?)
Republicans would have exploded, talking super nova, especially if Democrats had touted Obamna as being a devout Christian, sent by Jebus to save us from the Shallow State.
If that had happened, if Obamna had done any or all that Trump has done, I would never have voted for such an obvious snake oil salesman, to start with. But, if I did, I would certainly (at some point along the way, January 6th for example) have admitted that I might have been, maybe, possibly, dead stinking wrong.
2
-
2
-
You people saying China did this, and China did that: First, what you're doing is called Whataboutism, a logical fallacy. My comment was how Trump makes no sense, except to his base. So, when Trump starts in with his dumb "China virus" thing, we all recognize it as propaganda, aimed at his base, to give them their marching orders, what they have to believe and parrot, to anyone speaking out against Trump.
Secondly, I'm guessing that your Whataboutism statements mean to explain why Trump is being so nationalist (not really racist, but racists don't care) against China. That's the same sort of argument Trump used, when he bombed Qassem Soleimani. Turns out there was no imminent threat, as Trump claimed, so the reason was retconned, and became "because he was a bad man."
So, Trump is speaking against China, blaming...what? the country, the people, what exactly? do you even know? that they somehow, created the Coronavirus, how? by being Chinese? All of that distracts and deflects from the immediate problem, which is how the Trump administration has (mis)handled the Coronavirus, going to back January, when he very well knew ahead of time about it. And that, therefore, as President, he is directly responsible for what has happened, and what will happen--in the country for which he makes the decisions. And, if you voted for him, and still support him, you, too, are responsible; really, it's no wonder, therefore, that you're trying to, loudly, blame another country.
So spare me the whatabout-China fallacy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Trump has to talk tough about China, because he convinced his base that China invented Coronavirus, and funds the deep state--or whatever stupid conspiracy theory. Covid 19 is China's fault, and it's Obama's fault: Everyone is responsible for it, except Trump, who takes no responsibility at all. Hence, China is bad, ripping us off, etc.
Trump doesn't make any sense here, because he's pretending that his conspiracy theory is real, to satisfy his base, and keep them from blaming him. It's like lying about the lie you told, to cover up the other lie you told.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I feel the same, Adi Mart. But I also understand why they're acting that way. Good Christians aren't ostentatious. But bad ones are: They are in everyone's face screaming, with neon lights flashing. And when such people are in government, or vote for people who will be like that in government, then their bad religious practices become everyone's problem.
But, yes, my fellow liberals are extremely hateful of the Bible, not just religion, but any mention of the Bible at all. And it's sad, as they should be intelligent enough to differentiate between hypocritical people of bad faith, and honest people who do good.
One of the important things to remember: "Forgive them, they know not what they do."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Twohn_1013 No such thing as good guys, or bad: only people who sometimes do good, and sometimes do bad. There are exceptions, like people who enjoy doing what they know is bad, and vice versa. But, for the most part, we're just people.
That's the problem with all this tribal partisanship. Progressives and Republicans are individual people, not a one-description-fits-all singular person, whom one knows, and likes or hates.
I can't tell you what Trump meant. I'm not a mind reader. And neither are you. He was weirdly vague, as he tends to be, leaving what he said to be--for some people--open to interpretation.
However, when he said later that he was being sarcastic, and trolling the reporters, or that he was joking, he obviously did not mean that we should do "something like" injecting, or injecting something like disinfectant. If he did, he would have said that's what he meant. Follow me?
And, afterwards, the people who make Lysol felt the need to put out warnings, for no one to inject their product. And health care professionals spoke out, and Trump said it was sarcasm or a joke.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You know that "national socialism" (i.e., Nazism) is different than "socialism," right? (Nazis were historically against socialists.) Surely you're aware that "democratic socialism," which is what Bernie is more inclined to, is also different than "socialism."
I know that takes doing some homework, and isn't as catchy, and trolling, as your compact meme. But, hey, we're living in an alternative time, when ignorance = absolute, unquestioned knowledge. Just be sure to not asphyxiate in that bubble.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What makes any average, run of the mill person believe that they know the secret plots of powerful figures? And the "teacher's union" would have to be powerful, indeed, to carry out such a conspiracy. Somehow, their plans and machinations have eluded law enforcement at all levels, not to mention the individual teachers who might not be on board for such a thing. And yet, this woman believes she has discovered this dastardly hidden truth.
I'll never understand that about conspiracy people. Not only that, but they then go blab about it on social media, or on the news. What if the all-powerful conspirators are watching, or have spies who're watching? To protect their plot, they surely wouldn't allow this woman to remain free. And yet she seems to not be worried about it at all. I'd be terrified if I learned about such a thing. I'd never breathe a word of it, because the conspirators would...do who knows what. Kill me? Kidnap me and brainwash me? Turn me into an alien-human hybrid?
These nutbars should be committed, and never allowed out of the insane asylum again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bobcarter5205 "Pretty convenient to desire money you are not personally owed."
Not personally owed? Really? All right. Let's imagine a Monopoly game. Now, at some point, very early on, some/most of the other players took all your money, all your houses and hotels (even the one on Baltic Ave), and you weren't allowed to get any money for...hmm...let's say 1/4th of the game time.
Finally, much later, you're allowed to start making money again. They didn't give you back your money, or any money at all. So you have to start from scratch. Sure, you can work for them for a while, giving them most of your money, and keeping a small amount yourself.
Toward the end of the game, the people who did that to you are, of course, filthy rich. While you're still struggling catch up.
And yet you'd still think you aren't personally owed anything?
2
-
2
-
@bobcarter5205 "Thank you."
For what? Saying it's hilarious that you claiming to be African American is why you claim to be an expert on reparations, and why there shouldn't be any? It's not hilarious because you're an expert on comedy. It's hilarious that you believe that matters at all.
Even if you are African American, which we have no way to confirm, that doesn't mean you speak for everyone--even all African Americans.
Besides, I wonder if you're taking the reparations thing too literally? Maybe part of what that means, and what we mean when we use the term, is repaying the descendants of the slaves. After all, as per my Monopoly analogy, there weren't given a a fair playing field.
But what we're also talking about is recognizing the racism and skewed playing field of today. To fix a problem, we first have to admit a problem exists. And unless you're a well-to-do African American, whose parents and grandparents were also well off, then surely you would have experienced, or at least heard about, some of that skewed playing field.
So what you're actually fighting against, and advocating for by fighting against it, is ignoring the problem which was never fixed. Reparations were kicked down the road from generation to generation, like a family heirloom.
That, my friend, is history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikegoetz3184 Now that you provided the quote, I found it. You should have done that to start with. He also said there were "very fine people on "both sides."
Remember that? Way back in Charlottesville? So you could point that out, and claim he said the protesters were good people, so why do the protesters not like Trump.
Of course, you'd be leaving out that he also said the supremacist Nutzies were good people. That's what you're doing here.
You say, 'Look he told everyone to be peaceful.' But you ignore that he wanted them to "show strength," and "stop the steal," and how Trump had been filling their heads with lies and hatred for Dems for years.
Finally, did they go peacefully, and make their voices heard? Or did they beat and smash their way past the police and guards, beat and smash their way through the barricades, through the doors, breaking windows, chasing police officers through the halls, actually defecating in Congress and rubbing it on the walls?
Because that doesn't sound "peaceful and patriotic" to me. That sounds to me like you're an apologist for treasonous behavior.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'd agree with you, Kurt, but a lot of times Christian conservatives quote the Old Testament. Not Jesus. They're especially fond of Leviticus. Ever read through that one? It's mostly a list of laws for the Levites, the priestly tribe of Israel. But it also has laws that the priests are to enforce among the people, like stoning to death a disrespectful child.
If they did stick strictly to Jesus, then they'd see things like: "Put away your sword, for he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword"; "love one another, in this way will all men know you are my disciples." But even in the Old Testament we get things like: "Do not vex a foreigner, because you are all sojourners with me." And the Golden Rule comes from the OT, like most of Jesus' teachings.
And, in the OT, God is one god, and there is "no one beside me." No Satan to blame for banning books. “See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand." "All the earth is mine," said God. All of it. So these numskulls banning books and abortion are banning what God made.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jimbob3030 "The bible gives instructions on who to enslave, how much you can beat them, how long you can keep them"
First, you didn't give examples. If I'm to know what you're talking about, I need the quotes. Secondly, since I'm assuming you know/believe the Bible was written by men, then surely men of that time (who had slaves) would have recorded their directions for such things. And those directions, for some reason, were included in the Bible.
"Everything that was said previously is correct."
That remains to be seen. You certainly didn't prove it. Nor did you take into account that people who owned slaves wrote the parts of the Bible that talk about owning slaves. Different people wrote different parts of the Bible, all with different goals. There are some parts that claim God said what color the curtains should be in the tabernacle, for instance. You think God cares about colors?
"The god that is described to you when you sit in the pews is radically different from what it actually says in the pages."
I do not sit in any pews. Not for a very long time. But I've read the full Bible over a dozen times. I've read study Bibles, commentaries, and written nearly 50 essays, myself, on the Gospels. So when I call your claims into question, it is because I already know the answer. I'd just like to see you try and prove it.
"I never understood how people can believe but never read the book they think is so important."
I am not a believer. But, as I said, I know the Bible very well. And I look forward to you trying again to prove your claim, as you failed spectacularly this time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stephendelwiche3949 IF Daily Beast does have the receipt, the picture of the check, the get well card with his signature on it, and the signature matches, and the check came from his bank account, and the receipt checks out, then...yes, we do have the proof.
I guess your problem is that we haven't seen these things yet? I guess that's a point to be made. But it seems all that would be easy to verify, and if we haven't seen it yet, then it's because they haven't verified it, or whoever is in charge has decided we aren't to see it yet.
But saying there is no proof is a bit premature. Oh, and the money did add up. They went over that part.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelbard420 "I never said you can dismiss whatever you don’t understand as Gods plans. Not even close to what I said."
Well, let's see. Your original comment:
"I think asking any one to justify the actions of God is silly. God can do as he pleases and sees fit. He has a plan and a purpose for everyone even though we may not see it."
And, for the record, let's look again at my comment, to which you replied the first quote above:
"You can't just dismiss whatever you don't understand as God's plan....Because that means you never come to understand anything."
If God does what he pleases, and we can't see his plan and purpose, then doesn't that mean the person who believes such a thing can dismiss anything at all as being part of that plan? Because it's silly to question God's actions?
While not word for word, my understanding of what you wrote certainly "comes close" to what you said. Feel free to correct my understanding, unless my understanding is part of God's plan, and so is silly to question it. After all, isn't everything part of God's plan?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Wait: "Obama is pulling the strings" is a very different excuse from "I was being sarcastic." So which is it? Well, remember Trump said, "I never kid." That was one of the few times he spoke the truth, during his failed single term as winner of the electoral college. So both of those excuses or theirs are garbage.
A simple application of Occam's Razor is all we need. Trump has been going on about Biden's supposed mental health problems, because he needed to project onto Biden. Even if we assume Trump has no cognitive failures whatsoever, he's still barking mad, completely insane, a compulsive liar, narcissist, and a total sociopath. But when you add the cognitive failures on top of that, and his really low intelligence (which is only getting worse with age), and his vindictive approach to loyalty, he's a clear and present danger.
2
-
Does anyone remember #walkaway, and how it was Russian propaganda, to influence Democratic voters to give up, because the whole thing is hopeless, and walk away from voting in the Mid-terms? Though I understand arguments against Biden (personally, he's not my pick of the litter), I wonder if some of these anti-Biden commenters are continuing #walkaway, by showing how hopeless the situation is: one demented candidate vs. another demented candidate.
If you think the Russian propaganda machine is going to "sit out" this election, you better think again. If you think Trump supporters are going to wise up, and not vote for Trump, because he's obviously unfit to hold office, think again. Let me break it down for you: I would vote for anyone over Trump. Period. End of discussion. We'll deal with Biden when his presidency begins. We'll try to improve on the next president, and so on. But Trump must go, whatever the cost.
And if you #walkaway, or write in Bernie's name, or anything but vote against Trump, you're harming the country, and the world.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mogait I know you have to tell yourself that the reason we don't like Trump is some sort of TDS. But there are actual reasons. Sure, I don't like anything about him, personally: voice, weird af hair, that orange face paint, his random cruelty, his petty vindictiveness, his butchering of the English language, his constant lying. And so on.
But if he did actually do something worthwhile for humanity, any sort of positive contribution to anyone, then I would overlook that. You think the great people of the world's history were all sunshine and roses, personally speaking? The father of physics, Sir Isaac Newton, was an alchemist, which is a pseudo-science. Abe Lincoln used to talk to his dead son, and threatened to put his wife in the insane asylum.
You don't throw the baby out with the bath water. But Trump hasn't done doodily squat, except for tax breaks to the super rich. That's the only thing that was in any way positive to anyone. Everything else was negative. So he never did anything like "inventing the internet." Stop deluding yourself about this TDS: It's just plain denial.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DemsJugglingLs "Apparently you haven't seen the impact 'diversity hiring' has made. It has made it to where a white male will get passed up for a job or a promotion despite having all the requirements, for a minority that doesn't."
I have seen this. And I know it happens. The point isn't whether or not it happens. The point is that it happens because of centuries of racism, sexism, and nationalism. I wish it hadn't swung so far back the other way. Bigotry exists in most people. That's life. So now diversity hiring has to be balanced again.
"And the white male can't sue for discrimination."
Neither could all the people who were discriminated against by white men for centuries sue anyone. Maybe the poetic justice of it is lost on you?
"It has not made businesses operate better in any capacity."
That seems like an absolute statement, with proof or figures. So it's probably not true.
"And you can't tell me that some right wing conspiracy because I've seen it firsthand."
I have too. So you can't tell me it's a left-wing conspiracy either. We are in new territory, trying to figure out how to make everything fair and equal for everyone. Mistakes have been made. Mistakes will always be made. Society is evolving.
"But yeah, happy virtue signaling pseudo-holiday-teenth to you."
I'm not virtue signalling. I've been as upfront and honest with you as possible, even though I know you're just a troll. Virtue signalling does exist. But that doesn't mean every single possible instance of people seeking and wanting equality is just hypocrisy. That's right-wing propaganda. There really are people who want everyone to be equal. And it's happening. The omelette is being made, and eggs will by necessity be broken. I'm a white male too, and a teacher. I've seen diversity hiring used against me.
But I'm also not selfish. I see the big picture, of which I'm just a part. But everyone is a part of it. And it's time we all acknowledge that. Happy troll-teenth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@frogking5573 So, from 1995 to 2003, there was a UN program that traded Iraqi oil for food, to feed the starving Iraqi. It gets really complicated, what actually happened: the Iraqis got money; some of the UN people involved with Oil-for-food got money; Iraq sold the oil elsewhere; other parties used the money to buy UN influence. It's a mess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#Beneficiaries
But your argument, that the UN starved those people, in order to feed them, and get good press, doesn't hold up at all. The only connection is the United Nations, 17 years ago.
Can we then blame Trump for what GW Bush did? They're both Presidents, and looking at the same period of time. No. That's stupid.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@elloowu6293 "My crazy regressive aunt has blue hair and her name is Karen."
Hi, Ello. So nice to see you again. Nice anecdotal evidence there. Tell me, is she a lesbian? Because having blue hair, alone, isn't what we're talking about.
Granted, @Tone Rivera only said that much: "You're the same account who just theorized blue-haired conservatives exist in America."
But this is about blue-haired lesbians. Huge difference. You do have a point though: Some LGBTQ are conservatives, and some aren't.
"Among all LGBTQ voters, 81% voted for President-elect Biden and 14% for President Trump. Among first-time LGBTQ voters, 86% voted for President-elect Biden, 10% for President Trump."
The takeaway here seems to be that not every LGBTQ is conservative or democratic. Still, they are (or were in 2020) 5 times (roughly) more likely to NOT be conservative.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
David, sir, I hate to play the context card. He was talking about Obamna (sp), and it's from February of this year (6 months before Harris accepted the nomination. From Snopes: "While telling a story about Air Force One and the call sign for when a U.S. president is aboard the aircraft, Trump referenced its age and also former President Barack Obama, telling the BCF audience, "I love this great equipment. Although the plane's 32 years old, I ordered new ones, and I saved $1.7 billion from what Obama was willing to pay. I have to tell you, [he's a] Black president, but I got $1.7 billion less. Would you rather have the Black president or the white president who got $1.7 billion off the price? I think they want the white guy right now. Got $1.7 billion off the price."" (I added the bold to show what was in this selectively edited clip.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anthonyelledge7475 No originals exist because it was 2-4 thousand years ago, written on leaves, by an extremely primitive culture. The Old Testament was originally written only in Hebrew; the New, in Greek. Later the OT was put into Greek. It was a little less than 2,000 years ago that the texts began to be translated into other languages--once Rome took it up, and the Christian theocratic empire spread.
Before it was written down, the OT existed only as individual songs, sung by traveling minstrels. So you'd have the one about Abraham and his son, or the one about Adam and Eve, etc.
Yes, there were additions over time. Most famously is the story about the adulterous woman, when Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It's not in the oldest surviving copy. In the second oldest, someone wrote briefly about it in the margins. But the one after that has the story included in the text.
2
-
It's sad. Think of it from a Trumpist/conspiracy theorist point of view: The Deep Space conspired to remove Trump, who was the only person in the world capable of stopping them. So, of course, even though Trump stacked the courts with hundreds of judges, those judges were still compromised by the Deep State. Face it, if Trumpists believe that "Libs" are killing babies, and that those they don't kill, they use in a child-sex ring (which is, at least partly) run out of the back of a pizza shop, then what won't they believe?
I think all Trumpists need to be treated as people rescued from a brainwashing cult. They should be de-programmed, re-programmed, banned from watching/listening to ring-wing media, required to take beginning level college physics repeatedly (until they get at least a B), and, generally, enrolled for life in continuing adult education. They are far too stupid to vote responsibly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ericagray8402 "I just believe biden is not appropriate with some young girls that have visited whitehouse, Trump hasn’t behaved that way"
*
Did you watch the video? I see nothing in your comments addressing the contents of the video. You go straight to "what about Biden." Whataboutism aside, Trump might not have behaved "that way," meaning specifically, but how he has behaved--from beauty contest contestants complaining about him walking in on them while they're changing, to "grab them by the p---y," to "blood coming out of her 'whatever'," to all the stuff in this video--is so horrible, that he cannot be defended, even by whataboutism.
*
Religious people (and everyone with at least common decency) should be calling for Trump's head on a platter. One thing for sure, Biden "hasn't behaved that way." There is no comparison to how the two of them have "behaved," or to their cognitive capacity, or their orange face paint, or their belittling of the press--or anyone else who doesn't just simply agree with them.
*
There is no comparison to how Trump, and his administration, have utterly failed in their response to crisis--whether hurricanes (including Puerto Rico), civil rights (including immigrant children), and the number of people who have died from the Pandemic (which amounts to more than twice those who died during 10 years of the Vietnam War), due to Trump's downplaying of the virus, his lack of ppe, his absurd "China ban," and his politicization of the virus.
*
And this is just barely scratching the surface, concerning all the garbage Trump has done. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. So stop it. You're complaining about a dust mote in Biden's eye, when there's a log in Trump's eye.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikeFlatbird729 "but galileo you mention um was a devout christian So was newton" Yes they were. Newton, while devout, was not considered orthodox, but heterodox. Galileo was also devout, but was considered a heretic by the Church, who accused him of rejecting the scriptures. I'm not sure why you wanted to specify that, or why you kept referring to scientists as "so called scientists." That's like calling a car, a "so called car." Oh, but after reading through what you believe science is, I see now. I don't know that it's worth having an exchange, as how you describe science is incorrect. And I doubt you'd concede a word to the contrary. You seem pretty set and immovable. I majored in physics and write essays on the gospels. So I know what I'm talking about. You, on the other hand....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Think of how Trump hasn't gotten over his defeat in the last election. Now multiply that by several million. That's the way these people have held onto the Confederacy. Their families passed this idea of secession down through the decades, like a family heirloom. This whole thing about stocking up on weapons, to defend against a tyrannical government: Where do you think that comes from?
As a lover of history, I've always had two big problems with the Civil War. Why was Lincoln so determined to keep the Union together, that he went to war with people who obviously don't want to be American? And, secondly, why did he want to allow them back in, as fellow countrymen, with no punishments?
I accept that Lincoln was brilliant, and I'm clueless. He was thinking of the Union, when all I see is a bunch of dumb, violent, crybaby losers, whose fetishistic idealization of those four years has made them psychotic. Of course, not all southerners are that way. I'm from NC, and never felt like that about those traitors.
And, by the way, the Confederacy fell apart. They were starving, rioting because they couldn't even get bread. Their monetary system was worthless, and, most of the time, just used Union money. Their leaders couldn't allow them all the freedoms they wanted, because their dreams of freedom were unrealistic: states rights, limited government. Nothing worked. Sherman put them out of their misery: It was a march of mercy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This story is so...American! As they said, these weren't regular, normal fireworks. These were some kind of homemade-July 4th armageddon coke cans, and who knows what all. Since fireworks were illegal, I guess they had to make their own. So there's that: illegal, so make your own...so American.
Then the cops seized it all. Too bad I missed that part of the story. Imagine the undercover work needed to find out about this "cache," and the planning it took to raid and capture these coke cans filled with homemade freedom. So there's the whole undercover fireworks bust.
To cap it off, as only American cops can, the whole cache blows up under their noses, in their ultra containment iron box. This is so amazing, and American, and stupid.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Maybe what the caller meant was that Trump is a serious threat. Yes, he's a clown, with his freaky hair and orange face, but he cheats and lies, and his supporters worship him. He has the backing of right-wing militias, and an army of trolls on the internet. And, so far, he has walked between the rain drops, facing no consequences: Each thing he did (since mocking the reporter's physical issues) should have been enough to be thrust from the spotlight forever.
Further, he has no conscience, or empathy, or the slightest interest in helping those who suffer. On top of all that, he is President, with more power than anyone like him has ever had. I think the caller has a point: Biden shouldn't play around with Trump, like the tortoise and the hare. Biden needs to be better prepared for the next debate, with a retort for all the usual Trumpisms: like how Trump "closed the borders, preventing 2 million deaths." 47 people flew in from China, during Trump's big closing. He needs to be ready for Trump's heckling, and he should squash Trump like a bug--all while being a statesman, with honor and love for our country, and detestation for those who threaten us.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@georgyboi4487 Thank you for your kind words. And I must say, Right back at you! I usually have to struggle reading another person's long post. But you're a good writer, who has obviously had lots of practice. And your mind is sharp, and able to arrange your ideas. Writing reminds me of chess sometimes. :)
Yes, as I went on, my focus was slipping. It's a pity, because I'm up late, instead of being up early: So my mind has begun its shutdown process.
You're one of the very few people I've come across online whose writing I genuinely enjoy. And, frankly, you're smart enough make me wonder if I can keep up. That's a good, by the way. I like that very much.
However, my gas is running out. I'm perhaps an hour or two away from sleep. I saw a couple of items in what you wrote that I wanted to respond to. But I'm tired enough that I don't even remember what they were now. I will get back to you though.
As an aside: Are you a writer? And are you a big reader? I've written poetry, song lyrics, short stories, novellas, novels, and essays on everything from Quantum Physics to Genghis Khan to the Gospels.
I have a dozen bookcases. Some of my favorite writers: Kurt Vonnegut, Henry Miller, Joy Harjo, Douglas Adams, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Robert E. Howard, Emily Dickinson. And my favorite historical period to read and study is 19th century America, especially Native Americans.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I would love to get a complete review of all the lies and disinformation that Trump supporters believe. Can you imagine? We know that Trump told 30,573 lies in his four years as President. That's an average of roughly 10 lies per day. But what about Fox News, and all the talk radio, right-wing forums, and other people in the Trump administration?
If we are generous, and say there were 60,000 lies told by the right wing during those four years alone, then imagine the mind of a Trump supporter. I'd be hard pressed to name 30,000 scientific facts. Maybe I could, but I've never tried to list them. But what if all those facts were lies? What if (instead of the acceleration due to gravity on earth's surface is 9.8 meters per second squared), in that particular fact slot, I had substituted the conspiracy lie about the basement of that pizza parlor? Remember that one? Guy broke into the place, gun in hand, ready to free the captured babies in the basement---only to discover that pizza place had no basement. Add another 59,999 lies to that.
It's no wonder they're voting for Trump, Hoebert, and Greene, ready for another civil war, believing that vaccines magnetize them. Remember that one? What is it like when all your facts are lies? What does that do to the human brain? We should really declare a national health emergency.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rhinosauserous Diversity hiring exists. Okay. Yes, it does. Was Vice President Harris a diversity hire? We don't know. We can guess. But I don't like guessing, as it tends to be confirmation bias. The point isn't whether or not diversity hiring exists (because it does), but that what Republicans ignore is that DIVERSITY HIRING EXISTS FOR A REASON.
And that's because people like these Republicans have not hired the best people for the job based on merit, over the preceding centuries. It is precisely because of their racist, sexist, nationalist, bigoted practices that diversity hiring became necessary. Do some people take that too far now, ignoring a straight, white male, when they can hire an African-American lesbian? You bet.
But don't act like this is happening in a vacuum, solely because of what the Dems did by themselves. As usual, they're cleaning up the mess created by bigots. The diversity hiring needs to be balanced. And let's hope it doesn't tip back the other way again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Carson's argument, if I understand it, is that he doesn't want to "obliterate" the rights of abused hetero women in shelters, which would happen (for some, apparently) if they allowed trans women into said shelters. So to not obliterate the rights of hetero women, he denies equal rights to abused trans women, who would want to stay at said shelter. Then he says he wants to not deny any woman's rights.
(1) He's denying equal rights to trans women, so that (2) he can guarantee the rights of however many/few hetero women stay at those shelters, and are offended (somehow) by the trans women. So he IS "obliterating" the rights of some, for others, any way you slice it. And he hasn't fixed this issue in three years.
To me, seems like Carson is the problem, not hetero or trans women. He isn't doing his job. Fire him, and replace him with someone who (somehow) fixes the issue.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jefflibby6680 "I will always believe in my government, this is what you want to believe, we conservatives will remain strong for this country. We are not changing it you are. We will never be a commy country."
So, my question to you, essentially, was, Isn't this just what you believe. And you dismiss it, and turn it back on me? Do you really believe in your government, with President Biden? Or do you just believe in those who are against him? Are you strong for the country, or for your own party? And are you sure anyone is trying to turn the country into communism? Because, if you're wrong, and you're going by that assumption, then you don't believe in your government, or your country. Right?
If I were you, I'd double-check all my facts. And decide what you really believe, and not just what you believe that you believe.
2
-
@shawncorbin742 "You're a big fan of copy and paste eh???"
Well, copy/paste allows me to show you why , exactly, it is I'm replying to you, and to what I'm referring. Otherwise, as in the case of this post of yours, the reader would have no idea what I'm talking about.
Sure, I could look through the 60+ posts in this thread. But, as is my case here, I might still not know what you're talking about.
When I copy paste quotes from links, it shows the reader what I'm talking about. Then, since I also provide the link, they can then search with "find on this page" the quote I pasted, and see the further context.
Also, with copy/paste, I can refer the person I'm replying to back to what they had already posted, such as this:
"Informed people look like crazy people to ignorant people. Wise to remember that."
Pretty much. Good day.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@VictusG "Notice that neither of you called me a liar."
That's confirmation bias again. You're assuming, since neither of us called you a liar, that we must agree with you. See why that's a logical fallacy?
"Actually watching content you disagree with instead of running from it. Who does that?"
Trolls, for one, and people who hate watch. Let's look at your original post again:
"When was the last time this channel held any criticism towards the current President or of any Democratic politician in general? Better yet, has this channel ever criticized someone on the left? One of the worst echo chambers I’ve ever seen."
I notice how you didn't say anything about this video. Your comment could have been for any video, on any channel you disagree with.
I tell you this, I wouldn't go to Fox News, or any of those others--not for all the money in the world. And I certainly wouldn't comment what you wrote here. Why? Because it's obviously only going to attract negative attention. And who only wants to attract negative attention?
You certainly aren't inviting neutral feedback to your post. In fact, your comment is guaranteed to only get negative feedback. And that means your either trolling, or extremely bad at starting a conversation. Which is it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fluxrider7027 "Democrats who say that there is no crisis at our southern border..."
@Joe-Dead didn't say there was "no crisis," but that "the border IS secure." What you wrote is therefore a straw man. Also, you talked about assuming when people are "pro-Trump, pro-Maga." If a person parrots the MAGA talking points, then they're MAGA. It's not hard.
For example, the OP wrote that Biden would not "secure the border." And they're really angry about it. They also took time to include the disclaimer that they were a "democrat." Usually, a person who voted for a Democratic candidate won't identify themselves by whom they voted for. That's MAGA who does that.
As for the border crisis, MAGA is pumped full of disinformation about the border every day. They say the border isn't secure, and that people are pouring in, with no one to challenge or process any of them. Further, MAGA claims these people are young men of military age, implying they are either a secret invasion force, or here to vote for Democrats.
So when any of that junk is mentioned, you know it's MAGA. You can tell a tree by its fruit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
cynthia houser "so you stay up on that horse of yours, do ur own homework cause I ain't doin it for you and have a blessed day.."
Thank you. I hope you enjoy your horse too. I did my homework. You can fact check it all.
"We found no public records or credible sources contradicting Omar’s account of her past, nor any substantive evidence corroborating claims that Elmi is her brother or that their marriage was otherwise fraudulent. In addition, some of the claims offered in support of the rumor don’t seem to add up."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-marry-brother/
There have been so many conspiracy theories floated about her. She didn't cause the unrest, but is, rather, the focus of it. She gets daily death threats because of it.
But let's just assume it's all true. So what? Who are you to throw stones? Who are they to threaten her life? What does her brother have to do with how she governs? What does how she talks about the Israeli government (not the Jews, mind you, the government) have to with anything?
All of that, all the lies, and misrepresentation, all the hatred directed toward her, serves the purpose of justifying itself--when, really, there is no justification. That's the point of talking about love and hate here.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
For Trump, the reality tv character, it's all about the optics, the presentation, and appearance. He wanted it to appear to Americans, on their TVs, that Coronavirus wouldn't come here; then he wanted everyone watching his show to think, It'll just go away; it's nothing. And so on. This is really happening. Accepting that can be jarring to some of us. But Trump can't accept it, because he lives in a TV show inside his head, and he refuses to turn it off, ever.
That's why super human Trump (who's really fat and stupid) has personally beaten Covid, within 24 hours of catching it, and could have done so without any medication. Stay tuned for the next hair-brained/heroic antics of Captain Cheeto!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
At the very least, Fox viewers (in order to watch and like Fox) are gullible, mean spirited, unable to tell fact from fantasy, uninterested in learning any facts (as they could easily fact check what they're told), and so actually really agree with Fox. That's the thing. They not only enjoy what they're being fed, but it satisfies them as no other food can.
We're talking sick puppies here: truly gone fishing, bats in the belfry, a few slices short of a pizza, bonkers, and barking mad.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A dem Trump? No. I don't think you "got it." It's so obvious you don't get it, that I suspect you're trolling. But I'll bite. Trump is Trump; by definition, then, anyone else is not Trump, or even a Democrat version of him. If you leave it blank, that is one fewer vote (multiplied by how many others, who think they "got it"?) to defeat Trump. You would enable Trump to be president:
Not the Dem version of Trump, whatever that means (David listed all their differences), but the man with all the best words, himself. Don't think you get it, until you think, really think, about what "getting it" means. Because we will all get it, straight up the wazoo, if Trump gets another term.
2
-
2
-
@glenncurry3041 I'd like to believe that you're well read: so well read, in fact, that you also read the Bible enough to find those quotes, despite not being a believer. But, since I neither believe nor disbelieve anything, I think it's far more likely that you copied that from somewhere. And that person copied it, etc. Regardless, that's some extreme cherry picking.
I can say that, because I am well read enough that I also read the Bible, and I can tell you took all of that out of context. It's the same old junk every person who wants to be Hitch trolls with. But you ain't Hitch: not by a long shot.
I know, since I made that claim, about it being out of context, the burden of proof is on me. But I'm eating right now. And explaining how wrong this troll is about four different verses would take more time than I care to waste. You can check him yourselves, by reading the entire chapter he mentioned for each of the four verses, if you like. You probably don't won't to spend that time proving a troll wrong either.
Maybe later, if I'm bored, and people want to know the context, I'll do a write up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Woke" became a thing because people have been asleep for so long. Our American ancestors didn't just "kill a lot of indians." They made several treaties with the native Americans, and broke every one of them. They broke their own laws, the ones they, themselves, made. And they didn't stop with native Americans: slavery, Jim Crow laws, the law didn't even count the murder of a Chinese person in the old west (even though we have the Chinese to thank for half the transcontinental railroad), and so on. I can't begin to list all the details about what I've mentioned, or provide the entire list of people the United States didn't deem worthy of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Therefore being "woke" is actually being not just the true definition of what America always claimed to be, not just a good person who loves their neighbor as they love themselves (the Golden Rule), but an intelligent person who doesn't see themselves as above all the other people who are just like them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"They may be naive, but I bet they can define the word, woman."
Everyone can. But can they/you distinguish between biological sex and gender? Evidently not, since you're still using that cliche.
"I’m guessing they didn’t fall for the lies told to us about the efficacy of COVID vaccines."
And how do they/you know about these lies? Who told you? Seems if you don't believe there was a Covid pandemic, then believing the vaccines were lies is a contradiction.
"Most are probably ready for the US to stop giving billions to Ukraine to fight our proxy war with Russia."
It's not a proxy war. Ukraine has been invaded. A threat to freedom and liberty anywhere is a threat to it everywhere.
"They probably believe parents have a right to have input in how their children are educated."
Parents do. But since they aren't educators themselves, or qualified in any way to talk about books they haven't read, then they're speaking out of ignorance. And not just ignorance, but partisan lies. Everything they believe is what they've been told to believe, and it's all lies.
"I’m pretty sure most of them are tired of race-baiting identity politics."
You mean they don't want to be called racists when doing racist things. They want the freedom to be bigots.
"They probably realize that Biden is suffering from severe cognitive decline."
Not at all true. He has been tested. And since when are MAGAts the authority on other people "suffering from severe cognitive decline"? "Take the log out of your own eye, before worrying about the mote in other people's eyes."
"They may not all be brilliant, but they’re not stupid."
Except they're uneducated to the extreme. They aren't at all open to any facts that haven't been approved of by their political party: The rest is fake news. So their party isolates them, then lies to them, and they can't check it. Willful ignorance is the definition of stupidity.
2
-
Yeah, nothing in the Bible justifies this. Sure, when you isolate a Bible quote, with no understanding of what the text refers to, you can make it seem to support most anything. "The Curse of Ham" is an example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
And Joan of Arc was burned at the stake because she wore men's clothes: "A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this" (Deuteronomy 22:5).
I could take this path, to prove the point, and say that Jesus wants us to kill each other: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).
Since the Bible requires "faith," and mixes that term and idea with "belief," without any further thought whatsoever, a person could then believe that anything they believe is fact. This results in the kind of beliefs we see in this video.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dannyjenning1788
"if it’s not that you need to tell that to ppl and explain"
It's not up to me to explain it to you. Plus, as it has been shown, people explained it, and you're still trolling. The problem is the right believes they know what it means, but really don't, and so refuse to be dissuaded, because they believe they know it already.
This is called The Dunning-Krueger Effect. There is no known cure for this, unless the people affected realize it, know they've made a mistake, understand that they're clueless, and set out to learn the facts. Otherwise, they will refuse to learn, because they believe they know it already. Here's a nice video about Dunning-Krueger. It really is fascinating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOLmD_WVY-E
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@roberthunter6927 Wow. First, I apologize for my glib comment. I didn't know who I was dealing with. It was a bad assumption on my part. I figured you were somewhere on the scale of people I usually find on YouTube. You are not.
Usually I'm dealing with trolls, MAGA people, or just your average person. But you...difficult as it is to admit...are more intelligent than I am. I am uncertain as how to proceed. And I struggle to formulate a debate against your points, even.
I'm impressed by your diverse knowledge, even more than the depth of your knowledge. Many can master a single thing, but few can master many things.
I am more of the many things type, but certainly no master. I double-majored in physics and music, with a BFA in Creative Writing: Poetry--which I share to give you an idea of my background.
While I can't really find anything wrong with what you wrote, and so am unable to debate you on any point, I also don't want our conversation to end. I want to hear more from you, on any of those points.
So feel free to elaborate, or write whatever you want, about anything. I enjoy your writing. Just, please, if you would, double space for paragraphs. Makes it easier to read.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@larrymac6529 "That’s not science in any way. That’s emotion"
Sorry, you don't seem to know what science is. And you're confusing your emotional reaction, with other people's. Here's what the Canadian Institute of Health Research (the science section of their government's website) has to say:
"'Sex' and 'gender' are often used interchangeably, despite having different meanings:
"Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So what happens when the people who outnumber you come with military grade weaponry? And that gun won't help much if they firebomb your house in the middle of the night, while you're asleep. And, of course, that campaign ad operates under the false idea that Democrats created the KKK. It was the South who created the Klan, not the North; the former Confederates (like Nathan Bedford Forrest), not the Union.
So I don't see how Republicans can be pro-Confederacy, but anti-Klan. Also, they confuse Democrats with Southern Democrats, who were the slave holders and plantation owners, the ones who founded the Confederacy. What was left of the Southern Democrats left the Democratic party in 1964, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law. Johnson was quoted as saying, “We [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ericnix6266 As for the comma, let's face it: The second amendment is the worst sentence in the world. I'm a writer. I double-majored in English and Creative Writing: I know about commas. Let's look at this thing.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
First, it takes a moment to find the verb. The subject is obviously militia. This is talking about the militia, which isn't a thing anymore. But after the subject we get two prepositional phrases, making it difficult to even remember what the subject was, by the time we get to the verb.
So it should read like this: "A well regulated militia shall not be infringed." But they wanted to show that the militia should be well regulated. Right? So are today's private gun owners well regulated? No. They're on their own. They don't even want any gun REGULATION. See that?
Then they wanted to show that the well regulated militia was necessary. So we get the first prepositional phrase. But then something weird happens. Remember our subject verb agreement from before? Check this out:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
When you remove that comma, you get what gun nuts see as the 2nd amendment. Right? See that? But, as you said, the comma is important. So what do we have instead? We have two prepositional phrases whose job is to elaborate on the subject, which is the militia--which is now the National Guard.
The right of the people to bear arms was because they were needed for the militia. Not just because. But then we get to the actual root of the gun nuts' real perspective: tyrannical government. You don't know squat about commas, or care about militias, or how those militias are meant to protect us--i.e., we the people, i.e, the country and its rightful government.
You want to prepare in case the U.S. government becomes tyrannical. See, we aren't under foreign rule anymore, and haven't been since the Revolutionary War. We have never been invaded since then either. So all these people are dying because of your paranoia--and not just you, but millions of paranoid Rambo wannabes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Eye for an eye comes from the Code of Hammurabi, ancient Babylonian law. It was adopted into the Bible because of the influence Babylon had over that part of the world. What a lot of people don't seem to know is that it was never applied literally. When the Bible says, "eye for eye, foot for foot, etc.," it wasn't being literal. Instead, if someone caused another person to lose their eye, that person would be brought to the judge, where they fined a monetary amount. The judge handled eye for an eye, not the people themselves.
So eye for an eye was not a Biblical invention. It brought an end to blood feuds. It limited vengeance. So while there are no doubt contradictions in the Bible (since it isn't just one book with one author, but 66 books--each with multiple authors--spanning thousands of years), eye for an eye and turn the other cheek are not among them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Republicans, you've been tricked by the oldest sales gimmick in the book: telling you want to hear. As critical as you Republicans are of Democratic politicians and "mainstream media," how can you believe that China hacked an election when the ballots were done by hand? How can you believe that Mike Pillow (of all people) received this super-secret data, which could turn the country upside down? Why go to him? And why has he done nothing with it? Why was his so-called Cyber-symposium a flop, and how much money did he get from it?
I tell you, Republicans, you've been had; you've been hoodwinked, conned, taken for a ride. And all you have to do is take a step back, and look at the complete and total lack of proof from Mike Pillow, and all the actual proof that he's full of it, from everyone but the Republican party. For the love of God and country, stop being led off the cliff like lemmings. Ask yourself, what would Trump gain from this lie? What would Mike Pillow gain? I feel really bad for you Republicans.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jamesvanderbilt201 Let's get a few things straight, make sure we're on the same page. You wrote:
"most scientists that study the universe believe we aren’t the only living creatures here."
I don't know what you mean by "most," or "study the universe," and scientists don't tend to "believe." Science is not about believing.
However, "we aren’t the only living creatures here" is possibly true, if by "here" you mean the universe. There's likely lots of life out there. How much, where, or what kinds of life, I don't know. But some kind? Sure. Why not?
I got my bachelor's in physics, masters in astrophysics, and going for my doctorate in quantum. So, when you talk about scientists, I'm one of them. Just be mindful of that.
That thing about "an extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence" is science. It's called "The Sagan Standard," and named after Carl Sagan, a scientist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So if it was God's will that Mike Johnson be speaker, then, according to the Bible, everything is God's will. Of course, with Christians, anything they don't like gets blamed on Satan. But not so with Judaism in the Old Testament. Satan is the Hebrew word for "adversary," an improper noun. Anyone was a satan when they opposed what you wanted to do.
The early Christian church took that idea, and spun it into the ultimate adversary. Where the Old Testament said, "There is one God, and none beside me. I make peace and create evil. I wound. I heal. And none can deliver from my hand," the early Christian church claimed Satan could deliver from God's hand. But who created Satan?
Anyway. Smoke and mirrors is the game of the Christian church. Everything is still God's will, according to their scripture. Their Satan is redundant and superfluous. But since everything is included, that means Biden, AOC, the smell of dog poop, hurricanes: everything. So being part of God's will is no more (or less) of a big deal than bird droppings.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I assume Cornhole Karen is Christian, like all the people who have gone through books over the decades and pointed out which ones were bad. And so I assume they think the Bible is okay to read. How do they talk to their children about Lot's daughters, who, while hiding in a cave with their father, got him drunk and had sex with him, to "preserve his seed?"
Or how about King David, who, while he was already married, got so turned on by Bathsheba (who was bathing on her rooftop), that he sent her husband off to die on the most dangerous mission, just so he (David) could have her?
How do they explain David's son raping his sister, or Noah's son "uncovering his father's nakedness," or the kings who abducted Abraham's wife because she was so beautiful?
If the problem is talking to their children about sex (God forbid!), then how do they talk to them about the Bible?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hermit1620 I suggest ongoing mandatory education. They should be taught all the basic school subjects, for the rest of their voting lives. Democratic voting of representatives requires an informed public. They are criminally ignorant.
Require them to learn physics, math, chemistry, history, music, civics, religion, etc. This, or they can't vote. I'd be in favor of mandatory, ongoing education, no matter the political party, but especially for Republicans.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Keep in mind we're talking about 3 groups in the U.S.: 1) Republicans, 2) Democrats, 3) People who don't vote. More people don't vote, than vote Republican; and more people don't vote, than vote Democrat. So approximately two-thirds (maybe closer to half) of the voting-age population actually votes. Of the voters, more than half are Dems. Of the Republicans, more than half are MAGA: And they are the ones who are either uneducated; or into it because of the racism, sexism, xenophobia; or into it because they're hoping it will break down society, and they can finally use their stockpile of guns; or they're super rich and in it for the tax cuts.
So about 60% of the Republicans are MAGA, while the rest still will likely vote Republican, even if they run a pineapple for President. But 60% MAGA base. And of them, approximately 1 of the 4 groups are dumb as dirt.
So we're talking about far less than half of Americans being uneducated. (Note: These are very rough estimates, and not intended to be exact. But they are "close enough for government work." 🙂)
2
-
2
-
Oh, you're the expert digger! You have all the secret knowledge! Maybe, just maybe you're trying to compensate for being a small, insignificant person. Let me tell you something, we're all insignificant, finite, of limited time for learning what all is going on. You seem to have a problem with that, with your narcissistic ego. What has all your secret knowledge done for you, for your family, country, and planet? What have you used it for? (Even assuming your knowledge isn't bogus revelation.)
The true greatness of humanity is that no matter how much of a small, clawless, hairless, brainless psychopathic ape we are, we still sally forth. We live. And we learn what we can, and do what we can. That's where our value lies. That's what makes us special. Dig into that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@IhateCCP "Miles Kwok"
*
I've looked into this guy a little. Fascinating. I'm only scraping the surface, but found some interesting stuff.
*
"Guo Wengui...also known under the names Guo Wen Gui, Guo Haoyun, and Miles Kwok, is a Chinese billionaire businessman who later became a political activist....At the peak of his career, he was 73rd among the richest in China."
*
"In June 2017, staff of one of Guo's other investment vehicles, Pangu Investment, were charged for scamming banks on loans. The staff members accused all alleged that they were under the orders of Guo."
*
"Guo's site, gnews.org ("GNews"), is part of Guo Media...have been linked closely with Steve Bannon, who previously worked for Breitbart.
"The news site claimed that the Chinese government was going to admit that the coronavirus disease 2019 came from a nearby virus lab, or alternately admit that it was spread by the Chinese military, both of which have been thoroughly debunked. Bannon asked Guo on Feb 21 about the sources of coronavirus; he said "there is no doubt this is man-made""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guo_Wengui#Criminal_charges
*
"Miles Guo, also known as Guo Wengui, is a Chinese billionaire and political activist. He fled China in 2014 in anticipation of corruption charges from the Communist Party. Since then, Wengui, who is a member of President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, has become known for his outspoken criticism of Chinese efforts to weed out corruption."
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/28/blog-posting/no-evidence-chinese-officials-will-say-coronavirus/
(When I ask for proof, or examples, or clarification, this is what I mean.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Kai nathanael "Hell is real folks and the oven is on and it's at max temperature."
The catholic church admitted that it invented Hell and Satan. It did so to provide a mythological story for Jesus, when, before, all they had was a collection of his sayings.
Satan is a Hebrew word for adversary. It is NOT a proper noun, i.e., someone's name, but an improper noun. That's why Jesus called Peter satan, because Peter didn't want Jesus to be captured and crucified.
Further, Greek (being the language in which the New Testament was written) has no capital letters. So "satan" was never captalized, until it was written in English.
Therefore, there is no hell. The Catholics appropriated the idea of Gehenna from the Jews, because they were uncomfortable with the God of love doing what we call evil. But God is all things, and is responsible for all things--including what we call evil.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@simplylethul "the bible itself is vile and disgusting."
The Bible is a compilation of 66 books, written and compiled over several thousand years. So, first of all, it is not one book with one tone, or one message, written from one point of view. In it, you'll find beautiful poetry and songs, tedious handing out of tracts of land, genealogies (both fiction and nonfiction), very fanciful retconning of Hebrew history, world creation and destruction myths, various philosophies on how to be happy, war stories, and so on. Some of it is "vile and disgusting," if you have a weak stomach, and don't read much, or watch much of the news.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"To our leaders...not being able...to tell us...they don't know...what a woman is?"
Speaking coherently is very difficult for some people. Of course, what Palin refers to here are transgenders. First, how other people define themselves is none of her business. It's not my business, or yours, and certainly not for leaders to decide. What happened to personal freedom? Small government? None of that is present here. Nor has it been for a long time with Trumpists. Just look at their willingness to encourage their government officials to outlaw abortion.
Secondly, like most Trumpists, Palin confuses sex with gender. Sex is male or female, the scientific definition. Gender is how a person feels, or, in some cases, made to feel about the role they play in society. These are different things: just as the moon is different from the sun, but both are astronomical bodies; just as peanut butter is different from jelly, but both go on a PB&J. They're completely different things.
It's not up to Alaskan women, or any women (or any men) to show other people how they should define their gender. That's a personal choice. And whatever that choice is, it's valid.
2
-
2
-
@thersten I think what's "crashing down" is the Fox narrative, as it pertains to Democrats. See, the narrative only works when EVERYTHING the Democrats say or do is 100% wrong, and anti-Trump (and only because Dems simply don't like him personally, not because of his policies). They can't allow anything positive or truthful to be attributed to the Democrats, or that 100% thing would no longer be 100%.
That would mean the Democrats are NOT wrong about everything, which would lead to questioning just when they were actually right. And Fox can't have their viewers thinking or questioning, especially about that.
So the Democrats were right about the Coronavirus being a real thing, not a hoax perpetuated by the media, not a scam against Trump's reelection. The more Trump downplayed it, the more the Fox narrative would crash: The bigger the lie, the harder the fall.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Looking at that first woman, with the red, white, and blue beaded necklace, huge sunglasses, and trucker hat, and hear her claim that, "Guns IS my right. I know how to handle them. I take training," just makes me shake my head.
First, subject-verb agreement: If she can't think about such a small thing correctly, then how is she going to handle more complicated thoughts? Secondly, she "takes training." So she is training currently, and has been for a while, supposedly. What kind of training? Who trained her? And does she take her training more seriously than her wardrobe?
Finally, let's assume she is a totally serious person, able to think clearly, and not completely detached from reality: just for a second. The gun laws and restrictions would be (if they could even get passed, which is doubtful, because of people like her) meant for the totally insane mass shooters, NOT her. But she's willing to let such murderers get guns with no effort at all, on the off chance that at some point, in some unknown future, such restrictions might apply to her.
So it's obvious she actually doesn't think clearly, and is detached from reality. And maybe she has just enough awareness to sense this on some level, and knows the potential laws against insane freaks of nature getting guns would apply to her--because she is such a freak.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The "education system" does not and cannot go door-to-door. Once a person completes their formal education, it's up to them whether or not they reinforce what they learned already, and continue to learn new things. If you don't reinforce what you learned, it will dissipate. Sure, some things will stay, like 2+2=4. But thinking critically takes practice. That's why we did homework in school.
So all the understanding of the world, the universe, humanity, biology: It will evanesce. And all the person will be left with is a vague memory of 2+2=4. That is NOT the fault of the "education system." Now, if you want to hire people to go door-to-door, and somehow insist that the 250 million adults in the U.S. submit to this mandatory tutoring, we can discuss that. But, really, good luck that.
It falls to each of us whether or not to continue our education, on our own, for the rest of our lives.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@carrieon1 "I told my kid about gay and trans people ages go and he was fine with it. Boom. Done.
Now, let us get back to helping kids with math, science, and reading. How much of a curriculum should be devoted to some of this grotesque and adult content?"
Very contradictory post, potentially. I could be wrong, and I'm going out on a limb here, but this person specifically said "adult content." And they called that content "grotesque." And they began their comment talking about explaining "gay and trans people" to their kid...themselves (as opposed to the school doing it). And how they then thought we should "get back to...math, science, and reading."
Seems pretty clear to me what they're implying. But they're trying to hide it under a thin veil, while claiming to be "a liberal." But I've seen conservatives do this sort of bait and switch thing too many times in comments. They're saying don't talk about gay and trans in schools, because it's grotesque. If you want to be grotesque with your child, do it at home...I guess?
I doubt they're a liberal, or an educator.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think most of us see ourselves as the hero of our own story, with our eyes filming the movie. The rioters certainly saw themselves as patriotic heroes, and many said it felt like they were in a movie. Being a real hero is difficult: requires sacrifice, putting the needs of others before your own, being pure, and often being alone. Being an anti-hero is much more interesting. Who doesn't thrill at the exploits of Wolverine, or Walter White. Anti-heroes have always been popular, and they are getting a lot of screen time these days. Even Superman is dark and gritty, and Aquaman looks like a biker, more than a swimmer.
The difference between the heroes and anti-heroes lies, mostly, in what they will do to accomplish their heroic deeds. Martin Luther King jr, for example, was a hero; by comparison, Malcolm X was more of an anti-hero. And Malcolm said, "by any means necessary." That's where these patriotic, anti-heroic rioters are coming from. They are ready to burn down the city to save it, throw the baby out with the bath water.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@5APPH_13 Cranking out some definitions! Look at you go! I noticed you didn't define "woke" though. Did you not bother to look it up? Or did you, but then realized my point?
I'll do it for you. Woke: an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination".
So woke means, then, that one is aware of prejudice and discrimination, especially when it's racist; but any kind, really. So it could be sexist, nationalist, ageist, etc. Right?
Now, morality and morals is about knowing what's right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable. Yes? See that? Here's the not-so-tricky part:
Awareness and outrage at someone ELSE being discriminated against, so someone besides you, requires both empathy and morality. But since we're looking at morality here, we'll stick with it.
If you see discrimination happening, see someone else being abused for bigoted reasons, and do nothing, maybe even deny that its bigotry or racism, then it's because you can't see that it's wrong. Or you don't care. Or you know that it's wrong.
That's morality! See that? That's why the Republicans' crusade against being woke is so wretched: Because Republicans are therefore against having good morals. They have morality all right, but it's all bad.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Let's just see if this passes the ol' sniff test:
1. Trump wants to cage Muslims, in China, and execute reporters.
(Trump has always been against Muslims: "go back where you came from"; the Muslim ban. And he has always been against reporters.)
2. Trump's quid pro quo, and foreign involvement in elections.
(Repeatedly, Trump has shown this is how he does business: You scratch my back; I'll scratch yours. You don't scratch my back, to hell with you. In the interview with Stephanopoulos, he spelled it out, that he would take foreign aid.)
3. Trump needs farmers to win re-election.
(Trump bailed out the farmers. He has done everything he could for them, like he depends on them for his re-election.)
4. Trump called these things lies, while also claiming they were classified. He went on his usual Twitter and Fox News tirade, in an attempt to discredit Bolton, through propaganda. He wouldn't do this if Bolton was lying. If Bolton was publishing actual classified info, the FBI would be all over him.
Verdict: This smells like rancid orange face paint, and rotten KFC bones. It smells like Trump.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I never understood how so-called Christians came to the conclusion that their Christ was against sex. Or, since they often cherry pick from the Old Testament, how they came to the conclusion that the OT was against sex. I've read the Bible over a dozen times, and it is very into sex.
After Lot's wife died (pillar of salt, remember?) his two daughters got him drunk, on consecutive nights, "to preserve his seed." Abraham had sex with his wife's servant, Hagar, "to preserve his seed"--only to find out that his wife Sarah could have children after all. King David had a woman's husband killed, just because he (David) got the married woman pregnant; not only that, but it was from that woman that Solomon was born, which was the line that led to Jesus. So it was only because of adultery and murder that Jesus was born. And Jesus was the only person who didn't judge the woman caught in adultery.
That's just scraping the surface. Prudish Christians don't know their Bible. They assume, based on the poor translation that gave us the word "fornication," that sex is bad. And they judge, which their Bible (throughout, i.e., the entire thing) tells them to not judge. They assume that God is against whatever they're against; yet they're against whatever they believe God is against. You can't have it both ways!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robertwright2583 "How many times have you lied in 3 years?
Bottom line Trump lies,Biden lies,you lie,I lie,almost everyone lies."
*
If everyone lies, then Trump lies too. That's your point? That's why you replied on a post from last month? To tell me you disagree, but, then, ultimately have to agree, that Trump lies? Well, nice hearing from you.
*
Oh, as for "four more years," I wouldn't count your liars before they're hatched.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MariaMartinez-researcher Noble sentiments. But I'm reminded of William T. Sherman, and what he said about the Confederate States of America: "We are not fighting against a hostile government, but a hostile people.... We cannot coax them, or meet them halfway.... We must make them so sick of war that generations will pass before they again appeal to it." Here we are, generations later. And they have stormed the halls of congress, cast hate and conspiracy theories at our government, law enforcement agencies, and the roughly 81 million Americans who voted for someone besides Donny. But you think if we stop insulting them, they'll meet us halfway? I'm sorry, but I don't think they can, let alone will.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The leading cause of ALL wars? That's a pretty sweeping, absolute statement. Are you sure? Being curious, I looked up what the usual causes for war are.
"bumbling leaders, ancient hatreds, intransigent ideologies, dire poverty, historic injustices, and a huge supply of weapons and impressionable young men." (According to West Point.)
"economic, religious, and political reasons." (According to National Geographic.)
So religion plays a part, sometimes. And it is often used, since it deals not only with belief, but faith in the unknown future. In the Civil War, the leaders of both sides claimed God supported them.
I think if you narrowed down your "leading cause," it might serve to paint a more accurate picture. I'd say the leading cause of most wars is "belief." I think you're right about that part. Belief is claiming to know something you don't know, which is insane. I'd say not only wars, but most conflicts (small or large) are driven by beliefs, i.e., not what a person actually knows, but what they believe they know.
2
-
English is a living language. Sanskrit is a dead language. Sanskrit, besides being a really cool sounding word, will not change. It will be the same today as it was in the 11th century, when it was replaced with Arabic. But English is alive and well, and it is growing, changing, mutating, evolving, transmogrifying, on and on.
So it will not be the same. British English is different from American. And the use of accents, vowels and consonants differ all over the U.S. You ever try to read Old English? Talking like the mid-5th century to the mid-7th century, as seen in Beowulf: That stuff's crazy, and might as well be a whole other language.
2
-
2
-
I think the hyper-partisanship results in an even greater division. We can no longer agree on reality, as it pertains to political issues. And anything can be made into a political issue. William Tecumseh Sherman said, "We are not up against a hostile foreign government, but a hostile people." And, "We cannot coax them, or meet them halfway. We must make them so sick of war, that generations will pass before they again appeal to it."
That time has passed. They held onto their Confederate victim-hood, like family heirlooms. And they are mad as hell that we elected a black man. They want revenge. Until we face this, we'll continue to plunge headlong toward further division, and will be forced to face it, so that our country can heal, by facing its demons.
2
-
Even if he was an authoritarian leftist, what, then, is an authoritarian leftist? I guess they read 4chan, like this guy? I guess they take up right wing conspiracy theories (i.e., white replacement theory), like this guy. Like National Socialism, where the national part modifies the socialism part, I'd guess the authoritarian part modifies the leftist part.
For example, I could claim to be a murderous pacifist. Would people then say that I killed because I'm a pacifist? The murderous part modifies the pacifist part, to the point that it's no longer pacifism--just as the Nazis were no longer socialists (who they sent to concentration camps); and just as the authoritarian part modifies the leftist part, until it's no longer leftist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@oldslowcoach I didn't say it could. I said what's in the text. Don't mistake me for someone who believes. I don't believe. So don't assume I take my beliefs to be knowledge either. I know the difference. And what I don't know, I admit I don't know.
However, I also don't look at what people believe about the Bible, see that the text can't be proven (historically or scientifically), but then assume that what I admit is a mistaken perspective is all there is to the Bible. That would mean I accept their mistake to be the truth, and the only truth. And that makes no sense either. I'd be just as mistaken as them. Right?
So then what does the text say? Sure, it was used for conquering others, for inquisitions, the 100 yrs war, crusades, justification of everything from slavery to so-called "pro-life." Why is that? Does the text have anything to say beyond what is an obvious mistaken belief? Yes, it does. But you have to approach it with the same open mind with which one uses the scientific method.
In short: It's about humanity. Regardless of time, space, language, or culture, there are common "sins" or mistakes that human beings make. For example, we each think we're god, the only one who matters; we want to do right, but convince ourselves that we deserve to do wrong, earned the right to judge and hate. Sound familiar? That's just the start.
And that's why conquerors have used the Bible over the millennia: because it appeals to people, especially those who feel lost and alone. And anyone who is honest with themselves feels that way, at least at some time(s) in their life.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Throw the baby out with the bath water, XmasVet? What does how she voted elsewhere, in the past, have to do with how she sees Trump now? Nothing! She's right in what she said about him. She looked at evidence and drew conclusions, in order to be right.
No analogy is perfect, but I have one for you: Sir Isaac Newton gave us the foundations of the laws of physics. Yet he was also an alchemist.
So do we ignore all the work he did on physics? He engaged in pseudoscience, after all. Well, his work on physics was based on evidence, and it is still provable. He was wrong with alchemy, but absolutely right with mechanics. See how he can be wrong in one case, and right in another, even though both have to do with science?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
CRT is part of a graduate level program. All the "critical theory" classes look at the country through the lens of whatever, in this case race. A graduate level program: so not elementary school. Sure, they might talk about race in schools, just as they talk about math in schools, but that doesn't mean teachers are forcing Quantum Electrodynamics on your kids.
CRT is just what Republicans called their bogeyman. They give it a name, so their base would know what to shout at school board meetings. What the conservatives wanted was for nothing about race to be taught at all: the laws they passed were against that very thing--not CRT specifically, but any kind of teaching about how race was handled in the history of our country.
As for Maher, yeah he's old and set in his ways. I remember when he was in D.C. Cab, in 1983, when he was about 27-years old. He's against art, has nothing to do with young people, is sure he's a genius, and should probably just retire.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@boydnorfleet8985 Please. Crying? And, no, Trump isn't the President, because he has refused to do the job. In fact, he has done so terribly, that Democrats had to try to hold him accountable. The only reason they couldn't is because Republicans supported Trump.
It's not that Trump is innocent, and being picked on by the crying Democrats. (Stop and think of how absurd that is.) Once he is out of office, if he doesn't declare himself absolute ruler, then he can be prosecuted, for everything Mueller found, but couldn't prosecute him, because Trump was President.
I'd like to point out how far off the topic we now are. And that nothing has been resolved. Is this recreation for you? I've thought about this enjoyment of hating the crying liberals, and given it a name for Trump supporters: recreational hatred.
2
-
2
-
Ana: "You have to do fact checking WHEN he's misleading the American people."
Absolutely! It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to "take back" propaganda, once it's out there. So fact checking Trump later, on TYT for example, is like preaching to the choir. (Not that I'm against TYT, at all. I watch daily.) If the media is going to carry these Corona rallies live, they need to have someone, on hand, who will interrupt the President, and say, No, that's wrong, here's the facts.
Or they can do like others I've seen, and, while streaming it live, mute the audio when Trump lies, and give the facts, and then bring his audio back. We're dancing around the point though: Trump wants to propagandize the American people. For whatever reason, he obviously enjoys the power it gives him to shut down reporters, and have his supporters hanging on his every word.
2
-
I don't know, and I'm unable to say, but I can guess: The rich want to get richer; the hateful want to be hateful; the racists want to be racist; the destructive people want to destroy; and the people who hate the United States (whether Americans themselves, or otherwise) want the country, and its people, to suffer.
Why should Americans hate the country? Abortion, minorities treated more and more equally, less religion and more secularism, but also the people whose jobs were transferred overseas, due to downsizing, and the people who didn't get a job, because they weren't the race needed for quotas.
As for the people who aren't Americans: Our country has invaded, performed coups, and aided terrorists, while also fighting terrorists. We have made a lot of enemies since WWII.
And, the other thing I can guess: Obama. We are the people who elected a black man to be President. There are plenty of Americans who hate liberals, progressives, and democrats for that. They won't ever forgive us. I know something of how they feel, since I will never forgive them for voting for Trump, and continuing to support him.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"I believe...I believe...I believe."
Okay, what does "believe" mean? Well, first, it means you don't "know." If you knew it, you wouldn't have to believe it. Secondly, beliefs can't be shown by the believer to be something that they believe. I could say I believe in unicorns. How could I prove to you that I do? So a person can claim to believe in anything, but not be at all responsible or beholden to that thing. Third, if someone believes long enough, they come to accept it as knowledge. That means they aren't mindful, when they say "I believe," that what they're saying is they don't know. Instead, they're claiming to know...what they obviously don't know.
Finally, besides being a meaningless word, with nothing required of it, it's a dangerous word. A believer, sure that they're right, positive that they're chosen by God, can easily see themselves as above all those who don't believe, and who weren't chosen by God. Such people will gladly kill and harm the gentiles/infidels, in God's name.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@terminsane "I thought it was clear but maybe i should make it clearer: i absolutely disagree with the DOJ on suspending the constitution. I don't think its legal to suspend the constitution. And any government that does, would automatically become illegitimate.
For the same reasons that any leftwing politician looking to eradicate the 1st or 2nd amendments, or implement socialism, is also illegitimate."
You have a gift for writing, so I hope you'll accept some pointers. That paragraph is all you needed, to answer the original poster, and anyone else, including me.
You could even delete the first sentence, of what's quoted, as it's condescending. Maybe I was condescending, but you don't need to be. If I was, and I mostly likely was, two wrongs don't make a right.
You could also delete the last sentence. No one is out to take away the 2nd amendment. What does that have to do with anything? It distracts from the topic, and splinters the conversation. As for the 1st amendment, I'm surprised. First, again, what does that have to do with the topic? Second, the freedom of the press is part of that 1st amendment. And since Trump is always talking about "fake news" and "nasty" reporters, I wonder why you even brought it up.
Stick to the point. Answer the question. That way you won't undermine your position, or your argument. Oh, and check for spelling and grammar mistakes. You discredit your writing when you don't see that "dont" needs an apostrophe. If you don't appear to be intelligent, the people, who are already against you (since you're a Trump supporter), will just dismiss you, since you come across as uneducated.
2
-
@terminsane See what I mean by "splinter" the conversation? The topic is Trump, the DOJ, and suspension of Habeas Corpus. Now, suddenly, we're into how the Democrats are out to take your guns; we're talking about borders; we're talking about Bush, Obama, torture, etc. See, this is a problem. We could go round and round forever. But I have a few more minutes to kill, and Trump supporters fascinate me. So...fine.
You've read Orwell, then? As long as we're splintering the conversation, maybe you could quote Orwell, and point out how what I wrote was not only "wordplay," but Orwellian.
While you're at it, I'd like to see some quotes and links about, as you put it: "We have seen the numeruous quotes and video clips, and watched the dnc debates."
This might also be a good time to point out, as long as we're splintering, that you misspelled "numerous." The red squiggly line appears under the word, as you're writing, to let you know you misspelled something. It isn't hard. You don't have to memorize the dictionary.
Here's the deal: If you claim something, back it up with links, and summarize those links with a quote, which you got from the link, so I can easily search the article. Otherwise, you're really just "gaslighting," yourself, aren't you?
2
-
@terminsane Onto Socialism now? Let me explain something. I can't speak to any one of your points, and ignore all the rest. And if I try to speak to all your points, I would need a length that derives from multiplying all said points.
That's one reason the Gish Gallop is a fallacy. But I'll try, one last time: I'm not "making decisions [on] other peoples behalf, against their consent."
Not sure what your point is, because you don't say. Should we have no government? or small government? or states-only government? Or do you just mean we shouldn't have socialism? Do you mean Democratic, National, or good-old-fashioned USSR Socialism? They're all different, you know.
And is Socialism the only kind of government you're against? Why? And have you noticed that all the other Fox News viewers, and Trump supporters say the same thing (also without explanation)?
See, I'm on the 5th paragraph, just trying to figure out what you're talking about.
Are you saying that the government shouldn't decide things which pertain to liberty? Should they not get involved in abortion? Should they not bash the press? Should they not help in disasters? What happens when a convict goes across state lines? etc.
Now, how long would you have to make a reply to answer all those questions. As a writer, you have left me without a means to move forward. And you're still assuming that I want the kind of socialism you're imagining, and not a unique 21st century, American Socialism, in which we make sure everyone is taken care of.
No one goes broke from surgery; no one is homeless; no one's religious, sexual, political ideas are better or worse than anyone else's. That's a glimpse into what I think of, when I think of Socialism.
Get Venezuela out of your head; America is not Venezuela. Get the USSR out of your head; this is the 21st century. Now I've begun to Gish Gallop, just to try and keep up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I follow some congresspeople on Facebook whom I really like: Booker, Omar, Warren, AOC. But, their comments have been overrun by toxic trolls. I would like to discuss these politicians, and their policies, as relating to what they had posted, but the hateful, uninformed, propagandistic posts make it so that I don't even want to comment at all. Effectively, these trolls have interrupted, and ended conversation on Facebook, about those senators and their policies.
The same goes for all social media, and all topics. You can't discuss the Beatles, or the Avengers, or black holes, without dealing with abuse, whataboutism, straw man, and every other logical fallacy and negativity. So they have interrupted and ended conversation on all social media, about everything.
Are they Russians? We know Russians have used social media to undermine discussion about politics. Are they random, unorganized trolls? Why interrupt and discourage all conversation?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Truthdefender101 Still with the birth certificate? He showed it! But that wasn't enough, because a lie doesn't need facts to be believed, just someone who substitutes believing for knowing. Trump has hidden his tax returns, his college grades, not to mention his real facial tint, and what his head/hair actually looks like. Everything is hidden. Get it?
He also hides the truth, by which I mean lying, all the time. The only time he told the truth, since he has been president, was when he admitted how attracted he was to his daughter. If you Trump supporters don't wise up, your support will end up costing you everything you hoped to gain.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Trump is compromised--not in the way we're used to, but by drugs, steroids, and Coronavirus, itself. He is unfit--again, more than how he has been unfit all along, to do his job. They should never have allowed him to do his joy ride. But, given that, they shouldn't have let him go back to the White House. But, given even that, they should have locked him in his bunker, and forced him to be in quarantine for another two weeks. Stand up to him, or who knows what he'll do.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@danielbrown1943 "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter" (Isaiah 5:20).
While I'm not sure what to make of the others you posted in that list, this is one of my favorite quotes in the Bible. It goes very well with what I've been talking about, and what the OP posted.
See, we walk darkness, when we hate someone. This is because we convince ourselves that we do NOT hate that person, without good cause. But there is no good cause for hate. ("Love your enemies.")
So we have to rationalize why we hate, to the extent that we can't even admit our hate, or the real cause of it. At that point we reroute our thinking, to what Orwell called "doublethink," and see our hatred as a good thing--maybe because the person is so "evil."
So hate becomes good: a love for humanity, expressed by hating the enemy of humanity. We're unable to see the darkness we walk in, and so believe it to actually be the light of knowledge. Hate becomes love; darkness becomes light.
This reverse thinking, written about by Isaiah, soon spills over to ALL of our thinking. We can't stop it, because we're unable to admit that it's actually going on. We begin thinking the opposite about everything, including murder. Jesus warned against this:
"...the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God" (John 16:2).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"They're anti-Trumpers."
And, so...what? None of that actually happened? There are recordings, both video and audio, to say nothing of Trump's staff and people who supported him throughout his presidency--like Mike Pence. Were the recordings faked? If so, they how could the actual people whose identities can be verified (like the police and Trump's staff) have participated in a staged event?
Of course, what they're really trying to do with this is discredit people because of the old T.D.S. (Trump Derangement Syndrome)--in which people just irrationally hate Trump, for no reason. Just don't like him at all. That, too, is really stupid. Always has been. If people who claim TDS is the cause had just stuck with the narrative that people dislike Trump because they dislike his actions, policies, his juvenile insults, claims of fake news, etc., they might have pulled it off. But then they'd have to say what those policies are. They'd have to point everything he did, and explain why people hate him. That wouldn't work for them at all.
2
-
2
-
"Chicago is a modern hell scape"
Are you sure? Have you been there? Just curious if you've experienced this, or if it's just hyperbole. Looking it up on Police1, I see the top 5 cities per capita for homicides in the U.S. for 2022 are:
1. Memphis, TN
2. New Orleans, LA
3. Baltimore, MD
4. St. Louis, MO
5. Detroit, MI.
The reason we use per capita is because different cities have different populations. I know it's a little more math to do, and it ruins the right-wing talking point, and it means at least 5 American cities are more of a hell scape than the one you're pointing out, but that's reality--not sugarcoating.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Let's put aside for the moment about how unconstitutional this is, and just think about a religious school.
Believing is not knowing. Education is knowing. Science is not a belief. Religion is a belief. Science is knowing. And what science doesn't know, it doesn't know. What religion doesn't know is everything, but they still believe they know it. Same goes for math, history, and the arts.
On a G clef, on a piece of sheet music, the E note is not a belief. It is right there. It is defined, provable, with a unique, established frequency. Same goes for all the arts: Every color and punctuation mark is known and defined. You can do all kinds of stuff with it, don't get me wrong. But all the tools are established. Religion is all belief. Not one bit of it can be proven. Religion is not education.
2
-
I thought racial profiling by police was illegal, but then I remembered all the times they did it and were filmed. So I looked it up, thinking if it's illegal for the police, it should also be illegal for citizens like this Karen. Long story short: Racial profiling is not illegal for police. Can you believe it hasn't been made into a law yet? Police can discriminate based on race. Businesses supposedly can't do it. But private citizens can for sure.
"In early 2001, a bill was introduced to Congress named "End Racial Profiling Act of 2001" but lost support in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The bill was re-introduced to Congress in 2010 but also failed to gain the support it needed. Several U.S. states now have reporting requirements for incidents of racial profiling. Texas, for example, requires all agencies to provide annual reports to its Law Enforcement Commission. The requirement began on September 1, 2001, when the State of Texas passed a law to require all law enforcement agencies in the state to begin collecting certain data in connection to traffic or pedestrian stops beginning on January 1, 2002. Based on that data, the law mandated law enforcement agencies to submit a report to the law enforcement agencies' governing body beginning March 1, 2003, and each year thereafter no later than March 1. The law is found in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure beginning with Article 2.131."
(Youtube doesn't like links these days. I copy/pasted the above from Wikipedia, "Racial profiling in the United States," a fascinating and disturbing read.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Corion2121 If it's all inclusive, then you should have no problem with a pride flag. But, really, let's be honest:
You don't care at all about inclusion. You don't care about going a bridge too far. You don't care about what is (or isn't) necessary in schools. Do you?
First, LGBTQ is just another buzz word. And your prescribed response is to be against it. Even though it's people practicing their civil rights and American freedoms--which you probably believe you support.
Secondly, have you ever wondered how you'd react about civil rights, if you were alive in Dr. King's time, or during the centuries of American slavery, or when the Natives had their lands stripped away from them, or when the Nazis assaulted the Jews?
Well, you're finding out right now. And your response is that their civil rights and freedoms aren't necessary.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelburk9171 "The old testament should be completely rejected."
Jesus taught almost exclusively from the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures. He was especially fond of Isaiah and Deuteronomy. His Golden Rule comes from there.
And I'm not saying what Paul wrote should be rejected. Really, if it hadn't been for Paul, Christianity would have probably never reached Rome, where it eventually converted Constantine; so Christianity might not have survived, but for Paul and those like him who started the original church.
That said, the surviving history and letters from them shows that they weren't interested in teaching the parables (Jesus spoke to the crowds only in parables), or to love your neighbor. They were interested in making what Jesus taught into a religion.
Finally, my original comment spoke only to the text, which I've spent years studying. But I find Paul to be a huge hypocrite, and most likely a bi-polar, narcissistic maniac. :)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@danialhillmann5374 You probably get this, and are just trolling. But just in case you never heard of cause and effect, allow me to illustrate:
One billiard ball (the slave) hits another ball (their children), which hits another and another. The only difference is, on the pool table of real life, the balls keep hitting one another, forever, on down the line. No?
Okay, Mononopoly: Say at the start of the game, everyone has more or less the same amount of money. Then, before the first roll, one player takes all of another player's money. Then the game starts. Now the thief is way ahead. Right? See that? And the reparations aren't just for one slave, but centuries of people who started in this country by being cheated from the beginning. Get it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@andrewgocken517 "I don't even support Trump bafoon. What next I watch FOX?"
*
I love it when someone says something like this. Okay, I'll bite: Why are you here? You don't support Trump, ostensibly, even though you wrote, "Democrats just cant seem to figure it out." So you aren't a Democrat? Unless you're saying you can't figure it out. And you aren't a Republican, of if you are, you don't support Trump. Okay. What are you? Are you not political? I doubt it. You're here; you're claiming to know what the millions of Democrats are like. You're political. Or are you a troll? You wrote, "Happy being triggered in November, liberal reality denier."
*
See, that, like everything else you wrote, is what a Trump supporter would say. You're interested in winning/losing, like a sports game, like a Trump supporter. Or are you here to educate people? You are terrible at getting people to see your point. If you're going to claim to not support Trump, you need a different approach. You sound exactly like a Trump supporter.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In regards to that last guy, and the "coverup" of the real election results:
Let's assume for a moment that there was a massive, secret coverup. The conspirators responsible tricked the Republican judges into cooperating. They got the Republican appointed recounts to cooperate. And among others, they got Bill Barr under their thumb. Think of the amount of power and secrecy we're talking about here. And not one of them breathed a word about the big lie.
Now, imagine that this bozo in the baseball cap got ahold of these secret plans. And he's just blabbing about it to the cameras, and on social media. Wouldn't the conspirators be shocked that this random nobody stumbled across their grand plan? Wouldn't the Republican judges, Bill Barr, etc. be emboldened to come forward and tell the truth? And, to prevent that from happening, since the conspirators know exactly who this baseball cap dude is, wouldn't they measure him for some cement shoes, and dump him in a river?
If I discovered the secret plans of a national (or world-wide) conspiracy of this magnitude, I'd be too scared to crawl out from under my bed. Yet there are tens of millions of these wankers running around, jabbering about what the rich and powerful are doing. Why aren't these honky tonk cowboys being transported to a concentration camp, being fed to the crocodiles, or taken for a long ride in the desert?
And who told them? Why would such a "deep throat" character trust a bunch of know-nothing bozos? Why not go to Bill Barr, or even Mike Pillow, who would've given anything to have that kind of information?
These conspiracies are even dumber than the people who believe them.
2
-
@aaronjjacques Yeah, you did say the "happens" part. My bad. It's getting late. Companies will pass the cost of tariffs down to consumers. Ohh, I think I see where you're going. (Sorry, not a mind reader. Next time just state your point.) Because Harris' proposed a capital gains tax on billionaires, trying to get them to pay their fair share, those billionaires would pass the cost down to the customers. Is that it? Well, first, as I said that's a ton of junk on social media about this unrealized capital gains tax proposal. So it takes some digging to get the facts. We have to start by understanding this is a tax on less than 1% of the population, people with over $100 million. Therefore homeowners will NOT get a new massive tax bill, as it says on social media. Now, would those billionaires pass down the cost of the taxes? Maybe, but they'll also be paying taxes. And so the effect is not the same at all. The exact same thing does NOT happen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
At best, I think Trump supporters have a blind spot, where he is concerned. I say that because some of them are really smart; some are crazy, or racist, or hateful, sure, but not all of them. Still, they stop thinking, when it's about him. Or their brains rewire the truth into a narrative propagandized by Trump: They take his word for it. And, no: They don't care (or know) that he's out to gut Medicare and Social Security. They're willing to go down in a blaze of Trump-glory, if that's what it takes. Except, of course, they're sure he'll be totally victorious, and usher in a new age of...white power.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jenifer_R_ Thank you for the kind words. I think that comfort is often overlooked, by some people. Science is wonderful. I love the logic, the reasoning, being able to actually prove something with math.
But, have you ever taken a pet to the vet? They have no idea what's going on. They're being taken from their territory, and flying through space at unimaginable speed, going some place where everything smells wrong.
That's us. The whole time, I'd be comforting my cat on the way to the vet: telling him he's a good boy, and a pretty boy; and it's okay; it'll be over soon. He'd cry all the way there, and then cling to me once we got to that strange, scary place. And I'd comfort him. That's us.
I think everyone gets a little lost. And science is of little to no comfort at a time like that. Everything has it's time and place. :)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@a5cent This made my day: "steaming doohicky."
We're in a real fix. It's really hard to figure out what all would lead to substituting belief for knowledge. There could be all kinds of reasons: PTSD from who knows what all, low self esteem from who knows what all, or just an unwillingness to learn--again from who knows what reasons.
Every possibility has countless, often different sources. And we'd have to identify the source of the malfunction, to fix it.
Plus, once propaganda takes root, it's very hard to reverse. As difficult as that process sounds, imagine trying to do it to 70+ million people.
And there's another possible reason: They want to substitute belief for knowledge. It's deliberate on their part. Who knows for what all reasons? There are people who prefer bogus revelations to facts.
When I was a kid, I believed in Bigfoot. One of the biggest disappointments to me, now that I'm middle-aged, is that Bigfoot was never found and proven to be true! Ye gods, what kind of boring reality, when there's no Bigfoot?! haha.
The difference, of course, is that I don't still believe in it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@1chish "What freedoms did they not have as British Citizens?"
Taxation without representation was the big one. It represented the right to govern themselves, without being ruled over by a monarchy across the ocean. It was also a recurring theme, throughout American history. Interestingly enough, George Washington fought against the people who formed the Whiskey Rebellion, who also didn't want to be taxed without representation. And, of course, the Confederacy claimed theirs was the 2nd Revolutionary War--not wanting to be ruled over by people who didn't know their Southern way of life. The Confederates adopted the American Bill of Rights, just as you said that the Americans copied the British.
The original point still stands: The Confederates seceded from the United States. They were traitors to a nation, to which they returned, when beaten. While the reasons for their secession were many, and open to debate, what cannot be argued against was that the Confederacy supported slavery. They insisted on it: That's why Britain and France wouldn't come to their aid.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. / But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you" (Matt. 6:5-6).
This was already a thing 2,000 years ago. It has only gotten worse. Prayer is supposed to be private. The only reason it isn't, is when people want to be seen doing it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The "Trump generation" (as I'm calling it) of politicians was/were not hired/elected to serve; I've read many times, in Trump supporters' comments, watching interviews with them, etc., they were put in place to "tear down our corrupt government." Think of DeVos, and the others Trump hired. They're so unbelievably unqualified for their jobs. Why, then, are they there?
That's only part of the reason for idiots like Georgia's governor. We also have the Dunning-Kruger effect: Stupid people are so stupid, that they can't tell how stupid they are, but assume that they're a genius. There's also the old self-made man cliche, the Daniel Boone effect, if you will (though I hate associating Boone with these people): They see themselves as pioneers, and it would be "weak" of them to ask for help, or admit ignorance. While this can happen anywhere, it's especially prevalent in the South (where I'm from). For centuries, many Southerners weren't educated, had slaves do their work, and were so extremely lazy and complacent, that they believed they were masters by birth. This didn't end with the Civil War, Reconstruction, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964; this unbelievable level of ignorance was passed down like a family heirloom, along with racism, and a hatred for "Yankees," which, today, translates as "educated" and/or "liberal."
So they are against knowledge, itself, education, itself. To admit their ignorance would mean the undermining of all their history, their superiority--even in knowledge, as they believe they, the uneducated, are smarter than people who've actually been educated. Ignorance preserves them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@KpxUrz5745 "I wouldn't want that job."
But you also won't try to do it, probably because you'd be unable to, even if you were qualified--which I doubt you are. And I saw the point of @DJ No Request's post. You obviously did too, or you would have asked for clarification, because you didn't understand it. But you understand it, because it did have a point. And, I dare say, that would mean it wasn't vacuous at all.
If anything, your comment is meaningless, since she is obviously doing her job every day: a job which you can't do. But what did you expect from such an obviously trolling comment, with no examples or proof of what you mean? You had to expect people would respond negatively. That was probably why you wrote it. Yes? Now run along back under your troll bridge.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In Jesus' time, before Christianity, there was no such thing as an afterlife for the Jews in their scripture: no Heaven or Hell that you went to when you died. There was Sheol (worth looking up), and the grave--which became "the pit" (i.e., a dug grave) in Hebrew scripture, which became the pit of Hades for the Christian church. The English translations most people see will, therefore, occasionally, show Jesus speaking of Hell and Heaven. But Heaven was "among us, within us," Jesus said, not some location; and the pit of Hell was death; satan was just the Hebrew word for "adversary." The whole "burning" thing, and Hell as an idea for the Christians, came about because of Gehenna: This was the trash dump outside ancient Jerusalem, which was infested with vermin, and burned day and night. The early Christian church wanted a mythology for Jesus, so they took Hebrews ideas out of context, and twisted them.
2
-
@timothyslaughter476 Uh huh, because blaming these people for what other people did is rational and using common sense.
Have you ever noticed how extremely rare it is, when someone does something wrong, to admit they were wrong? Even the most psychopathic murderers will claim they were possessed by demons.
You're wrong here. Just admit it. Doesn't mean you're wrong about everything, everywhere. Just here. Can't do it though, huh? Well, on the plus side, at least you aren't saying you were possessed by demons, or sent by God.
But what you claimed others did, you're actually doing. And where you said they were wrong, that would (logically) mean you were wrong. But logic has no place with rational humans. Right?
The irrationality of what you're saying is rational to you; and your illogical reasoning is common sense. So sweet is bitter, and bitter is sweet. Mirrors must confuse you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@5APPH_13 "I said that we’re the best as a mixing pot."
No. I quoted what you said, even:
"Florida is one of the best states in the U.S. Miles better than any left-run state."
Then I showed how that wasn't true. So stop trying to walk it back. Florida isn't even a "mixing pot" really, unless you mean the slang for Mary Jane. :)
In an earlier post, the one that your first replied to, I showed how Florida was absolutely not a mixing pot:
"74.7% White (53.3% Non-Hispanic White), 16.0% Black or African American, 2.8% Asian, 0.3% Native American and Alaskan Native, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 3.3% Some Other Race, and 2.9% from two or more races."
And really, who cares? It's no reflection on you. You aren't in charge of seeing to it that Florida stands for equity, diversity, and inclusion. Plus, I thought conservatives don't like that kinda thing.
Also, you wrote:
"The reason many Floridians are celebrating the NAACP is due to the fact that leftists are not going to migrate down here for the winter, trash our state, and go back up to NY and such, just to make fun of our state, calling it terrible whilst coming here and turning it into their corrupt homes like an Airbnb. Floridians are tired of heightened housing prices due to immigrants from other states moving here."
So you and other Floridians celebrate that you aren't a mixing pot. Really, you're just wrong about everything, and totally full of cow pies.
1
-
@5APPH_13 "There's almost more blacks and Hispanics in my area than white kids."
Your claim was that the state was better. Not your anecdotal area. Nor does "almost" really matter here.
"We re one of the better states to live political wise."
Oh really? Your state changed its laws so that DeSantis could run, while still being governor. He has done one authoritarian anti-woke thing after another, and your state government has gone along with it. And I've already shown how Florida is not one of the better states at anything.
"We don't care about race, ethnicity or skin color in South Florida (if you'd like me to specify) because everyone here gets along."
In South Florida, maybe some people feel that way. That's where your culture is, where the universities are, where the liberals live. It's not like a state philosophy though, that Florida doesn't care about race. Give me a break. And what about the rest of the state? Western Florida for example: Lots of serious rednecks there. Even so, we're talking about the state as a whole, specifically about DeSantis. And he has banned any book even mentioning race. He banned children's picture books (with no words) about Rosa Parks and Dr. King. So don't feed me that line about race.
"Floridians do not like snow birds coming here to their vacation homes to trash our state and leave."
And you don't like "snow birds." So, at best, you're shifting your hatred and bigotry, but you're still hateful and bigoted. With DeSantis and his ilk, being anti-woke is not only about race, but LGBTQ too. That's a lot of hate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keymaker2112 What do Aristotle and Aquinas have to do with anything here? Since neither of them were American, and one died before Jesus was born, and the other a couple centuries before Columbus, I'd say that whatever "law" they spoke of isn't a law here.
Anyway, "natural law," as in philosophy, is/was more like basic observations of human nature, than an actual law.
I was thinking of natural science before, which includes physics. Newton entitled his major work: The Principles of Natural Mathematics (except he gave it a Latin title).
Now, what Newton wrote...THAT is law. It is provable, universal, and not subject to misinterpretation or misappropriation. HUGE difference between Newton's Natural Science, and what Aristotle and Aquinas did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wait, so Cenk wants to run for President...not to actually be President, but so the DNC would feel pressured by his 20% support that they'd pick someone other than Biden. That's really insincere, and, given what David said about that court case, uninformed as to whether he'd even be eligible to run. And would tax payers have to pay for the Supreme Court to decide his eligibility?
Even assuming he won that case, he'd still have to get his name out there, and share his message with the people, and win them over. And what would that message be? "I don't really want to be President, but here's my convoluted scheme to force the DNC to change their minds about whom they support"...?
This sounds like a really bad idea, like someone who loves him should've smacked him in the face for wanting to manipulate the system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Woke definition: "Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination"."
DeSantis is against being woke, which means he is in favor of prejudice and discrimination. Sounds like he wants to roll back the Civil Rights Act of 1964: "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin."
Notice that part about "sex." Woke has come to mean more than being alert to racial prejudice and discrimination, but prejudice and discrimination of all kinds. And this includes against not only LGBTQ people, but women too. That would take us to the 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, which allowed women the right to vote.
If you're against woke, then you want there to be prejudice and discrimination. And that would include discrimination against women. Roe v. Wade, anyone? Think they won't do it? Think they won't try to allow legal prejudice in certain states? Think they won't say it's in the name of Jesus? They are already doing it. And they want to do more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FireinTheBowl "What should they have done given your knowledge of law enforcement and the situation at hand?"
I don't have knowledge of law enforcement. I know it must really suck, dealing with criminals a lot of the time. But they are also just there to serve and protect the public. So let's just try to read the situation:
79-year old woman walks out of Walmart without paying the $15 for her detergent and t-shirt. Did she run out, setting off the alarms? Did she rob the place with a gun or knife? Or did she just wander out? Why did she just wander out? What's going on there?
You stop her, and ask her. She just tells you she's going home. What do you do now? Dislocate her shoulder, make her bleed, traumatize her, throw her to the ground...for $15, and the blow to the cop's ego, since she didn't stop?
She's walking. Why not follow her? She's walking, and so not going very far. She's elderly, and so probably doesn't live alone. Something seems off about her, and so someone must be at that home to look out for her. Follow her home. Then you can get back the stupid detergent and t-shirt, without all that dumb crap they did. See? Not hard. Just takes patience, and compassion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beeforeal5497 When I say, "I don't" do something, that usually means I don't ever do it. In the situation when he was quoted, he could have said, 'I'm not kidding.' But Trump isn't the most eloquent person, to say the least. Everything he says is subject to interpretation, because he doesn't (can't) say what he really means.
This has enabled Trump supporters to always be able to say he didn't mean it. Or that what he said wasn't what he meant.
And considering how Trump says he's the best at everything, and I mean everything ("Nobody knows __ like Trump"), then it makes sense he would believe his body is powerful, and great to look at it.
And since he has said so many times that other people were amazed by his ability to do all the things he's best at, it makes sense that he'd believe the White House doctor thought Trump's body looked powerful.
Spoiler: It doesn't. And that's not just my opinion. He looks like he never exercises; he eats fast food all the time. How strong could his body be?
So, no. I don't think he was kidding. I don't think he ever kids, unless it's to insult someone. He's an insult comic--I'll give him that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It always seems the most judgmental, racist, or xenophobic people are not, in the least, any kind of perfect person. Come to think of it, no one is perfect, or all-knowing, all-seeing. We're all ignorant about a lot of things--different things, maybe, but how much different? It's like one pile of dust claiming it's smarter, and superior, to another pile of dust.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"loosely-held beliefs" There's your problem. People who believe, believe everyone else believes. But there are those of us who think. Beliefs rarely, if ever, come into the picture. We follow the scientific method. And so we aren't married to a rigid set of assumptions, incorrect analyses, or bad logic. That way, when we make a mistake, we can correct it, because our ego isn't stopping us from doing so; or when when we get new facts, and incorporate them into the analysis, and see they change the overall picture, we can adjust what we think is correct. That's the difference between believing like you do, and thinking. Just being "real."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not about automatically knowing everything, being knowledgeable without studying. It's about having the critical thinking skills, the curiosity and humility, to know that you don't and are unable to know everything--so you can learn new things, as you go: Learn how to learn, then you can learn anything.
Trump believes he knows everything, and has nothing to learn, because he is too arrogant to admit ignorance, and too stupid to be aware of his inability to learn, i.e., Dunning-Kruger effect. This is the problem with his supporters too. They believe they know everything, and are just as unwilling to learn the truth about Trump, and so they simply accept his lies and BS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem with "tradition" is that it's much more concrete, in hindsight, than it actually was. Things change; everything moves. Parents in the '50s grew up in the '30s and '40s, and their "values" would have been influenced by their parents, who grew up 10-20 years earlier. So the culture of the '50s would've been new to those parents, who probably resisted it, therefore, and were against things like rock and roll, and Elvis' pelvis.
It's normal to be overwhelmed by the changing culture. And it's normal to resent the new ways of doing things. I grew up in the '80s, and miss seeing the real MTV, being able to smoke wherever I wanted, and so on. Speaking of which, I'd like to quote Billy Joel: "The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems." Rock on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@offendedwokeperson1445 "So being on your front lawn isn't being at home?"
You didn't say "at home." You said, "since when is carrying a gun in your own home a crime."
There's a difference, whether or not you admit to it. And you forget that the JUDGE said there was a difference. So it doesn't really matter what either of us says here.
You're wrong about BLM killing people. Did you get that from Facebook? Here's the fact check:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/07/facebook-posts/no-proof-black-lives-matter-killed-36-people-injur/
What's happening here is you're changing the circumstances of what happened. By saying they were "in their own home," that makes it sound like it was perfectly fine they were pointing weapons. And by saying BLM had murdered people, that makes it sound like the pink golf pro and the little tea pot were justified.
See, if your premises are wrong, if the assumption you base all your point of view on is a lie, then everything else you posit is based on a lie, and therefore wrong.
But, hey, the governor pardoned them, despite the judge having convicted them. So the glass is half full for ya.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump is so obvious. He holds up the Bible, like it's anything: an orange, for example, or a dead rat. I guess he was hoping that the picture (and video) would get to his base, without context, and just show him holding up the Bible, during a time of great crisis. If he wasn't so disingenuous, he would've made a big deal of praying for peace inside the church, even if he didn't mean it; he could have gone to some other church, where there weren't protesters in sanctuary; he could have not gone to any church at all, but held up the Bible in the White House, and said something inspirational (however hypocritical).
Every time he could do something decent and right, he does something stupid and horrible. The nation is in shambles: over 100,000 deaths in a couple of months, millions unemployed, riots in the streets. It could be argued that none of this was due to him, personally. But it all certainly hinges on how he dealt with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, but fiction for the evolving culture of ancient Israel (between circa 5,000 BCE and 1,000 BCE) is not really what we think of as fiction today. We're on the other side of he world from them, thousands of years later, with another language, and totally different culture.
The ancient Israelites enjoyed a good turn of phrase. They liked irony. They really enjoyed putting place names and the names of people into their stories--even when those people lived at a different time, in another place; and even though what they say happened in those stories didn't happen.
But they also had a fondness for tweaking history, as long as it told a good story, used names they knew, and places they knew. For example: Egypt kept records of the nations they enslaved; there's no mention of the Hebrews. Parts of the walls of Jericho are still standing to this day. Israel didn't make war against the people of the promised land.
1
-
@TheZenGarden_ I'm familiar with Proverbs. I know that Solomon spoke 3,000 proverbs. Can you tell me why you think my "knowledge of the Tanakh and world history is nonexistent"?
I have to ask, because you gave no examples, or corrections. And do you really want to go the ad hominem route? I'm the only one paying you any attention at all. To everyone else, you're not even worth talking to.
While I'm more versed in Christianity, I've looked into Judaism. I'm not doubting that you're capable of knowing more about it than I am. But to declare that I've read nothing about it is just an assumption on your part, and an incorrect one at that.
I have a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, and have read through it multiple times. So, your assumptions about me are wrong. Now, if you want to talk about Judaism, I'd welcome it. I want to learn more. But if you want to be a schoolyard bully, then I have no time for you. You choose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheZenGarden_ "Well if you look back at our conversation, what you said you answered doesn't show up until your last post."
I can see it. Usually, if my post triggers the auto-delete algorithm, I can't see it. But whatever.
""Jews" are not Hebrews"
Okay, Hebrews was what they were called by other people, when they wandered around without a home. Jews is what they were called after the 12 tribes split up. They were left with Judah, and 1 or 2 of the other smaller tribes, whomever was loyal to David going with the latter, and whomever was loyal to Saul splitting off from Judah.
This splitting (at least in the text) was cemented when the conquerors came in at the end of the book of Kings. When Babylon enslaved what was left of Israel, they enslaved Judah, and those 1 or 2 small tribes, which became known as the Jews.
"And all that "son of" nonsense you're talking about is complete rubbish!!"
No it isn't. I got it from the scholar William Barclay. And Barclay could level us both with his knowledge, in a heartbeat.
That quote from Exodus used, about the "first born," God was talking about Israel. Israel was his first born. Not Jesus. In Exodus, there was no Jesus. There wasn't even the thought of a messiah yet.
Why did you ask me if I believed Jesus was the son of God? All you did was just deny everything I said. I've put off my reading today to talk to you. And it has been a total waste. You have wasted my time. I'm done with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xenos_5571 While I wait for you, I just want to make sure we're on the same page about a couple things. First, let's look back at what I wrote, which you found to be worth proving some point about. I'm still waiting on that point, by the way. The whole "why is it only bad when a republican does something" doesn't really cut it. But we can get back to that. So I wrote:
"You beat me to it! I had just posted this. Came to my mind immediately. It's Fascism 101: basic, entry-level. Really, with Fox, Newsmax, etc., and Trump denying the election, their entire party is now based on what they're told to believe, instead of what they see and hear."
And that was a reply to the original post, which quoted Orwell (who you've read):
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.¨
So, don't believe your eyes and ears. Why did Trump remind me of this quote? Oh yes, because the Republican in this story, that we're commenting on, said that a riot didn't occur on January 6. That is was just like any day with tourists.
So don't believe what you saw on the cameras. And there were a lot of cameras. Even the rioters recorded what they did, and posted it in real time. But don't believe the rioters, either. How does Trump fit in with this?
Trump has made claims of fake news for his entire presidency. He probably still does it. Probably wakes up in the middle of the night, screaming, "Fake news!"
Trump also explained to Leslie Stahl, from 60 Minutes, that he did that "fake news" thing so his supporters wouldn't believe any news that was against him. He wanted them to not believe their eyes and ears, but believe him, alone. Right?
So what does this have to do with Hillary? While waiting for you to respond, I looked up Hillary's opposition to Trump being elected. She was not pleased. She thought he cheated. She wanted there to be recounts. But I couldn't find any news of there being recounts.
I couldn't find that anything was done, at all, for her, or by her. Nothing! So she didn't harp on the fake news the whole time; complain about the mail-in ballots being fraudulent, before the election; or demand audits; news stations didn't support her by saying Trump wasn't actually the President, like Fox did this time with Biden.
And, generally, Democrats aren't asked to believe something that totally contradicts their eyes and ears. I'm still waiting for your reply. Maybe you'll have something compelling, something to show this isn't just a poor excuse for whataboutism on your part.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@H.P._Lovecrafts_Cat "Interesting you shifted it to MAGA extremists, when OP said ANYONE who votes rebuplican has subhuman intellegence."
I didn't say extremists. You did. I didn't say conservatives. You did. Notice the straw man forming? No? Okay, let's start from scratch, my first post:
"You don't think MAGA voters are working for NASA. Do you? Or teaching graduate and doctorate level physics? How many of them even read a single book in 2022?"
Okay? What do we see? First, I didn't say conservative: I said MAGA voters. Now, did I say anything about them? No. I asked two questions about them. See that? I put it right there for you to see. Got it?
That's when you decided to grace me with your presence:
"just wanted to pop in to say that I know a conservative that has done lots of engineering for NASA and graduated with a friend that now codes for NASA, also right-winged. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative."
Okay? What do you see? Conservative, not MAGA, engineering friend and coding friend, both working for NASA. Then you stated that it doesn't fit my narrative. You assumed my narrative. Right? See that? I asked two questions: which isn't a narrative. But you decided it was a narrative, and that you would disprove this straw man, with two examples--which I can't verify.
So I replied to you, tried to clarify some things. But you weren't having it, because, People who voted for Trump are successful. Another straw man.
I didn't say they weren't successful. I didn't claim anything. YOU DID. I asked two questions. See the difference?
Now, please, just zark off with your insipid attempted takedowns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I make it a point to not wish anything on anyone, that I wouldn't wish for myself. But, when I first saw the news this morning, I laughed. No, I giggled, and cackled like a mad scientist or demon. I couldn't stop laughing. About an hour later, I prayed for them.
We Americans are wound up tight, ready to burst, explode, attack, defend. (Sorry to dare speak for everyone, but it's the sense I have of the country.) This is a direct result of everything Trump has done; every single day he does something worse than the day before. Trump created this climate of rage; he's not a victim of it: You reap what you sow.
Therefore, I understand the rejoicing, and I don't condemn it. Still, we need to be careful that this drowning man doesn't pull us down with him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Cons' idea of an Alpha always seemed sad to me. First, I guess they're talking about the alpha wolf. But the wolf pack is a literal family; the alpha is the father and husband. So if ya wanted to be an alpha wolf (even though you're human), then be a good husband and father. (The "lone wolf," by the way, is the one who can't get a female, and is booted from the pack.) Secondly, why would someone who's "tough" need to be what someone else considers tough? One of the toughest things in life is to believe in yourself, be who you are, and not what others want you to be. Finally, being yourself means being the best "you" you can be. No one else knows how to be you. And, if at the end of the day, can't find a woman (since this all seems to be a man problem), either accept that and don't take it out on women, and/or learn to treat people with kindness and respect: They're people, not objects.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Belief, itself, is the issue. Logically, if you believe something, then you already (tacitly) accept that you don't "know" it. If you knew it, you wouldn't have to resort to a belief. However, once you get to believing, then that thing you don't know becomes a "strongly held" belief; then it's only a slight nudge until you accept what you don't know, as something you do know. When that happens, you (a generalized "you," keep in mind) can "know" so much more then you have ever learned, because you don't have to actually know it. Belief, therefore, can be very very dangerous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Adam.Frazier I've read the Bible cover to cover dozens of times, as a non-believer. I see it as poetry, which I've studied extensively. Metaphors and parables allow the writer to engage the reader's imagination, while also suspending their disbelief, making them able to think about life in simpler terms. This means we can think of common things in ways that a realistic depiction wouldn't be able to. In the writing, which was done by different writers over centuries, the Bible primarily shows God as life, itself. So when God created the world, animals, plants, water, and humans, he/she/it was really representing life, the universe. As we see, man is not created from mud, or a female from a man's rib, but from parents. And ancient people could see that too, giving birth as they no doubt did. Life creates life, then; and God is life. Jesus said that: I am the life. That's the first step of interpreting he/she/it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beneficent2557 "As for the CSA, the vast majority saw it as a war of Northern Aggression."
This is true. But let's apply a little critical thinking, some logic those 19th century farmers weren't capable of. Shall we?
When did the United States become aggressive? And that's what they were, the United States. "North" is only north relative to the southern U.S., and the South had seceded.
Right? And what did they do after they had seceded? They attacked a U.S. fort. That was before any "northern aggression." Remember? So, by doing that, the CSA declared war on the USA.
And, by declaring war, and attacking our nation's fort in South Carolina, they brought the aggression, Sherman's march, and their complete ruin down on their own heads.
(And your last reply to me also got zapped. haha!)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ginnymurray1869 "I don't hate the girl but I dislike her a lot."
Oh, so you don't hate her, just dislike her a lot? Well, that's okay then. Because hate blinds a person. Hate makes them believe stuff about someone, without evidence or reason. They accept generic, hateful descriptions, about someone they don't know, who has very little impact on their life, such as, "She is a drama queen and leans toward hyperbole."
But, hey, as long as you don't hate her, you aren't actually blinded. Right?
"But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them" (1 John 2:11).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As near as I can understand, this is what Trump supporters believe and why they are stuck on him being reinstated asap:
Trump was chosen by God to save America from the Deep State. Now, the Deep State is a horrible thing, a world-wide cabal with an age-old conspiracy. Democrats represent them in the U.S. And Dems (who are so evil as to be called "demon rats"), as part of their (Doctor) evil, kidnap children, sell them as sex slaves, and even drink their blood, or harvest the raw adrenaline from their bodies. And they do this in the basement of a specific pizza parlor--which, it turns out--doesn't have a basement. But oh well.
But before Trump could beat the Deep State here and abroad, they rigged the election against him! (Oh NOOO!!) So, somehow, God's chosen one was tricked out of office by the demon rats. (Dirty, dirty demon rats!) So the demonic, child-enslaving world-wide cabal thwarted God's will, and therefore the will of His chosen one. Of course, God won't stand for this. And He is at work right now, through his gerrymandering prophets, to return control of this great country to the man who most Republicans put on par with Jesus. So Trump must be reinstated, as it's God's will.
1
-
"There is no God!!!! Spread the word!"
You don't really know that, anymore than they know there is one. What we can say is science leaves little to no room (and has no need) for such a thing as God. Besides, this isn't about God's assumed existence. It's about people trying to go against the Constitution, by making (their form of) Christianity our national, government sponsored (and enforced) religion.
See? There's no winning your argument. You can't prove a negative. Also, there's no way to prove God does exist. So bringing this up is pointless. The point is the founders knew what it meant for a monarch to rule in God's name, to be God's supposed vicar. Because, as we see in history, when that happens, such a theocracy invariably uses their government's military might to persecute, torture, and kill any who are against their form of religion.
And that's also what we're talking about: religion. Not God, but the way of worshiping that God, the kinds of beliefs you take to be knowledge, and using that as a means to govern.
1
-
@vivalaleta "And all you said about a god can be said about fairies and ghosts."
I wouldn't compare them that way, though. "Religion is misunderstood mythology." Joseph Campbell wrote that. Ever read his work? He studied all the world's myths, and wrote about their similarities and differences.
Being "pretty sure" is still not knowing. And you can't know, as I said, because no one is able to prove a negative. So, actually, you're closer to Bigfoot, fairies, and ghosts than what I'm saying. Much closer.
You either know or you don't know. Period. That's all. The rest is belief. Believing and disbelieving often transition into being "pretty sure." And then those beliefs (or disbeliefs) are accepted as fact.
You can say, as I wrote, that science leaves no room for a creator. It has no need of the hypothesis. Or that Occam's razor says the simplest explanation is likely to be true. But you can't say that what you don't know (and can't know) is a fact.
That is what religious people do that is so wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidsheriff9274 "so the issue is not just about capitalism and greed, the problem is corruption, mismanagement of the funds and incompetence."
And where does "corruption, mismanagement of the funds, and incompetence" come from? Why do we have it? Capitalism and greed.
As for drug addiction and other problems, we need to deal with those things too. One problem at a time. So I'm not "leaving it out."
"Not every problem in the world can be fixed by throwing more and more money at it."
Okay. Then how do we get them food and shelter? In a capitalist society, that requires money. If we didn't live in such a society, then we could all chip in and give them what they need to get their lives back on track.
As for why there are homeless in progressive cities, it's because that's where the people are. Lots of people live in well-run, and well-maintained cities, so the homeless will go there to panhandle. They aren't going to go to Redneckville, Alabama.
And yes, progressives talk about the gap in wealth. But we can't control how wealthy other people are. You don't think we can, do you? Progressives aren't responsible for this country having "rich people a few blocks from people living in tents." That's absurd to even say it.
Know what is responsible for both of those things? Capitalism and greed.
But don't worry, I doubt capitalism is going anywhere anytime soon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You'd think, after all this time, some political strategist of his would have come up with something for him to say about religion questions. As much as he lies, seems like it should be no problem to lie about this, even if someone has to coach him on it, since he obviously has no clue. Stuff like this, done on Fox so they could see it, should make religious people stop and think. But, then, I wonder how many of them pray; how many have read Two Corinthians, and how many hug their flags every day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump wasn't meant to be a President, exactly. He was voted in to troll the establishment, make the libs cry, and give his fans a sequel to his reality show. He never tried to do anything presidential, or responded like any kind of President would. He was an a-hole. That's all. So ranking him with other presidents isn't really accurate.
Instead, rank him with other insult comics. Hmm, in that case, he'd still be dead last, after Triumph the insult comic dog, and way down the list from Rodney Dangerfield. Guess he's a loser, no matter what list you put him on, except maybe "the biggest and sorest losers of all time." He's number one with a bullet on that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kentstallard6512 Both of those are parables, and not to be interpreted with crude literalism.
The first is directed at the Pharisees, who claimed that Jesus could only drive out devils by the power of Satan. It's the famous "a house divided cannot stand" parable. It's also about neutrality: neither being for what's good, or for what's bad.
The second is the result of how we respond to those in need. It's the famous "what you do to the lowest of people, you do to me" speech. It's about treating everyone the way you would treat God.
So you've isolated a couple verses from here and there, and given to them the worst possible interpretation.
Also, the word "eternal" comes from the Greek word aion. The New Testament was written in Greek. So without knowing the Greek, chances are you don't know the intended meaning of the words.
Aion was used normally to describe flowing water. It means continuous, as opposed to stagnate. It means life, the vital force. And it refers sometimes to the unending cosmos. So when it was translated to English, and one word had to be chosen, they went with eternal.
This paints the wrong picture, and is very inaccurate, and has given a mistaken understanding of life after death. The life after death part was assumed, and not included in what Jesus said there.
The punishment we get is what we inflict on ourselves, which we deal with our whole life, continuously. God gave all judgment to Jesus, and Jesus judges no one. So there is no Peter's gate or divine judgment, only us condemning ourselves to a life of hate, or a life of love.
1
-
@kentstallard6512 My apologies. I didn't know you were ordained. I'm just an enthusiastic amateur. Most of what I've learned I got from reading William Barclay's commentaries, and reading the Bible cover-to-cover dozens of times. I also write essays on the gospels.
"I'm not going to engage in a debate over interpretation of the MYTHOLOGY."
Then why did you comment? Maybe because you wanted to tell me, "No." All right, then.
Edit: Since I haven't heard from you for a week, I reviewed what we had already written. First, I didn't say anything about "mythology." I don't know where you got that from, or even what you mean by that word. Secondly, as an ordained minister, you claiming the gospels is something other than what was taught in the beatitudes is hogwash. You should be ashamed.
How can you even say that? I expect that from a layman, who hates everything about religion, but from an ordained minister? Frankly, I'm doubting that claim now. You seem like a run-of-the-mill troll to me: something else I'd never expect an ordained minister to sound like.
But you said, "I was an ordained minister." I thought once a person is ordained, that's something that doesn't go away, like a doctorate or other degree. Did you lose your faith? Retire? Quit? Sorry to pry. I'm genuinely curious how you got to this state.
1
-
@kentstallard6512 "...when I point out verses about eternal punishment you perform exegetical gymnastics to make it seem more benign."
You call what I did "gymnastics." But it isn't. Jesus said, "...the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son" (John 5:22). And he also said, "You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one" (John 8:15). And let's not forget this: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (John 3:17).
Granted, all that is in John. But that's because John is awesome. The point here is that there is no "eternal" divine judgment claimed in the Bible. God doesn't judge. Jesus doesn't either. Know who does? We human beings do.
We punish ourselves. That's hell, not The Hell. Everything I wrote is about factually accurate translations, taken from years of reading commentary, study Bibles, and reading the original Greek words used. The word "eternal" was incorrectly translated; it more closely means "continuing."
The hell you experience is your own, when you judge yourself and others. Freedom from that continuing punishment comes from loving all that God is and has made, which is everything. That's the good news, the gospel. Peace be with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Aspartame69 That's the idea. See, by paying for it through taxes, you ensure that everyone (you included) are taken care of, no matter what. So if you get what would be a crippling hospital bill in the US, if you're in Canada, you aren't crippled by it. If you're unable to work, because of a pandemic (like millions of people in the US), in Canada you'll be fine. Socialist policies like this take care of everyone. Socialism does not have to mean Russian style, or Venezuelan style; it means in whatever style that country adopts: Canadian style, for example. It also means what the US has always claimed to be: of the people, by the people, and for the people--not the corporations or the 1%, which is what the US actually is. That makes America the biggest hypocrite in the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DevilTravels Because you were talking about a "whole universe" where we could live, given that there are too many people on earth. We can't live in the space between planets and stars, at least not any better than we could live on other planets.
So I didn't so much ignore it, but focused on what you were talking about. @BigRalphSmith nailed it above:
"Basically, humanity is going to be a prisoner of this planet for a long, long time to come. That's why our main goal should be to manage this planet as best we possibly can for the foreseeable future."
Colonizing other planets in the universe isn't just about courage, or even necessity. It's about science that doesn't exist for us yet, and maybe never will. At the very least, as @BigRalphSmith put it:
"If you look at the actual practical aspects, expanding off of our home planet is not going to be even possible for many hundreds if not thousands of years yet and it's very doubtful that, even if we overcame the super-relativistic travel issues, we would have the ability to literally terraform any planet we might want to colonize."
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just remember: Belief isn't knowledge. If you knew, you wouldn't have to believe. And if you're unable to prove it, then you don't know. Plus, just because your belief makes sense to you, don't expect others (with different lives, in different cities, with varying cultural backgrounds and education) to believe as you do. In the end, belief is an aesthetic choice, i.e., belief is in the eye of the beholder.
And if your belief is that you have a protected right (or should) to be a complete and total wanker, then that's not a belief. That's just you wanting to be a jerk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Adam.Frazier Statistics of what is the "primary cause" or causes, as I wrote before. Which you can look up. Of course it's one, but it's the main one, or anywhere close to it. Think it's like 7% of all the wars.
@AprilB-vy6uq My "knickers" are fine. Where do you see any twisting happening? You just want to dismiss the simple fact I shared, by attacking me. I know you want to dismiss religion too, without thinking: put in a box, label it, and never give more than the slightest thought to it. Your choice, if you want to take that shortcut. I'm not a believer, and I'm not here to convert you, or to defend anything. It's just this simple, cliched argument of yours is absent of much consideration, and is one detail out of many. I find such shortcuts distasteful, lacking intellectualism, imagination, and the ability to read and think about humanity. Ah well. Believe what you want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not.At.All.True.
Southern Democrats (not Democrats period), before the Civil War, were the slave holders and plantation owners. It wasn't even necessarily them who became the KKK. The Klan was founded (partly) by the Confederate "wizard of the saddle," Nathan Bedford Forrest. So Confederate, not Union. Not that all Yankees were above racism, by a long shot.
Those Southern Democrats, enraged that their southern way of life was destroyed by the ending of slavery, fought against African Americans achieving any kind office or advancement. That was the main purpose of the Klan. Southern. Get that part? The Southern way of life, which was slavery. With me so far?
But all that changed with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat. Because a Democrat ended every carefully built hindrance to African Americans, the Southern Democrats left the party. They became Republicans. And, to this day, the ideals of the Southern Democrats have remained a part of the Republican party. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, he said, and I quote: “We [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation.”
You didn't really think political parties stay the exact same over centuries. Do you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@superscaryrussianbot846 "The job of a leader (which you clearly are not) is to conform the mob to their way of thinking."
I could be a leader, and not be a leader of the mob. So that's hardly my fault. Nor is it anyone else's fault, but the members of the mob.
If you're referring to the President, and that he has failed for not influencing the mob to take the vaccine: They hate that particular leader. See, there's a culture war going on. And the people who are told to hate and reject all things Democrat, cannot, will not, absolutely refuse to be led by a Democrat, or a scientist, or anyone else who tells them what they don't want to hear.
You're blaming people who are not responsible, because the mob values their "freedom" from so-called tyranny, and their allegiance to their side of the culture war, over taking a vaccine or wearing a mask--which could (and will) save the lives of their fellow Americans. And it'll save their lives too. So they are willing to risk their own lives. How can you save such a person?
So if they still don't want to take the vaccine, that's not the fault of a leader. (Did you miss how Trump got booed for suggesting to his own followers that they should take the vaccine?) If you blame others, then you aren't accepting responsibility. And that's exactly what the mob is doing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danialhillmann5374 Why should you? You can just use the old schoolyard standby, "I know you are but what am I." It would be really fun and challenging if you MAGA trolls were intelligent. Please go learn some physics, astronomy, world history, and read some Dickens, Henry Miller, and Carl Sagan, learn Japanese, German, and Spanish. And then you can read about politics, and actually have a brain that knows how to think critically. See, then we'd be on the same playing field. As it is, you're dumber than Herschel Walker and Trump put together. You got Dunning-Kruger coming out of your ears.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fractal-insights "so, you think nothing exploded and created everything?"
That's not what I said. I said "created by the big bang." Besides, no one really knows for sure. Have you ever studied physics, majored in it? I have. You ever read through the whole Bible over 12 times? I have. I can discuss either. I am well versed in both. How about you?
Since you ignored my question to gauge your intellect, I'll try again: Who was Cain's wife? You remember Cain. Right? Killed Abel. Who did Cain marry, and why is that significant?
Old Testament not your bag? Okay, what did Jesus say was the requirement to be one of his disciples, i.e., a Christian?
How about some church history, as it pertains to science? Why did the Church arrest Galileo, and how did that impact the relationship between science and the church?
Or some physics: What is the Uncertainty Principle, as it relates to energy? What does that have to do with the Big Bang? Is there any evidence of the Big Bang?
That's enough questions. I anxiously await your informed response.
1
-
1
-
1
-
On Dems not being good at politics: First, it's difficult to respond to this accusation, or even understand it, without them first defining "politics." Politics in what sense? In which area? Using what examples? And to whom among Dems are they referring? Politics is an ever-changing landscape, in every way. It isn't the same thing as it was 20 years ago, or even 10, let alone looking back further than that. And the Orange Dumpster has changed it drastically, abandoning it almost entirely, making it a back-and-forth between amateur insult comics. There aren't any debates. Nothing resembling a debate has happened since at least 2008 at the presidential level. A lot of people don't even seem to know what a debate is, and declare the winner based on their stage performance (like with Joe this last time). So with the Dumpster throwing the rule book out, how are people to respond? Should they throw away all decorum as well? Surrender all sense of decency and humanity, just so they can satisfy people who don't even know or care about those things? Is that what they mean by "politics"?
1
-
1
-
"Animal Farm" is too often overlooked. That scene near the end, with the horse--who had always worked hard and supported the pigs--being taken away to a glue factory, because he wanted to retire, as the pigs promised he could, chills me. The problem doesn't rest with Fox, at least not 100%. Trump supporters are the other part of that equation. Fix Trump supporters, and Fox goes off the air; fix Trump supporters, and we'll never have anyone like Trump again.
How to do that, given that Trump supporters believe the "libs" are brainwashed, when it's they who have been subdued, and are controlled? In fact, most everything Trump supporters believe about "Dems" is actually true of them; they project, and shift blame, just like Trump. I don't know how to fix them, or that they can be saved. They're fine with whatever that madman does. And I can't think of anything to change their minds; many of them have said that they'll always support Trump.
Is that Fox's fault? Somewhat, of course. But Trump supporters are so limited in their critical thinking (or else just cruel, racist, and xenophobic on purpose, or just to make the libs cry), that they brought this on themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JuggerLMN "wrong. affirmative action was put in place to help minority students who could not get into colleges based on merit alone."
No. That's wrong. It was put in place to stop bigotry. Period. Before it, people could be denied based on race. Now they can be denied again.
"it “incentivized diversity” by creating a point based admission system where minority races would get extra “points” towards admittance just because of their race."
Unfortunately, this is true. This was indeed going on. As a white male teacher, I've experienced this personally, and was even told so by other teachers in the university.
But you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Because, while that is true, affirmative action was, indeed, put in place to stop discrimination by bigots against other races, sexes, genders, nationalities, etc.
Both things are true. Can't you see? The system was corrupted. But now it has returned to its original corrupted state, instead of the problem being fixed.
1
-
1
-
@tomslick2112 "How much school did you miss as a child?"
Ad hominem, really? Is that all you got? Well, let's see:
I was a terrible student growing up. I really liked chemistry and history, but hated math. I also played 4 musical instruments, and enjoyed chorus.
I skipped a lot of classes, because I didn't think anyone had anything to teach me. I taught myself, though, and didn't just stay ignorant.
By my junior year, I turned all that around. I got a math tutor, aced all my classes in junior and senior year. Then I went on to get my bachelor's, master's, and doctorate in physics.
I also minored in saxophone performance, and creative writing poetry. I'm a tenured professor of physics now. Anything else you want to know? Or should we discuss quarks and gluons?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lawrence8146 Here's the deal. First, affirmative action didn't start in a vacuum, with its only reason to exist being to give preferential treatment to minorities. It started because preferential treatment was being given only to people who weren't minorities.
Affirmative action was necessary because people weren't being judged based on merit. Got that? That's important.
Secondly, over time at least some (if not most) of affirmative action became about doing the complete opposite. Instead of seeing to it that people got into college based on merit (equality for all), it shifted at least some (if not most) of its attention to seeking out only minorities, and filling quotas.
As a white male teacher, I have personally experienced this. So, logically speaking, how should this problem have been fixed? And it was obviously a problem.
Well, have to identify the problem, which is that some (if not most) of affirmative action had become corrupted. But it was still needed, as there is obviously plenty of bigotry to go around.
I don't know how exactly this should have been fixed. Not my job, nor does my opinion even matter. The quota system, and checking off of boxes to make sure you had X number of X race and/or X gender was obviously flawed.
So that should have been what was fixed. Instead, they threw the baby out with the bath water. The Supreme Court (of all things) made it the law of the land (of all setbacks to civil rights) that minorities can now legally be prejudiced against in colleges.
Sure, it means white males can no longer be discriminated against. Yay? I mean, I'm a white male, and I've experienced the quotas. But everyone who isn't a white male can now (once again) be the victims of prejudice---a huge problem we still haven't solved (or even faced) in this country.
1
-
1
-
@jacobsaunders1092 "it was never necessary, which is why it has been overturned by the Supreme Court, it was unconstitutional."
Affirmative action was necessary, because students were not being accepted on their own merit, but were discriminated against. Otherwise it wouldn't have ever been a law to start with.
Honestly, if that's your only retort, why even bother commenting?
This was a partisan affair, from start to finish. Conservatives took it to court, and conservatives overturned it, all to satisfy the bigotry of their base. I take it that's you? Well, enjoy it. And may God have mercy on your sorry soul.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump was also proud to admit he was a nationalist. Now, maybe he didn't know the meaning of the word, and thought he was saying the equivalent to "patriot." But he made a big deal out of how the libs and fake news hates nationalists, but he's proud to be one. Here's the quote, and one of many links that talk about it:
"“You know, they have a word, it sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist,” Trump said at a campaign event in Houston, where he rallied voters to support Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in November’s midterm elections.
“And I say, ‘Really? We’re not supposed to use that word,’” Trump continued. “You know what I am? I’m a nationalist. OK? I’m a nationalist.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/22/trump-nationalist-926745
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most of what Trump says or does only makes sense if you see it through the eyes of a Trump supporter. When he talks to the press, Trump has already vilified them. They are "fake news," which, to Trump supporters, means liars; it's not Trump who lies constantly, but the "liberal media," which is run by Soros, or something, and is involved with...whatever conspiracy theory Trump supporters believe. The Press is the enemy of the people. Period.
So when the Press asks questions, Trump supporters are disgusted. The evil of the news disgusts them. When Trump lashes out at these reporters, who, again, are servants of the evil empire (Stormtroopers, if you will), Trump supporters cheer when Trump flashes his lightsabre, and tears into the reporters. They see Trump as a hero, fighting the corruption and lies. (Read that sentence again.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From the beginning of Trump's campaign, I've heard some evangelicals refer to him as another Cyrus the Great. In Chronicles, Cyrus released the Jews from Babylonian captivity, and he was a non-Jewish (in terms of religion and nationality) King, chosen by God to free His people. So the ones who believe this actually know that Trump isn't religious. And they really like that, because "God works in mysterious ways."
Now, from what enslavement is this re-incarnated Cyrus to free God's chosen ones? The sinful United States, of course. If you combine the Cyrus idea with the Revelation, then they probably believe Trump is to bring down "Babylon the Great...the Whore of Babylon," as the Biblical text reads. So they also know Trump is destroying the country, this modern-day Babylon, whose sins oppress God's people.
Yeah, we have folks like that in this country. I don't know how many, or what percentage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is Trump lying? Let us consider this. First, it's Trump: so of course he's lying. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt, for a moment. Here's how we can tell, if he's being truthful. He said "front-line workers" repeatedly, that they were taking it. Would doctors and nurses, who do know science, and are aware of the importance of testing a drug, actually be taking this thing? I don't know, for sure, but I really doubt it.
Secondly, what was his proof, or basis for taking it? He "got a lot of phone calls about it." This is similar to the vague, old "People are saying such-and-such." Who, what people? Who called him? Who would call him, and tell him that this stuff worked, when it has been shown not to?
Finally, and a little devil's advocate here, Trump is a known germophobe. So when people in the White House started testing positive for Coronavirus, Trump might have actually freaked out, and decided to take this drug.
He's not only a liar, you see, but stark-raving crazy too.
1
-
1
-
That Greene would dare to play the victim, after stalking AOC, is extremely revealing. Her cries of "fake news" is more bogus fuel to the fire. In his first interview with Leslie Stahl, Trump admitted that he accused the big news outlets of being "fake," just so his supporters wouldn't believe them. This was brought up again in the 2nd Stahl interview (the one where Trump walked out). "Fake news" is a BS line, and (for Trumpian Republicans) it means the news in question is telling the truth about the Republican, so needs to be discredited.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/trump-told-lesley-stahl-he-bashes-press-to-discredit-negative-stories.html
“At one point, he started to attack the press,” Stahl said. “There were no cameras in there.”
“I said, ‘You know, this is getting tired. Why are you doing it over and over? It’s boring and it’s time to end that. You know, you’ve won ... why do you keep hammering at this?’” Stahl recalled.
“And he said: ‘You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.’”
Yeah, "no cameras." That part sucks, but it explains why Trump would even say it at all. He's counting on his supporters to call this fake news too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's how I see CRT: First, it has to do with laws. It's looking at laws, and something you'd study in a college law class, not in middle school (anywhere, ever). It's not saying anything about individual people being racists, or white people being inherently racist. It's looking at systems, not people, hence the term "systemic racism."
Secondly, it's starting point, and basic assumption goes something like this: If the laws of a society were once X, but have grown into Y, do elements of X still exist within these laws?
So, given that the U.S. (as an example; CRT also looks at Australia and Great Britain) was founded and built while it had slavery, are there leftovers or ramifications of that time, even though we have affirmative action, a black president, vice president, generals, etc.
One of the main points of confusion is that CRT has been blamed for the virtue signalling people, who say, All white people are bad. That's not CRT, that's just people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, I think he's trying pivot to the old "blame someone else" tactic. He goes for Obama and Biden, in order to say to the press, "but you won't report it." So he gets his usual anti-press dig in, as well as playing the Obama card, as well as trying to blame Biden. Same with China. He wants to somehow insert "China virus/plague," but can't, really. So he sounds like a moron, when he's attempting to blame others, for what is his fault, and to be nationalistic.
*
These are his usual tactics, but, this time, he really is too tired, or lazy, or, indeed, breaking down, to do the necessary mental gymnastics, and word salad. Bottom line: Yes, he's cracking up. He has no cards to play.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bugsy9007 Whew. You're asking tough questions, bud. I'll tell you what I know:
Politics is staged, in the obvious sense that we've all come to accept. Meaning, they dress up, put on makeup, read from a teleprompter, which someone else probably wrote.
They promise things they know people want to hear. They say things, in general, which certain people, of a statistical demographic, want to hear.
The question is: How far does that go? Does it go further for some than others? Very likely. So they aren't all totally acting? Probably. Are there some genuine politicians? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
1
-
@bugsy9007 "In other words, they count on an uninformed voter, so we get the government we deserve."
They count on the voters seeing politics as a combination of team sports, good guy wrestler vs bad guy wrestler, and reality tv.
Otherwise, everyday politics would bore tens of millions of Americans. So they sometimes become the bad guy, to attract the people who want to cheer for the anti-hero.
These dramatic tropes go way back, and are very appealing throughout the history of our species. We get caught up in the play, which goes on 'round the clock, every day, for years. So we forget it's a play, a staged event.
And because we forget, yes, we deserve the government we get.
1
-
Wow. So you reject the no-moon-landing conspiracy, but have your own that none of those astronauts made it back? After a brief search, I see that 12 human beings have walked on the moon (and returned). Four of them are still alive.
"In all, 24 American astronauts made the trip from Earth to the Moon (and returned) between 1968 and 1972. Three astronauts made the journey from Earth to the Moon twice: James Lovell (Apollo 8 and Apollo 13), John Young (Apollo 10 and Apollo 16), and Gene Cernan (Apollo 10 and Apollo 17)." (From NASA website.)
So that's another 12 who went there, but didn't walk on it. Some of them went twice. The four moon walkers who are still alive: Buzz Aldrin, David R. Scott, Charles M. Duke, and Harrison H. Schmitt. Maybe you should go tell them that they're actually dead on the moon? I suggest you start with Buzz, given his history:
"On September 9, 2002, astronaut Buzz Aldrin—the second human to set foot on the moon—is walking outside a Beverly Hills hotel when a conspiracy theorist starts harassing him and accusing Aldrin of lying about the Apollo 11 moon landing. Incensed, Aldrin punches his heckler in the face."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Empathy is a dying art, it seems, if not already largely dead. The term for a person with no empathy is "psychopath." So we need to work on this.
I get it: We perceive only with our own perceptions. We are locked behind the camera that's recording the movie of our own life, in which we are the star. The problem is that everyone has their own camera, and is filming their own movie.
To put it another way: We all see ourselves as royalty, and don't understand when others don't "make way for the King/Queen." With a little Occam's Razor, though, we realize we aren't the star, or royalty. We're all the same. So empathy should be easy, but it isn't, because so many refuse to let go of being the star.
Don't get me wrong: I also struggle with this, even when I know it's happening. I'm especially bad at empathizing with MAGA people, while I'm talking to them. When they're not in front of me, in my face, I totally understand where they're coming from.
There are two quick and easy ways to deal with our lack of empathy: First, just admit you don't know what that other person is thinking or feeling; you don't know anything about their life. That way you can at least not judge them in ignorance. (In theory, at least. As stated, I still judge MAGAts all the time. It's a work in progress.)
The second way requires imagination. Unfortunately, imagination has given way, as we demand our entertainment be more realistic. So the decline of empathy has to do with the death of the imagination in so many people. That said, you can work your imagination up again by practicing on other people. You can imagine what it would be like to live as them.
This can be difficult, because our knowledge of their lives is very limited. But most people have limited knowledge of their own lives, so it's not that far fetched.
Just imagine, make it your starting place (your axiom) that you're a male who likes other men, or a male who feels less like a man and more like a woman; you can imagine what it would be like if you didn't have the opportunity to get married, if women/men kept turning you down, throughout your life, making you involuntarily celibate.
So you're a so-called incel: What do you do now? This should start you on the track of using your imagination, and working on your empathy. It's the easiest thing you'll ever do, and the hardest, with an outcome that is both inevitable and impossible. Good luck. Have fun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@terrykennedy-lares8840 "This video, other than getting clicks from other leftists, is a waste of time."
Then don't let the door hit you on the way out.
"this video is not made to convince anyone who needs convincing about gun control. She is just going for ratings amoung left leaning people."
That's your obviously biased opinion.
"Her characterization of the MAGA lady is insulting and biased. She was not "incoherant and rambling""
Another biased opinion. I'm seeing a trend. I watched it. That maga woman was, indeed, incoherent (which how you spell it) and rambling. You're projecting your bias onto Rayvanna.
Sounds like you chose your side, and it's maga. You want maga to be treated with respect. I'm sorry, but that can't happen because maga is disrespectful. It can't happen because of January 6th. And it can't happen because they support Trump, which so far beyond moronic that no word can do it justice.
You want to show their point of view. Their point of view is madness. "Drag shows are more dangerous than guns." That was the maga woman's point. A lot of them say that. I see no reason to treat such a point of view with respect.
The rest of your post was bashing "leftists," which you very obviously aren't. That was my main point when I posted, and it still is. Now why don't you go shine your gun, and leave the thinking to people who can do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AndreySloan_is_a_cnut "Actually, it’s widely accepted by historians that he was a real person who existed."
Which historians would those be? Everything I've read has shown the literal interpretation of the Bible to be simply not true. The Bible isn't history. It uses the guise of history, true. But that was a style at the time, for the ancient Jews.
For example, King Herod died in 4 B.C., so four years before the slaughter of the innocents. The Romans have no record of a crucifixion in Jerusalem for the rather vague time during which Jesus was said to live.
Now, none of that says anything about God being a false idea. It just says we shouldn't approach the Bible with what the New Testament commentator William Barclay called, "crude literalism."
Plus, has it ever done you any good (besides with other Christians) to insist that Jesus was real, was the son of God, or actually God, born of a virgin, etc.? Wouldn't it be much better for you to spread the Gospel, by loving your neighbor, and not making them feel uncomfortable by talking about the (inaccurate) historicity of Jesus?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patricknoonan3754 You read the Bible twice? Cover to cover? Sounds like, if that's true, you didn't do it without confirmation bias. At the very least, possibly (I'm guessing), you associated the religions and their beliefs with the text. Is that correct? The text pre-dates the religions of Judaism and Christianity, though. Can you tell me some of your thoughts about the 66 different books in the compilation we call the Christian Bible? Psalms, Judges, David's story, the different gospels? Or did you read the Tanakh: the Hebrew Bible? Which version? English translation, probably? Do you know how incomplete and badly translated even the newest English translations are? Typically, it takes about 3-5 English words to properly account for the Hebrew (or Greek) words that are translated. Did you take what you read literally? Or did you see them as allegories and parables? Did you take into account the different culture(s), for which, and in which, those texts were written?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She evidently doesn't trust the Bible enough to love her neighbor, which Jesus said was necessary to be a Christian (John 13:35); or that Jesus said to pray in your closet, in private, or you were a hypocrite (Matt. 6:6); or to not judge anyone (Matt. 7:1), because God gave all judgement to Jesus (John 5::22), who actually doesn't judge anyone (John 8:15): That's because we don't know enough to accurate sit in judgement--for which we'd need to know the person's full past, present, and future, their friends and family, everything that shaped their life. These Republicans love appealing to the worst angels of our nature, instead of the better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Like Greta Thunberg? Face it: Some kids are smarter than you were when you were a kid--way, way, way (etc. ad infinitum) smarter.
At best, you're inserting yourself into that student's position, and seeing that it wouldn't have been possible for you to do it. At worst, you're dismissing them entirely for no good reason.
How long did it take with Greta, before people like you stopped saying she was coached by her parents? And what this student did was elementary compared to Greta.
The student is just informed. All the info is available on the internet. Some kids can play amazing drums or guitars, or speak foreign languages by 4th grade. This one is apparently interested in politics.
At the very least, you show your own bias, by not admitting you're unable to know the truth about them. At the worst, you're playing internet detective, talking about how "suspicious" they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Who knows what any of these politicians are really like? I could focus on Trump supporters, and Republicans, as they are the most ostentatious, and weird. But, really, any politician: What do they actually think, or believe? Are they playing a role? Is all this like Pro Wrestling?
They all seem like really bad actors to me, but especially Republicans; and Trump and his supporters are the worst. They come across as people who couldn't make it as real actors, and so they flex their muscles for the masses. But do the masses believe it? Or are they, too, faking it? Who knows.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidmacy411 "This is nothing, and its been the case for a long time. Take a look at the caning of Senator Sumner."
There wasn't a single like for this post I've quoted, an hour after it was written. Nor has anyone replied to it. This person knows their history. I salute you, David Macy. For those of you who don't know about this, I strongly recommend you look it up.
Briefly: In 1856, heat was rising to the boiling point between pro-slavery and anti-slavery, between states, and between law makers, all the way up to the senate. South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks "entered the Senate Chamber and repeatedly struck Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts over the head with a cane. The assault was in reaction to a speech in which Sumner criticized slavery and the Senators who supported it, including Andrew Butler, a relative of Brooks."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dbpgh Wallace is one of the few, maybe only (with Shep Smith gone) Fox hosts who reports on some of what Trump does, without the filter of Trump worship that you see with the rest of Fox.
That is not condemnation. Even here, he didn't condemn Trump. He said what Trump did. Yes, Trump ruined the debate. There was no debate, because of Trump.
Reporting what Trump does is not condemnation, but is only reporting what he does. This is in stark difference to not reporting it. Trump called the reporting of what he does "fake news," so that his supporters would dismiss, and not trust the news. And, with you, and millions more, Trump's tactic seems to have worked.
The idea of "fake news" is the lie. You can fact check everything. And you should.
1
-
1
-
@dbpgh "The point is Corona doesnt seem to have an affect on Trump, as the science indicates ."
He just tested positive for it. We don't know yet, how it will proceed. They say he's asymptomatic, which means he could've infected people at his fundraiser last night.
"Where did I say anything that indicates trump is a victim!?!?!?There is a clear MSM bias against Trump"
How about your assertion of the Biden/Wallace team? That's how you started this. Is Fox part of the MSM? Or just Wallace? I've discussed how what is reported is bad, because what Trump did is bad. Trump didn't save orphans from a fire, only to have the media say he set the fire, when he didn't.
See? Lying is different than reporting something bad that Trump actually did. That's not bias.
"FYI I thought Trump was out of line and should have let Biden talk more, for decorum sake but more importantly to let Biden's dementia come through."
You couldn't get through one sentence, without showing your bias against Biden. Trump said Biden has dementia, so it must be true?
Other than that, the first half of your sentence is absolutely right, and the entire point I've been trying to make to you. Let me quote it, without the Biden-dementia nonsense: "I thought Trump was out of line and should have let Biden talk more"
See how incredibly different that is from "the Biden/Wallace team"? Was it the Biden/Wallace team that made Trump get out of line, talking over his debate opponent, and the moderator? Did the Biden/Wallace team shut down Trump, and prevent Trump from talking?
More and more, I'm seeing this as no more a discussion, between us, than the debate between Trump and Biden. You'll just deny everything. So why should I even bother? Believe what you want, but I've had enough of you.
1
-
1
-
@dbpgh I explained why he asked it. I'll do so again, one last appeal to your reason:
Trump said many times that Biden didn't condemn the violence in the protests/riots. But Biden had, many times, condemned the violence in the protests/riots. Okay? With me so far?
So, since Trump had lied about Biden, but hadn't condemned the white supremacists (even though he surely came out against everyone but the white supremacists), Wallace asked him to do just that.
I don't see how this is hard to understand. Also, you are prejudiced against Biden, which means your mind is made up: You have judged him ahead of time. Okay? So, no matter what, you are asked him. Right?
And you are against Biden for "insurmountable reasons." So, if you are that prejudiced against Biden, does it not stand to reason that you would also be prejudiced against anyone who wasn't also against Biden?
So Wallace, by not being against Biden, becomes subject to your bias. Can you see that? Or are you so biased that, because I'm not with you, I'm against you? So nothing I say matters? Stop blaming your shortcomings on the media. This is on you, buddy.
1
-
@dbpgh "Please keep your responses short, you over post."
I'm a wordman, which means a writer. I try to answer, and cover everything, and that takes time. Even with that time, I can't get to everything, and you claim I refused to answer.
"At the debate you will recall he said Antifa is just an idea, not a group."
And he spoke correctly. Antifa is an idea that stands for "anti-fascist." On the other hand BLM is a group; Proud Boys is a group.
"As far as my question to you, have you seen the montage of trump over the years denouncing white racism? Can you answer that yes or no?"
No. Because, regardless, he didn't condemn them in the debate, or the next day, in front of the whole country, and the world. I can say that I'm for or against a thing, and then say the opposite at other times. What do you believe?
Anyway, we have reached an impasse, and have solved nothing. I find this to often be the case with biased people, who make up their minds, and solidify their stance. Am I such a person? I guess so. Best of luck. Good day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@THEL0G1CAL1 As for Paul, the murderer of Christians, who told his followers they should see him as Jesus, who never met Jesus, and only met 2 apostles five years after he had been preaching in Jesus' name: well, I think all that speaks for itself. Paul taught all you needed was to believe that Jesus was the son, born of virgin, resurrected. That's it. No parables, or loving your neighbor. Paul was misogynist, and really judgmental of everyone with the slightest "blemish." I disregard his letters, like you disregard Jefferson's letter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anti-anti-intellectual5 "Cheesus also said "For I have not come to bring peace, for I carry a sword and shall bring separation upon thee...etcetera etcetera."
Even Cheesus contradicts himself.
The buybile is hawgwash."
It actually said:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34.)
If you're going to cherry pick, at least get the quote right. First, you're probably trolling, so I shouldn't even bother. But, I'll try one time, and see how you respond.
There was a whole series of things Jesus said he came for. He had a lot of these series, which he re-visited from time to time, elaborating on them. (Another had to do with "light.")
Another part of this series was: "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me." (John 6:38.)
And one more: “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” (John 9:39.)
Now, it's called "cherry picking" because anyone can claim the Bible says anything. It really takes a great deal of reading, studying the ancient history of the Jews, learning what the original Greek words in the New Testament meant, and, of course, reading the entire Bible, to make sense of it.
You also have to know when to take it literally, and when to see that it's being ironic. See, the ancient Jews loved irony in their stories.
So what did Jesus mean there? Do you really think it means he came to bring war? Because that interpretation contradicts the rest of the gospels. So it isn't Jesus who contradicts himself, but your own interpretation that just doesn't work.
We can talk more if you want. Let's see how you respond to an intellectual discussion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've always thought that what Trump and his people say isn't meant for us; It's meant for Trump supporters. We're listening in on a cultic coversation, which, of course, makes no sense, logically, but makes perfect sense to someone who has watched Fox News all day.
I can only begin to guess what was communicated there, to the cult, by Kushner. But I imagine their communication has to be very simple, because of the minds that have been broken down by the search for Hillary's e-mails and Obama's birth certificate, etc. So the communication probably goes something like this: "Trump is great. Trump makes perfect decisions. Trump is all that's between you and certain death."
Trump supporters walk away from that, not with any definite words, but with a feeling, a hunch (as Trump called it). The feeling is warmth; the color is orange; and, above all, Trump is tremendous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevekombolis3197 "And given that there is zero proof that the Big Bang theory is factual"
Sorry, but there is proof. Maybe you didn't get to it in my post. The background radiation from the Big Bang is still here. It's measurable and provable.
You seem like a smart guy: well spoken, articulate, hardly ever (if ever) a single typo. But somehow you missed the whole science thing? It's okay. No one knows everything. It was only this year (my 52nd time around the sun) that I read a Dickens novel.
I have a religious background, but majored in physics in college. Today I'm a physics teacher, and I write essays on the gospels in my spare time. So I was fortunate that I got to explore science, what it means, and how it's done.
Science doesn't present anything with "zero proof." There are no beliefs in science. Nothing to "buy." It's based on experimental data, proven by mathematics, and checked by a community of who knows how many scientists around the world.
You can still not "buy it," if you want. Believe whatever you like. But if it's knowledge you crave, and not some idea some joker cooked up on the internet, then science is the only game in town.
1
-
1
-
@stevekombolis3197 "If the religious or supernatural component is removed I don't understand why it would even be considered controversial as one possible explanation"
Because intelligent design is pseudo science, like astrology, phrenology, alchemy. Don't get me wrong, Isaac Newton was an alchemist, and Johannes Kepler was an astrologer. But their work began the scientific method, and so was still partly entrenched in the old ways.
Also, science doesn't have beliefs. Science does ask, Is it possible? But then it asks, Is there evidence? And, if there is, then that evidence has to be proven that it wasn't gathered via any form of bias. In this way, the scientific method does away with the human tendency to find what you're looking for: confirmation bias.
Steve, you are obviously intelligent. If I had to estimate, I'd say you're smarter than I am. But I hope you're not so sure of yourself that you're unwilling to start over. And I say that because I really think that's what you need to do.
All knowledge is based on axioms: a starting assumption. If your axiom is incorrect, then everything you derive from it will also be incorrect. I've faced this myself. I've had to start over.
I think you would love science: endless, factual knowledge. I strongly recommend you read Carl Sagan. He was my best (book) teacher. Anything by him will do, but I very much suggest you start with "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark."
It's the real thing. Good luck. :)
1
-
@stevekombolis3197 No need to apologize for the length. I've read Moby Dick, Cervantes, and the Three Muskateers. :) That's some serious length. haha
Okay, what happened before the big bang? What caused the big bang? Hold onto your hat.
One thing the Bible got right about creation is that, before it happened "there was void." Einstein showed, in his General Theory of Relativity, that mass bends the three dimensions of space into a fourth dimension: time.
Imagine a couch cushion with no one sitting on it. There's a TV remote resting on the cushion, which doesn't bend the cushion in any appreciable way, because it's not heavy enough. Then you sit near the remote, on the cushion, and the remote "falls into" the "well" created by your weight.
The remote is us; the person sitting on the cushion is the sun/planet (or other massive object); the cushion is space; and the well is time.
So there was no time until the massive object sat on the couch. I know that's hard to imagine. But Einstein's math has been verified. Time passes slower the further out of that well we travel. Time actually passes slower on mountain tops than at sea level.
The well is actually made by gravity, and therefore called a gravity well.
Therefore, there was no time until the big bang. So there was no "before," during which anything could happen.
See how weird science is? And this is peanuts compared to how nutty and awesome Quantum Mechanics is.
1
-
@stevekombolis3197 Hopefully you'll see this reply too. In regards to the idea of the big bang happening before the proof, and what the proof is:
The scientific method begins with a hypothesis. This is just a "what if" idea. It's not a belief though, because that what-if needs proof. It's not just accepted. Sometimes the proof takes a while. Our imagination has always been light years ahead of our technology.
Eventually the background radiation was discovered, and the expansion of the universe. The expansion can be measured by the light quality of the images. When we look out into space, especially deep space, we're looking backward into time. That's because light from an image takes time to reach us.
The speed of light is (roughly) 670 million miles per hour. Even given that dizzying speed, "space is big" (as Douglas Adams put it), "really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind bogglingly big it is."
It's so big that, even with that crazy speed of light, it still takes time to go through the massive distances of space.
For example: Light from the sun takes 8 and 1/3 minutes to reach us. The sun is (on average) 93 million miles away. That distance is (roughly) 11,000 earth diameters, or 11,000 earths side by side. In comparison, the light from the moon takes 1.3 seconds to reach us. See the difference?
Now, if we keep going, the light that we see is showing us an ever-increasingly older image. You can look into this proof further by reading about the red shifting of light.
The point is that scientists started with a hypothesis: the big bang. Then they needed proof. They eventually got the proof. That's science. And that's not what pseudo science does. So the big bang was never pseudo science.
So, space is expanding. What's the center? Here's the weird part, everything is expanding away from everything else. This can be understood by imagining a balloon being filled with air. If you took a sharpie, and made black dots all over that balloon, before blowing it up, then you'd see each dot as expanding away from every other dot.
If we walk that expansion backward in time, eventually we'd reach the point akin to a balloon with no air in it. And that's where the balloon analogy falls apart, because, with the big bang, there wasn't even a deflated balloon. Or someone to fill it with air. There wasn't any time or any space. So there were no dimensions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm a recovered conspiracy theorist, and I'd like to share with them (and the rest of you) what cured me: First, let's assume all your theories are true. What are you going to do about it? What can you do about it? The country is under attack and you...what?...don't wear a mask? That's how you're standing up to the Deep State? You can't DO anything! The Deep State (assuming there is such a thing) is so far above and beyond you, that you are powerless to stop it.
Secondly: You're telling me that a conspiracy of the most powerful, wealthiest, influential people on the planet has been found out by...you. You?! a little know-nothing bozo, a poor ignorant idiot? They weren't very good at keeping their secret. Were they? In the case of this Q, that person is somehow leaking information, the plans of the most powerful, murderous, devious people, to...you...You?! Why wouldn't Q go to someone who could do something? Anything! And Q risks life and limb to tell YOU this stuff? I say risking his/her life, because, by now, the Deep State (assuming there is such a thing) knows someone is leaking their secret plans. They've had a chance to see what has been leaked, and to whom. They would then be able to deduce who the leak is. And, if they were so devious, they'd kill Q, and either start feeding you false information, or, since the Deep State is filled with such dangerous, unscrupulous people, they'd probably kill ALL of you.
And since the secret Liberal police haven't cut your throats with piano wire, or thrown a black bag over your head, and dragged you off to a Communist dungeon--run by the Lizard People, who first crashed in Roswell, in 1947, and engineered 9/11, to turn everyone gay, or whatever stupid theory you believe--and since you couldn't do anything, even if it was all true, then these conspiracies amount to nothing more than ENTERTAINMENT for you. It serves to make you feel smart, for your secret knowledge, and it dopes you into supporting Trump, who (I guess) you believe is our only real hope for saving us from the Deep State.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is why you don't elect someone to be President who is without experience, and the intelligence to learn, adjust, and adapt. He is a racist, xenophobic troll, and that's all: That's the list of his abilities. Trump supporters are too stupid, and they like him because they also can't learn, adjust, and adapt, and they are racists and xenophobes, or they're wealthy and want more tax cuts.
He cut so much from the CDC, and virus prevention world wide, that this outbreak is entirely on his head. And, since they elected him, and continue to support him, Trump supporters are responsible too. But they won't learn, just as Trump is unable to learn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don't Trump supporters ever get tired of being lied to? They've all been going hog wild with this laptop thing, Trump included--during nationwide Presidential debates. As long as more lies keep coming, like carrots on a stick, his supporters never have to face that he lied to them. He told Leslie Stahl, four years ago, that he cried "fake news" so his supporters won't believe the reporters. And yet they still cry fake news, all the time. Even before Trump, when it was claimed that Obama would take their guns AND their Bibles. Do they even remember that? Now Biden is going to take their guns, and raise their taxes, and get rid of windows. As long as they are looking the other way, at a laptop, or a deadly caravan, or fearing windmills because they cause cancer, then they never have to face how none of what they're told is true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That [at Trump supporters] is where we should be focusing our disgust...."
I've always thought this way. Unless Trump makes himself Emperor, his time will eventually end. But those people who supported him, no matter what he did, will still be with us; and they will vote. So what do we do?
Being optimistic, I'd suggest having continuing mandatory adult education. School should never end. That would necessitate shorter work hours, at the same (or greater) pay; teachers would have to be paid what their job is worth, and treated as the guiding lights of our society.
Being pessimistic (or perhaps realistic), I'm reminded of what William T. Sherman said about Southerners, after the secession: "We are not fighting a hostile nation, but a hostile people....We cannot coax them, or meet them halfway. We must make them so sick of war, that generations will pass before they again appeal to it."
Here we are, generations later. The secessionists have passed down their ideals like family heirlooms. What are we going to do with people who are extremely ignorant, but believe they know everything? What can we do? They will vote. I promise. And they will pick the people who are worst for the nation, because they hate what the nation has become, and is becoming--which is a land of actual equality, where we seek to have all people as literally equal.
How equally has Trump and his administration treated everyone? e.g., the kneeling football players, the "caravan," LGBTQ, Muslims, or even the so-called "fake news," or Democrats? These Trump supporters are, quite possibly, a complete and total loss, short of mandatory education, or, maybe, some cult de-programming regimen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukerichardson2404 Okay, but first you have to admit you did a straw man. And then admit you're using whataboutism to deflect from your straw man. And that whataboutism is this "guilt by association."
And while you're stewing over that, you also must realize this isn't guilt by association, as you claim. That happens when you totally dismiss someone, just because they're connected to a demonized opponent or group of people. And dismissed for no other reason but that.
First, since he's a Democrat and I'm a Democrat, that's not happening. Secondly, we're not even talking about who he's connected to: We're talking about him. No one is saying anything about who he's connected to---obviously, since we're all Dems, and he's a Dem. (While you're just dim.)
Maybe think about what you write, BEFORE you hit Reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even if we assume that Trump did not INTENTIONALLY fire up his base, for four years, and set them off like a powder keg that day, then he could, obviously, still take advantage of it, in that 11th hour. He could have done nothing, because his narcissism was totally engaged by what he was watching on the news.
If he sent the National Guard against his own people...just think about that for a moment. He would not do that. If he did, he would have lost them, and their support, which means his ego would lose them. No way would he do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidm4566 "criminals by definition don't follow the law."
That's such a tired, cliched argument, used by tired, cliched people. What you're really saying is do nothing...except "research." I love it: Like you do research! I take you're a scientist, who researches quantum electrodynamics. Or a novelist, who's researching the history of Native Americans, in order to write an accurate portrait of the Sioux.
Listen, I'm tired of people dying, just so troglodytes like you can spout these cliches, and maybe send some thoughts and prayers. But you're defending making corporations lots of money. I hope they're sharing some with you, and I hope poetic justice doesn't come back to bite you in the cliches.
1
-
@davidm4566 What facts? You've given your assessment of the situation. How are legal citizens not able to "protect lives" if there are road blocks in the way of insane people getting guns?
And that's what we're talking about: not criminals in the underworld, but insane people. That's what your assessment doesn't take into account. That's why this is a tired cliche: because it's a straw man that is only used to prevent ANY gun legislation.
How are people being protected, when a 6-year shoots his teacher, or some lunatic shoots up a church, Wal-Mart, bar, and on and on? They aren't being protected. That's the point. Instead, lives are being sacrificed so we can continue to have no gun legislation, so the gun lobby can rake in obscene amounts of wealth.
Don't talk to me about protecting lives, when lives are being lost daily, due to insane people going on shooting sprees.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@bamboocream2102 "Name one business that doesn't capitalize on opportunity lol. It would be pretty weird to put out a product you didn't think had an opportunity to sell, and at the right time."
Granted. But, if Drinker is correct, then the Daily Wire (an admittedly conservative company) is capitalizing for political reasons. And that seemed to be at least one of the Drinker's main problems with the Disney reboot/remake/reimagining. So, in that sense, they're just as wrong for doing what they're doing as Disney.
Regardless, your excuse for them doesn't change that Daily Wire is doing it for not only politics, but for money, and to sock it to their political rivals--i.e., not for art and to tell a good story. And that's also what Disney has been doing. So is it okay if they do the politics you like?
You know that picture (or video) Drinker always shows, the one with the SJW screaming in faux outrage on her knees? That's how conservatives have reacted to Disney's girl power garbage. So much crying and screaming! Must get revenge, and make a conservative Snow White movie! I dunno, bud, most movies in the past 20 years have been wretched. And I doubt this one will be any different: just made on the opposite side of the political line.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is this any different than what we would have imagined Trump's reaction would be, during a pandemic? He has already established his justification for inaction, through his mouthpieces: This is just the Democrats and fake news, who are attacking Trump, by fabricating this fake virus.
He will do nothing. Think of all that China is doing. Have you seen the videos, of the steps they're taking to contain the spread of this virus? Trump will do none of that. And his supporters will stick with him. If the people who have any authority, at all, don't remove him, and throw him in a hole, right now, they will be just as responsible, in my eyes, for what is sure to be the greatest disaster this country (perhaps the world) has ever known.
The time is at hand. And who will be able to stand?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@karmaalstad5588 Okay. And what does unsolved attacks on power grids have to do with "Then they can't complain when the power bill comes in, or their favorite goods start to cost more?"
So are you saying these MAGA people who want civil war (which really means random acts of terrorism, as I suggested) can't complain about their power bills, and how goods cost more money, because of unsolved attacks on power grids?
Maybe practice spelling out what you're saying. Make it clear and concise. I can't read your mind. So I have no idea what you're thinking of, when you write something cryptic.
As it stands, I don't see how these people in the video (who talk about civil war) are likely the same people who attacked the power grids. Maybe because both groups are MAGA? Did these people in the video know who attacked the grids? And, beyond that, what does that have to do with other rising costs, i.e., costs beyond their power bills?
1
-
1
-
1
-
To Trump supporters, "the Left" (which is around 50-60 million individuals) is all one person. Even though no one at Fox, in Trump's administration, or the Trumpists, know everything (or anything) about a single Leftist, they somehow claim to know everything about the entirety.
Basically, since they've made "the Left" their complete opposite, that means whatever they say about the Left is, (il)logically, not true about themselves. The propaganda also allows them to blame a boogeyman. This enables them to de-humanize "the Left," in a way similar to wartime propaganda: e.g., slants (American slang for Japanese WWII), charlie (American slang for North Vietnamese during Viet Nam conflict).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Democrats are wrong 100% of the time: That's the starting point for all things Republican. Of course, while this group-think is fun for them (being part of a group, with members who all think like you), it does come with some uncomfortable moments. For example, if Democrats support something, like science, Republicans have to go against it; if Democrats want to get money to the American people, who're suffering during this pandemic, Republicans have to go against it.
Republicans can't, for one moment, allow anything to break this axiom. Because, even if one thing slips through, then, logically speaking, Democrats AREN'T 100% wrong all the time. That means Republican voters would have to stop and think: Are Dems right this time? And Republicans don't want that.
1
-
1
-
@desperateambrose5373 I've had my coffee. Let's talk. The Pharisees brought Jesus to Pilate, because Rome occupied their country, and they didn't have the power to execute anyone. Pilate found no fault in him. But the Pharisees said Jesus was a radical, who wanted to tear down the temple, make himself King, and encourage his followers to further acts of violence. Then they told Pilate if he let Jesus go, and those things happened, Caesar would blame Pilate, which would cost Pilate his life. So Pilate had to act. He tried once more to release Jesus: Since it was the custom on Passover for the citizens to choose one prisoner to be set free, he offered them the choice of a known murderer or Jesus. They chose the murderer. Therefore Pilate had not choice but to sentence him, and convict him to being crucified.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mM-mi5oj "if you leave your echo chamber and listen to some right wings podcast it's always about lifting everyone up"
Are you sure the right wing podcasts aren't "echo chambers?" From what I've heard of them, and Fox News, it's Liberals this, and Progressives that. Maybe that lifts you up?
I also notice how you didn't mention the definition of "racism," which I quoted. Of course you did say that "liberals" are "ganging up on white people." Are you sure that isn't hyperbole? Unless Liberal cops are shooting white men, for apparently threatening them, or Trump refers to Anti-Fa as "very fine people," or a white football player kneels, to protest how liberal cops are treating Caucasians, or Liberals are locking up white kids for seeking asylum, etc., then I think it's absurd hyperbole.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@luchi.el.zorrito "How did I come opposed to Pakman's facts? I didn't say Pakman was wrong anywhere in my comments, I suggested he is bias"
You answered your own question there, chief. "Bias" is considered to be prejudiced (so not looking at the facts, but deciding ahead of time: pre-judging), and even unreasoned, certainly unfair.
See, in claiming bias, you can dismiss someone, cast doubt on their truthfulness. You don't come right out as say he's lying, because that would be incorrect. You just say, "because he is a left-winger and its pretty predictable," you can safely assume he's biased.
There are tens of millions of left-wingers in this country alone, and they are all different people...people you don't know, and are unable to know. But throwing them all into a category, which you then claim to know (despite not knowing all the individuals), allows you to do for the group what you could never do for all the individuals.
So the bias and prejudice (pre-judging, judging before you know) is yours. Right? And you're projecting this onto Pakman, and however many "left-wingers."
1
-
@luchi.el.zorrito You are assuming. You said so yourself, earlier in the thread:
"Pakman is anti-gun, he probably thinks that ANY gun on a passenger plane, PERIOD, is wrong and somehow immoral."
"Probably." See that? My point is that you don't know, and are unable to learn, because you believe you already know. You assume. And you do this because you believe the assumption is obvious, tacit, a given.
Further, you assume a person not having a bias FOR guns (as you seem to have) means a bias against guns: If they're not with us, they're against us. And you dismiss your own bias (the proverbial plank of wood in your own eye), in order to condemn the lack of bias for guns from someone else: projection, as I said before.
You wrote: "He has never really held pro-gun positions."
The negation of pro-gun isn't anti-gun. And, of course, this claim of bias is meant to cast doubt on anything else Pakman (or any other person who doesn't directly confirm and support guns) might say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A lot of this story is scary. For example, these Trump supporters take it upon themselves to be his Brown Shirts? Trump doesn't even have to order them. They just do it. That's one possibility. The other is that Trump, or someone in his administration, does order these things. And by "these things" I also mean the armed protesters in Michigan. They, too, are apparently taking the initiative to do what they believe Trump would like, since he spoke out against the governor. Or, are they organized by Trump, and/or his administration, to start carrying out acts of sabotage, and terrorism? That's how Hitler did it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@unknownteeth3785 As for dividing us, you have a hand in that, chief. You're dividing right now, as you go against Americans getting help with predatory student loans. Ask not for who the bell tolls, skippy. Also, you're talking about socialism, but only using the buzz word. We are capitalist. Kind of odd, then, how there's "socialism" here. Right? It's almost like there's no socialism here, but rather "social programs." For example: fire fighters, social security.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@frenlyfren Seems like what we have here is people who know the scientific method vs. those who don't understand it. First, science gave us that pill to start with. Yes? So you all trust science at least that much.
Secondly, science says we don't know the ramifications of taking this pill, except for malaria--which is not, by identity, Coronavirus. So science says the pill has NOT been proven in control groups. Dr. Fauci has call the evidence for it working "anecdotal."
Yet, Trump (and, consequently, you all), while acknowledging that he's not a scientist, says that we should use this, in a widespread way, against Coronavirus. Trump believes "common sense," which, also by identity, isn't science, trumps science (pardon the pun): It doesn't.
You can't just cherry pick from science, as explained above. However, our opinions mean next to nothing, as far as what Trump will do, and what doctors will allow. In the meantime, I suggest you read up on what the scientific method is, then devise an experiment on how you would (theoretically) prove that this malaria drug will work against Coronavirus, with no other side effects--side effects sometimes take time to manifest themselves, just a word to the wise.
I look forward to your results.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Could be that she really is that ignorant. Sure, we learn stuff in school. But if we don't reinforce our knowledge, and continue to think critically about new things we learn, then the ability to do that, and remember the facts we memorized, vanish. She's 47. How many books has she read, studied, since she graduated (from whatever her highest degree was)? Did she really even apply herself, and learn lots of history, science, and math, while she was in school? What has she done with her knowledge since then? Could be that she hasn't thought critically, or learned a new way of thinking, for 25 years. Think about that.
This goes for everyone, who stop learning after graduation. The brain needs to be exercised, or it atrophies.
1
-
Nazis were not socialist. Nazi stands for "national socialism." The "national" part modifies the "socialist" part: national, as in nationalist.
Here are some other modified political names: Representative Democracy, which is what we have, isn't a pure Democracy--which means direct governing by the people. Instead, we elect representatives who govern for us. See how that works? This also holds true for Democratic Socialism. The "democratic" part modifies the "socialism" part.
Also, in the 1930s and -40s, in WWII, the Russians were Socialists. Right? Remember that? Well, the Nazis hated Socialists. They sent German citizens, who were Socialists, to concentration camps, and declared war on Russia. The Nazis were Fascists, Nationalists, not Socialists. This is a common mistake, or attempted propaganda, depending on who is trying to spread this misunderstanding, or misinformation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brainslugs1254 No you didn't. I could break down everything you wrote, show how you didn't explain anything. But let's go back to your first post.
"Don't forget, nazis were socialist, and "socialism" is 100% to blame for the fascism running rampant."
Now, Nazis were fascist. That's obvious. Right? So, what you said here is that Nazis (socialism) were responsible for Nazis (fascism). Over my head indeed. If you'd focus more on explaining yourself, and less on insulting someone, about whom you know nothing, beyond a few comments on youtube, then you might get somewhere.
Frankly, you should have explained everything in your first post. Instead, you went over my head. Yeah, right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@haruruben That video is a little over my head. Not going lie. However, I didn't hear anything about Ben saying, "Putin need to take Ukraine so Muscovites can feel safe and other assorted nonsense."
Granted, I don't know what you mean by "assorted nonsense." But there was nothing mentioning the Muscovites. Yes, he said NATO invaded countries, Belfast, I believe he said. They bombed hospitals. And he said the reason for NATO being formed has sense gone away. But NATO is still here: That seemed to me to be his main point.
And I don't see what "Kremlin propaganda" Ben isn't questioning. And I don't see what Finland has to do with any of this. Seems to me your biggest problem is what you stated at the end:
"Ben...is always very critical of USA, Europe, Canada and more"
Especially the USA, I'd wager, is part of your problem here. In the video you linked, I saw Ben being very neutral. He was calling out what everyone was doing. He was critical of Putin, and said the invasion was all his responsibility. So I don't see how Ben can be critical of Putin, and yet following Kremlin propaganda.
1
-
@haruruben Oh, Russians are the Muscovites. Sorry, I told you a lot of these details are over my head. I don't know much, if any, Russian history.
Okay, so Ben said NATO was anti-Russian, and Putin/Russia probably recognizes this. And he said Russia had good reason to feel that way. He said that NATO was deliberately provoking Russia, by trying to bring Ukraine into NATO. No propaganda there. Just stating facts, and guessing how Putin/Russia sees what NATO is doing.
No, Ben didn't say anything about Ukrainians really being Russian. So that wasn't part of whatever propaganda you seem to see here. Also, he didn't say Russia needed Ukraine.
If I may ask, what does any of this have to do with the video? Are you saying Ben can't be trusted, because, as you claim, he mouths Putin propaganda? So...are you saying Ben is a Russian plant?
What does this have to do with the FBI? I had to scroll to the top to remind myself of what the video was about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm hating what the Democratic establishment has become. First, it's not very progressive, at all, more of a middle of the road party. Second, they worked so hard to defeat Bernie; but that was, apparently, their only goal. Congrats, you got rid of the intelligent, sympathetic progressive; and we Democrats now HAVE to go with Biden, whose only claim to fame is/was Obama. But their plan only seems to have gone so far as defeating Bernie. Now what?
If Biden is absent, during a crisis, during his campaign for presidency, then how absent will he be if he's elected? He's a doddering fool, chosen by Democrats who are only not Republican in name.
1
-
The anti-vaxx thing is just a part of a growing problem in the United States, and, really humanity. People believe they know what they can't possibly know, which is why they "believe," instead of "know." But we confuse knowledge for belief, and, since belief doesn't require facts, our ostensible knowledge (which is really just belief) rejects all facts to the contrary.
When I write that this is a growing problem, let's just look at the comments on this video as an example. Take a moment and scroll through them. Most of what you find are people who claim to know what they can't possibly know, i.e., why other people do what they do. And these commenters aren't just positing, they are summarizing what they believe is the equivalent of mathematically proven truth.
So their beliefs, which they see as knowledge and thinking, are really the same sort of mislabeled personal confirmation bias. And that is the heart of the Trumpists' conspiracy theories too. And here's an interesting twist, I'm doing the same thing here: I don't know any of these people, what drives them, how they think or feel, etc. But, to qualify something that is obviously unknown to me, so that I can feel above it all, or superior, (or to hide my ignorance from myself) I point out how their thinking is really just them assuming, and believing they're right.
Here's some hard truth: We don't know the majority of what we need to know, in order to make informed decisions. This isn't (necessarily) a failing on our part. We just, simply, can't know everything; we're unable to know everyone, let alone how they think. So most of our reasoning has to deal with the real-life equivalents of algebraic unknowns. And there are so many unknowns, and so we can't solve for X.
Only thing for it is to substitute our own values for the innumerable unknowable quantities. We can't even treat these as unknowns, or we'd go through life hesitating, unsure, lacking confidence. So we're obliged to make things up as we go, and hide that we're making up stuff, from ourselves and others. Unfortunately, this can lead down extreme paths, before we know what's happening.
1
-
1
-
@adam3496 "u realize 99.999% of reps dont support the people who stormed the capital right?"
No. I didn't realize that. Hmm, that's very precise of you. You must study statistics. Listen, bud, they might not have stormed Congress, personally, but they stuck with the people who tried to whitewash it. They believed all kinds of conspiracy theories, anything that pointed away from MAGA.
Besides, I don't think I said anything about all of them storming Congress. Did I? That's just kinda your straw man. But, pardon me, you were lecturing me on "logical fallacies."
Sure, both parties have things in common like, for example, they're made up of human beings. But when used to deflect from what Republicans have done (as you used here), then it is whataboutism, a logical fallacy.
The parties couldn't be more different: That's the bottom line. Since it's obvious I won't be able to change your mind about it, then I'll just leave it at that.
1
-
1
-
It's difficult, if not (usually) impossible to switch from comics to movies. Comics are short episodes, taking a year for a story to work out. We get to know the characters. Things like M.O.D.O.K. are drawn, so you don't get the problems with the uncanny valley.
Characters like Thanos and Kang took decades of work. And, in comics, you didn't have to depend on sound, acting, special effects, directing, and music to join well with the writing. At least that's how it was from the '60s to the 90's, when I read comics. I've seen a few of the MCU movies. But none of them could really live up to the comics. It would be like if you tried to make a comic about Beethoven's 9th symphony: You'd be entirely missing the point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukerichardson2404 I find it extremely odd that you know all that other stuff, but are somehow okay with all this:
He's anti-vaccine. He wrote a book called "The Real Anthony Fauci." He has told some big whopper lies so far. Here are some:
"Atrazine in the water supply is contributing to "sexual dysphoria" in kids."
"Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s claim appears to be based on a 2010 University of California, Berkeley study that found that when male frogs were exposed to atrazine, some lost fertility and developed ovaries. Differences in human and frog biology mean these findings do not unilaterally extend to humans."
He said the Covid vaccine was "the deadliest vaccine ever made."
He said this on the House floor, going on and on against making it a requirement that students be vaccinated against this global pandemic.
And of course, this is one his most infamous whoppers:
"COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”
First, there's still no evidence that it was engineered. So saying it was used to target some people, while others were immune is extremely irresponsible, and feeds into antisemitism and anti-Chinese phobias.
So even if he saved baby seals from oil spills, the guy is whacked in the head. He's anti-science. He didn't use any data or proof, for any of those lies I listed, except for already debunked and disreputable conspiracy theory sources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would think, at some point the Obama conspiracies would end. Remember when they all believed that Obama was going to take their guns and Bibles? And, after he did that, he would put all the rabid anti-Obama conspiracy nuts in concentration camps? Then there was the birth certificate, the mustard, his pants. On and on.
Reminds me of those evangelicals who'd claim the world was going to end on such and such date. Then, when that day came, they just explained how they'd miscalculated, and the actual date would be sometime the next year. On and on. At some point, you have to accept that Bigfoot is BS, the Roswell crash, Loch Ness monster, and Obama is a secret Muslim plant: all BS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If Trump has to burn down America, then so be it. People just aren't going to learn any other way. we tried reason and compassion."
In theory, I agree with this. There's a lot of wrong thinking in America: logical fallacies, racism, xenophobia, politics based on idealism, politics as entertainment, etc. In order to learn how wrong we're doing, how immoral and insane our society has become, we'd have to see it burn down, nothing but ashes, to realize and accept how wrong we have been.
That assumes we'll do better, once we've clawed our way back to civilization; it assumes we WILL claw our way back, that other countries won't pounce on us, that the militia groups, escaped criminals, or even our next door neighbors won't run amok; and it assumes that, when we've returned from anarchy, at the best, and complete destruction, at the worst, that our new leaders will be any better than anything else we've seen; and, finally, it assumes that, even if we start with good new leaders, wise founders, that we won't return to being stupid, immoral classes of citizens who hate each other.
But we've already seen how that goes. No. We cannot let it burn. We must move forward with what we have, and, as Lincoln said,
"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For over 8 years now, his supporters have been interviewed. These aren't cherry-picked from a vast majority of intelligent, conscientious, caring people. I'll certainly concede that not every one of them is the exact same. But to support him, unless you're super rich, carries with it a deficiency, because he just plain isn't qualified. That means they're with him for some other reason(s), or else they're too unqualified to know he is. And since those reasons involve him being "an outsider," i.e., not at all qualified, and therefore aren't because he's the best pick because of policies that are for the good of the country and the world, then those supporters are voting for the worst possible reason(s). That's the issue here, which isn't being avoided.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anyone who read my original post, and are reading this reply, but hasn't read the other replies, should go check them out now. Everyone put aside how obvious it is that you're right, and just read, with a fresh perspective, what everyone is saying.
I'm telling you guys, this is just not right. I know, believe me: I know I'm right, as a Dem, and Trump supporters are wrong. I know it, like I know the equation for gravity is fact (except how it gets a little weird with Relativity). And I know that Republicans see what I write as idiotic. I get it. But just read what we've all written here.
There's a body snatchers vibe that I'm feeling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I know you're probably trolling, but I love explaining this, since it shows how absent of thought the people are who parrot this cliche.
First, no one says that except people like you, who misunderstand it, or are just trolling. Secondly, biological sex and gender are two different things. Finally, if someone is born with the biological sex of female, they can then transgender as a man (not a biological male, but the gender of a man), and yet still get pregnant--because their biology/anatomy is still the sex of female. It's not hard, unless you're a troglodyte.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Boe Jiden "You have a right to accept it, I have a right to not accept it"
You don't have a right to reject freedom for others, especially based on your own ignorance of science. And you don't get to call a rejection of science a "think[ing] in a space of reality." Nor do you get to do so by making other people unhappy, and believe "we don’t hate anyone being happy."
You're really talking about your own emotional reaction to something you don't understand. It's okay: I don't understand what it's like for LGBTQ either. But I do know that they have done nothing wrong, and only seek to be who they are.
As to the reality of science, here's what the Canadian Institute of Health Research (the science section of their government's website) has to say about sex and gender, which will hopefully clear things up for you:
"'Sex' and 'gender' are often used interchangeably, despite having different meanings:
"Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I haven't seen it yet. So feel free to ignore or dismiss my comment. That said, I love the other Guardians movies. They're my favorites of the MCU. Gunn has a lot on his plate here, maybe too much: 1) His final movie in the MCU; 2) the final Guardians, at least with the original cast (or so I've heard); 3) and therefore it's the resolution of all these characters; 4) specifically looking at Rocket's backstory; 5) introducing the High Evolutionary; 6) having Adam Warlock actually do stuff in the movie; 7) bringing some resolution to Gamora's weird death and return; 8) and, if at all possible, to leave the possibility of more Guardians movies without Gunn, or more cosmic movies involving Warlock, and who knows who else.
No wonder it's 2 and a half hours. By Grabthar's hammer, that's a lot of major plot points and themes to work through. If I were his editor, I'd insist he choose between Warlock and High Evolutionary. And/or that this be two different movies, introducing Warlock in the first part, and High Evolutionary in the second. They could have had two 90-minutes movies, with everyone fleshed out.
Doing it all in one film would be a master work though. And maybe Gunn wanted to see if he could pull it off. I hope he did. The Drinker doesn't think so. And, frankly, I doubt it to such a degree that I've put off watching it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Please understand, what that evangelist said is not what Christianity is, at all. And, before people jump on me, tell me religion is this or that, I'll tell you what Christianity is, and how to tell a Christian from a person who's only pretending to be one: A Christian loves everyone, and everything. That's it. That's the whole deal.
There's lots of variations, extensions, interpretations, and beliefs. But if whatever an individual comes up with doesn't include that basic tenet (which is from John 13: 34-35), then it isn't what Jesus taught, and is therefore not Christian.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First, the Bible isn't a collection of fairy tales. That term has a definition, which is different from legends, myths, fiction, fantasy, parables, or allegories: though they all have some things in common. But they are not the same thing. That said, I would be happy to discuss any part of the Bible with you. I'm not a believer, but a writer, and an avid reader.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@b.louise9091 "human parasites? Yes, parasites."
First, a parasite is an organism that lives in another organism. A human is not a parasite, because it can't live in another organism. A human is a separate, distinct organism. You use such language to take away their humanity, so that YOU can think cruel thoughts about them, so that you can agree with others who treat them cruelly--who also, no doubt, think of the homeless as parasites.
Secondly, think about this: You agree with that shop owner. Right? You certainly saw the incident from his point of view. If the shop owner is leftist, then you should be leftist too. Did you not make that connection?
Finally, it's obvious you're no Christian, but you aren't a "realist" either. If you were, you would've noted the reality of what a parasite is (and isn't). Your absence of empathy shows you to be a psychopath. Seek help.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gleanerman2195 No it isn't. First, 71 million Americans total voted for DonaldMcCheese in 2020. In that year, the census shows approximately 221 million Christians in the country, from a total population of approximately 331 million. That means, even if all of TrumptyDumpty's supporters are Christian, it's still barely one-third of their total: so not the majority, let alone all of them. Secondly, these are evangelical Christians, not Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc. Finally, to judge so many hundreds of million of Americans in such a sweeping, thoughtless way, isn't the slam dunk you believe it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think, if a person gets into something extreme, or very disturbing, 30 (or however many) years ago, then that's different from doing something typical of your age: like hand-stands on a keg, while you're in college; smoking pot, at a Dead show, while in college. But if you had joined the Neo-Nazis, while in college, or showed support for any hate group, that kind of thing doesn't easily go away with age. In fact, it shows how precocious the person was, in hating others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leahs.1480 Very nicely done! Thank you. I totally understand that. One question, I've read Marx, and don't recall him giving such a goal. He laid out the problem, which he saw as class, as workers vs capitalists (bourgeoisie), but I don't recall him offering solutions. I was just talking with a friend of mine about this the other night.
And I also don't recall CRT offering the solution of revolution. I hate to bicker, because you made a fine point, nicely written too. So I apologize.
On the other hand, I agree, personally with the goal you state. America was founded by revolution. So I don't see it as a bad thing. And don't really see it meaning "a complete abolition of everything that came before it."
Also, CRT looks at the law. Yes? It's not about individual people. It looks at the law, and reasons whether or not systemic racism is built into it, given that the laws were established when our country had slaves: not all the laws, certainly. But CRT looks at the law to find such instances.
So, to me, CRT isn't saying that race replaces class, and transforms Marxism to CRT. But it does, I see, use the same sort of idea to look at what such a divide between class/race does to the law. Sorry. Very long reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the '70s and '80s, when I was in K-12 school, there was a thing called the Powder Puff. I don't know if schools still do this. What happened was all the tough guy sports dudes dressed like women for this event. I never really understood why, as I was never a jock. But it happened.
There's an example of this toward the end of the movie "Revenge of the Nerds," where all the football players dress up like female cheerleaders. That was a little different, because it was just for a skit they were doing for a talent show, but the idea is the same.
I don't know why Jim Lee failed to say that's what it was, if that's what it was. Maybe because the point would be the same, as it was for the Powder Puff jocks at my old school: Dressing in drag is fun...to some people. And maybe he couldn't say he was just having fun, because that would mean dressing in drag is not obscene, but fun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even though Trump didn't go through with his pack-the-churches-for-easter plan, people like this went through it for him. Was this for Jesus, or for Trump?
And another thing: This report wasn't what I expected. The police did not quarantine them. Rather, the police left notices on their cars, calling for them to quarantine themselves. I sympathize with the police, and the Democratic governor, in Kentucky of all places. But, essentially, these church goers called the Democrats' bluff. This has the ring of a right-wing protest, to me.
If these people claim the precautions are authoritarian, you show them what authority means. William T. Sherman once said, of the Southerners, "We cannot coax them, or meet them halfway." I'm not saying the police should burn down their houses. But come on! These church people are a threat to themselves and others: plain and simple.
The police should've placed an officer at every church exit, had buses standing by, and called in, as soon as services began. Then they lead these idiots out--like the cultists they are--load them on the buses, and cram them into the jails, sardine style. The church people wanted to get together, stick them together, stack them on top of each other. Quarantine them in jail!
You know those idiots aren't going to obey the self-quarantine, if they didn't obey the governor's order to not congregate at church. You know they're going to continue to mingle, and laugh about the "triggered libtards." Lock them up! Lock them up! But now they're on the loose. And how many other churches pulled this garbage?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"We are all in harm’s way due to an unfortunate, undeserved but completely predictable backlash to the feminism and metoo movements."
That backlash is the fault of the men who lash back, though, right? I don't lash back. I don't feel threatened by a philosophy that says "the sexes should be treated equally," which is the definition of feminism; and I totally understand that women are seen as being only sex objects, mostly by the same men who are lashing back, and that that those men could very likely sexually assault a female to prove their manhood--or whatever excuse they use.
"I have to assert the idea that white men are discriminated against."
Oh brother. I'm a white heterosexual male from the south. I do not feel discriminated against.
"YES, it is most often in their own minds, but thats exactly the mental health issue in the US."
Yes, it is in their own delusions of persecution, which they invent so they can "preemptively" strike at those who are ostensibly persecuting them. Dig it? As for mental health, that only works if the person in question seeks it. Are you suggesting we send mental health professionals door-to-door? They could evaluate the 258 million adults in the U.S.? And then they could...what? Force them to seek mental health treatment? Psychos don't tend to go to therapists of their own volition.
So blaming mental health is like blaming the education system, for not policing the adult population. It's up to the individual adult to educate themselves, and to tend to their own mental health. Lots of them obviously fail to do this. Since we can't force them to continue their education, or to do what's mentally healthy, then we need to prevent them from having super easy access to guns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jsesteves Let's be honest, Russia interfered in the election, and they're doing so again. That has been proven; arrests were made. One thing I definitely, 100% agree with you is this:
"If both parties are fixated into denying the results, if the other party wins, it would be a disaster."
No matter who wins, or how, all hell will break loose: with Covid running wild, massive California fires, protests and riots, 5 hurricanes lined up in the Atlantic, hell is already breaking loose. The election results will likely be the final straw.
As a Democratic voter, I wouldn't trust a Trump victory, any further than I could comfortably spit out a rat. And I wouldn't blame the Republicans one little bit, for feeling the same way about a Biden victory.
Good luck to you, and God help us all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Banning assault weapons does not equal taking away your guns. (Read that as many times as you need.) Not since the Civil War has it been necessary, at all, for private citizens to arm themselves to protect the country, or to save it from "tyrants." These slippery slope arguments, and all the paranoia and fallacious justifications, amount to nothing more than people working for the NRA, for free.
Meanwhile Americans are dying in mass shootings. Sure, criminals could still get guns. But, just because they can, we should do nothing to at least slow them down a little, to save even a few lives? And let's say a tyrant does take over, and demand your guns. What will you do against the tyrant's armies, and drones, and fighter jets? You'll still be able to protect your country, as a private citizen, just as much, without immediate, unconditional access to assault weapons.
1
-
1
-
@Christian-di8zu I don't know what a 10/22 is. I take it you don't know what a quark is? My knowledge of both has nothing to do with the conversation. I'm not going to decide what guns get banned.
Yes, waaay back in the 18th century, before we were a country, and had a military, and national guard, it was necessary for everyone to own a gun. There were bears back then, and no police. This is now the 21st century.
Not in all this time (except, possibly, as I said, the Civil War) was it necessary for an idiot to own a gun, so they could protect themselves from their government.
But that excuse is used to justify the mass shootings. Chew on that. Consider how heartless, and stupid it is, just for a second.
It means that generations of people preparing for a thing that never happened was unnecessary. More than that, as of now, that so-called preparation allows for there to be no laws, at all, protecting Americans from a REAL threat, not an imaginary, paranoid delusion, but real deaths happening multiple times per year, more than any other country.
Your diatribe is old and tired, full of holes, and stinks of zero compassion, and a complete lack of logic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Christian-di8zu Why do you keep talking about the "safe space," as if it's something bad, when guns make you feel safe? Isn't your safe space with a gun? As for what Jesus said about non-retaliation, you should check out the sermon on the mount, the part about turning the other cheek. And then there's the part about not calling anyone a "fool," or else be subject to hell fire (only time I ever read Jesus use that term).
And "big government" in China means the government getting involved, to save lives, is wrong? Sounds like Confederacy junk to me, and more paranoia, that big government is coming to get you. Trust me, if they were, you'd have no chance, even with all the guns in the world. But they aren't coming to get you, or your guns, or your Bible.
But your acting as if they will, just so no slippery slope gun legislation can happen, which means more people die from mass shootings, is the kind of dark heart that is not, at all, Christian.
1
-
1
-
@Christian-di8zu You want to protect yourself...you want to be safe. Guns provide protection, and therefore make you feel safe. See how that works? Are you so afraid of admitting that, that you risk being a wimp, yourself? True courage is facing that you are afraid, and fighting through it. If you're unable to face the all-too-natural fear of being mortal, then you're MORE afraid, than if you could face it.
You hope to never need your guns, to protect yourself from the government, but, meanwhile, people are dying in mass shootings, because we can't pass simple gun legislation. So your "safe space" of owning a gun, to protect yourself from tyrants that haven't existed here for over two centuries, costs the lives of innocent people.
That's my point. Sacrificing others, so you can feel safe, makes you a wimp. Wouldn't you agree? I don't want to throw away someone's life, so I can feel safe. Frankly, I don't need to feel safe. I don't need protection, beyond what society provides.
1
-
1
-
@Christian-di8zu Show me one time that Jesus said homosexuality is wrong. And if you plan to point to the books of Moses, I'd counter by charging you with cherry picking. Only the Pharisees dared follow all the laws in Leviticus, and the other five books. So, I doubt very much you follow them either. That means you heard someone say something about man lying with man is an abomination. If so, I charge you to say you follow all the books of Moses, like a Pharisee. And, if you don't, by breaking any one of the laws, you're guilty of breaking all, unless you don't actually know that's what it says in the Bible.
This is said in Matthew 5:19, and James 2:10, which is actually the New Testament, and, therefore, more prevalent for Christians.
Also, you still haven't explained how Jesus' salt of the earth comment was his way of telling people to not be pushovers, and ignored that Jesus said he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. I would really, truly advise you to not challenge me on the Bible. I've read it through, completely. Have you? And roughly 20 times, at that. I write essays on the Gospels. Trust me, Jesus wants us to love our enemies, not that homosexuality is wrong.
1
-
1
-
@Christian-di8zu Mark 10:6-9 said nothing about homosexuality. Indeed, verse 9 actually says, "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." Do you think there's anything in the whole world God does not do? It is all God, from alpha to omega. That means he put together the homosexual couple.
Romans, Corinthians, and Timothy are all Paul's letters, not Jesus. I asked for what Jesus said about homosexuality being wrong. As far as the "truth" of the Old Testament, I went over that you would only be cherry picking, unless you follow ALL the Law, which not even the Jews did, but only the Pharisees.
Sodomy came from the story about Sodom and Gomorrah, of course. After some reading, I see that there's some interpretation out there that God had Sodom destroyed because of its practice of homosexuality. Sorry, but that wasn't mentioned at all the Bible. And if you took that story literally, which you'd have to do, to use it as a basis for this interpretation, then that's where you went wrong.
There's no proof the city ever existed. Surely you don't take Genesis literally? Do you know that after Cain killed Abel, Cain went away and married a girl? Now, whose family was the girl from? Not Adam and Eve. At that time, Adam and Eve had only two children. So where did Cain's wife come from?
You aren't the first person to use the Bible as justification for hate. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for dressing like a man, which the Old Testament said was an abomination. The South justified slavery based on the Curse of Ham. This goes on and on. Hate is hate, no matter if you use the Bible to justify it or not.
And, by hating someone, you're obviously not loving them, which means you aren't a Christian.
1
-
1
-
@Christian-di8zu "And you didn’t answer me about being gay which says a lot."
It says I went to sleep. See, you assume too much. You confuse bias with knowledge. You've done that through all your replies here. 60 replies, and most of them are yours. Don't you have anything else to do?
So zealous you are, of anyone trampling your rights, that you come here to spread your ignorance and rancor, because I dared to write something that speaks out for some kind, any kind of gun legislation. You can't have that. You've made no point, proved nothing, shown nothing but hostility, and paranoia.
Now, please, run along and load your guns, read those parts of the Bible that you interpret as telling you what you want to hear. I think you've derailed this thread enough, troll.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ronaldinho5860 I do not love Trump in the least little bit. And I do have critical thinking skills, because I was formally trained to have them. So maybe one of us is confused about who we're talking about?
Let's see: The only possible point of confusion is just whom I mean by "they." Well, I'm talking about the people I assumed the OP was referring to when they wrote:
"why is it so hard for some to understand that just because a place is nice to visit for a couple of weeks, doesn't mean that I would want to live there?"
And just to whom were they referring? Well, seems to me they were referencing whomever Pakman was talking about, when he said the same thing.
Granted, I don't know who wrote to Pakman, asking how he could visit Florida, while also putting it down as a state. It could be people who loved DeSantis, people who loved Trump, or one of us Democratic viewers.
I don't know for sure. Maybe you do? But whoever it was, they lack critical thinking skills, as Pakman pointed out, and with which I agreed.
See? So...I dunno...Seems pretty presumptuous of you to say such a thing, since you don't know who I'm talking about either. Therefore, your critical thinking skills aren't exactly a beacon of light.
1
-
1
-
@sadetwizelve I'm always sad when people act like they know what science is, but obviously don't. Here's a little lesson from the scientists at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research:
"'Sex' and 'gender' are often used interchangeably, despite having different meanings:
"Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society."
https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html
1
-
1
-
Crystal Clear "And trans/homophobic by the left."
The left would call Jesus trans/homophobic? Is that what you're saying? Because that's absurd.
"Social reengineering isn't scientific. He's a man."
I've explained this, or, rather, quoted what scientists have said about it. "Sex" is male and female. It is biological. "Gender" is social identity. It is, as the scientists (in the link I provided) said, "a continuum."
If you can't accept science, and feel the need to force your bigoted definitions on others, that's your problem. And, of course, it's everyone's problem, because you force it on others.
Why do you believe this is your business, at all? Jenner has nothing to do with you. Nothing. Maybe you just want to troll? Make the libs cry?
1
-
Few words for those with anxiety: We don't have to look for negative things. The horrible stuff is plain as day and everywhere, always boastful and in your face. But we do have to look for the positive things. Contrary to the bad stuff, positive people and ideas are not boastful, but humble. So they won't hunt you down, or scream in your face. You have to find them. You have to search deliberately and mindfully every single day, even every hour of the day, for something that will fill you with the energy to go on. For myself, I take joy from small things, like feeding the squirrels outside my apartment, near the woods. And I sing, quietly and to myself. Music is the closest thing to magic. I love meeting new dogs and cats. So, animals and music. These are always available to me. And I laugh at absurdity. Since all of life is absurd, I tend to laugh a lot. These are easy, simple, ubiquitous things: a constant stream of them, which I need to balance out the the ever-flooding negativity that comes with American life.
1
-
1
-
@y_strikes2770 I covered this in my post. I guess it was too long? Here are the two key paragraphs:
*
"In the final days of the war, Lee didn't get the supplies or reinforcements he asked for, because there were none. The Confederacy never had much in the way of supplies, and should never have started the war, because of that. The citizens and troops ended up starving. There were "bread riots.""
*
"Confederate soldiers knew it was a lost cause, and were deeply disturbed by reports of Sherman in the South. So they went AWOL by the dozens, scores, and hundreds, leaving Lee with fewer and fewer troops. Finally, when the promised supplies didn't come, Lee surrendered."
*
And, as you also might have missed, I'm a very sincere Liberal--so far to the Left it would astound you. As such, I'm intelligent, educated, and well-read. I know my history, especially my American History. While I'm not the most knowledgeable person on the planet, I do know what I'm talking about; when I don't know, I'm aware of my ignorance, and refuse to just assume I know, without ever learning.
1
-
@abarkins "I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered."
*
I really like that, and didn't know he said it. Thanks for sharing. As for the other stuff, about slaves, I wasn't aware of it. Listen, I'm not pro-slavery, or a right-winger. But, judging from what you quoted, what I added to my reply above, I still find it hard to accept that Lee was a "loser."
*
I don't doubt he dealt with slaves. But he did have enough compassion, according to that quote, "not to keep open the sores of war."
1
-
I guess I should add my thesis, so more people don't misunderstand me.
*
Calling Lee and the Confederates "losers" is not a good reason for taking down the statues. Ultimately, they did lose the war, and, in that literal sense, they are/were losers [of the war]. But that is neither here, nor there, and fails to provide a good reason for taking down the statues, renaming the military bases, and so on.
*
I'll give you a good reason to do these things. One of the most common arguments right-wingers make about slavery is, It wasn't my fault, personally; I wasn't there; I didn't do it. A lot of people have made that fallacious argument, since the start of the Reconstruction period.
*
While true, literally, they (indeed, we) are all responsible NOW, if we don't do something to fix things NOW. The slaves were freed, but not reimbursed, or given enough aid to put them on an even footing with the whites. Sure, they were freed, but to go where, and do what?
*
They couldn't go back "home," because it was a totally foreign land and existence to them: no longer home. In the very old days, when a King released his slaves, they were given money, food, material to build homes, etc. That's what happened, for example, when Cyrus the Great freed Babylon's slaves; and that was thousands of years ago. Not so with America.
*
So my point, my thesis: We need to make amends, show signs of apology, regret, and good faith. What can we do, reasonably? Well, for one thing, we can get rid of the monuments put up by "the Daughters of the Confederacy," which were erected to rewrite history, and insult African-Americans.
*
It's a small token, granted. But it's something. And if we can't do the bare minimum, then we are, indeed, responsible for the continued bigotry that exists today. And that bigotry and racism isn't addressed AT ALL, by calling Lee a loser; and the Confederates, traitors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DCSLW God is all things, according to Bible. I'm not a believer, but I've read it cover to cover over a dozen times. Evil, as it's used in the Bible, means "hardship." It was only after the Holy Bible was completed that it came to mean the effect of some demonic cause. Not only is God all things, but causes all things. Basically, according to the Bible, all we perceive is God. There is no hardship for God, though, just us. So the good and evil idea is really what's good and bad for us, as individuals or as a group. So God does what we call good, and what we call bad; makes the fragrances that smell good, and those that smell bad. And so on. I don't know where you got that idea about CNN thinking "god is evil." But, as it should be apparent now, things are more complicated than that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@humbleevidenceaccepter7712 "The Bible promotes or condones such evils as slavery, misogyny, violence, and intolerance."
The Bible is not one book, written by one person. It is 66 books in one volume. They were compiled from thousands of years of songs and stories told by word of mouth. So "The Bible" doesn't promote or condone any of those things.
Whatever people believe when they say "the word of God" or "inspired by God," the people who told the stories, sang the songs, and later wrote it all down on scrolls, which were translated repeatedly...were human beings.
What they wrote, how they wrote, and the language they used (whether or not it was inspired by an infinite being) was told in the way of their people, using ideas that were known at the time.
So yes, there was slavery several thousand years ago. Yes, there was violence. And yes the people projected their strengths and weaknesses onto their god(s).
But to dismiss it without the slightest intellectual or sociological deference is the height of hubris. And to do so in a single sentence, which doesn't go into any of what I wrote here: That's just plain ignorance.
1
-
@MegaLoucon @TK_Mo seems like an obvious troll to me. There is absolutely no proof of Jesus ever existing. And, despite what TK claimed, all historians aren't claiming otherwise.
Looking for reality in the Bible is like looking for fantasy in a physics textbook. I'm not saying the Bible is fantasy. But it isn't at all historically accurate. If TK had actually read Biblical scholars, he would know that.
For example: The Hebrews weren't enslaved by Egypt. The Egyptians, even way back then, kept records of their slaves. No mentioning of the Hebrews, let alone all the first born dying, or any of the other plagues.
That means there was no escape from Egypt, crossing through the parted waters of the Red Sea, or bringing down the walls of Jericho by yelling at it.
Quite the contrary: Archaeological evidence shows the Hebrews lived in Canaan all along. Their search for "the promised land" was metaphorical, parabolic.
That is the Bible's true strength: its weird stories, and its insightful exploration of human traits that remain the same no matter where or when people exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ricardocabeza6006 Wow, you are all over the comment section for this video. Touched a nerve, did it? One thing I often see, when people want to claim, 'The Democrats are racist, not me!' is this idea of the Democrats today being the same as the Southern Democrats during, before, and after the Civil War. They're not.
The Southern Democrats were plantation owners, slave holders. They eventually left the Democratic party when Civil Rights act and integration came along. Guess which party Southern Democrats joined, and influenced heavily, because of integration. No, really, guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats
"During the Civil Rights Movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the old argument that all whites had to stick together to prevent civil rights legislation lost its force because the legislation had now been passed. More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party."
What always amazes me, is people like you know enough history to say that Democrats in the South owned slaves, supported secession, and started the KKK to fight Civil Rights, but you don't also seem to know that this is the year 2021, and a lot has changed. What used to be Southern Democrats are now Republicans. I guess you heard this from somewhere? And never bothered to fact check it yourself?
1
-
@ricardocabeza6006 They didn't switch so much as change. You don't really think the modern Republican party is the same as with Lincoln, or George HW Bush? Things have changed since 1865. That's a fact. You don't have to believe it. But it's a fact.
For example, Democrats no longer own plantations and slaves, whether north or south. To believe that nothing has changed, from the party that had slaves, to now being a situation where there are no slaves, is just foolish.
I'm sorry you cherry pick your history, because you obviously are smart enough to know some things. But you want to make yourself feel better, and say, "I'm not a racist, You're the racist!" That's just sad. I don't know if you really believe these things, or if you're just trolling. But it amounts to the same thing.
Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party, and hated the Democrats, after the Civil Rights Act passed. That's just history.
1
-
@ricardocabeza6006 I don't know who Joe Manchin is, let alone hate him. Biden's thing was back in the 70s. Biden said, "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black." Get the quote right.
Also, Southern Democrats switching to the Republicans is not just a narrative. As for the rest of that, you're clutching at straws, filling in your own narrative, and just, generally, saying, I'm not racist! The Democrats are racist!
At best, that's Whataboutism. You haven't even tried to prove how Republicans aren't racist, or even disputed this. Instead, you say the Democrats are racist. So, sorry, but history doesn't care what you believe, or how you cherry pick. Also, you're all over the place in these comments. You seem to want to just argue, and seem to be distracting from the actual story: trolling, in other words.
And since you aren't into having any sort of conversation, I'm done with you. You'll no doubt think you won the argument. Rest assured, you did not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What's odd here is I don't see anyone enumerating how Joe was wrong when he said it. The talk is focused on whether or not he said it. He did, seems to me. He meant it too. And I agree with him. Was he wrong? Be honest. You want people to be honest with you, then you be honest here. What has m@g@ done? What has it accomplished? Anything good, ever? Has it been anything but insults, dishonesty, and vitriol directed at the very Americanness of America? Going against immigrants, who made this country; against science, at the cost of lives; against anything not m@g@? I'm asking. Seems you brought this on yourselves. Had you tried to accomplish anything good, moral, upstanding, and patriotic, Joe (and the world) would be singing your praises. Why aren't you focused on that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is a great point! So Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel. Yahweh kicked Cain out of society, marked him so that no one would ever go near him, forcing him to walk the earth alone. He did this, partly, because Cain was scared other people would kill him, after Yahweh made him leave Adam and Eve. Instead, Cain immediately met a woman, married her, and had children. Wait. What? Yes! Where did she come from? Adam and Eve also had another child, Seth. It was from him that the line is traced to King David. So who did Seth marry? Where did she come from? It's at that point, that I learned to stop taking such stories literally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fientrogue5373 Good ol' whataboutism. Never gets old, apparently, unfortunately. I read up on the story. I see that it was a Democratic governor. So that's the reason for your whataboutism, then.
Well, besides your argument being a logical fallacy, what Polis did was very different. He didn't trick the immigrants into boarding a bus, by lying to them, telling them they were going some place safe; nor did he send them in blind, with no one knowing they were coming; so he didn't just ship them off and abandon them.
Abbot and DeSatan did all of those things. They were obviously being racist, nationalist, and trying to own the libs, using human beings as pawns. The stories are nothing alike, once you get past your simplistic post.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I decided to look up the definition for racism. You should always look up the definition, especially when you claim to know it. Here you go, from the Oxford Languages Dictionary::
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized ."
I put in bold what I thought was the interesting part. Granted, "typically" does some heavy lifting there: It's definition is "in most cases; usually." So the majority, if not the overwhelming majority of the time, racism is directed against minorities or marginalized people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember how Trump "changed" the path of a storm, with a sharpie? He had been wrong, and would, otherwise, have to admit it, except the sharpie made him right. Normal people know they make mistakes. Stupid people think they never make mistakes, and they're a genius at everything. So Trump must show he wasn't wrong, on election night, when he claimed, ahead of time, that he won. He'll use the sharpie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Typical small mind far leftists thinking."
Whatever helps you sleep at night, troll. Leftists tend to be educated; most, very educated. They tend to be involved in continual adult education: never stop reading, studying, practicing their critical thinking. The conservative base, on the hand, is--as you say--of a small minded thinking. They stop reading, studying, practicing critical thinking. So, you're projecting, in other words.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With the media being the way it is, so many people tend to get swept up in the drama-queen tidal waves of despair. I felt it at first too. Then I stopped, took a deep breath, and applied Occam's razor. First, it wasn't even a debate. DonDon saw to that. It was a performance, live and in front of anyone in the world who cared to watch: a performative contest for President of the United States. Secondly, in any live performance, all performers can have an "on* night or an "off* night; they're "in the groove...putting their best foot forward," or not. Donny put his best foot forward: But his best consists of nothing but lies; HE CAN DO NO BETTER. Joe had an off night. He CAN do better, if you remember his SotU. So relax. It was the first debate, not Armageddon.
1
-
1
-
@HippiDippiWeatherMan Kids aren't wanting to "cut" anything. It's an incorrect idea, masquerading as a fact, and fed to people who don't check what they're told are facts. It's a fear tactic, used to engage the fight or flight response, which is in the oldest, most primitive layer of the brain, called the R-complex: so old that the R stands for "reptilian." The brain formed over hundreds of millions of years, layer upon layer, the oldest at the center. The R-complex is 320 million years old. So that's where all the aggression is, the caveman-type stuff. Triggering that layer results in that person thinking with that layer: in other words, not thinking logically at all. It's a good, dependable way for advertisers to sell things. That's why your media evokes it. The easiest solution is to deliberately use logic and the scientific method, watch out for confirmation bias, and never ever assume you're correct.
1
-
@HippiDippiWeatherMan Kids can't get that kind of surgery. Period. It's an incorrect idea, masquerading as a fact, and fed to people who don't check what they're told are facts. It's a fear tactic, used to engage the fight or flight response, which is in the oldest, most primitive layer of the brain, called the R-complex: so old that the R stands for "reptilian." The brain formed over hundreds of millions of years, layer upon layer, the oldest at the center. The R-complex is 320 million years old. So that's where all the aggression is, the caveman-type stuff. Triggering that layer results in that person thinking with that layer: in other words, not thinking logically at all. It's a good, dependable way for advertisers to sell things. That's why your media evokes it. The easiest solution is to deliberately use logic and the scientific method, watch out for confirmation bias, and never ever assume you're correct.
1
-
@HippiDippiWeatherMan That thing with the surgeries isn't happening with children. It's an incorrect idea, masquerading as a fact. It's a fear tactic, used to engage the fight or flight response, which is in the oldest, most primitive layer of the brain, called the R-complex: so old that the R stands for "reptilian." The brain formed over hundreds of millions of years, layer upon layer, the oldest at the center. The R-complex is 320 million years old. So that's where all the aggression is, the caveman-type stuff. Triggering that layer results in that person thinking with that layer: in other words, not thinking logically at all. It's a good, dependable way for advertisers to sell things. That's why certain media evokes it. The easiest solution is to deliberately use logic and the scientific method, and watch out for confirmation bias.
1
-
@HippiDippiWeatherMan That surgery isn't happening to young people. It's an incorrect idea, masquerading as a fact, which first showed up on social media. It's a fear tactic, used to engage the fight or flight response, which is in the oldest, most primitive layer of the brain, called the R-complex: so old that the R stands for "reptilian." The brain formed over hundreds of millions of years, layer upon layer, the oldest at the center. The R-complex is 320 million years old. So that's where all the aggression is, the caveman-type stuff. Triggering that layer results in that person thinking with that layer: in other words, not thinking logically at all. It's a good, dependable way for advertisers to sell things. That's why your media evokes it. The easiest solution is to deliberately use logic and the scientific method, watch out for confirmation bias, and never ever assume you're correct.
1
-
@HippiDippiWeatherMan That isn't happening with kids. It's an incorrect idea, masquerading as a fact, which first showed up on social media. It's a fear tactic, used to engage the fight or flight response, which is in the oldest, most primitive layer of the brain, called the R-complex: so old that the R stands for "reptilian." The brain formed over hundreds of millions of years, layer upon layer, the oldest at the center. The R-complex is 320 million years old. So that's where aggression is. Triggering that layer results in that person thinking with that layer: in other words, not thinking logically at all. It's a good, dependable way for advertisers to sell things. That's why certain media evokes it. The easiest solution is to deliberately use logic and the scientific method, and watch out for confirmation bias.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@camndino That's such a baseless, cliched response. The "education system" (whatever you think that is) can't make people continue learning and thinking, as they get older. Plus, knowledge and reasoning capability requires people exercise their brains regularly, just like staying in good physical shape requires us to exercise our bodies regularly. If someone doesn't use their body, just lie in bed for years or decades, then try to run around the block one day, they won't be able to take a single step. That's what we see with adults trying to think in this country. Can't blame the "education system," any more than someone can blame their PE teacher, because they stayed in bed for decades. The responsibility is ours, not our 9th grade teachers'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@David34981 "Why would there not be evidence of an "infinite being"?"
Let's do an analogy: Say you're a very very small life form, like an ant. How would you go about proving there are other planets?
Infinity is bigger than the biggest thing ever. And since that infinite God being supposedly made, crafted, and/or created infinity, then that God would have to be larger than infinity.
As human beings, we can approximate the size of the universe. But it is most definitely finite in measurement. And it's that finite amount of it that allows some scientists to determine its size. We have no tool that can measure infinity.
Back to the ant: If it's sufficiently aware, it might notice that something stomped on its ant hill. But it would have to be aware far beyond its capability to conceptualize such a relatively gigantic thing as a human. And we're finite, even.
So we humans can look at the toppling of one of our hills, and guess that it would take something very big to do that. But there would be no understanding, let alone proof, that God stomped on our hill. It would have to be something within our understanding, like a storm or natural disaster.
Note, we aren't hiding ourselves from ants. It's just that they can't comprehend us. So, no, we can't prove the existence of an infinite being: The asking or demanding of someone to prove such an impossible thing is done out of spite and ignorance, and by people who consider themselves to be logical and intelligent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The NRA wants to sell their products, and they want to always be raising their quarterly earnings, like any other business. That means they eventually had to not be satisfied with the normal amount of sells, but to find an advertising gimmick that would always, always bring them more money. That gimmick is the selling of guns, to protect you from "the bad guy," who also has a gun. This escalation, and the fear that comes from rising crime, at certain times, allows for unending, always increasing revenue.
Now, is this (or any other) marketing tactic worth so many lives in America? Is the number of times of people protecting themselves, and their families, from "bad guys with guns," or even from a tyrannical American government, worth the number of people who have actually died, murdered by people who probably thought they were "good guys with a gun?"
I see the reality of people getting killed almost every day. I hardly ever see someone protecting themselves, and their families, with a gun, or how a group of private citizens had to protect themselves from a rogue military.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Their childhood education is largely irrelevant. It has been years, decades since they have exercised their brains with facts and critical thinking. Think of what happens when you stop exercising your body, and then refuse to get out of bed: for years, decades. To some degree, this is happening all around us, manifesting itself in different ways, for different people...none of whom are reading and studying math, science, literature, philosophy, poetry on their own. And they haven't...for years, decades.
1
-
Here are some numbers to show what (and who) we're talking about here:
In 2020, 67% of eligible voters didn't vote. Of the who did vote, 25% identified as Republicans, 31% as Democrats, and 41% as Independent. So only 33% of eligible voters actually vote. And 2020 was considered to be a big turnout.
In 2020, the U.S. population was 329.5 million. That means (roughly) 220 million eligible voters didn't vote. That leaves only 109.5 million who did vote. 44 million of them identified as neither Republican nor Democrat; 33 million Democrats; 27 million Republicans.
So those 44 million are absolutely crucial. And my numbers are off here, somehow, as I double checked at another website. Apparently 155 million people voted, not just 109.5 million. Darn it! And another website says that 157.2 million people voted. Good grief. Three different numbers!
Anyway, the point is that a President needs those swing voters, as they account for nearly half the amount of all available votes.
1
-
1
-
The other day, David did a "comment of the day" that talked about how an elderly woman said she voted for DonaldMcCheese because she found him "entertaining." The person who wrote that comment disparaged the woman's intelligence. But here we are talking about "the idea of the candidate,...the vibe," as opposed to Dems running only on policy. A significant number of the Dem voters aren't much better, if at all, than their Red counterparts, in this way. They want entertainment. Entertainment is how the news works, with its flashy slogans, theme songs, and attractive hosts. No doubt some Dems don't need or like the entertainment. But some do. We need to be honest with ourselves about who we are, as a country, party, and as individuals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Someone else made the point, in another video post about this, that I want to bring up here: Socio-economics is what we should be looking at, if we want to deal with gun violence in this country. There are too many people without hope, who want to go out in a blaze of glory, and take others with them. You and/or I could, one day, be such a person. This involves all of us. This country is all too willing to give the middle finger to people in need, and drive them to despair: be it medical bills, or a place to live and work.
Frankly, I don't know how to solve such a problem, even if I had the power and money to bring the issue to the attention of our wealthy, clueless rulers. So it's likely that this won't get addressed, and will only get worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dear Maga: When a convicted felon says his trial was rigged, you need to stop believing him. I know you went along with his story that he didn't know E. Jean Carroll, believed him when he said the election was stolen, approved of the mob that he told to march down to Congress on J6, chanted "stop the steal" and "lock her up." And you took it to heart when he said corona was a "democrat lie," and winked and nudged each other later when he finally had to admit that it wasn't. You believed he was just saying that, even though he got sick with it himself. You've played telephone with all kinds of conspiracies: from pizza toppings to Joe putting a hit out on him, using the Feds as his assassins. But at some point you have to see his pattern of lies; you have to stop making a scapegoat of Joe, Hunter, and so on, because none of it has been found to be true. What has been found is that Donny is a convicted felon. And he lied to YOU. Don't let him keep taking advantage of you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bridgeman56 Can you not speak to what I wrote? I replied to what you wrote. Your comment takes the conversation in a direction where there are no figures to point to.
How about this: You said that you have a high-powered gun, because intruders have high-powered guns, which you somehow know about ahead of time.
By "protect your household," I'm assuming you mean family members, maybe children? So you're going to be firing your weapon, which is powerful enough to rival or beat the firepower used by the Rambo-wannabe intruders:
And you're going to fire it in your house, near your family. So near your young daughter, and frightened spouse. You'll be maybe doing this in the dark, in the middle of the night, not sure of what you're even aiming at.
Will your rounds go through the wall? Who is in the room next to yours? Which member of your household? And, by shooting, are you then also not inviting the intruder (who has a gun of equal power) to shoot back?
Or maybe they'll just decide to take your daughter hostage, because you've gone psycho Rambo?
And can you even be sure you'll get to your gun in time to use it? Where do you keep it? Is it locked away, hopefully unloaded, so your child doesn't get a hold of it, or the key to the place where it's locked?
So you have to load your gun, in the dark, in the middle of night? What if you don't even wake up? What if the intruder is unarmed, quiet, and finds your gun? Or what if you didn't lock your gun away, or take the ammo out of it, and your child finds it?
I could go on with this absurd scenario. You're better off just taking what I wrote before as a compliment, and not try to engage me on this illogical, psychotic, delusional "protection of the household" nonsense.
1
-
The news and politics are all about entertainment, while being historically very serious and factual. The very nature of it demands good speakers, graphics, music, theme songs; and its people have to be of a pleasing (if not attractive), and/or ideological appearance. Even DonaldMcCheese, quite possibly one of the most unattractive Presidents in the last century, wears clown makeup, dances to the Village People, and speaks like a Southern Baptist preacher. No stutterers allowed (for very long); if you have an off night, and mess up a debate, you're gone; and debates aren't even really debates: just personality contests. Our news and politics must be wrapped in an entertaining package, or most people switch the channel. If they didn't want entertainment, "print" would not be an endangered species. Everyone would read, not just newspapers, but books. This is not what we see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kanedNunable The U.S. is number 1 with a bullet, when it comes to Covid cases (109,406,369) and deaths (1,182,999). That's twice the number for the country with the next highest, which was India.
And, yes, that happened in large part due to Trump's negligence. He disbanded the pandemic advanced warning task force, because it was something Obama had put together; and he refused to use the "pandemic playbook," because it was something the Obama administration had put together. And that's barely scratching the surface of Trump's lethal incompetence.
(Oh, danial hillmann, still the insipid troll.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@angelikaopland7880 When you say "the Bible is all too clear," have to keep some things in mind: First, the Bible is not one book by one author. It is 66 books, written over (roughly) 2,000 years. So God, Yahweh, the Father, etc, can come across as being a different character, depending where you look. Secondly, one of the consistent ideas in that collection of books is that God is all things: which includes all religions. We're talking about a very complicated thing here, which can't be summed up in a sentence or two.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If anything, this election has enabled and increased by sympathy and empathy for his supporters. Haven't you ever made a terrible mistake? Haven't you ever done something awful, even though others warned you ahead of time, but you didn't listen? Having sympathy and empathy doesn't mean I agree with them, or approve of what they did. The absence of my sympathy and empathy won't impact them in any way. They don't even know I exist. So my sympathy and empathy will only impact me, and the people I talk with or share my lack of feelings with. So what results would be me perpetuating heartlessness and inhumanity. That will cause some other people to feel that way along with me. No benefit there. And, in feeling that way, I'll have to turn off that part of my consciousness that feels sympathy and empathy, risking being unable to turn it back on. No benefit there, and actually dangerous, since the lack of empathy is psychopathy. If I were to turn it off, my brain would have to reroute my reasoning: I'd be doing something bad, but pretending it's good. That kind doublethink results in more doublethink, like lying leads to telling more lies, to cover up the ones already told. No benefit there. So, similar to them voting against their own interests, when I don't feel sympathy and empathy for them, I'd be thinking against my own interests: namely, my physical and mental health, and morality and decency. I choose to not do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Keep in mind, whatever Trump or his people say, it's meant for their supporters, not everyone else. To us, their arguments are obviously stupid, at best, and lies, at worst. But, Trump supporters buy it, bite it, hook, line, and sinker. All of this goes to their mean-out-of-control Democrats propaganda. That propaganda isn't meant for everyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ahamoment3626 Wait, I thought the reason was because "the government" wasn't releasing the evidence. Now it's the "visitors" who are keeping "the government" from releasing the evidence? Either way, this entire thing is based on unknown government agencies, and unknown people within those agencies. So, first of all, how can people know about them or who they are, if they're unknown? And secondly, remove the whole "they're hiding the truth" thing, and we got absolutely nothing. It's because of whomever that we don't have the evidence. But since we still don't have the evidence, whether we know them or not, then it all boils down to us not having the evidence.
And for this guy to come forward, and get hearings with Congress, without having any evidence, is a great example. Who in the world would come forward with the truth about UFOs, without having anything at all to prove their claims? Or maybe "the government" or "the visitors" are hiding that too?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's their thinking: Other than having a new boogieman to hate, Republicans know David spoke against their message. They not only want to garner self-righteousness of claiming to pray and think about the victims, they want to destroy public education, disband the board of education, and instead have only private Christian schools.
How many times have we heard, "Bring God back...." They claim God and only God can protect their base from the gun violence, just as Trump (or whomever they put forward) is the only one to protect them from whatever else.
David's tweet shattered all that, casting doubt over the precarious faith of millions of people. Those Republicans are now in crisis control mode, which, to them, is equivalent to attack mode.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From the earliest days of Trump running for the presidency, his supporters said that one of the reasons they liked him was because he spoke what was on his mind. I agreed, back then, that he said whatever dumb, awful, sexist, racist thing occurred to him. But, the more I think about it (in light of his discrepancy about viruses and germs), he really doesn't say what's on his mind. Does he?
He says what Trump supporters want to hear. I wonder, then, how he would be, if he truly spoke his mind: if he told everyone how freaked out he was about this. And, what else? If he wasn't trying to bamboozle America, what would he be like? Of course, that's analogous to asking what hotdogs would be like, if they weren't hotdogs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What does it mean to not only be an atheist, but also a Christian Conservative? Well, seems to me a Christian Conservative must be different from a Christian. Their conservatism modifies or qualifies their Christianity, to the point that it's less about what Jesus taught, and more about being a modern conservative--which would, of course, be different that what conservatism meant before Trump.
So what do Christian Conservatives do and want? We've seen that. They're against abortion, LGBTQ, and refuse to acknowledge that black lives matter; they want to "put God (i.e., enforcement of prayer and prudishness) back into schools...and government." And they don't just personally dislike those things (as I dislike pie, but prefer cake), but actively seek to force their way onto others--making it so that everyone must eat pie, so to speak, and never cake. :)
So an atheist can do all those things, since it isn't really about loving one another, but more about the bigotry and persecution of others that's practiced by Christian Conservatives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grantwing4942 First, the Bible is 66 different books, with at least two writers per book, spanning centuries of composition. So it does not advocate or deny any one thing, or speak with a single voice, or tone. So that, alone, negates your claim. Secondly, you gave no examples, not even a copy/paste meme list. Finally, even if we adjust your claim not to the whole Bible, but rather individual books within it advocate for those things, it still would not work: Just because a person mentions crime, for example, doesn't make them a criminal. So that book wouldn't be advocating for those things, just because it has them in the story. It's a cliched, beaten horse argument.
1
-
@grantwing4942 "inspired word of God?" In the Bible, God made everything, and is everything, everywhere. All of it. So to say one single book is THE word of an infinite being is a pretty sorry belief. But yes, you're correct, in that some do believe it. The problem is that most everyone in the modern world takes the Bible literally, when it was obviously not designed that way. You're taking it literally, or arguing from that perspective. What happens when you think about those questions, but don't take it literally? You seem to agree that it makes no sense, in the way you're interpreting it. So why interpret it that way? For example, as stated above, the definition of God, in the text is "everything, everywhere. All of it." His speaking to Moses is metaphorical; the snake in Eden is parabolic. And so on. If the literal interpretation doesn't work, then stop using it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hate to say it, but that was not meandering, unless you're a "just the facts, ma'am" kind of person. It was honest and heartfelt, neither platitudes nor filibustering. God, our idiocracy country with its 5-second attention span, even for David! Kamala has emotions. She laughs, and talks about how she feels. Some people feel things. And, as a person who can feel emotions, I'm glad to see that in a Presidential candidate. Besides, she had a thought, and stayed on it: That's not what meandering means. Beyond that, she showed empathy here, talking about how we feel as Americans. And that is a very important trait.
1
-
1
-
Brian Baff I can't believe I have to correct you on these things. But here goes. We'll see what excuses you come up with.
"Never mocked the disabled man." and "Never called Mexicans rapists." (Both in the link below.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFOy8-03qdg
"Never heard an attack on immigrants, illegal immigrants yes that he may have done, but not legal ones."
It is legal to seek asylum. And that's what the people of the so-called "caravan" were doing. Trump sent troops to intercept them. He sent 5,200 troops, which, by the way, was illegal.
https://www.salon.com/2018/11/23/trump-sending-troops-to-intercept-caravan-is-illegal_partner/
The troops fired tear gas at them, when they arrived here, looking for asylum.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/26/18112474/tear-gas-border-patrol-caravan-rocks
I noticed, in your post, that you claimed these were debunked, but you didn't post any proof. Debunking is fact checking. I fact checked these for you.
"Never mocked the disabled man."
"Serge Kovaleski suffers from arthrogryposis, a condition which limits the movement of joints and is particularly noticeable in Kovaleski’s right arm and hand. After referring to Kovaleski as “a nice reporter,” Trump launched into an impression of him, pointedly flopping his right arm around with his hand held at an odd angle while saying (in imitation of Kovaleski): “Now, the poor guy, you’ve got to see this guy: ‘Uhh, I don’t know what I said. Uhh, I don’t remember,’ he’s going like ‘I don’t remember. Maybe that’s what I said'”"
https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/07/28/donald-trump-criticized-for-mocking-disabled-reporter/
So Trump said he was "a nice reporter" (maybe you think that debunked that he then made fun of the reporter?) The video is on the page.
Ahead of the caravan, there was a lot of disinformation against them. Here's an example:
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/10/graphic-photos-falsely-linked-to-caravan/
As I said, it is legal to seek asylum, which they were doing:
"The migrant caravan has traveled more than 2,500 miles to the U.S. border after originating in Central America. In the last weeks of November, the first major group arrived at the border near San Diego, where they face a long wait to apply for asylum."
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2018/12/05/fact-check-migrant-caravan-criminal-claim-size-and-asylum-process/2129896002/
And they were at a legal port of entry.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-plans-block-migrants-claiming-asylum-between-legal-ports-entry-n930056
And the troops used tear gas, with children in the crowd.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/nov/29/blog-posting/no-photo-migrant-mother-and-her-children-running-t/
I'm not sure where you did your fact checks. But you see where I did mine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Chrry Cola "all right then when they get exposed through child endangerment and misconduct ill do the empathetic thing and turn the other cheek"
That's not at all what empathy is. And who is the "they" you refer to? And what bearing do "they" have on this discussion?
Also what do you do, normally, "when they get exposed through child endangerment and misconduct"? I doubt you're in a position to punish them, or hold them (whomever that is, the church I expect) accountable. Right? So what do you do?
You pass judgment on them, of course. And that's why you're responding to @TuningAnApple, who spoke against judgment. You realized you're doing it.
What good did it do you? That's my point. Did your passing of judgment on others accomplish anything? Well, it did do something: It made you bitter, and sarcastic, and even quicker to judge people you don't know (like @TuningAnApple) at the next opportunity. Right?
So what does all that bitterness do to you, to your mind, your way of thinking, especially when it accomplishes nothing but more of the same? Answer: It hurts YOU. You aren't hurting whoever "they" is/are. They don't even know you exist. You're hurting yourself.
That's why judging others is wrong. It not only can hurt them, it will most definitely hurt you. And that's because you'll lose the ability to think clearly, and be unable to see the harm you're causing yourself.
Empathy, on the other hand, has the opposite effect. Instead of bitterness, and the incorrect assumption that you know what you obviously can't know (namely, the thoughts and motivations of others), you realize that the "they" is/are human, just like you. And they do good and bad things, just like you.
And that's why, without empathy, you're judging and condemning yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cmh9932 Martin Luther King Jr often quoted from this poem, "The Present Crisis," by James Russell Lowell. It's long, and a little archaic in its language, but it speaks to me still today. Here's one of my favorite stanzas:
Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah, offering each the bloom or blight,
Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right,
And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and that light.
https://poets.org/poem/present-crisis
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I really can't stand Large Marge's accent. I'm southern. I renounced my southern accent by the time I was 16, when I was a dj, and heard myself on the radio. Yuck! But I enjoy hearing a southern accent, except when people use it to lie and say really mindless things: Then it sounds evil, and extremely mindless.
Also, the Biblical day of rest isn't any old day. It's the sabbath, which is the 7th day of the week. The reason it's the 7th day is to honor and give thanks to God for the Earth. And the 7th day is Saturday. This is one of the 10 Commandments, and church-going Christians break it every week. Also, also, her and her boyfriend gave us a whataboutism there, which wasn't even true.
Finally, the CEO of Chick-Fil-A is ostensibly a Southern Baptist Christian. And he's a CEO, which means he's wealthy. And you know what Jesus said about the wealthy entering the kingdom of heaven: that it was as likely as a camel going through the eye of a needle. And when Christians support his company, they're giving him more money, which makes it even harder to find the heaven within.
1
-
1
-
You reap what you sow. This is what happens when Trump has been elected president. What did we think would happen? Of course, the majority of voters didn't vote for him. But we can't very well be immune from the consequences brought on by those responsible, i.e., Trump supporters. What will it take to puncture the bubble, in which these "Trumpists" live and believe? How about a pandemic, with exponential growth? Sure, Fox and Trump will continue to lie to them, but, remember, these Trump supporters aren't the healthiest people to begin with. Add to that their lack of concern (as David pointed out), and I can imagine they won't be able to last long without realizing just exactly what they have brought on the nation, by electing, and still supporting, Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for going into the lion's den once more, Emma. To me, they sound like they're repeating what Fox or Trump, or some right-wing radio host told them about Democrats, socialism, etc. They don't know anything, really, because Democrats aren't on their team, in the church, their tribe: Democrats are wrong, period; no explanation or thought is needed. Hitler would've loved these people, except they aren't exactly great examples of how the white race is superior.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Biden is no better than Trump."
Biden isn't in office. So Biden can't say whether or not he'd commit to a peaceful transfer of power. Trump is in office. And Trump said he won't commit, unless we get rid of the mail-in ballots, during a pandemic.
So let's go to the next (or, rather, previous) relative Democratic president. Did Obama allow for a peaceful transfer of power? Yes, to Trump, even. Did the anti-Obama nutballs believe Obama wouldn't give up the presidency? Yes, that's exactly what they believed. As usual, none of their conspiracies came true about Obama.
But now that it's Trump, where is their outrage? You see, their conspiracies were never about Obama, as a man or President, but, instead, because he was a black man (the only remaining possibility).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hated_Sien "The AR-15 was originally designed to be a hunting rifle, but the ArmaLite rifle company submitted it to the military 2 years after it was available to the public....facts matter."
Really? I agree! Facts do matter. Here are the facts, quoted from NPR's "A brief history of the AR-15":
""AR" comes from the name of the gun's original manufacturer, ArmaLite, Inc. The letters stand for ArmaLite Rifle — and not for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle." ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt.
"In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War. It was known as the M-16. Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement and the public, marketed as the AR-15."
So you got it backwards. Colt submitted it to the public 4 years after their success with the M-16, i.e., 4 years after it was designed to be a military rifle, .
"There are no guns designed to kill dears. Its called a rifle."
After another search, I found this to be basically factual, though not entirely true. There are rifles best suited for hunting deer. From the letsgohunting website: "308 Winchester, the 6.5 Creedmoor, . 243 Winchester and . 270 Winchester all make excellent choices for all-around deer hunting, as they are just as effective at longer ranges as they are up-close and personal." Other people make other suggestions for the "right gun for the job." And I think that's the point the OP was making, because not one of the websites I saw listed the AR-15, especially not for hunting prairie dogs. lol!
I mean, if facts really do matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem is these anti-vaxxers are too stupid to recognize how wrong they are. It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect: Most of us suffer from this, about one thing or another. But these people suffer from an actualization of the Effect that endangers us all. They see themselves as logical, so you can't use logic on them; they see themselves as intelligent, so you can't appeal to them intellectually; they see themselves as right and just, so there's no appealing to them with any kind of ethics or morality arguments.
They're lost. I hate to say it, but how else to put it? This goes beyond brainwashing, lack of education, or critical thinking skills. Maybe, decades ago, they could have been taught better, and this could have been avoided. But you can't unscramble an egg. Just as the Southern Confederate holds onto their "lost cause," so do Trump supporters still hang on to his commands. And one of those was that Covid is (how did he put it) "their latest hoax."
Like the Confederates, they see their loyalty as honorable, their nationalism as patriotism, and the mass of them will never give it up. 150 years later, they're still flying the Stars and Bars; and 100 years from now (if we're still around), Trump supporters will still be Trump supporters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You make time for what's important. Reading is healthy. It's good for your health: You sit still, heart rate slows; you calm down. You focus, and use your intellect, your imagination. Depending on what you're reading, you could be learning new things about science, or the ocean, or the history of the Apache(!!), or the inquisitions, crusades, other cultures, the golden age of piracy(!!). There's so much to learn, you'll never learn it all: That's how much there is! And there are amazing story tellers, the best writers, the best minds in the history of the world. Reading is worth making time for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nice bit of copy and paste there. Any original thoughts of your own? Have you read the Bible? How much? Know any of the Greek or Hebrew, so you actually know what it's saying, or do you just go off the terribly incomplete English translations? How much thought have you actually given to the Bible? You know it's not the same thing as religion, at least, right? Religion came after the Bible: That's how it was with both Judaism and Christianity, at least. Seems to me, a great way to read the Bible (which is a compilation of 66 books, written over roughly 3,000 years) is to not be a believer. Approach it like any other book. Leave behind your prejudices, your confirmation bias, and see it for what it is. Have you done that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What's amazing is Trump still being a thing...at all. Okay, let's assume that he was a fine President: not "tremendous," but didn't do all the things that were testified against him before the January 6th committee, or any of the stuff that is widely available for viewing (e.g., unable to admit he was wrong, so he changed the path of the hurricane with a sharpie; wanted to nuke a hurricane; advised professional fire fighters and forest rangers to sweep the forest; and suggested bleach or cleaning products to get rid of Covid, which some Trump supporters ingested and were poisoned/died from; and so on).
Let's assume the Trumpist's conspiracy theories are all true, and all of that (and more) can be explained and/or discounted. Still...why can't they let him go? He's done. He did his thing. Fine. You know...he stocked the empty shelves with ammunition; there was the dubious tax breaks, the never-completed wall, and...well...space force. Good for him! And good for the Trumpists for voting for him. Fine. Why hold onto it? Why hold onto him? At the most you'll get him back for four more years, unless he plans another insurrection. Move on!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think what's going on with Bill's confusion can be understood: We aren't where we used to be--socially, economically, as far as anything really. But we're still a long way from the kind of world in which we all respect each other, and treat each other with dignity, i.e., the way we would want to be treated, if we were them.
So here we are in the middle of a very long stretch of history. How do we get from A to Z? How do we move the entire population of our country (let alone the world), from troglodytes to enlightened, intelligent people? Can't force it, as that would defeat the purpose.
I think what we're seeing is the evolution of society manifesting itself. It's not an "agenda," but human life changing. And some people are "woke" enough to see that it is changing, and needs to change. Some aren't. Those who aren't don't like it, because it threatens the unquestionable sanctity of their way of life, and so they make a negative buzzword out of it. And they double down on being troglodytes.
And, yes, wokism might seem silly sometimes. That's because no one really knows how to facilitate the evolution of the human mind, the world-wide combined psyche of humanity. But we're moving, changing, growing. Dr. King talked about this in his "I have a dream speech." He said he'd "been to the mountain top...and seen the promised land." He said, "I might not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight, that we as a people will get to the promised land."
And I believe what he said. I always did. Dr. King was seriously woke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@breeeegs I didn't say it "improves" anything. I'm not trying to defend him. Maybe ya didn't read what I wrote? I don't feel like repeating it, especially to someone who can't use punctuation. Read it again, or don't. I don't care. I know I can't stop the innumerable people who parrot that cliche, while adding nothing of their own (which, I pointed out, is part of my problem with it). But I find the whole thing of pointing out how others are lacking, while the commenter lacks the same thing, to be disingenuous. Now, I know all y'all gonna get all team-sports on me, thinking I'm on the other team, from the enemy cave. But I'm not. So spare me the R-complex us-vs-them mentality. Accuse DonaldMcCheese of what he really said, things that don't need context; and say something intelligent and thoughtful about it. Or continue as you're doing now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...."
That depends on what you call "destructive of these ends." Doesn't it? What "ends" is the Declaration referring to there? Seems to me, it's the ends of "securing our rights." Unless there's more to it, and you quoted it out of context? I'll leave that to you.
So if a government is taking away your rights, and is doing so against the will of the governed--I'm guessing here it means a majority of the governed? I'm not a scholar on this. But if some small group of people believe its rights are being taken away, not the majority but a limited number of dissenters, do those people have the right/duty to alter and abolish the government, on behalf of those who don't believe such a thing?
We'd never have had a government that lasted any longer than the whims of unsatisfied people. And what rights are we talking about? How many rights is enough? And what does it mean to abolish the government? Does it mean to storm Congress and attempt to prevent the transfer of power after an election?
I don't think so. No rights were taken. Maybe you believe Trump voters were disenfranchised. But there's been no proof of that--coming from Republican investigators, coming from William Barr. So were there other rights taken? When the right of a safe abortion is taken away, is that enough to storm Congress?
See, your brief quote, and limited thesis don't really speak to any of these concerns. Maybe you should think about it some more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On God talking to people: First, in history, the only two I can think of are Joan of Arc and Nat Turner. Joan, most everyone knows about; but Nat Turner is an interesting case. He led a slave rebellion in August 1831. For a fascinating read, I suggest looking further into his story.
What's intrigues me here is that neither Nat nor Joan spoke to God. Instead, they said an angel came to them. "Angel" is Greek for "messenger." It was the word used to describe the riders for the old Persian pony-express-style mail system, in the 6th century B.C. But, in the Bible, just as other secular words took on more divine meanings (e.g., lord, christ [which means "anointed one"]), angel then became "God's messenger."
So God didn't just speak to people, but sent a messenger. What that would mean, literally, I don't know. Insanity, perhaps. Or maybe one's inner voice, conscience, instinct. I get the feeling such a thing shouldn't be taken literally. Because, if we do take it literally, we see how crazy and dumb it looks.
In the Bible: As far as I can remember offhand, God spoke to Adam, Cain (who killed Abel); and then no one until Noah; and then to Abraham, and whichever of Abraham's descendants took over the "royal line"--i.e., the genealogical line that led to Jesus. Apart from those descendants, in the Old Testament, God spoke only to Moses. In the New Testament, Jesus' mother Mary was visited by an angel. However, God did speak to Jesus' father Joseph "in a dream." Which is just like what that crazy woman said.
I offer this just as some perspective into the weird, fascinating world of "God talking to people." I'm not saying I believe any of this, or condone it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How can MAGA conservatives teach the Bible, when they don't know what it says? First of all, from the Biblical text, it says that God created everything. So, I take it by "everything" it means every single thing. That includes stuff religious people don't like, which (when they say it) is always a sure sign they're clueless about the Bible. Secondly, I've heard many so-called Christians claim that the Bible is God's words, that God somehow...I dunno...dictated it to lots of different people over many centuries? And I guess God also dictated the translations?
Even if that's true (and let's just assume it is), then those human beings, with their finite brains, still interpreted their infinite God's words. Right? So God would say stuff that couldn't possibly make any sense to people who had no understanding of experimental science, or how big the universe was. For example: In the Biblical text we often see God claim that "the Earth is his, and everything in it." While that goes back to my first point, does it mean that ONLY this one planet is God's? Are there different infinite beings who create each planet? See? There's no way a human brain 5,000 years ago is going to grasp how big we now know (in the 21st century) the universe is.
Finally, even the Bible doesn't claim it's God's own words, or that the men who received the dictation were "divinely inspired." Somewhere along the line, that got made up, probably by some bishop or preacher...who was also a finite, fallible man. You think MAGA conservatives have thought about any of that? Or where/how Cain found a wife, after he killed Abel (since they and Adam and Eve were the only people in the world)? Or how Satan is a Hebrew word that simply means "adversary": an improper noun, so absolutely not a name, but just anyone who is against whatever you're doing? And so on. I doubt it very much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samuelrosander1048 There's way too much to unpack there, quite the Gish gallop. First, I'll just advise you to read it cover to cover, without bias. You're chock full of bias. It's in every sentence, along with loads of hyperbole, cherry picking, and misunderstanding: all of which indicates unfamiliarity with the material. It's okay. No one has read everything. But if you going to claim you know what this Christian thing is, and say a bunch of stuff that isn't in the text (or if it is, pays no heed to the context), then the only solutions would be for you to read it with an open mind, or speak to someone who isn't a believer, who has read it with an open mind. I'm such a person.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drobgyn5615 "Semantics." Yes, words have definitions, and meaning. So "right" doesn't mean "left." Isn't that just semantics? Do you know the definition of semantics? Or is that just semantics to you? Here it is:
"The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning."
Your analogy of me letting my father die, because of "a word," is, as you said, pathetic. You're turning this into a personal attack, because what you say defies meaning, defies semantics. Dr. Fauci is a scientist. Are you? I'm not, but I majored in Physics, and I know the scientific method: It takes time.
Blaming this on the left, or on media, is also pathetic. It's science. Blame it on science--which doesn't care what you think. It's a method that was devised so people, whose heads are clouded, won't make obvious mistakes, or assume they know what they're talking about. They will have to PROVE IT.
Part of why this malaria medicine shouldn't be rushed out: We don't know the side effects, because we haven't had the time to see what happens. I know Trump wants a quick cure; I know Trump bought 2.9 million doses of this drug, for the purpose of selling it, as a cure to Coronavirus. But vaccines are being worked on. No one has a vaccine yet. Why? Because it takes time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@niclewis9610 "Mind boggling how many Americans want to be Ruled not Represented."
First, some people want to be ruled. There are different possible explanations of this: They respect the confident (re:arrogant) leader, who claims to know the right way. That could be because they respect crude strength, instead of more subtle intellectual or emotional integrity. Or it could be because thinking is really hard for some people. There's a lot to figure out, choices to make, directions through the map of life to weigh and consider. How much easier would it be if someone told you what to do, and relieved you of the burden of thinking?
Secondly, some people want to be part of an oppressive regime. They want to tell others what to do. They want to force others to comply. They want the thrill of power, but lack the intelligence and determination to achieve that power on their own. They want to be the "brown shirts."
Finally, we can't discount religious influence here. God would be the ultimate dictator. But imagine God's representative on earth, who was chosen by that God. Some Trump supporters already say this about Trump. I think Constantine converting Rome to Christianity was quite clever of him: He was able to conquer people with it, without costly military campaigns. All you have to do is convince someone they already believe what you believe, but they just don't know it yet. Then they're more open to surrendering their way of life, since this is a fellow believer. Before they know it, they have been conquered, without a single death on the battlefield.
1
-
@GODCONVOYPRIME "You people...."
What people? I only speak for me.
"because you think the opposition wants to do what you want to do."
Tell me, what makes you conclude that about me? You claim to know my mind very well. So what about me makes you say this?
Oh I get it, since you obviously don't know me, you're including me in with "you people." And those people are the ones you claim to know. But if you don't even know one of us people (me, for example, the person you're analyzing), then how can you know all of us? And since I am singular, there is no "us." So you don't know anything.
I seem to have struck a nerve though. I wasn't talking to you, but somehow I spoke to you. How interesting. Could it be that you see yourself in what I wrote? And now you have to lash out at me, by claiming things you have no evidence of, namely my personal motivation and psyche?
Sorry to trigger you, dude. But that was not my intention. You triggered yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Having a specific, physical book is totally different than an E-book. With your Kindle or whatever, it's just that one object, which you'd use for a variety of purposes. But with a book, it puts you in the mindset of its subject: Reading Fleming's "Live and Let Die" is a completely different experience to Miller's "Tropic of Cancer"; or Joy Harjo's poetry vs. Sagan's "Cosmos"; or Douglas Adams vs. Haley's "Autobiography of Malcolm X." With a book, you are telling your mind that it is learning about the Sioux, or Quarks, or Beat poetry. But with a single electronic device, there is no distinction: just the same glowing screen. And with physical books, your library serves as a refresher, a reminder, every time you look at your shelves, of what you have learned. And if the memories are vague, you know it's time to read that book again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The more some Americans downplay intellect and, by extension, science, the worse things will go for us. Because of Coronavirus, we've moved Climate Change to the back burner. But, trust me, it won't stay there long. Regardless, the U.S. is in terrible shape right now because of antipathy for science, by which I mainly mean a lack of respect and deference paid to the doctors, and the people who know what they're talking about.
Fear of death makes everyone stupid, but especially people who are already underestimating the difference between really smart people, who have spent their lives honing their intellect, and know their fields of expertise, and Trump, who only pretends and assumes that he has a natural understanding, because his uncle was a scientist. But this goes deeper, to the American people, especially Trump's supporters, who believe, instead of know, and have hunches, instead of facts and data.
This is a recipe for disaster, as we see now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@briendoyle3823 That's a lot of questions. I'll try to answer to them. No, not saying they lived that long, just that people who argue about that must be taking it literally; they obviously didn't live that long. Yes, slavery happened quite a bit 3000-5000 years ago. Massacres also happened, as did incestuous relationships...just like they do still. But the 66 different books in the Bible, each written by at least 1-3 different people, over roughly 4,000 years, include a mix of obvious over-the-top drama with historical commentary...just like today. I'd say skip all the English translations. Takes about 3-6 English words to state the equivalent of one Hebrew or Greek word; and since the Bible isn't 3-6 times larger than it is, you're getting a watered down, badly translated, chopped up bunch of books. Finally, I'm not a believer. I'm an intellectual who enjoys reading.
1
-
@briendoyle3823 Yes, yes, the old cliche of the evils religion has been used for. That never takes into account, as I said, that roughly two-thirds of Americans are Christian (63%). And certainly not all of them have done any of those things; same goes for people throughout history. It's a fallacious talking point. Was not written in Aramaic. The Jews spoke Aramaic after Babylon enslavement (yes, they were enslaved many, many times); and they weren't even the first to speak it. But the educated priests wrote in Hebrew. The Tanakh is all Hebrew. I know that about the writers, and I know the Gnostics, Apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls. Not mythology! I know mythology well. Mythological stories, while sometimes about the same people, are not consecutive in their nature: one does not follow the other chronologically. There are other differences. The Jews were called Hebrews by foreign nations, way back in the day. You speak as if you know these things. I saw you claim in another reply that Jesus was a real person. No proof of that anywhere. Your entire point is to dismiss this. And yet you want me to tell you why you should read the Bible? I don't think you can, without confirmation bias. You've obviously made up your mind. You can't learn, if you believe you know it already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nishant8507 Hi. Interesting question. Simple answer is: I don't know. I'd argue those quotas were put in place as you said, for "sex specific privileges," meaning biological sex. And it doesn't take into account gender identity.
Also, I'd imagine that gender identity is becoming, and will become, something far more persecuted than women by sexism. Transgender already goes beyond sexism. I guess we can call it genderism, or transgenderism.
Women, at least, don't go against the literal interpretation of the Bible. (Except that part about women not wearing men's clothes, in Deuteronomy 22:5, which is what got Joan of Arc burned at the stake.) Actually, all I know of in the Bible about gender comes from Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, where it says man shall not lie down intimately with another man.
Sorry, getting off track. Once transgenders come out more and more in society, where they're not just visible here and there, but everywhere--as a woman or man is visible today--then they'll probably be denied all sorts of rights and privileges. And that will likely prompt a new, updated version of the quota you mentioned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's hard. Ever tried it? You don't have to be a believer, but think of Christianity as a philosophy. The point of it, then, is that treating others kindly, giving to others, makes the giver happy...along with the person who was treated well. The happiness felt by the giver provides clear thinking, healthy psychology, and a happy life. All you have to do is always be kind. Always. Forgive yourself and others, always. Show mercy, compassion always. This doesn't have to cost you a dime. But no disrespect, or snide sarcasm, or ill will. No holding onto anger. When those things happen, you have to admit the wrong you did, and start over again. Try it. See how long you can last before restarting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
You can take things out of context, though. Right? That story about Lot's daughters wasn't taken out of context. Pretty much any quoting of the outrageous sexual stuff in the Bible wouldn't be taking it out of context either. For example: King David's son sexually attacked David's daughter (that son's sister). Or there was the time David (while King) seduced another man's wife, and got her pregnant; then he sent that man off to the worst possible battle, to the front lines of that battle, knowing he would die. And he did: all so the King wouldn't be outed as an adulterer. Lots of weird sex stuff in there.
However, you can take things out of context, and claim all kinds of Biblical justification for the worst ideas. The English inquisition burned Joan of Arc at the stake, by pointing out how Deuteronomy said it was an "abomination" to God for a woman to wear man's clothing. And the American slave owners used the very dubious "Curse of Ham" as a Biblical justification of slavery.
Then you can take things way, way out of context, such as Jesus saying he "did not come to bring peace but a sword." Then there's all the literal interpretations of crazy books like the Revelation, or believing there was anyone around for Cain to marry, after he famously killed Abel. Yes, the Bible claimed there was, but Adam and Even hadn't even had their 3rd child yet, and there were no other people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But no one actually follows Trump's word, and does exactly what he says. Right? And no one would go to such extreme lengths to defend Trump. Right, youtube Trump trolls? I mean, here you are defending him. How many times have you trolls bent over backward to defend his indefensible BS? And nothing can sway you. Right? Not science, or recordings, or people rioting and rushing Congress. Of course not. You'll just say they were walking, not rioting. You'll just say Trump didn't tell them to do anything; Trump called for a peaceful march...to "stop the steal."
Trump trolls, your posts are further evidence of the state of mind of these rioters. Quick, throw out some whataboutism, and parrot how the media is fake and the enemy of the people, how Pelosi and AOC are threats to our Democracy (or Republic, as you like to say).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SLYKM Sympathy IS about morality. It's understanding that we all make mistakes, sometimes really big ones, that affect the lives of others; and sometimes we're warned ahead of time, and do it anyway; and sometimes, even after all that, we don't own up to the mistake. Welcome to the human race. Sympathy isn't about altruism. That person has no idea you feel this way, and you aren't teaching them a lesson. Rather, sympathy is about intelligence, and humility: which is the key to wisdom. Lack of sympathy starts with low intelligence, but only continues to lower it, by pretending and convincing yourself that you're better than that person for whom you have no sympathy. So you're only hurting yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First, "satan" is Hebrew for adversary. It is not a proper noun, i.e., a name. It was used in the Bible to describe anything or anyone in your way. That's why Jesus called Peter satan, because Peter opposed his going to Jerusalem. Secondly, God said: “See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand" (Deut. 32:39). There is no "Satan" that can deliver from God's hand, according to the Bible. And finally, "The whole earth is mine" (Ex. 19:5). Plus there is this: "All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made" (John 1:3). So there is no "Satan" to be ruler of the world, because the whole world and everything in it belongs to God. And that is part of why we love one another, because, by doing so, we love God.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Greyskymorning395 We getting away from the subject. We can go back and forth forever, talking about all the different aspects, the differences between protests and riots.
My initial post was a reply to your assertion, that BLM protests harmed the Democrats. In one of those links I first posted, it said that Liberals, especially, disapproved of Dr. King.
My point with using him as an example is how obviously good and moral he was, but also how he was still disapproved of, by a 3:4 majority. Yet he led and organized protests against racial injustice anyway. That's my point. The same goes for these protests.
They are doing it, because they believe it's the right thing to do. That's not stupid. But if you think it is, then that goes back to what I wrote in my first reply too, what was shown through King's disapproval.
If people don't like or agree with the BLM protests, and even if it harms the Democrats, the protesters obviously feel and think that what they're doing is right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xboxgamer7453 My "inability?" You're reaching an unsupported conclusion. I say that because you'd have to do the minimum of examining what I posted, in order to say that. I'll help, and show you how to examine writing.
What I wrote addressed the post by @postman1782. I replied to HIS post. I did call the original poster a troll, who came here only to troll. Now, why would I say that? Here's how he began his post:
"F@#$ing click bait
Push the racism, further division, avoid the unconscionable truth"
I'll give the OP this much: He/she then actually makes a suggestion, though it's inundated with hostility and self-aggrandizement: He/she is superior because they KNOW; their knowledge is superior. I say that because of this juicy tidbit:
"they do not owe the "private citizen" any duty to protect nor serve outside of their discretion, unless you are somehow already in their custody."
This is absolutely wrong, or at least I hope it is, and it should be. It is their job to serve and protect! And if the OP has such wonderful ideas, let them start their own channel. This piece by TYT didn't address any of the issues stated by the OP, because those issues are not what this piece is about. Sure, in the grand scheme, this is about what police do, who they are, or what they should do, and who they should be. But every story cannot cover every angle. There isn't time or space. So there will always be something missing.
The point of my post was that the OP wasn't worth any more than "shut up." I stand by that. But I wanted to show you that your inability to discern my ability is obvious.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eddiegreg7064 "I do like to debate facts and also learn what I don't know while hopefully helping someone else."
Great, you do want to debate? I ask because your OP didn't show any signs of offering a debate. Permit me to say, if you want to debate, especially an open, friendly exchange of ideas, facts, beliefs, etc., then don't be so hostile in your opening statement. And don't insult the channel we all came here to watch. That puts people on the defensive, or offensive. Instead, maybe start by asking a question, then giving your side of the possible answer, and end with asking others what they think. Had you done that, this whole thread would be very, very different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Since the judge has been threatened by Trump's MAGAts, I can understand why she didn't take that extra step. Keep in mind, the former President engaged in insurrection while he was President. And those supporters of his stormed Congress, etc: You saw the videos. Those same militant nutbars, and tens of millions like them, are still out there.
I'm not saying the judge is right, or anything but a coward. But what would I do? This is unprecedented. Anyone who signed up to be a judge never knew they'd have to contend with an army of brainwashed, gun-toting bozos. Still, that's the lot that fell to her. There's an old maxim in the law:
"Fiat justitia ruat caelum," which is Latin, meaning: "Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rion "The fact that you actually bought this nonsense shows how unbelievably gullible you are... show me the evidence that someone called it kung flu... I’ll wait."
I'm not sure whom you're calling gullible, or why; I guess you mean the people who believe one of Trump's staffers referred to Coronavirus as "kung flu." Let's assume, for the moment you're right: We believed, without evidence, that someone in Trump's administration called it that. What difference would it make to you? I'm sure you believe, or have, at some time, something without evidence. Does that one instance, of you believing, make you gullible?
Also (still assuming you're right), aren't we supposed to be pulling together in this crisis? Even if we're wrong, and believed without evidence, and are totally gullible about everything, does that mean you can go against what Trump said, and not come together with your fellow Americans? And if someone is gullible, can they just stop being that way?
Now, as to why, whether or not a staffer said it, it's still wrong that Trump refers to Coronavirus as the "China virus." (The following comes from: https://www.businessinsider.com/reporter-says-trump-official-called-coronavirus-the-kung-flu-2020-3
And they quote:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html
"Moreover, the CDC's website states: "People in the U.S. may be worried or anxious about friends and relatives who are living in or visiting areas where COVID-19 is spreading. Some people are worried about the disease. Fear and anxiety can lead to social stigma, for example, towards Chinese or other Asian Americans or people who were in quarantine...Stigma hurts everyone by creating more fear or anger towards ordinary people instead of the disease that is causing the problem.""
That's why Trump shouldn't refer to the Coronavirus as "the China virus," and why, even if none of his staffers actually did call it "Kung flu," what Trump says is still wrong; and anyone calling it anything, based on race or nationality, seeks to stir up racist antipathy, and nationalism, as a means to distract from this crisis. And if you don't realize that, YOU are the one who is gullible.
But you can't help it, just like any other gullible person. But I advise against calling attention to your beliefs, and your ignorance of Trump's propaganda.
1
-
1
-
The Drinker mentioned (and then dismissed) the possibility that, before, she was saying what Disney wanted her to say in those interviews. His reason for dismissing it was, apparently, because she talked similarly over different interviews. But couldn't that just as easily be evidence of Disney coaching her for those early interviews? I don't see any way of concluding decisively that it's evidence of her speaking her mind.
And what makes me question his reasoning further is the interview featured in the video. She was obviously coached on what to say. Now, if Disney was willing to do that, then isn't there a possibility that they would have done it before--in those early interviews? He went on to say that we aren't mind readers, so we're unable to know for sure. But then he seemed pretty darned sure about it. And most of the people in this comment section seem positive about it.
We have to remember that Disney is an out of control powerhouse, a supremely greedy corporation. What makes the most sense to me, and has since the Star Wars sequels they did, is that Disney had a focus group with statistics about a new audience, which no one else was appealing to yet: the woke audience. So they banked on tailoring their new content to this (as yet) untapped market.
But such a behemoth can't be stopped on dime. It has taken them longer than any non-powerhouse entertainment corporation to realize there was no such market, mostly because the mindless corporate stooges didn't even know what "woke" means. A lot of people don't. Still, a lot of people aren't spending billions of dollars on these movies flopping.
My point is this: We don't (and maybe can't) know for sure about this Snow White star, one way or the other. And so to assume she is the way you want her to be, or not to be, based on political bias is not critical thinking at all. We either know, or we don't know. And, here, we don't know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christophergroff5201 "He’s one of the least racist people on this planet"
*
Let me explain something to you about racism: Everyone has it, because it stems from prejudice--which means to pre-judge, or judge (negatively), before you know. This has been around since we were living in caves, and trees, before humanity, even.
*
So prejudice is natural. The only way to win against "the fear of the other," is by being mindful when you do it. Even then, you have to realize and accept you're doing it, that it's stupid, and you're not a freaking cave man anymore. Then you have to stay mindful, and confront the racist thoughts when the come to you. Eventually, you learn to stop the thoughts, immediately after they happen. And, with lots of practice, you can stop the thoughts altogether.
*
So, unless someone (Trump for example) has done this already, then they haven't confronted their racist, prejudiced thoughts. And they most definitely are, therefore, still racist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@teejay3272 What happened to Al Franken was really too bad. It was a silly joke that was misconstrued as being something much worse. But, in the end, he chose to step down. No one could force him to leave, despite being "cancelled."
"I'd bet decent money that if you're on social media, which I'm sure you are, I'd see post after post of FAUX-OUTRAGE."
You'd lose. See, that's what happens when you assume, basing your assumption on the cliche of fake outrage being a woke, liberal thing. There are many instances of fake outrage out there. But I don't do that. There's plenty to be outraged about, without inventing stuff.
Talk does nothing. The walk does everything. Without the walk, might as well not talk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christianity is very simple, in theory: Love one another. That's it. We are so connected, that, in being kind to them, we are kind to ourselves. In making them feel better about themselves, we make ourselves feel better. Christianity is psychology. It's about a healthy self, which maintains its health by showing respect to others, and contributing to their maintaining of their dignity.
The hard part is that we're just as stupid as we are wise. And, since we've all been hurt, we surrender to the stupid idea that we have a right to hurt others, in revenge. In Christian terms, we want to be God, and judge and rule over everyone and everything. That's why Adam and Eve ate the fruit. That's why the church killed Jesus. And that's why, in practice (instead of just in theory) Christianity is practically impossible.
1
-
1
-
@niavellir7408 "Since you are slow"
Don't blame me for their bad writing. I'm not a mind reader. They wrote one sentence with no punctuation. But, yeah, I'm "slow."
Gun laws do work. The problem is NOT that gun laws in a city or state are ineffectual, in and of themselves. The problem is, as you said, you can go to the next city or state (that has no gun laws), and buy the guns.
So the problem, Speedy Gonzalez, would be those other cities and states. Right? That's called logic, critical thinking, being able to reason without bias. Try it sometime. :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@luigilaurant519 We can't make that call. That's what I'm saying. Even if we deliberately, purposefully decide to like something, and that something goes against everything we can determine as having had an influence on us, we still can't say for sure that we did so solely of our own free will.
It's impossible to say. We don't know all of what influenced us or how. It could be that I was born to rebel against vanilla. Something in me just doesn't care for it at all. It could be that I tried vanilla, and it just didn't work for me.
Imagine a pool table filled with pool balls. Way too many to count, or follow with the naked eye. So we hit one ball, which hits others and others, gets slowed by slight imperfections in the cloth on the table; people are coming and going, jostling the table, and yet somehow the ball I wanted to go in, did (or didn't) go in.
There's a lot going on. Too much to say for sure that I know that someone did something because they wanted to do it.
1
-
@luigilaurant519 "do you know the biological difference between a men and a women?"
Everyone does. Make no mistake. But the obvious nature of the question makes me uneasy, as it did everyone who has been asked by every conservative.
Why does the question need to be asked? What are you hoping to gain from the obvious answer?
I'll tell you this, there is more...way more...difference between men and women, and men and men, and women and women, than biological difference. If we were only the sum of our parts, then we wouldn't have names; I wouldn't have a favorite ice cream: because it wouldn't matter. I'd be nothing more than some carbon mixed with oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.
And yes, it's possible for biological men to be born with the "extra" anatomy to give birth. It's rare, but it happens. Nature is full of wonders. As for the biological difference between men and women, I like this definition:
"Biological sex is often confused with gender in our society. The two sexes are differentiated as females, who have ovaries and produce eggs, and males, who have testes and produce sperm. In mammals, females typically have XX chromosomes and males typically have XY chromosomes."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've never understood why they threw all their eggs into Trump's basket. Most of them didn't even like him, when he first started running. Fox was against him, and so were most of the Republicans. It must be a loyalty thing, combined with the supposed superiority of Nationalism, which they probably see as patriotism. They stand behind their President. Nevermind whether or not they stood by Democrats, when they were President, or even Biden, with him being the current President. Heck they don't even believe Biden won.
For whatever reasons, they are with Trump no matter what. I'd never feel that way about anyone. Obama was the first I voted for. But if he did any single thing Trump did, to say nothing of all the junk Trump did, I would have abandoned him and never looked back. But I don't have that kind of unquestioning loyalty in me. It's like, they'll stick with their car, even if it breaks down, and bursts in flames. They'll keep wearing their socks, long after they've frayed and fallen apart. I'd just get new socks; they're pretty cheap. I lack what it takes, fundamentally, to be a Trump supporter. But these people have it innately. Good for them? I guess?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think it's okay if there are no more Star Wars movies. If they can't do it right, then people won't pay them. While fan fiction can certainly go on forever, having TV shows and movies last forever is (usually) really bad. There are exceptions, here and there, like the last Godzilla movie and maybe South Park. Movies reflect the time in which they were made and released.
We are far removed now from the 1960s, '70s, and '80s. Even the first James Bond movies in the '60s were a decade after Fleming wrote most of the books. But there was enough of the Cold War left, and Connery did such an awesome job. But the decades kept rolling by, with new Bonds, new ideas on what the character should be like. And by now the whole thing is lost, just another action-drama.
Same goes for Star Wars. I have the Star Wars I like already, the Bond, Indiana Jones, Kirk and Picard. I don't need to know what they're doing in the retirement home.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnhagan8775 "Please feel free to point to the president even mentioning bleach or Lysol."
I thought he was being "sarcastic." He said he was being sarcastic. Did he not mention it, or was he being sarcastic? Are you contradicting Trump? You know the people who make Lysol had to put out a statement, to not inject their product.
The whole world saw this, except for Trump supporters, who just believe it never happened; it's a conspiracy theory by the Deep State.
Sorry, Skippy, but he had a presentation on it. The doctor he was talking to there, not Birx but the other one, had shown that disinfectants and bleach, when applied to the virus (on a table top, or something, outside the body), kills the virus.
So Trump suggested ingesting or injecting them. I think "your hair is on fire," but you don't even notice it.
1
-
@johnhagan8775 "The president did say he was being sarcastic. That's because people like you took the mainstream media and misquoted him."
Yes, yes, yes. We're always out to get poor Trump. Poor Trump. Stick to the point though. So he was being sarcastic. Good. You admit that much.
Now, if he was being sarcastic, he said it. Right? That means you claiming that he didn't say it is wrong. Okay? With me so far?
As for his sarcasm claim: He claimed, as you said, that he was being sarcastic to fool the press, or to make fun of the press, who, as you said, misquote him. Poor Trump, always being picked on.
But he wasn't talking to the press. He was talking to the doctor, who had just made the presentation about how disinfectants and bleach kills the virus, when applied to a sample of it, on a table. And he was talking to Birx about applying light to the inside of the body.
He was NOT talking to the press. So he was not belittling them, or making fun of them. He was being serious, asking the doctors to look into how they can take what that doctor said about disinfectants and bleach, and somehow make it so it will kill the virus in the human body, instead of a sample on the table top.
So he said it. He was not sarcastic. Honestly, accepting this is the beginning, a necessary first step, to approaching any other problem--including how Birx said nothing, when Trump said that crap. But Trump supporters, or independent contrarians, won't allow that first step.
Is it so hard to accept or believe? Trump has said all kinds of crazy things, showing his lack of understanding of anything scientific. As he said, "I'm not a doctor, just a man with a big you know what," pointing to his head.
Remember, he suggested that they nuke a hurricane. He said that windmills cause cancer, and there are lots of dead birds around windmills. He said he had heard, if you sweep the forests, you're less likely to have forest fires. He went on and on about Hydroxychloriquine, saying, "what have you got to lose?" Only for us to find out, after tests were done, that it causes death.
He said Coronavirus would "go away with the heat in April," that it would magically disappear. I could go on and on. So him suggesting, after seeing the presentation on how disinfectants and bleach kills the virus, that we use those items against the virus--in a human body--is not at all out of character.
1
-
@johnhagan8775 "Perhaps your just an idiot with an inflated sense of his/her own knowledge."
What knowledge? I'm not advancing some new science here. Yes, I've heard of the radiation treatments. No, I haven't heard about the dilute solutions thing.
Want to have dick-measuring contest on knowledge now? What would that have to do with anything? So you know stuff I don't know; and vice versa. So what. Knowledge isn't wisdom. Knowledge isn't logic. No one knows everything. So that's all pointless deflection.
The guy before Trump had presented that lysol and bleach kills the coronavirus. Okay? I can't find the video of it anymore. He had a list, on a board, and on that list, which he went through, he included lysol and bleach. People aren't making up those items. The doctor said it.
So when Trump suggested using disinfectants, and was talking to this very scientist, who was off-camera, he was referring to lysol and bleach. So Trump didn't actually say it. But it's what he was talking about.
Keep in mind, we're going round and round on this, because of what I wrote about Dr. Birx, and because someone mentioned how she said nothing, when Trump made an ass of himself with this before the world.
You assume you're right. And you'll never change. So our conversation is pointless. It's just an opportunity for you to insult strangers on the internet.
Oh, and it's not "your," but "you're." Look at what I quoted from YOUR last post. And be mindful of things like that, when you call someone else an idiot.
1
-
1
-
@johnhagan8775 "Wow, ya got me. You don't know anything about windmills, forestry, or biochemistry, but you can catch spelling errors."
That's right. I don't know anything about those things. I'm a writer. So, yes, I know how to spell, and I know grammar. I did get my B.S. in physics, so I know some science, and I know to trust the scientists, not some dude on the internet calling me names.
I know other things too. I know Quantum Physics, history, astronomy, religions, myths, music, poetry. We know what we know. It's impossible to know everything. So spare me your superior knowledge of windmills, please.
1
-
@johnhagan8775 Did you watch the video I linked? Did you go to the time, which I included? Bleach is on the list. Anyway, yes, I'm obviously out to get Trump! Poor Trump. Poor, poor Trump.
Also, if you hold down SHIFT, and then hit ENTER, you can make nice, pretty paragraphs, like these. Then you don't have a block of text, that comes across as a rant.
Anyway, just go away. Tired of your insults, and sick of going round and round, without getting anywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There never should have been a Ghostbusters franchise. The first movie was a major win. They should have walked away after that. But then part 2, and, okay--why not? It had its moments. But that should have absolutely been the end of it. Then there was a cartoon. Okay, just a cartoon. But then we entered the era of sequels about movies and comic books from 40 years ago. How creatively bankrupt the modern big movies are! I don't even know if they're considered blockbusters anymore: the Jurassic Parks, Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, and DC. And, of course, Ghostbusters. Who are these movies supposed to be for? The 50-60 year olds who grew up with the originals, who see their heroes are now old and broken down? The kids who didn't grow up with it, and really don't care about the nostalgia baiting?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chezmoi42 " If you could stop generalizing for a moment, you might realize that the complaint is not about the bible, nor the personal practice of religion, but about those who want to make their own religion law for everyone."
I said that. See:
"And when such people are in government, or vote for people who will be like that in government, then their bad religious practices become everyone's problem."
I did my best to empathize. I'm not religious. And I'm liberal. But I know the Bible, because I've studied it and written over 50 essays on it. And I've seen repeatedly a ton of hate coming from liberals about the Bible and religion: Not just once, or 100 times.
A case in point is this, from you:
"What you call 'hateful' is probably just the reasonable objection to being forced to accept what is known in other cultures as 'sharia law'."
I have no doubt evangelical conservatives are doing their best to institute their own American version of Sharia Law. But is the OP doing that? Am I? It's this guilt by association that brings your logic under scrutiny. It's oddly Biblical: "Sins of the father shall be visited upon the son."
Focus on the people who want the American Sharia Law. How about that? Because, otherwise, YOU are the one who is generalizing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
babajohn100 No? It shows that Biden is being fact checked though. Which shows that you haven't checked, yourself, to see if he's being checked. So, you're wrong. What else are you wrong about? You ever stop to think about that? What else are you wrong about?
Maybe you need to fact check yourself. From the beginning, I've advised you to stop and think. All of us have that problem: We confuse our beliefs for knowledge. The way to combat that is twofold:
First, check EVERYTHING. That can be hard and tiresome, albeit eye opening. Secondly, don't believe anything. I'm not saying to disbelieve. Rather, neither believe, nor disbelieve. That can be hard, too. We want to be superior with our knowledge. But we refuse to discount our beliefs, once we accept them as knowledge, once our beliefs become facts, in our eyes.
1
-
1
-
babajohn100 Thought we were talking about Biden? Now it's Trump? Poor, innocent Trump. Everyone loves Biden. Right? Wrong on both counts. You're getting extremely tedious.
Here's an idea, stop blaming the MSM for showing the horrible things Trump does everyday. Yes, every single day. Trump does that. They report it. Guarantee you, soon as Biden does anything approaching what Trump does, every single day, the "enemy of the people...fake news...liberal media...MSM" would show it.
Did you fact check Trump after the debate? Did you know there was a fact checking site, here on youtube, that did live fact checking during the debate? Do you ever fact check Trump? Or do you look for confirmation bias, like that video you linked?
Let me tell you a secret, I give half my paycheck to orphans. Trust me. What if I say that over and over? And no one bothers to read the fact checks? When do I get my nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We do need better representation. Think of what Congress would be like, if it wasn't career white-haired men, but I don't know...a rapper, a chemist, a football player, deep sea diver, Chinese-American cook, dentist, heavy metal guitarist, and so on.
This is what a Representative Democracy (which is what we claim to have) should be like. Everyone should be represented, or as close to everyone as possible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It doesn't compile "thousands of texts." There are 66 books, most of which had 2-3 writers each. It does compile things that were first sung as songs, and later turned into prose and written on scrolls. Yes, the Old Testament began as songs that were performed by traveling minstrels: a cool thought.
It hasn't been changed much. The biggest changes come from the translations. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, whereas the New was written in Greek.
As an example: Greek has four different words for "love." So when Jesus said it in the text, which Greek word was used? Another example is that "satan" is the Hebrew word for adversary, which is anyone who is against your position on any given thing.
So a rival football team would be your satan. Most King James Bibles do not use the word adversary, in their Old Testament. And, for the New Testament, the word became a proper noun, as Middle-Age bishops sought to give Jesus a proper mythology, so it would be a story, instead of the collections of aphorisms spoken by Jesus--so they could appeal to the masses.
Misinterpreted? Absolutely! Including you here and now. Whether someone "believes" in the Bible or not, they tend to think of it only in the literal sense, and not as cultural mythology, parables, or ancient writings from a far different culture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I enjoy imagining what-if scenarios. And Trump's job performance is inundated with missed possibilities. Play along with me here: What if Trump did have the best interests of Americans at heart? What if, when the first American died of Coronavirus, in the continental U.S., he apologized on national TV, for not taking it seriously sooner. Then he consulted with doctors, and actually followed their advice.
What if he stopped playing politics, as he pretended to ask the Democrats to, and followed the pandemic playbook--which David talked about. He didn't even need any experience in handling a world-wide crisis; he didn't have to understand how a virus works; he could simply be humble enough to take the advice of medical experts, and follow the playbook.
Think of it: He could have been a world-wide hero, instead of a joke, at best, and a threat at worst. He would have swept the election. If 9/11 could save W., then Coronavirus would have saved Trump. He could even have done all the right things, without any empathy, or caring about the American people. But none of that happened.
There's an old saying: You can tell a tree by its fruit. And you can tell who/what a person is by their actions. A good tree will give good fruit. And an evil tree will give evil fruit.
1
-
1
-
"How did you come up with that day?"
Let's look at what Trump said: "Look, Easter is a very special day for me. And I see it...sort of in that time line I'm thinking about. And I say, Wouldn't it be great to have all of the churches full...You know the churches aren't allowed, essentially, to have much of a congregation there. And most of them...I watched on Sunday...online...and it was terrific, by the way. But online is never going to be like being there. So I think Easter Sunday...and you'll have packed churches all over our country...I think it'll be a beautiful time. And it's just about the time line that I think is right. It gives us more chance to work on what we're doing...and I'm not sure that's going to be the day...but I would love to aim it right at Easter Sunday...So we're open for church service...and services, generally...on Easter Sunday...That would be a beautiful thing."
Okay, first, he didn't answer the question. He said Easter was a special day for him. How? Why? And just because it's "special" to Trump, that means we should ignore that there's a pan-freaking-demic here? He also said it would be "great," to have open churches; however, he also thought the online service was "terrific." Did Trump actually watch an online service? Which one? Does he watch online every week? He also said it would be "a beautiful time." How? Why? Because people are in denial that there's a deadly virus sweeping through the world? If he did answer the question, in his own fashion, then the reason would be somewhere in that.
Secondly, he was all over the place. He rambled here, switched to another sentence, without knowing what to do with the one he was making. And he played his imaginary accordion (look it up here on YouTube), which he does when he's full of crap, and he knows it: an idiot used-car salesman's version of the Jedi mind trick.
Finally, his entire response to this pandemic has been like the Mayor in Jaws: denial, then basing his actions on money, and, here, opening the beaches.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@debbie5728 "It’s hilarious how there’s “no such thing” as CRT ... yet those who tell you that go apoplectic ape sh-- when it’s countered or called racist itself"
Can't quite understand what you're saying here. So please clarify. While you're thinking on how to better phrase this, know that no one is saying "there's "no such thing" as CRT."
There is. It's something you'd learn in college, maybe even only in a master's program. Critical Theory is a general structure that looks at society through a given lens, i.e., from a specific perspective.
So we could have Critical Music Theory, which looks at society relative to music. But, since it's CRT, they're looking at society through the lens of race.
Now, that's obviously not being done except for people with a certain major, right? Math majors aren't doing that, let alone K-12. And it's obviously not racist either. The Critical Race Theory branch of it talks about race. And you can talk about race without being racist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"We are really, truly, acutely screwed here, guys."
In the middle of all this madness, and idiocy run amok, this made me smile. I don't know why, exactly. But, in my experience, I feel a certain peace, when I admit just how screwed I am. And now it's not just me; it's everyone. Welcome!
And, yes, I love reading the transcripts of Trump's speeches. You really can't appreciate the "Beat" quality of it, until you read it. It's like Jazz on LSD, or dogs running backwards, but with the nuclear codes. Remember, Trump supporters admire this man. That tells me everything I want to know about them.
(Deliberately written to capture the random syncopation of Trump's speeches.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GrinningZaguate "Nope. Dead wrong. Sexy is NOT binary according to actual science — but I’m pretty certain facts don’t mean a whole lot to people stuck in a belief system."
Interesting. You're pretty sneaky. It's true that biological sex is NOT binary. I notice how you then didn't say the same thing about gender. Impressive, sneaky troll. For most purposes, sex is binary. However, it really isn't. So you're right. But calling the OP "dead wrong" is pushing the point a little, especially since you didn't elaborate on what you meant.
The OP is not dead wrong, as in completely wrong, because they also wrote this: "There are as many genders as people who believe in them are able to construct. Gender is a social construct, whereas biological sex is established and evidenced science."
And they were completely right about that. The only thing anyone can take exception with, then, is their first sentence. But since everyone is still so stuck on whether or not gender is binary, let's focus on one thing at a time. Shall we?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not just what Trump will do, if he loses, but how his supporters will react: He isn't anywhere near the threat to our Constitution, the rule of law, and the melting pot, as his supporters. Eventually, Trump will be gone; but the "Trumpists" will remain. They will continue to vote, based on their prejudices, and lack of critical thinking; they will pass down, like family heirlooms, their ignorance and hostility. They already believe the "Libs" or "Dems" are out to get them, that there's a conspiracy to turn them all gay (or something), or make sure everyone gets an education, etc.
They'll explode if Trump loses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slashrocks19801 Misguided how? Everything I wrote was true. You can look it all up. Just saying it's wrong, doesn't make it wrong.
Nazi is short for "national socialists (or National socialist workers party)": It was a political party in Germany, not Italy. The Nazis hated Socialist newspapers; they put Socialists in camps. So National Socialism is different from Socialism. And Bernie has said over and over that he is interested in Democratic Socialism. The only reason you keep hearing he's a plain-simple "socialist" is because that word is a catch-all, meant to arouse your antipathy, and prevent you from thinking any further.
Mussolini was kicked out of the Italian Socialist party, in 1912. From wikipedia: "By the time he returned from service in the Allied forces of World War I, very little remained of Mussolini the socialist. Indeed, he was now convinced that socialism as a doctrine had largely
been a failure."
Reading further, he's quoted as saying, by 1919, ""Socialism as a doctrine was already dead; it continued to exist only as a grudge."
These things that you're saying are the same are, actually, all different. It seems you're operating under the propaganda that Democrats are Fascists; those two are total opposites. For one thing, Fascists don't vote. And another thing, times and parties change. What is socialism in one country, will not be the same socialistic government in another.
Even though Abe Lincoln was a Republican, that current party bears very little, at all, in common with the party during the Civil War. Likewise, Southern Democrats, who were the party of slaveholders before the Civil War, is nothing like the Democrats of today: hence the name difference.
So saying Socialism, in the U.S., in the 21st century, will be the same as the National Socialism of Nazi Germany, is just as silly and ignorant as saying that we, here in the U.S., will be like Venezuela, if we pursue our own kind of Socialism.
I could write a book explaining all this to you. But, unless you do the work yourself, and see that a tree is known by its fruit, that Mussolini was not a National Socialist, because it was a German political party (he was a Fascist), and so on, then you won't have done the work necessary to enlighten yourself. And, therefore, you'll reject everything I say--because you won't have gained the understanding to recognize that it's correct.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BennyOcean And you aren't smug at all! or an insufferable jerk. Yes, I see your point. But do you see mine?
See, the point, in this video, is that Liberals don't understand rural America. That's actually the title, so you should've realized that. And my little reply (among how many hundreds?) caught your attention, and your ire?
Well, my highly intelligent friend, it was a silly joke, which played off the title/subject of the video. Not a very funny joke, granted. But I wrote it in passing, thinking nothing of it. Little did I know that YOU were out there, lurking, ready to pounce. Hear that "Jaws" theme playing? Now run along, and read Kierkegaard, or Henry Miller, or whatever it is you smart people read. And learn to take it easy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's really too bad that a movie about the distant past has to be done as if it was happening today. Of course, this is fantasy. Still, be nice to show a real "traditional marriage," in which the woman was bartered for like property. And what knights were like: most exclusively male. And, if you did have a same-sex relationship openly, you'd probably be burned at the stake by the Christians.
I know the past is messed up, barbaric, and insane, but wouldn't that be the point, even to the fake "woke" people? A "look how far we've come" kinda thing? Awakening has no meaning, if everyone has always been awake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanmccartney5177 "Who are these Experts and Professionals? " People who have doctorates, and have studied for decades. Allow me to put it in terms you might understand. Trumparrot mouthpieces are the equivalent of someone who has never touched a basketball, or played a game of basketball, or got onto the high school, college, and pro teams. They also refuse to even read up on what expert and professional basketball players have learned. Instead of even coming up with their own wildly inexperienced theories about the game, how it's played, and what its purpose is, Trump supporters just repeat the incomprehensible ramblings of these know-nothing spokespeople, who obviously have an agenda. At least have the creativity to come up with your own theories. At least have the intellectual curiosity to read some medical literature. At least pick up a basketball and try to dribble it! Because, as it is, the rest of us see you as the complete antithesis of the Harlem Globetrotters: the Keystone Cops of Medical Science and politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For anyone still confused, let me explain how this works:
Trump (or Kayleigh, or anyone from his administration) is asked to denounce white supremacy.
Instead of saying, "I denounce white supremacy," they PIVOT. Do you see that? That pivot is key here. They appear to be answering the question, in a long, drawn-out Gish gallop. But, instead, they do not, directly, answer the question. This sends a message to everyone: Trump does not (and has not) condemned it, therefore it's okay. And they are "standing by," waiting for Trump's next order.
As that reporter said: People don't normally put condemnations of them onto t-shirts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why? It starts with the gun lobby. These people give money to politicians, and so it follows that those politicians will do what they can to get more money from those people. So what does the gun lobby want? What does any business want? To sell their product. If you want to sell, then you're going to spend more and more time thinking about selling. Income will become your focus. More and more, any sort of morality or civic responsibility will take a back seat to quarterly profit. With me so far? That's how businesses work, especially big business.
Once profit becomes the driving motivation, then more corners are cut, more lies told, more dirty underhanded deals happen. So the NRA, which used to just be for sporting gun use, enters the picture and starts an unending campaign. The campaign uses standard selling techniques plus a dose of fear: Buy guns quickly, before the government outlaws guns. It's that simple. Americans fall for this by the tens of millions.
With Fox News, right wing radio, and politicians who are more actors than statesmen, the conspiracies about the government taking away guns grow. And more conspiracies are added. These conspiracies are little more than boosters for advertisement buzz words, which is all the politicians use now. Being awash in such inflammatory nonsense, and fed patriotic images like some kind of Clockwork Orange, the people dive deeper into conspiracies, which makes them harder to reach by people living in any kind of normal reality. They have bought into the selling of the gun lobby's product completely, and can be depended on to act as unpaid spokespersons, trolls, delivering whataboutisms and other logical fallacies at every turn. They cannot be reached. And won't stop.
That's why.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How can some religious people be falling for what the Republicans are selling? Jesus' new commandment was to love one another. Are the Republicans loving people? They're stripping away women's rights, parents' rights, bad mouthing everyone. Sure, they claim to be looking out for the unborn, but what about the born? You know: people who are actually alive and living in the country and the world? Even if that test tube becomes a baby, and a child, they throw children under the bus all the time. They vote against children all the time, against mothers, parents, all people. So if they aren't loving people, then they aren't loving! This isn't rocket science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If one doesn't stop and think, or look closely at him, then Trump is an Alpha. But, if you stop and consider what he does, and how he acts ("a tree is known by its fruit"), then Trump is a coward, who needs to bully others to feel, or portray himself as strong. This is why some people can see him for what, and who, he is, while others cannot. The lack of critical thinking creates a blind spot for such Trump supporters, because they cannot stop and think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikegoetz3184 Here's one: In December 2022, Donald Trump was pushing the baseless claim that he lost the 2020 election due to widespread voter fraud,
"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."
He wrote that on Truth Social, 3 Dec 2022. And since he likes to repeat things, you can find this again on 28 Aug 2023.
Did you just miss all that? Not care? Interpreted in some way other than he meant it?
Yes, he wants to suspend the constitution, because it gets in his way. But the law doesn't allow for suspending single parts of the constitution. So what Trump suggested is against the law, and against the constitution.
Wake up. The person you're supporting wants to end the United States, and become a dictator. That's not hyperbole, just Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UnknownUnknown-tu3be Apostrophes don't show up when you're speaking, only on paper. I'm not saying there was an apostrophe, mostly because I agree with Joe on the version you and I heard. What good has m@g@ ever done? When have they ever been kind, decent, compassionate, and merciful? They're far from the Christians they claim to be. And it's the same way with their supposed patriotism: They despise everything in this country that isn't loudly pro-m@g@. They are venomous, whining, lying...all the time lying, living in an alternate reality...because they're against all things that don't support their dear leader: including science, history, facts of any kind. So, yeah: Garbage! And they can't even accept what their comedian said, but are gaslighting it, while complaining about the gaslighting of what Joe said. And given all the name-calling DonDon has done, how dare you make a big deal of this. He wants to put the military on "the enemy within," which is/are "the radical left," the people who don't support him, including "the enemy of the people"...the press, who are protected by the 1st amendment, which m@g@ also claims to be for. Compare that to what Joe maybe said there, apostrophe or not. "Garbage" is the kindest possible word.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She seemed genuine to me, or else a really talented actress. First, an aside: I'm for the death penalty, but only when it comes to police abusing their power, and murdering someone. OK? Those killer cops should be put down like mad dogs. Secondly, what about the other police, who aren't abusing their power? Maybe they aren't sticking up, all the time, for abused people, and they're just cops, doing their job. What's all this doing to them? What's it like to go to these protests, as an officer, and not harm anyone, but see other officers harming people? Police you know, and like, and have worked with. What's it like to be afraid for your life, to work for an institution that has so much power, but is corrupted by however many people?
And you're tired, hungry, afraid to keep or leave your job. We're all freaked out right now, including the police.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of all the right-wing conspiracies that have failed (which is all of them), none should be more jarring to an evangelical Trumpist than the one that claimed God sent Trump to save America from the Deep State. Because, evidently, the Deep State beat Trump and got Biden elected. This means, according to the so-called prophecy, not only did Trump fail, but GOD FAILED.
How can they possibly explain that? It would be worse than discovering there's no Santa Claus. God can't fail. Right? And prophecy is the word of God. So...did the prophets just get it wrong? How wrong? How many more times have they been wrong, or, dare I say it, lied? What if they were not only wrong, but got it backward? What if Trump was the Deep State, and Biden came to save us from the Deep State, i.e., Trump's insane politics?
Better yet, doesn't this failure seem to at least imply that there was no "Deep State," as such? And doesn't that make you wonder, my poor Trumpists, if all your conspiracies are/were nothing more than really sad, stupid entertainment? Maybe you shouldn't trust any more conspiracies, unless you can accept them as "theories," instead of facts. Can you do that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mr.White10-65 What if they didn't invade on the ground? Or, if they did, don't you think our military might have something to say about it? Do you really, honestly think our military and police needs your gun to make a difference? Wouldn't you, just as easily, be in the way, and probably get yourself killed?
No, I don't think that us having more people die in mass shootings, than any other country, has anything to do with other countries not invading us. You're kinda funny to think it does. Well, funny and sad.
1
-
1
-
@Mr.White10-65 I sure am glad to have someone like you, a private citizen, willing to take on the invading hordes. They are, no doubt, living in fear of you as we speak.
Listen, I got no beef with this delusion. Do whatever makes you feel safe, in your space. My problem is that this pathetic excuse is used to fight any gun regulation, whatsoever. And that people are dying because of it, so that you can, in your imagination, fight off the foreign invaders at the liquor store. lol. Honestly, can't you see how absurd that is?
1
-
@AyjayAlleyway "none of your arguments matter. The bottom line is that they can’t have our guns. You’re likely to see an actual insurrection before too long."
I know my arguments don't matter. I can't convince someone, who thinks the government is going to turn tyrannical, and take their guns, that the government is NOT going to turn tyrannical, and take their guns.
There is no way to break through a paranoid delusion. If there is an actual armed insurrection, instead of what we saw on January 6, then that's on the heads of the insurrectionists. If you hate your government, which was elected by the American people, that much, then you hate the American people (or at least the Liberals).
If you hate upwards of 50 million Americans, the majority of whom you don't even know, then that means you hate America. And if you hate America enough to attempt to overthrow the government, as the January 6 insurrectionists intended to reverse the votes and will of the people, you're no more than terrorists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "Have you never read the OT?"
Yes I have. And...?
"committing genocide; ordering genocide; ordering to bash people in the head with rocks, for non belief, for speaking of other religions, for working, even doing chores, on the Sabbath; okaying enslaving non Israelites for life, and passing them down as inheritance...."
That's quite a lot to go through. Let me ask you. The Bible: word of God as taken by dictation, or mythology? Either way, written by man, with the understanding of men back when it was written. Right? So when God says to "bash people," is that God, or man? Whether taken by dictation, or written by man, as I said before, men wrote it down. And so who is saying to bash people? God or man? Man, obviously.
Have you read much mythology? Have you seen how the writers of myths gave the gods the personalities, weaknesses, and goals of men? Or do you really think the immortal Zeus wanted to literally seduce a mortal woman, and so actually turned himself into a swan?
The Bible combines many different writings, from varied sources, about different things. Some of those things show the best of men, and some show the worst. Some show the thoughts and mores of the time and place, and some show the timeless behavior of humanity.
You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. You're cherry picking. Have you read the Gospels? How about the Psalms? How much of the Bible have you read?
To claim the Bible condones the worst parts of humanity, is to claim ALL the Bible does. And that's just not true. Come back to me with specific quotes, and we can discuss them individually.
1
-
@justanotheropinion5832 Let's deal with a few things first. Then, in my next post, I'll look at your quotes.
"Either it’s the word of god, or Yes the word of man and we can dismiss the whole thing."
So dismiss Shakespeare? What else of man should we dismiss? How about the myths of the world? Greek? Roman? Since none of it actually came from Zeus or Jupiter, it has nothing to teach us?
Leviticus was a rule book for the tribe of priests, the Levites. So whatever you find in that book was meant for them. Their rule book was included when it was decided what would go in the original Hebrew Scriptures.
Ephesians, Colossions, 1 Timothy, and Titus were all attributed to Paul. That means they are neither part of the Gospels, nor part of the Old Testament. They were epistles, letters that were included with the New Testament for who knows what reason. None were actually written by Paul. It was "in style" at the time to do homage to someone by pretending to be them. No one actually knows who wrote any of the books of the Bible.
So that really just leaves the quote from Exodus as possibly being at all representative of the Bible. But, as I wrote earlier, I'll go through them all one at a time in my next post.
1
-
@justanotheropinion5832 Ephesians 6:5-8
Really, if you're going understand this at all, you need to look at Ephesians 6:1-9. You skipped five verses. That's like missing the first half, and the end of a movie. The entire passage is elaborating on "Honor your father and mother." It starts with, "Children, obey your parents." Then turns to the parents: "Fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath." And then it turns to slaves, which is what you referenced: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters." And it goes on for four verses, the entirety of what you referenced. I leave it to the reader to look up the whole thing. Then, it turns to the slaves' masters, which you didn't include: "And masters, do the same for your slaves. Give up your use of threats, because you know that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him."
In all, Ephesians Chapter 6 has 24 verses in it, and is one of six chapters. So you're looking at the smallest part of the end of letter, which was written a couple thousand years ago. In the first 9 verses of this chapter, we see a pattern emerge. Children--->Parents; Slaves--->Masters. Children should respect their parents. And, likewise, Parents should respect their children. Slaves should respect their Masters. And, likewise, Masters should respect their slaves.
In the Bible, you can't really approach the whole thing with crude literalism. It is often a metaphor, a parable, something to think about, and meditate on. So if we continued this ladder of respect to it's logical conclusion, we'd see, all along the way, that PEOPLE SHOULD RESPECT EACH OTHER. That is its purpose, its lesson to teach.
Given the length, I guess I should give each of these their own replies. To be continued....
1
-
1
-
@justanotheropinion5832 1 Timothy 6:1-2.
This one is interesting. So during the early Christian church, i.e., after the time of Jesus, there were slaves in the church. These two verses are again looking at a small piece of a much larger whole. There were 21 verses in 1 Timothy chapter 6. And all of 1 Timothy was one letter to a church, written a couple thousand years ago, by someone whose name we don't even know. So we're coming in at the end of an anonymous movie, and watching one scene.
But, yes, slaves in the Christian church was a real thing back then. Not only that, but slaves attended the church like any other person who came. The slaves came for the service, and were not in service to the church. Although, to be clear, there were other slaves who were in service to the church.
The two verses you mentioned there have to do NOT with the slave who were IN SERVICE to the church, but those who attended the church like everyone else: the ones who were members of the church. So evidently slaves could be members of a church. The first verse is probably the one that caught the eye of whomever made this list for you:
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered."
Unlike the one from Ephesians (which was repeated in Colossians), this one does not mention how the masters should also respect the slaves. But since we now know that verse exists, we can apply it here, though I'm sure the person who originally made that list didn't think to do that.
So, all in all, this first verse is pretty boring. It leaves out the second part (about the masters respecting the slaves), and is the first verse, which means whatever point it wants to make...hasn't been made yet. That brings us to the second verse:
"Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves. These are the things you are to teach and insist on."
So this is about slaves to Christian Masters, where the first verse applied to all slaves. It is still about respect though. We are just missing the verse about the master respect the slave too. So the same lesson applies, but is of a slightly different angle this time, as we look ONLY at the slave.
The point here seems to be that the slaves should not say, "My master is Christian, and I'm Christian, and Christianity teaches that we are all in service to God, not man. So I don't have to be a slave anymore, and can scorn my earthly master." However, we're talking about the earthly master, and not the heavenly one here. And while Christians aspire to the heavenly, they are very much earthly. So, while on earth, we are a part of what's going on here on earth.
THEREFORE, we must respect what is here on earth, including each other. As I said, this makes more sense when you remember the part about the master respecting the slave in the same way. To be continued....
1
-
@justanotheropinion5832 Titus 2:9-10
Once again, you're skipping a crucial part, which explains the passage you referenced. Verses 1-9 of Titus chapter 2 is about teaching. It starts with older men: "Older men are to be temperate, dignified, self-controlled, and sound in faith, love, and perseverance." And goes on to older women: "Older women, likewise, are to be reverent in their behavior, not slanderers or addicted to much wine, but teachers of good. In this way they can train the young women to love their husbands and children...." Then goes on to another group: "urge the younger men to be self-controlled." And wraps up with a general instruction for all: "In everything, show yourself to be an example by doing good works. In your teaching show integrity, dignity, and wholesome speech that is above reproach, so that anyone who opposes us will be ashamed, having nothing bad to say about us."
Only then does it get to the part of the population that are slaves, which is the part you referenced: "Slaves are to submit to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not stealing from them, but showing all good faith, so that in every respect they will adorn the teaching about God our Savior."
As before, the point and lesson here is about respecting others. Are you seeing the pattern yet? The Bible often does this: It repeats the lesson over and over, just in case someone cherry picked, and skipped the part with the lesson in it. This is a short chapter, with only two more verses in it, the last sentence being (I think) crucial: "Let no one despise you."
The point here, therefore, is to respect others so that no one despises you. That's the goal. Treat others in such a way that they will not despise you. You're assuming this is all about slavery. But, I hope you can see by now that it is not. Slavery takes up the smallest part of the overall lesson, which is, in essence, THE GOLDEN RULE: Treat others the way you want them to treat you. Respect them, and they will respect you.
Far from supporting or condoning slavery, this is about everyone in society, including the slaves, getting along with each other. To be continued....
1
-
@justanotheropinion5832 Exodus 21:1-7
Your longest passage yet. But, as usual, you're missing the context. Chapter 21 follows the giving of the 10 Commandments on Mount Sinai. And that follows the Israelites being led from slavery in Egypt. After the 10 Commandments, God starts in with all the rules. And there are a bunch! The rules go on and on and on. So.Many.Rules! These continue into Leviticus, which are just the rules for the priests. Eventually, by Jesus' time (some 3,000 years later), there were so many rules that only the Pharisees could follow them all: They did nothing else but study and follow the rules, because there were so many. In fact, the rules we in such abundance that a whole new vocation started (called Scribes) who further broke down and elaborated on what each of these rules meant.
Anyway, this passage looks at the rules for servants, and not just any servants, but Hebrew servants. Depending on the English translation, some will use the word "slave" here, while others will use the word "servant." The best approximation, looking through Hebrew dictionaries of the word ebed (which is used in the original text) seems to describe this as "someone who is in service to someone else." So, far as I can understand it, an ebed could have been a slave or just someone who worked for you. It seems to be used in both cases.
So, yes, there was slavery going on back then. The Israelites had just escaped 500 years of being enslaved to the Egyptians. And, now, here on Mount Sinai, after giving the 10 Commandments, their God was telling them what to do about their own future slaves and servants.
It begins by saying they have to serve for only six years, but are to be set free on the seventh year. A lot of things were done like this in the Bible. Some numbers were used repeatedly. This one, of course, from the Creation Story, where God supposedly made the earth in seven days. It wasn't that anyone had to buy the slave, to get him free, as the verse specifies. Their contract was up, and they were free to go.
If the slave (or servant) came with a wife and children, the wife and children go also leave with them. But if the master gave him a wife, that wife had to stay. You can see, perhaps, how this is just a series of rules.
However, the slave (or servant) can choose to stay with the master, if they want. But to make this official, the verse say, the master has to go before the judges, and yada,yada,yada. Your referenced passage ends in the segue to another section, which is the rules about women. But, in this case, is the rule about a woman who was sold into slavery:
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do."
Women had almost no rights back then. A man could divorce his wife for any reason. But no woman could divorce her husband. It didn't matter what her reason was. I included this verse partly because you did. But I also wanted to mention the social mores about women at the time. That's an important phrase here...AT THE TIME.
All of these passages you chose are about slavery, which was widespread at the time. And you were, of course, wanting to prove "the Bible supported and condoned slavery." However, you didn't take a couple of important things into account:
First, the Bible was pieced together with all kinds of writing, from many different sources, over the course of thousands of years. Some of this writing was rules for the people back then. Some of it was metaphorical, with a deeper meaning, which could only be understood by not taking it literally. And some of it was talking about the different classes of people in society, and the one thing they should all do---which was respect each other.
Secondly, you assume by it being in the Bible, that the Bible supported and condoned it. EVIL is also in the Bible. SATAN is in the Bible. People doing what they shouldn't be doing are all over the place in the Bible. That does not mean the Bible supports or condones them.
Third, the Bible is an inanimate object. It can't do something of it's own accord. There were lots of people who contributed to it, including initial writers, the singers of the original songs, the writers of rules, not to mention the translators, medieval Bishops, and so on. And, of course, there were the lessons of Jesus, as well as the creation story, and the end-of-the-world story. The Bible is a compilation, not a book with a single agenda or thesis.
Anyway, to be concluded....
1
-
@justanotheropinion5832 Leviticus 25:44-46
Ah, Leviticus. This is one messed up book. Some of the anti-LGBTQ justifications come from here. Most of it isn't really meant for the general population, as I said before, but is a rule book for the tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe known as Levites. Chapter 25 has 55 verses! You referenced three of them. They come toward the end of the chapter, without actually being the end. So, again, you're talking about the smallest piece of a much larger whole.
If you ever accused religious people of cherry picking, just know YOU ARE CHERRY PICKING HERE. Got that? Now, how to summarize all this, so you understand it.... Great Zarquon!
So the Lord is talking to Moses on Mount Sinai, handing down countless rules for the future society of Israel. This has to be done because, as of this moment, the Israelites have (themselves) been slaves to Egypt for 500 years. So they had no rules for society. Also, since all of these early books of the Bible were written long after fact, couple thousand years later, much of it was justification for whatever was going on at the time. This would include the color of the curtains in the tabernacle, and the slaves of those who use to be slaves, and would be again.
We talked before about how slaves were released on the 7th year. 7 was an important number. The chapter began with the rule (or LAW, as it's called in the Hebrew Scriptures) that you planted in your fields for 6 years. But on the 7th year, you didn't plant at all. It was a year of rest for the field, as the 7th day was a day of rest for God, and the 7th year was for the resting of servants. And there was a big party (called Jubilee) every 7 times 7 years, and so on.
These rules for various things go on for some time, finally getting down to the business at hand in verse 39.
"If a countryman among you becomes destitute and sells himself to you, then you must not force him into slave labor. Let him stay with you as a hired worker or temporary resident; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he may return to his clan and to the property of his fathers."
I mention this one, because, it has to do with being a servant, i.e., a slave. The Israelites were enslaved in Egypt because they owed a debt to Egypt for feeding them during a long famine. Likewise, here, if someone owes you money and can't pay, then they can reimburse you by being your servant. BUT YOU HAD TO LET THEM GO. This is where your referenced passage come in:
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."
So you couldn't actually make slaves of your own people back then. That would change. All things change. We're looking at a snapshot of history. The next verse goes on to say you can make slaves from people within your country's boundaries, if they are foreigners. Hmm. Sound familiar? Sounds like what we do to immigrants. Doesn't it? The next verse says you can turn those slaves over to your children. Sound familiar? That's what happened in the South, during our own country's centuries of slavery.
And that's where your referenced passage ends. The 25th chapter ends on an interesting note, though, in verse 55:
"For the Israelites are My servants. They are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God."
So the Israelites were servants (or slaves) to Egypt. Then, among the many other things they did throughout the Bible, they became masters of their own slaves. Then they became slaves again, and again, repeatedly. But through it all they were all the servants (slaves) of God. And what is God but a name for all things?
I'll wrap this up in my next comment....
1
-
@justanotheropinion5832 So, I've already discussed how the Bible could not condone or support slavery, because part (or parts) of its people supported and condoned it in the past. If that's true, then the United States of America Still Supports and Condones Slavery, because part of us did in the past as well. But our country has so much more going on throughout its history, and what we get out of it today, than slavery. So does the Bible.
I'd like to assume you didn't cherry pick that list, copy and paste it here from someone else's website. I'd like to think you did your own work, your own thinking, and those passages come from your own vast abundance of notes, taken from all the topics you noticed in the Bible. But somehow I doubt that's true.
So did you ever accuse anyone of cherry picking from the Bible? Be honest. Regardless of whether or not you accused others, you're doing it now. I've never seen such cherry picking. It reminded me of when the English inquisition burned Joan of Arc at the stake, justifying it because of this: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God" (Deut. 22:5). Because, you know, Joan had to wore a man's armor to fight for the French.
And there's the curse of Ham. Ever heard of it? It was one of the justifications for slavery in our own United States. Look it up. It's a gross misinterpretation, totally biased and slanted. There are so many throughout history. MAGA people are doing it today. If there's one thing most everyone knows about the Bible, it's that you can find justification for just about anything in there, so long as you're willing to take it out of context.
And you, my friend, left out a lot of context. In any case, I did my best here. I gave lots of time to discussing what you wrote. I'd like to think you won't just dismiss it all, out of hand, and assume you're still absolutely right. I really would.
Peace be with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "Then what have you been blathering about?"
It's hard to know what you consider to be blathering, when l am not about to scroll through 114 replies, to look for the post of mine you might be talking about. Plus it's hard to know when you can't be bothered to copy and paste it here, as I didn't for yours above.
"most peddle that their book is the truth, yeah?"
It's not really their book, but their religion that they're peddling as the truth. In other words: What I believe is right, and what you believe is wrong. Hopefully you can see the inherent problem there.
"So, why are you comparing it to a defunct mythology?"
Joseph Campbell once wrote, "Religion is misunderstood mythology." I have never seen a single sentence suddenly clarify all religions before. But there it is.
People once practiced what is now considered mythology, as literally as people today practice religion: Everything from a creation story, to the god coming down in human form, to talking animals (like a serpent), virgin birth, and so on.
It all screams mythology. That's not "blathering." It's logic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimbob3030 "We are more scholarly than most PHD's on this subject, we had the objectivity to see through it and most biblical scholars do not."
There's more to study Bibles and commentaries than interpretation. There's the history of the region to consider. Have to keep in mind that the large majority of the Bible was written between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago, by Jews, for Jews, in the middle east.
The only reason we have it now, and that it's worldwide, and the MAGAts eat it up is because of Rome. Constantine converted their empire in 300 CE.
So history plays a major role in understanding the Bible. I doubt the people claiming to be experts in this thread have given that the slightest thought. They're all talking about how it supports slavery. What an insipid, uneducated notion, that totally misses the point of the text!
Anyway, the history shown in commentaries and study Bibles (as well as the original language used) shows the context that you can't get from the Bible.
Finally, while we may be more "objective" than PhD's, it's absurd to think we're more scholarly than actual Biblical scholars. They know way more than you or I ever will. And to brush off their knowledge is to insist on ignorance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"When both religions dont really acknowledge each other"
Well, since the Hebrew scriptures were written couple thousand years before the time of Jesus, or before the New Testament was written, it's silly to say it doesn't acknowledge what's thousands of years down the line. And the New Testament refers constantly to the Old. The Golden Rule is from Deuteronomy; Jesus spoke in public for the first time by reading Isaiah; Jesus' final utterance was a quote from the Psalms, etc.
As for being opposed to each other: The Bible is made up of 66 books, each with a different writer. Often, there were 2-3 writers per book. They were written centuries and millennia apart from each other. Even if you assume that God gave the writers dictation, they would still have to process that with their limited human minds.
Finally, you're taking the Bible way too literally, which is odd, because that's the same problem many believers have. It's like arguing against how bad Superman is, because some people believe Superman was real.
1
-
1
-
@MrWyzdum "Like you have any way of knowing"
Like I have any way of knowing what? I'm not some gullible believer, chief. I'm an intellectual who reads a lot. I especially love history. And what I said can easily be read in Biblical history, as recorded by scholars such as William Barclay.
"both statements are exactly equivalent."
Grammatically, perhaps that could be argued. But telling someone to not do something is totally different from telling them to do something, especially when you also tell them why they should be doing it.
Besides, my point, as I've stated it TWICE now is that the Golden rule was written in Deuteronomy, and Jesus referred to it as it was written there. How are you not getting that?
"Jesus didn't appear in the Hebrew scripture"
I didn't say he did. In fact, I said he couldn't have, since the Old Testament was written some 4,000 years before Jesus was said to have lived. And? So? What's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While public education certainly needs better funding, and teachers need to be paid a lot more, it is up to the adult to make sure they're informed. Thinking critically, logically, and following the scientific method can be (and is) taught in schools. What happens is there are kids who think they don't need it, and don't really learn it. Likewise, teachers teach the importance of reading books, which is exercise for our minds; and there are kids who think they don't need it, and don't learn this lesson about basic health. Even if they do learn the material enough to get decent grades and pass the course, knowledge and methodology doesn't stay intact in our memories forever: We have to review, practice, and build on what we learn; otherwise, the understanding fades. THAT is what we're seeing here now. Can't blame the 9th grade science teacher, when a 30-60 year-old person hasn't exercised their mind in decades. The adults are responsible for themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First, whataboutism.
Secondly, you aren't telling the whole truth about what the Biden administration is doing, now, are you.
"But the criticisms often skirt over the fact that these flights carry children — and that’s important. In fact, the government by law cannot hold unaccompanied minors in border facilities for more than 72 hours, and they must be cared for while they are transported to relatives, sponsors or shelters.
“Our legal responsibility is to care for unaccompanied children while they are on our watch, and that includes connecting them to vetted sponsors,” Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Jorge Silva told The Washington Post’s Fact Checker back in February."
The flights are carrying children, because the government cannot hold unaccompanied children in border facilities for more than 72 hours. Oh, but the Right is screaming their usual whataboutism song. But, as usual, their logical fallacy is just the cherry on top of their lies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scapegoatiscariot2767 "He would be about his father's Kingdom and not about issues of this life."
While I'm waiting for you to give book chapter, and verse, I'll disprove a couple of these--because it's easy to do so.
"I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" (John 3:12.)
So, yes, he did talk about earthly things. Actually, that was all he talked about. Heaven wasn't in the sky, for example.
He said: "...the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21.)
And "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Mark 12:27.)
And there is no heaven to go to.
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." (John 3:13.)
His new commandment, his addition to Judaism was this:
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." (John 13:34.)
Does that sound like someone who wouldn't "about issues of this life"? Heaven is the issues of this life. Because heaven is right here and now.
1
-
@scapegoatiscariot2767 "Matthew 15: 25-26
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
If you want any more versus, look them up."
You've been reading the Bible for 23 years, and that's your example? Dude, that's cherry picking. Plain and simple. No wonder you don't want to provide more verses.
Here's what's happening: You made up your mind, then sought individual verses that support your axiom. You aren't the first to do this, or the last.
One more thing, your name: Judas wasn't the spacegoat, Jesus was. Jesus was also the sacrificial lamb for Passover. Now, was he really, literally, actually those things? Of course not. IT'S A STORY. Mythology. You're misquoting it only to satisfy your own point of view. Why not just own your point of view, as your own?
Anyway, believe what you want, since you're evidently going to do that regardless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevenlabudda6994 Taking the Revelation literally is not a good sign. There are lots of things in the text that make little sense, without understanding the source and context.
For example: Armageddon comes from Har Megiddo, which is Hebrew for the hill or mound at Megiddo. And this refers to the ancient city of Megiddo.
In the Revelation, the armies of the world gather at this spot in northern Israel, brought together by "unclean spirits." But God destroys them all. There is no battle.
While that is happening, seven angels are pouring out the Seven Bowls of Wrath. This causes men to curse God, instead of repenting. And the unclean spirits look like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet.
There is no anti-Christ in the Revelation. That term only shows in the epistles of John. Christ, by the way, is a Greek word that simply means "anointed." Anyone who was ever anointed was a christ. As for being anointed by God, King David often referred to King Saul as "God's anointed."
So what we have here is a surreal story. It is hyper-reality, much like Zeus or Superman. It cannot exist. And we have terms being used incorrectly. The Revelation was written by an unknown hermit who lived in a cave. No one even knows who wrote it! Even the cave part is likely apocryphal too.
Of course, the same can be said for every single book in the Bible. Therefore, what the Bible teaches cannot be history, since we can't verify any of its writers, let alone where they got their information.
As for prophecy, the word originated about the year 1225 A.D. It comes from a Greek word meaning "gift of interpreting the will of God."
But Jesus said no one can do this, especially where the endtimes are concerned: not the angels or even himself, but God alone (Matt. 24:36). So this notion of prophecy is incorrect right away, and tantamount to blasphemy.
1
-
That's not factual. The police officer's oath is a pledge to uphold the law, protect the public, and serve the community. It's a statement of allegiance to the Constitution, the agency, and the community. So, partially correct. 2 out of 3 ain't bad, as the song goes. But claiming the oath isn't about protecting people, it's just incorrect. This is the oath: "On my honor, I will never betray my integrity, my character or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always maintain the highest ethical standards and uphold the values of my community, and the agency I serve."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One of the reasons that I think Republicans don't want the commission: For them, whether politician or voter, the party is defined only by being relative to the evil Democrats. They have nothing else, no policies, or ethics. They abandoned all that for Trump. So they are opposite of whatever Democrats do/are. You see this in their voting. You see this in their denial of Climate Change and the January 6 riot: Republicans are against WHATEVER the Democrats do, because the Dems aren't just wrong; they're evil. (A lot of them believe Dems are kidnapping babies, and taking their blood; Dems are also out to take their red meat, guns, and Bibles!)
Republicans are this way because it provides them with an identity. They are the anti-Democrats, not Republicans or Conservatives (anymore), but against whatever the Dems are for. So, if this investigation proves that Trump supporters were involved, and they were galvanized by Trump, Trumpian politicians, and right-wing media, that means REPUBLICANS WERE WRONG, not Democrats.
And they can't have Dems being right, even once, in the eyes of their base. If that did happen, then their identity falls apart, and leaves their voters wondering what else Dems are right about. The spell would be interrupted, and propaganda could possibly fail from then onward.
1
-
1
-
As devil's advocate (literally), I'll take a shot at trying to clarify what Trump meant here by "hoax." First of all, after the biggest Stock Market plunge in history, he wants to protect his reputation as a "businessman," and prevent it from falling even lower. Since that plunge was a result of peoples' concern over the Coronavirus, Trump attacked Democrats and "fake news," over how they reported his lack of concern about the virus. What the news and Democrats said was true and factual, though, about what Trump was and wasn't doing.
But keep in mind, when it's true and factual about him, Trump calls it "fake news, witch hunt, hoax, etc." THAT was the hoax he referred to at that rally: them speaking badly about him, and how serious and scary the thought of an outbreak here, like in China, would be. For Trump, the outbreak can't be that scary, if he is to prevent another stock market plunge.
Back to reality, I saw the video of that rally. He did not, at all, specify any of that. He just said "hoax" to cover the entire thing. And the Trump supporters cheered.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bl4ckkn1g8t5 Sure. So the people who are putting on the show hired a bunch of Trumpists, straight from Trump's Stop-the-Steal rally. And told those Trumpists to post their insurrection videos live on Facebook. And the members of Congress who were supposedly in on it, ran for cover along with McConnel and Pence.
Meanwhile Trump brags about how many people were there, who were breaking down the barricades, swarming over police and security, breaking through windows and doors, beating the police with flag poles, using tear gas, going to the offices of people like Pelosi, and AOC--while filming it all.
And when they were arrested and interviewed, they chose not to rat out the people who would create the show trial, even though the creators were Dems and libs--all hated by the Right.
No, the only show is the ongoing denial of reality that we get from the GOP and trolls like you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Can't these Trump officials answer straight-forward, easy, obvious questions? "You don't think Democrats want people to contract the Coronavirus, and die?" He should say, Of course not! But he dodges the question, says there are lots of "barbs" from the left--without accepting that Trump Jr's stupid statement was a barb.
And Pence goes on and on, just like Trump, congratulating themselves, and their team. 15,000 masks? He couldn't answer when more would be made: no goals on making more, as Jake asked, by a certain date. Some science-denying bozo wants to pray away the gay; but God helps those who help themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How do you "solve" racism? First, you can't solve a problem, until you admit that it exists. Second, we have to accept that we (I, you, everyone) are racist, until we recognize it in ourselves, realize how stupid we're being, and work, mindfully, to counter-act all the tribalism in the history of our species, and all the racism in the history of our country. Is Trump going to do that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Chaos-aequilibratum A fetus is not a baby, at least not a child. At 6 weeks it's the size of an apple. And, despite what Republicans claim, it lacks all the anatomy necessary to feel anything, let alone pain.
And it is still the woman's body. If you claim the baby has rights, but the woman doesn't, because they share a body, then the woman still has rights. And since the woman is actually, technically alive, and considered a citizen of this country, and it's her body, then the rights should defer to her.
As for a trans man not being a man: What is a man? And who are you to decide that? It is YOUR FALSE IDEOLOGY being discussed here. Not mine. Everything you said is false. But I'll never convince you in a million years. This is pointless. I'm done with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Republicans, here's a primer on how to recognize bogus stories from your media about the border:
"There are lots of migrants, immigrants, people in general at the border."
--Perfectly reasonable statement.
"They're bringing drugs, crime, etc.."
--That should make you pause. You should ask (and note that you have to ask because you weren't told), "Are they all doing that? How many? How do you know? What possible bias could the person have who's telling me this?"
"The border is wide open. They aren't vetting anyone at the checkpoints."
--This is obviously wrong. If they have checkpoints, then it's not wide open, and of course the reason for the checkpoints is to check.
"The people crossing over are all young men in their 20s, and they're granted the right to vote, and it's an invasion."
--So you should again question the bias of the person telling you this. Then ask, "All the people are in their 20s? And therefore you're implying they are actually an invading army? Not only that, but the hostile force is allowed to vote immediately? Okay...What's the process for immigrants being able to vote? Is this at all feasible? Are the people telling me this counting on my gullibility, and unwillingness to fact check, and my xenophobia?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"It's what he voted for." It's not. You're implying reverse causality, in which what he didn't know until later informed his thinking in the past. First, he didn't know that DonaldMcCheese would go through with it. How many promises did DonDon keep last time? Any? Secondly, he was obviously caught up in the social groupthink, laughing it up with his fellow Repubs. So, not only was it unlikely Agolf Twitler would do what he said, it was all just fun and laughs for them. (Granted, I'm guessing that part, due to the personality and mentality I saw on the video; seems likely though.) Finally, most people think, "It won't happen to me." It's easy to judge someone harshly, when knowing nothing about them, and having no empathy for them: Yall are able to project onto that blank slate all the worst things, just like they to do "libs." Honesty, given the illogical nature of all that, and the total lack of sympathy or feelings of any kind, sounds like yall are cut from the same cloth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@colinl5951 The old hammer excuse/deflection? really? How much harder would it be to have a "mass hammering," as @Jon Hamilton jokingly called it? Your reply to them was about Paul Pelosi. That wasn't a mass hammering.
Your dumas (sp) deflection is easily dismissed, when you look at the statistics. YouTube doesn't like links anymore, but you can search: united states homicide by weapon type. In 2021....
#1: Guns: Pistols. (45.7%)
#2: Guns: Other types of firearms. (23.9%)
#3: Other weapon types: Blunt objects, poison, fire, explosives, narcotics. (11.4%)
#4: Knives or cutting instruments. (10.6%)
#5: Hands, feet, fist. (4.3%)
#6: Guns: Shotguns and other rifles. (4%)
So a whopping 73.6% of homicides in the United States, in 2021, was caused by guns of some type.
That's 7 times the number cause by "blunt objects," of which I assume hammers must be included, but aren't actually listed.
Your comment is not only an insult to intelligence, but morality. It's a cliche too, and has been used so many time by dumas (sp) Republicans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulodonohue9672 Where were you using sarcasm? How does that change what you wrote? When did I blame anything on Trump or Russia? I didn't say YOU were a Russian propaganda tool; I said "whataboutism" is a Russian propaganda tool--because it is.
*
You're telling me to get off social media, while you're on social media. You imply that I'm addicted to social media, on social media. You tell me to do my own research, while you repeat Trump/right-wing talking points: e.g., People in the riots don't wear masks; the protests aren't protests, but riots; everyone blames Trump (i.e., TDS or "orange man bad"); the news is fake; and so on. You ask me to do my own research, but where does that research come from? Other sources. How do I confirm those sources? Other sources.
*
You claim I (or the media, hard to tell what you're talking about, or to whom you're referring) blame everything on Russia or Trump, as you blame ANTIFA and BLM. You're unable to write a coherent sentence, either.
*
So whom is mindlessly believing what?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump supporters don't care. Or, to be more precise, if they would care, they don't know about these facts. Imagine how different everything would be, if Trump hadn't convinced them that the press is the "enemy of the people," liars, "fake news." It was one of his first moves, making sure that his base absolutely hates every news platform that doesn't pander to Trump. Those who were watching this segment on Fox, and haven't yet called in death threats, probably just tuned it out, or went for a snack.
1
-
@Snarf_Le_Wombat "People don't want children to be science experiments."
What if we assume, just for a second, that no one is treating children like science experiments, in all this back and forth about gender. Okay? Then what? Well, your entire understanding of what's happening would be wrong. Hmmm.
Do you have trouble admitting you're wrong? I'm curious. I don't. I'm wrong all the time. I'm clumsy. I drop at least part of everything I pick up.
But the only way to learn anything is to realize you have been wrong. So the more often I realize I'm wrong, then the more of my inaccuracies I can correct; and, therefore, the more I actually know...and not just believe.
So, if you're wrong here, in this one single instance, then wouldn't that color and influence a lot of other things? How much, then, does this one possibly wrong decision ruin all your other thoughts? What if it's a lot? Wouldn't that be worth considering?
I'd say so. Because, trust me, you're wrong here.
1
-
These Republicans keep crying "witch hunt." I don't think they really know what that means. What they're trying to emphasize, of course, is their supposed innocence, and how they're being falsely accused. But that's where the similarity ends.
A witch hunt always had a test, to determine if the woman was a witch. These tests were designed by the religious leaders of the community. And those lying psychopaths, justifying their actions on some vague references in the Bible to killing all witches, designed the test knowing the woman wasn't a witch, that there was no such thing as witches, and made it so the test would kill the woman.
And it is here that the witch hunt claim totally falls apart. If what happened to all these Republicans was a witch hunt, they'd no longer be among the living. At the very least, they'd be in prison for life. Plus, the ironic thing here too is that the Republicans really are evil incarnate, just in a secular way, and deserve to be imprisoned for life--or in an insane asylum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nostrum6410 "you forgot about the directly refuting his points part of the definition...."
The definition of what? Whataboutism? I'm having trouble following you.
"but nice try."
I didn't have to try. I pointed out that what you did and said is a known logical fallacy:
"what about david lying?"
You didn't even try to disguise it, by not using "what about."
"also clearly missed the point that it was obviously a joke"
Your sentence structure makes it very difficult for me to understand you: lack of capitalization, punctuation, or a definite, clear subject. I take it you mean that I (or you, in the case of your sentence) clearly missed the point: That point being that it was a "joke."
If that was the point, then I did obviously, clearly miss it. What joke? Do you mean that you don't believe David is lying? A joke isn't stating the opposite of what is true, then, when people call you on it, saying it was a joke. That's called "irony."
So you were being ironic?
1
-
@nostrum6410 "Triggered" is a word that should be reserved for people suffering PTSD. You did not trigger me. I guess we could say, at best, that you trolled me. Congrats.
"It was intentionally ironic which can often be funny."
Thank you for using some punctuation. I really appreciate it. So it was deliberately ironic? To what end? How? At the end of this post, you wrote:
"I have directly refuted davids points on many other comments"
Though you stop using punctuation again, I take it that you mean your ironic post was meant to refute David's point? How? What point? And what other points do you believe you've refuted? Are you here just to point out how David is wrong, by not actually pointing out anything?
"You define a word and when i add to your definition you cant figure out what definition im referring to?"
Let me break this down for you. We're communicating via textual messages. I glean your meaning only from what you write; I cannot see or hear you.
I'll show you the sentence in question:
"you forgot about the directly refuting his points part of the definition...."
You wrote, "you forgot about THE directly refuting...." This should have been a proper noun, or at least a pronoun: I, me, you, etc. And "his points": Whose? David's? If you don't use a proper noun (a name), then a pronoun is just confusing; and using "the," in place of either proper- or pro-noun, is just nonsensical. What did you refute with that original sentence: "what about david lying?" Nothing. Is that how your other refutations go?
And then this is related to me pointing out the whataboutism? How? You do not elaborate. And if you interpret the length of my responses being in proportion to you triggering me, it's not. It takes this long to point out at least some of what you're writing, and my response to it, or your next response. I'm trying to be clear. You are anything but clear in these comments, at least to me.
1
-
@nostrum6410 "ya I clearly triggered you, and again that wasn't my intention. however, your grammar nazing seems to be clearly trolling"
Why is it so necessary to believe that you triggered me? You didn't say. You also didn't say how I was triggered, or how I revealed to you that I was triggered. Is it that, besides me being triggered, which would indicate some irrationality on my part (which, again, you gave no explanation for), you would otherwise have to confront that I didn't understand, at all, what you're trying to communicate; and that my inability to make heads or tails of your point had nothing to do with me, but with your inability to communicate it to me?
As your "triggering" me was not your intention, then my emphasis on semantics (and how we have only words on screen to understand each other, and how I'm unable to understand you), I did not intentionally try to troll you with an emphasis on grammar, as a means of clarification. I was trying to understand you.
I still don't get it. I still think your point is vague. And I conjecture that your blaming me for being a grammar nazi (when I was just asking for clarification, so we could communicate) is a convenient way for you to avoid the topic: which is also accomplished by whataboutism. Think of it, all this time, and we've said nothing. The whole point is lost.
However, I'm sitting here quarantined. And, being an avid writer, myself, and because I enjoy analyzing writing, especially unclear writing, you might interpret my interest, and my number of paragraphs as being "triggered." Sorry, chief. Nor am I trolling.
You're targeting me, personally; judging me, personally; and assuming a whole lot. On the other hand, I'm looking at your writing. I don't know you, and wouldn't presume to judge you. I just see what you wrote, and I'm trying to understand it.
But since we're making no headway, at all, I'll just declare you the victor of this debate. Why not?
1
-
@nostrum6410 I figured that's why you believed I was triggered, and so spoke to that in one of those paragraphs:
"However, I'm sitting here quarantined. And, being an avid writer, myself, and because I enjoy analyzing writing, especially unclear writing, you might interpret my interest, and my number of paragraphs as being "triggered." Sorry, chief. Nor am I trolling. "
I'm a writer. I sneeze seven paragraphs when I get out of bed in the morning. Ask yourself, what am I reacting to? And, what emotion constitutes my reaction? You're assuming, again, about me, personally. MY emotions. You don't know me. Okay? My writing is all you have. Is it overly emotional? Or is it grammar nazi? How can it be both?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We need mandatory, free, continuing adult education. I imagine most of these anti-intellectual Trump supporters didn't go very far in school, and what they did do, they stopped doing. When we stop learning, we forget what we learned. For example, a foreign language. I've learned German, Spanish, and Japanese. Don't remember much of it at all, because it's been 15-20 years. So if you aren't reading, learning something new, or reinforcing what you've already learned, then your brain goes soft. For some people, the end of being forced to learn, and think, in school, is the end of learning and thinking critically.
*
I know, "but freedom!" Freedom to be ignorant is NOT what the founders had in mind. Ignorance brings hostility, against what you're unfamiliar with, and who. Ignorance leaves you vulnerable to a conman who hugs the flag, to show how much he ostensibly loves the country, and holds up the Bible, while not being able to quote a verse--let alone act in any way that could be called Christian. What's worse, these ignorant people think the knowledgeable, educated "Libtards" are the idiots; these Trump supporters have turned against science, and anything not approved of by Trump. They are, therefore, dangerous, primed for violence: Nazis in the making. They, indeed, all of us, need to be required to go to school, for the rest of our lives. Whoever doesn't submit to continuing education loses the right to vote. If you can't stay informed, you should no longer vote as if you are informed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He was talking about the popular vote relative to white voters though. I'm looking at the stats now, on Politico.
"Obama performed at a similar level as Gore with working-class whites, earning 40 percent of their support to McCain’s 59 percent, which is roughly similar to George W. Bush’s performance in 2000 and 2004."
"White college graduates, 35 percent of voters, broke for McCain 51 to 47 percent, marking roughly a 3-point gain for Obama compared to Gore’s 44 percent showing."
"Obama performed slightly worse with white women, 39 percent of voters, than Al Gore did in 2000. McCain won the votes of white women, 53 to 46 percent, perhaps an indication of the historical candidacy of his running mate, Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska."
"McCain won a majority of every other age of white voters, which appeared to limit Obama’s reach into many traditionally Republican states."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bl4ckkn1g8t5 "Cite your proof of your claims"
Okay, let's go through one by one. Shall we?
"Jesus was a Brown skinned"
True. Jesus was not only a Jew, but Jews back then were very dark skinned.
"Leftist"
"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me" (Matthew 19:21.)
There are lots of verses to back up these claims, and I know them all. I'll be happy to provide more, if you think I'm cherry picking.
"Radical"
Let's define that first. (If you don't like the definition, and want to use another, I'll find you verses that fit it.)
Radical: "advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change." (From the Oxford dictionary.)
Not only did Jesus want you to sell what you have and give your capitalist money to the poor, he wanted you to "“Put away your sword,” Jesus told him. “Those who use the sword will die by the sword"" (Matthew 26:52.)
So an end to violence and war.
He wanted us to "love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked" (Luke 6:35); “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them" (Luke 6:27-29.)
So an end to hatred of everyone, even (or especially) of those who hate you. It was this love of everyone and everything that he said made you one of his followers:
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:34-35.)
Let's review: no more money, no more war, no more hate; love everything and everyone. Sounds pretty radical to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I just watched that interview. I didn't have the stomach for it before. He's totally insane. He accepts all those conspiracy theories as facts. He doesn't regret what he did. He said, when asked what he learned from the experience: "I learned that I'm more powerful than I ever thought possible." So he still sees himself as being in the right. No wonder his lawyers went for the Trump-made-me-do-it excuse. Showing no remorse should land him right back in the clink.
As for being a shaman, anyone who takes shamanism literally is (by any modern definition) insane. For those who don't know: Shamanism predates civilization. A shaman was part doctor, actor, dancer, psychiatrist, priest. With civilization, each of those "hats" shaman wore became a distinct occupation. And since it was pre-civilization, it's also pre-scientific method. There is no scientific basis for it. You go into a trance (induced by hallucinogens, fasting, or other means of deprivation), which causes you to hallucinate.
In the hallucination, there were spirits, who gave you the answers as to how to cure this, that, or the other. The shaman would then "return" from the "spirit world," and use the cure they were taught. It's an interesting field of study, if you enjoy reading about humanity before there was civilization. But claiming it's real is even more far fetched than claiming the Christian God is real. Sounds like he stumbled across shamanism, took it literally, and went down a very deep rabbit hole.
1
-
@odinson6348 "Couple that with there's no metaphorical message or indication whatsoever that it's a metaphor."
You're sure of that? How did Jesus teach? Only in parables, i.e., metaphorical stories.
And fitting 2 of every unclean animal, and 7 of every clean animal (for eating: though most people don't know about the 7) on one boat, let alone going to find them all over the world, with only, at most, Noah and his 3 sons looking: That isn't enough to show you this is a metaphorical story?
The Bible only makes sense when you realize it's a collection of stories, told thousands of years ago, on the other side of the world, to another culture--which was vastly different from our own, but still human: and so still possessing all our weaknesses, including arrogance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mental health story, for sure, with a caveat: We don't really understand mental health. We definitely can't prevent mental problems. We can sort of recognize them, but we don't really know what to do with them. It's a lot more than chemistry; I know that much. It's more than physical health, although that plays a major role. It has a lot to do with education, critical thinking. Because, "once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."
It's hard to fix a complete mental health breakdown. We would have very little to work with. I think it has a lot to do with the world we build in our heads versus our understanding of the world, which is outside of our heads. If those two clash sufficiently, that's a mental breakdown. So all those Trump supporters, who still believe he's president, live in a world totally different from reality. They are all primed for mental breakdowns.
Think of it: Millions of people having a complete breakdown. And they'll do anything to maintain the world in their heads. So they'll try to, first, deny the outside world, get angry at it, and then, they'll try to change it. They must make the two worlds the same, but can't possibly change the one in their heads. Whew. Yeah, we're in for a rough time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hoodootheclown929 New Year's Eve, nothing to do. And I find trolls fascinating. I see myself as an anti-troll, in that I troll trolls. I guess that makes me a troll too, in the sense that police are criminals.
"I meant to do that"
See, I actually did mean it. As long as your punctuation isn't incorrect, then what you do with it is correct. Logical, right?
Maybe you haven't read much. But writers use punctuation not only for the official rules of language, but to signal pauses to the reader. This can be best understood by saying the words period, comma, semi-colon, and so on, when reading. Even a new paragraph is meant to be a pause. This is used to create rhythm in the reading, which is a very important component.
So, yes, what I did was absolutely deliberate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh, David, sir, really? There has been a convoy of truckloads of disparaging talk about Joe since the debate. It all centered around people saying that debate was the end-all, be-all of evidence that Joe wasn't fit. You say, "He's not worried about Biden as an individual." Well, what "decision" is he talking about? Why is he concerned about people reaching that conclusion? What conclusion? The video doesn't say. He's very cryptic. But I think we can guess. It's the conclusion on whether or not to force Joe to withdraw. Joe already said he wasn't going to do that. So they would have to force him. How? I don't know. Is that the conclusion Senator Blumenthal is saying they need to reach? He claimed, "Biden has my support." So, again, what conclusion needs to be reached? I don't really think they took it out of context at all, though that would depend on exactly what the "conclusion" is about. We don't know, because he didn't say. But since everyone and their dog has been talking about replacing Joe, and Joe already said he's not withdrawing, what else could he be referring to?
1
-
1
-
@whitetiana3022 "when they demand to be let into locker rooms, it effects us.
when they start making laws about the language we HAVE TO use, it effects us.
this is far beyond a "just mind your own business" issue"
Still with the locker rooms. Why? You believe...what...that someone posing as woman, but is really a man, is going to get into the women's locker room and sexually assault people? Stop it.
You don't HAVE TO use the language. It isn't a law, the penalty of breaking it being to hang you or burn you at the stake. It is common courtesy, and common decency. You don't HAVE TO do it, if you have a problem with courtesy and decency.
And, yes, it is a "just mind your own business" issue, or it would be, if conservative politicians and mouthpieces didn't make it a political buzz word, used to fire you up, and get you to vote for them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Boe Jiden "it’s not hateful when it’s based on factual information."
Hard to take you seriously, with that username. Listen, bud, science is factual information. And science is what I'm saying. This is from the Canadian Institute of Health Research (the science section of their government's website):
"'Sex' and 'gender' are often used interchangeably, despite having different meanings:
"Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wait. "God was pressing on my heart" is different from "God spoke to me." Right? I guess? Never thought I'd defend Hoebert, but the specific truth is always much more interesting than the interpretation of it.
For example, she referenced Elijah, a famous Old Testament prophet. Jesus likened John the Baptist to Elijah. So, by extension, Derpbert is comparing herself to John the Baptist. Secondly, this Old Testament story very likely was just a story, fiction. So her story is fiction. Plus, her referencing the Old Testament is super creepy. And of course she sees herself on the side of good--which side still slaughtered all those followers of Bael, after that trick at the altar.
Really, given how false she is, Bozobert has more in common with the followers of Bael, except for the whole killing people who don't believe as you do part. Granted Bael's followers did that too. It's just a messy, lazy analogy on her part.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I challenge you to first give examples of how the Nazis were socialists. Then I ask you to consider that, maybe, Hitler put "socialist" into National Socialist just as a way to hide the truth about his party. And, finally, when the Nazis came to power, they sent all the socialists to camps. The Nazis were not only against socialism, but against communism, as seen by them attacking and attempting to invade Russia, who had just become communist in 1924, and was, before that, socialist.
Just because it says "National socialism" doesn't mean it was socialism. However, the Nazis were very much Nationalists, which is what Trump said he was.
1
-
@SnakeWasRight A well thought-out and written post. I think you're onto something with the "Bad WWII German Fuhrer Man." :)
I'm about to go into the hospital for some emergency junk. Hopefully I'll be able to respond to you soon, if not today.
Yes, I agree with you about taking the dictionary definition of socialism as my axiom:
"A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
And the Marxist take on it works for me too, while also opening a neat perspective:
"A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism."
While I can't comment on all you wrote (due to heading out for the hospital soon), I can say that I agree with what you wrote about "Bad WWII German Fuhrer Man." He was, indeed, "he was against LITERALLY ANYONE challenging his power." I've never quite thought of it that way, but it's very insightful of you.
Let's try to keep our posts short (laughing at the length of my own post here), so we can reply back and forth, without being overwhelmed. I can tell, now, you are highly intelligent. I didn't think you would be. I have misjudged you greatly. Wish me luck in this hospital, and hopefully I'm okay, and will be out soon to debate socialism with you. Have a good day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At some time, Trump supporters passed the point of no return. To admit they were wrong, now, about Trump in any way, would mean Trump was wrong. That would mean the Liberals were right. To admit that, even once, even with something so obvious as this waiver, would not only undermine their whole belief system, their politics, their place in this world, it would break down the very fabric of their minds, sending them over the edge, into absolute insanity. Of course, it could be argued that this has already happened.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Grand Inquisitor I hate to deny anyone who genuinely wants to understand. However, I don't know what else to say, that I haven't already said.
I'll try to summarize, and be more concise. First "racially charged" does not mean "racist." The ad is aimed at African-Americans, as they are the only people in the ad, besides Biden. But the black men are the focus, whereas Biden is in the background.
No one SAID anything in the ad about race, but the ad was directed at a race--and one that, largely, doesn't tend to vote for Trump. Thus, the rhetoric was "charged" (or made up of) a focus on race, specifically, African-Americans. Hence, "racially charged."
1
-
@Grand Inquisitor Again, no, you don't get it. Listen, if you assume you understand, without stopping to think, and working through the logic, then you will never actually learn.
No one knows without learning. And learning requires the awareness that you don't know. When you stop actively learning, and challenging your thought process with critical thinking, then you lose the knowledge you had. For example, I took two semesters of German in college. But that was 15 years ago, and I hardly remember a thing.
On the other hand, I regularly work on math, logic, science, and history--both review and moving forward. So I reinforced what I learned, and my ability to think clearly and logically is ever increasing.
What books have you read so far this year?
1
-
@Grand Inquisitor I've been thinking about that question. Is the ad (which is how it's spelled) cool, okay, innocent of malice, because it isn't racist?
Well, first, just because it isn't racist, it could still have other bad, wrong, harmful points that it makes. Secondly, the claim was that it was "racially charged."
Let's work backwards, as the first point could be revealed by the second. I'm not sure everyone understands what it means when something is "charged" with something. If something is electrically charged, then electricity runs through it, and is the source of whatever force or impetus the thing has.
So what's being said here is that this ad is made up of race--namely, whom it targets, why the ad was made in the first place, and what it consists of. Let's imagine a slightly different ad, one that doesn't have just a room with some African-Americans.
Say the ad shows different rooms, like it's looking in on people all across the country, people who voted for Obama, and are, therefore, likely to vote for Biden. That's the basic point of the video. Right? Don't vote for Biden, just because you liked Obama.
How should they represent what these various Obama voters look like? Stop and think. Maybe they're hippies? What does a liberal look like? Maybe they're in some Ivy League college? How to portray them?
In keeping with this thought experiment, let's just assume there was some way (other than just showing black men) to portray cross-sections of Obama voters. And the Trump/Pence team, who made the ad, did that video instead. Would there be a problem? It would depend on how they portrayed the Obama voters, granted, but it wouldn't be about race, necessarily, if they included different races and genders.
That's a very different ad. Right? They chose what would be, admittedly, the easy way in depicting the sort of Obama voters, who would vote for Biden, because of Obama: older black men. They become the typical Obama->Biden voters. Obama was black (actually, half black, but close enough), so his voters were black, at least the ones who are, apparently, incorrectly assuming that voting for Biden is like voting for Obama.
Why pick them, when they could have done the ad I mentioned? There were many possibilities, but they went with this one. Why? One obvious answer is that it was the easy way, as covered above. The other answer is that they were specifically targeting these people: African-Americans who would vote for Biden, just because of Obama, and, more than that, because Obama is black.
The point, or thesis, of the ad becomes clear: You voted for Obama because he was black; don't vote for Biden, because of his relationship to the black President. This is the racially-charged element.
In conclusion, back to your question. Is there anything wrong with the video? It's assumption and thesis declare that people voted for Obama because of his race. I've heard this many times. This much is wrong, not just morally, but factually.
The ad also assumes Obama->Biden voters aren't thinking clearly. And, therefore, Democrats aren't thinking clearly, by voting for Obama, much less Biden. So it insults people who voted thusly. The thesis: Dems are blinded by race; Trump, alone, is the truth.
So it becomes propaganda. Voting for Trump is clear thinking; voting for Biden is muddled thinking, based on racial loyalty. At the heart of it all, this is the reason that comes out strongly, for why the video is wrong: It's propaganda, based on racial profiling, and insulting Democrats.
The ad is more directed at Trump supporters, then: showing them how superior they are to Democrats. If all their assumptions are anywhere near what I've guessed, then they would have to know that people voting for Biden, because of loyalty to Obama, which was because of his race, would never vote for Trump. So why do the ad in the first place?
They wanted to try to get some black voters, who were on the fence, maybe; but they also wanted the Trump supporters to laugh at the dummy Democrats.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GML_123. "it’s been verified."
I just checked. As of four hours ago, no news organization has verified these receipts. Her lawyer won't return any of their calls, though he claims the receipts clear her name. And the hospital still has her on leave (also as of 4 hours ago), until they can verify the receipts.
So, in the future, when you say, "it's been verified," remember that you have to know who verified it. Because, as of right now, it has only been "verified" by her lawyer.
I'm neither for nor against her, because I don't know the facts. And anyone who is for or against her, without also knowing the facts, is showing their bias.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@frogking5573 We could talk about that fisherman thing. But, really? Teach a starving man to fish, first, or feed a starving man first?
Reading up on the World Food Program, they normally feed 90 million people, in 80 countries, every year. But, with Coronavirus, some 130 million additional starving people were added to that list.
And people want to take away from that, because of the Oil-for-food scandal from 2003? And, what, other scandals too, I guess? Even if these were done by the exact same individuals (and it wasn't), so what?
Come on. Have you or I done anything good, at all, for 200 million people this year? Heck no. I've sat on my butt, and watched youtube. If you want to talk parables, how about "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@doug6723 Afflicted? Who can honestly, accurately diagnose her? We're missing far too much information. I'll take a shot, though:
What we do know is she's elderly, likely in her 80s. She probably spent a good bit of her time in a religious environment. I imagine she has seen friends and family members die by the dozen, throughout her latter life.
And, all the while, she would have clung tighter to her Bible. Who knows what she has left now. I'd wager not much. However much it is, it isn't enough, as she has turned wholeheartedly to Trump and MAGA.
She wants everything to make sense, like something you'd read in a book. She wants her life and her loss to be a parable, with an ending that makes all the suffering seem worthwhile.
But, so far, that's not happening, because she's clinging tighter to Trump. She's connecting Trump to her Bible, and her love of God to her love her of Trump.
In the end, she's banking entirely on a con man. And whatever the Bible meant to her, it's now second, or at least tied for first with Trump.
"Afflicted"? In the terms of that verse from Isaiah I quoted, we all are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seewhativescene Wow, you're trolling everyone. Needing some attention? Poor thing. There, there. There, there.
See, I was responding to the OP. Now, if you just read my comment, without knowing what was said in the OP, then I admit that your reply to me would be logical.
As it stands, your reply was as nonsensical as you claimed my reply to be.
There, there. There, there.
1
-
1
-
I don't understand how, when that interviewer said cases were spiking, and Trump just flat-out contradicted her, with bogus assurances, that the interviewer didn't correct him. She knew cases were spiking. Surely she would've come prepared for Trump to lie. He always lies. So have the facts with you. You don't have to make a show of it, by saying, "Actually, Mr. President," or "No, you're a big, fat liar," or "Just how stupid are you?" Simply give him the correct information. He'll try to contradict it. Have your sources ready. Don't be combative. But be firm.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Then those voters are a bunch of yellowbellied, dimwitted ultra maroons. They are swept up in the hysteria, largely caused by the media, to replace Joe after THE FIRST DEBATE. Everyone who performs for the public has on nights and off nights. Joe had an off night. That's all. DonDon was at his best, which was nothing but nonstop, obvious falsehoods. I wish I could get the voters ousted, who want to oust him. Being thoughtful and logical is too much to ask of them. Also, since Russia has interfered in our last two elections, I can't help but wonder if they're at least partly responsible for fanning the flames of hysteria. Finally, it wasn't even a debate, since Donny didn't answer a single question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If this was a "witch hunt," as Trump claims, then they would have handcuffed him, fingerprinted him, denied any delay in the trial, given him an orange jumpsuit immediately, and sentenced him to the maximum punishment--all within a week. And no witch ever put on trial was/would be allowed the freedom to say it was a witch hunt.
Given this, that he and his supporters can still claim it, it's a sure sign that it's for real, and he is guilty, and they know but don't care.
1
-
1
-
@trickmuffinful Okay. Let's get specific, professor.
First, I didn't say Palestine, by that name, existed back then. In fact, I specifically said the name didn't, but the place we today call Palestine did, of course.
And that Palestine in Jesus' day was part of the Roman Empire. Galilee was then in what would later be called Palestine. It is now Northern Israel, because Israel took it by conquest in the 1960s. The same goes (or went) for Nazareth.
Jesus was born in what would become known as Palestine, but was (in the late '60s) taken by Israel. And, similarly, he was raised in Palestine.
In fact, he spent all of his time in Palestine, because the Jews wanted to kill him. And they did when he finally went to Jerusalem.
Not as cut and dry as you assumed, huh?
1
-
@trickmuffinful Did you miss the complexity there? I can see your point. But the actual point isn't as black and white as you're pretending.
I could try to paraphrase it better, if you need? Seems like I nailed it, but okay....
Here's where you were correct: Jesus was from, lived in, and ministered in what is today legally called Israel.
Cool?
But, here's the rub: Israel got that territory from Palestine by conquest in the late '60s. Right? Palestine was actually a named place by then, as you said.
However, and here's where you aren't exactly correct: In Jesus' time, where he was born, lived, and ministered in is what Israel conquered in the late '60s. That is...Palestinian territory.
Ergo, Jesus was a Jew who spent his entire life in that very territory, which would come to be known as Palestine, before it was conquered by Israel.
That's as clear as I can make it. So you aren't exactly wrong. Cheer up, little camper. But you aren't right either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesvonborcke "It's a collection of mythology"
Absolutely true. Just like Odin, Hercules, etc.
"Perfectly reasonable to dismiss it and utterly unreasonable to believe."
If you dismiss mythology normally, sure, then dismiss this as well. But if you think mythology has lessons to teach, about how people think, about the world and each other, if you want to learn about the morality of humanity, and how to fight against the mindlessness and cruelty we have within us, then it would be absurd to dismiss it.
"utterly unreasonable to believe."
Also true. Belief is extremely dangerous. But belief is religious in nature. I'm not talking about religion. Religion is dangerous. I'm talking about storytelling. The ancient Jews had a unique brand of telling stories that I have seen nowhere else in my studies: Their heroes were all too human.
Their Hercules was Samson, who lost all his power because of his vanity and ego. Jacob (later renamed Israel for how important he was) betrayed his own brother by fooling his father, at the behest of his own mother.
We aren't talking perfect and overpowered heroes here. I can find this nowhere else in mythology.
"written by primitive savages"
They had the insight to show that human traits never change. Sure, cultures change. Heck, our culture changes by the decade. But it doesn't matter if humans live on the other side of the world, separated by thousands of years, we all still have the same weaknesses and strengths. Culture changes, humanity stays the same. I think that's an important lesson. Among other things, it shows we are all "primitive savages."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I could find a cure for a major disease." He had the opportunity. And we saw what happened. He denied it was real. Said it would "go away with the heat of spring and summer." Then he claimed it was a "Democrat hoax." Then he, in a bizarre turn, said it was intentionally made to hurt Americans: which, of course, meant that it was real. Then he claimed it was the doctor in charge of overseeing our country's reaction to it, conspiring with "Jyna," to hurt his Pres poll numbers. Then he suggested we inject bleach or cleaning products, because those things could clean it off of tables. Then he got sick, himself, experienced it first hand. What did he do? When he got out of the hospital, he ripped off his mask, to show how supposedly useless masks were. So, he will not find a cure to anything, ever. Not only that, but is unable to even acknowledge basic science. That's why Dems weren't applauding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ladylaurus8493 My mom made the most wonderful chocolate oatmeal cookies when I was growing up. I've never been able to find anything like them. Oh, and her soup was so wonderful. She used all fresh ingredients, and made it from scratch. It would be in the crock pot for at least 24 hours.
What kind of music do you like to sing? I used to make up songs for my cat, a tuxedo breed named Bixby. It would go something like:
You're a pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty kitty cat. My sweety, sweety, sweety, sweety kitty cat. And I love him so much, with all of my heart. And I'll love him forever, no matter what. Because he's my pretty, pretty.... (And so on.) You ever make up little songs?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What do you expect the "education system" to do, when people stop learning and practicing critical thinking AFTER THEY ARE DONE WITH FORMAL EDUCATION--for decades? Knowledge, wisdom, and logic doesn't stay in your head, as if it's water poured into a vessel...unless you think of that vessel as being uncovered, and sitting in the middle of a desert. It evaporates, dissipates over time. So what can the "education system" do? Go door-to-door, to millions of households around the country, forcing people to stop being lazy thinkers, and insist they read books? Of course not. It is up to each of us, as individuals, to continue our education on our own.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lobola956 "men can get pregnant"
Hi, obvious troll. I'll field this one, since it's just the usual cliche.
See, if someone is born a biological female, and then transitions to the gender of male, but still has the anatomy they were born with, then they can get pregnant.
One sentence to explain it.
"global warming"
Again, one sentence. Ready?
As greenhouse gas emissions blanket the Earth, they trap the sun’s heat.
Now, if you reject the science for something so simple as the difference between biological sex and gender, then accepting the science for global warming probably won't happen either.
It's a simple matter of scientific illiteracy. :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is Trump deliberately doing these things, or is he stupid and clueless, or is it both (i.e., is he purposefully doing this this because he's stupid and clueless, and thinks it's the right thing)?
Honestly, I go back and forth. There are points when I settle on one, such as stupid and clueless, and I'm sure of it for days: He's too far removed from the society he's governing; he doesn't know what goes on in hospitals; if he reads at all, it's probably stock market numbers, or when a reporter says something he likes (or doesn't like). He just doesn't know, and refuses to learn.
But then I see his pattern, from which he hardly ever wavers: Blame the press, influence people to not trust the press or Democrats--so everything they say will be thought of as political attacks; cozy up to dictators; disband accountability task forces in government (such as the pandemic response team); etc. But then I think all of that could just be the result of a bumbling buffoon. So which is it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wearing a mask, or not, isn't just an IQ test--which it is, since it shows you understand basic science. Wearing a mask shows whether or not you care about your fellow men and women.
See, if we're infected with Covid, but don't know it, then the virus can be transferred via the water droplets when we breathe, or speak. The mask prevents those droplets from leaving you, and going to others. YOU wearing a mask helps OTHERS. Sure, the mask will also prevent another person's droplets from entering your mouth and nose, but only those that are vectored directly toward those small areas. It can't protect the rest of your body, when you walk through the lingering, infected droplets. That's why the other person needs to wear a mask, to prevent that scenario.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnscaramis2515 "xenophobia is a trait most humans have to a various degree. That's is natural, it's a herritage from our ancestors, just like many other things that are useless or even counterproductive in a modern society."
Well said. I totally agree. 100%!
"are you aware and try to defy this notion with logic or let your emotions take control."
I'm doing neither. I am very well aware of the R-complex, the history of our ancestors, why those primitive thoughts once aided us, and how they are now largely useless to us. I'm also aware that we have to deliberately fight against them, reason our way through them, or those primitive thoughts will control us.
There's nothing wrong with emotions, though. As for emotions taking control, I guess you're referring to primitive thoughts? Thoughts are not emotions, even primitive ones. We have emotional reactions to thoughts, though. So that's probably what you mean, when you say we shouldn't let them control us.
My answer is that I'm mindful of human weakness, and struggle against it when I can.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Harry Dingling "What did Leslie Stahl say that was inaccurate? Well, right off the bat, Trump claims to have "created the best economy in the history of our country," and she replies with "you know that's not true."
"Now, we can all argue on the claim. There's reasons to argue why it's true (the reasons he gave) and why it's not true... but the statement he made isn't something actually quantifiable"
It is quantifiable (and has already been fact checked), at least back to the 1950s, which had the best economic growth (2nd graph):
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45827430
Your claim that she said it wasn't true, and so she was misleading, is wrong. She didn't paint a picture. She said Trump is wrong on his boast about the economy. She was ready for the claim, because Trump always makes that claim. Trump was painting a picture, a picture full of propaganda. It wasn't just his opinion, but his insistence that it was true. When she denied it, he told her she was wrong. She wasn't.
You need to be biased, to see bias where there isn't any. And you, in thinking that all news is propaganda, by default, is bias: confirmation bias.
Please understand, I'm not saying the news is without bias. I'm just saying that it's not all bias, and if you assume it is, then that's what you'll see.
1
-
Sunny Castus Nope science, so critical thinking. Here's a quote from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, which is part of their government's website:
"Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, Tim, we SHOULD have the right to feed ourselves, and our families. It should be a Constitutional Right. But it isn't. Why don't we do something about that? If we weren't bifurcated into left and right, which are always at odds against each other, then we could unite, and insist that our government creates/adopts a new economic system.
Since many of us live paycheck to paycheck, with, at most, a month or two of savings, then we can't handle months of not getting paid. It's that simple. The solution isn't to insist on going to work during a pandemic, getting infected, and/or infecting others. The solution is to not have an economic system that goes belly up, during a national/global crisis.
That seems only logical to me; more than that, it seems morally right; and what's more, it sounds like what America should have, but has never even tried. We're the "gold rush" country. Money or bust.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With the exception of Lilo & Stitch and Fantasia, I never liked Disney. When I was a kid in the 70s, the Muppet Show was much more to my liking. Disney always had the corporate stench about them, and once I got into my teen years, I was well past any possible place they might have in my list of viable entertainment.
So when they bought Marvel AND Star Wars, two of my my childhood (and teenage) go-to entertainment venues, I knew what that would bring: eventual, complete failure. They don't understand the nuances of either of those two. They made Marvel less about comics, and more what the average, everyman wanted. And that worked for a while, but it couldn't last. Movies can't come out with the regularity of comics, and they can't rely on the mythologizing we get from a printed medium. They have to be more realistic. And, sorry, superheroes aren't realistic. That can't work for long, or often enough to build an active universe for the average movie watcher.
And since Disney doesn't understand mythology, and wants to appeal to more people than already established core fans, Star Wars was bound to fail too. Of course, those 2 are only part of Disney's failure, but they were something the corporation banked on being a sure thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No one in Trump's echo chamber is going to call out Trump. That's how he gets away with it. You think Hannity will say, in one of their interviews, "But Mr. President, sir, when you sit around Mar-a-lago, you really sit around Mar-a-lago. When you go out to eat, and the waiter hands you a menu, you say, Yes!" And so on. Of course he won't. You think, when he's having one of his rallies, the crowd will chant (like they did in Stand By Me, with the Lard A-- character), "Boom babba boom," every time he takes a step? Of course not.
His biggest weakness, then, is what gives him strength. And that weakness is his echo chamber. If Chris Christie has the guts to follow this through, he can shred Trump on stage. He'll reduce Agolf Twittler to tears. And I really hope he does. About time Trump faced justice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@colinl5951 "I'm proud to be a deplorable."
The only way to be proud about being deplorable is when you've done away with all the other more logical reactions to your own failure: such as thoughts and feelings of shame, regret, the resolve to not be conned again; and the desire to once again genuinely experience the love of country, religion (or lack thereof), morality.
Or, of course, the only other way is to convince yourself that you still have all those things, that you aren't actually deplorable. But either way you'd have to break your brain, twisting it around the inconsistencies, fallacies, and MAGA's inhumanity to man--making it so you're insane, and taking the reverse of everything to be true:
Up is down; black is white; evil is good; and sweet is bitter. But the Dunning-Kruger effect makes it so you can't see those things, well, that and your pretzel brain. Same thing, really.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gridgod72 As opposed to but but Biden? But you're right, it's whataboutism, which usually comes from the red side. In fact, this whole thing is a case of the shoe being on the other foot. Isn't it? Be honest: What has Magadonia ever done, name me one thing, to prove Joe wrong there? And yes, he said it, and he was right. TheRed has whined about not losing when they absolutely did, giving rise to "stop the steal," and the subsequent J6 attack on congress; and blasted immigrants non-stop. Immigrants made this country. Magadonia has done nothing but spit venom at the Americanness of America: from the immigrants who made us, to the science that sustained us. And for what? "To make TheLibs cry." There hasn't been any kindness, forgiveness, repentance, mercy, compassion from that GarbageScow this entire time. Just a circus of insults, which has finally come back to you. You reap what you sow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mindwideopen2579 There is a way, but I don't buy it, and I'm so left it would make your head swim. Here's what someone else has claimed to me: "The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporter's." Now, we can't hear the apostrophe. It would only show on the written page. The claim is, to rearrange the sentence to group the object of possession with the apostrophe: "I see floating out there his supporter's garbage." You'd have to edit the whole sentence to show it. Also, the word "is" acts as an equals sign in a sentence, and an equals sign goes both ways: "His supporters = the only garbage I see." The apostrophe could still be claimed there, but is even less plausible. Frankly, I think he said it as you heard it. And it falls to to m@g@ to try and prove him wrong, which I doubt they can, given their history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelstiller2282 "And five centuries before Christ, Confucius set forth his own Golden Rule: "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself."."
Neat. I didn't know that about Confucius. What's interesting there is the slight difference between that and what Jesus said. (Please keep in mind, I'm not religious. I'm an intellectual, a writer, and I write essays on the gospels.)
So Jesus said, "Do to others what you would want them to do to you."
See the difference? The maxim may appear as a positive or negative injunction. It can also be found in Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism.
You can even find it in ancient Egypt, from their goddess Ma'at--which dates to the Middle Kingdom (circa 2040–1650 BCE):
"That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."
As far as I know, the one from Jesus is the only positive use of it, i.e., Jesus said, "Do...," instead of "Do not...." Maybe correct me on that, if I'm wrong?
My point wasn't that this maxim was invented in the Gospels. My point was that it is in the Gospels. And it sums up the main teaching point of Jesus' lessons: love everyone and everything. "Love your enemies" being the main point of interest here with Boebert.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DavidTaylorGo.Go.Go. I think banning it in the one school district certainly was good. But it didn't stop Republicans from banning a bunch of other stuff.
Problem is: I think everything that can be available in a library should be. That's what a library is for. As long as the school doesn't mandate a state religion (which is what the 1st amendment forbids), i.e., as long as they don't mandate school prayers to whatever god or gods, then I'm okay with having those texts in the schools.
I wouldn't want them remove the other books on mythology, psychology, and philosophy. And that's really what the Bible is. The sooner kids understand that, and not see it as something to be taken literally, something to kill and die for, the better. So no, it should not be banned. Let them see it for what it is, if they're so inclined.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JuwanaBWhite Oh, so you weren't being ironic? Then you haven't seen any of the proof for evolution. Because, sorry to break it to you, there's proof.
As for the Bible, not one thing in it can be proven to have happened. Actually, the complete opposite: Besides the simple, illogical things like "Who did Cain marry?", and it being impossible to stop the sun from revolving around the Earth for Joshua, since the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth, it has been shown that the Hebrews weren't slaves in Egypt, that part of the walls of Jericho are still standing to this day, and so on, including no mentioning anywhere of the slaughter of the innocents, or of Jesus' crucifixion in Roman occupied Jerusalem.
But that's okay, because the Bible isn't science. It was written thousands of years before the scientific method. So it's impossible to find science in it. And that's okay, because we have science now.
You can use the Bible to learn humility, which I think you need. And you can learn science to learn science.
By the way, I'm a physics teacher, and I write essays on the Gospels. So I know about both science and the Bible.
1
-
@JuwanaBWhite Those fossil records exist. You just haven't looked for them. I have seen the proof. And how do you know there were more people beside Adam and Eve and their family? The Bible doesn't mention them. At all.
I don't see what the problem is. The Bible isn't science. Science is science. Science isn't the Bible, either. The Bible is the Bible. Why can't you accept both?
Also, hasn't it ever occurred to you to wonder what Adam means? It means man. And Eve? Life, living, breath. Have you not read any creation stories, from any other culture? Native Americans have creation stories, so did the Vikings, and the Romans. You should look into that, so you know a creation story when you see it.
Because, I hate to break it to you, but you can't make a woman from the rib of a man. You might say, "But God Can." Well, if God can, then what did God need the rib for? John the Baptist said, "God can make sons of Abraham from these rocks." And John was right. It makes no sense, unless you look at it in a way that isn't literal.
The Bible isn't science. Why is that so hard? Nor is it history. You think that's actually the history of ancient Israel? Not even close! Maybe it's time for you to learn some real history, and real science, and learn what your Bible actually has to say. Because it has a lot to say that is extremely necessary, and timeless.
1
-
1
-
@kevintinzy7335 "I have experience with him and that has become my fact."
Yikes. Sure you do, buddy. Oh, and science isn't a belief. It is provable fact. You can't prove you have experience with "him." And what science doesn't know, it admits proudly, because that's the only way to learn.
Just so you know, I'm a physics teacher AND I write essays on the gospels. So I made room for both science and God in my life. You?
As for the universe going on forever, no one knows. There are theories. One is that the big bang, and its resultant expansion, will run out of momentum; and then it will reverse its course shrinking back until there is a "big crunch."
Another, and a variation on that, is the big crunch has already happened...many times. But since the universe is expanding (which we know for sure, as a provable fact), the theory is that it can't align perfectly with the original point of explosion. That means it shrinks back, but can't really go away, and so it rebounds again, expanding once more.
There are other theories. Isn't that cooler than a sword coming out of Jesus' mouth, and the 7 vials, and the 7 trumpets. Hopefully you don't take Revelation literally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MG_Franklin_Kirby "Babies have rights too."
A fetus is not a baby.
You wrote, "It's not bodily autonomy if it effects another person's bodily autonomy." And yet also you wrote, right before that sentence, "the only person to try that, was Joe Biden with the covid shots."
First, Biden didn't mandate Covid vaccines into being required by law. So you're wrong there. Secondly, most of the people who did require it were business owners, who have the right decide how they conduct their business. Want to work for them? You get the vaccine.
Finally, even if none of that was reality (and it was), then surely someone contracting Covid, because they didn't get the vaccine (because of "bodily autonomy" and freedumb), then threatened the health of other innocent, actually living human beings.
In conclusion, you're an ultra maroon, and probably just a troll. At the very least your user name is a MAGAt cliche.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lisafraley386 You ever read the New Testament commentaries by William Barclay? He was a Scottish scholar, and wrote for a series called The Daily Study Bible. You can find these online for free. I own the entire series. Great reading.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-12.
Barclay called this passage "one of the most difficult in the whole New Testament." Here's what else he had to say, by means of introduction, about this passage:
"Paul was telling the Thessalonians that they must give up their nervous, hysterical waiting for the Second Coming."
And Jesus said, "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matt. 24:36.)
So to think of interpreting one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament, about an event and time that even Jesus couldn't predict, because of Paul's writings--which he admits here weren't to be taken in the literal way the Thessalonians had taken it--seems a bit premature.
And, further, to interpret it that Paul was talking about Trump, here and now, in your time.... It just seems far fetched.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@littlejohnny9439 Uh huh.... But anyone would believe they hadn't been indoctrinated. But let's use your list.
Hating your country: You know how many "leftists" there are? Roughly 50-60 million who vote in this country. So there are tens of millions of people, who you don't even know, but whom you hate. Then there's all the leftists who are supposedly indoctrinating those millions, and their institutions, not to mention the President and other leftists who govern. That's so much of the country, you might as well hate the whole thing.
Hate cops: Does that include the police who testified about January 6th? Because there was a lot of hateful talk about them, and not from the left. As for the other police, and possibly "Defund the police," are you sure that means what you believe, and that you weren't indoctrinate to believe incorrectly?
Hate your skin color: If you hate your skin color, like all your other hate, then that's on you. Are you telling me that some "leftist" indoctrination, which supposedly says to hate white people (I'm guessing that's what you mean), has convinced you? And are you even sure that's what BLM and CRT (as examples) are saying? Because, if you're wrong, then that's some Freudian stuff slipping by you. And maybe, just maybe, some other group(s) convinced you that BLM and CRT were saying that. Hence, indoctrination.
I'd do some serious soul searching if I were you. Or, at the very least, do whatever you believe "leftists" should do. Because, if you don't, this is all extremely hypocritical of you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericagray8402 "I do not think he is a highly moral person but I do not believe he has raped, molested, etc, his history doesn’t purport that theory...."
*
Is Trump just not "highly moral," or is he not moral at all? And to what history do you refer? What has he done that has convinced you that he hasn't raped or molested?
*
And, before you answer that with very specific examples of Trump's anti-rapist, anti-molester behavior (I can't wait to see what you come up with.), I want to know that you have acknowledged what's in this video. These are facts, to which you claim Biden is "creepy" by comparison. Is Trump not creepy? Can you admit that Trump said, "I would say I have sex in common with Ivanka," and "If Ivanka wasn't my daughter...."?
*
Can you say that Trump said, "Grab them by the p---y," and patted his daughter on the butt, or the low hip (can't quite tell)? Can you admit that he walked in on beauty contestants, when they were changing? And since all these are a matter of fact and record, are these examples of moral behavior, let alone highly moral? If not, then isn't Trump immoral? And if that's true, wouldn't he then be immoral enough to do much worse? What we are capable of in the least, we are also capable of in the most.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@badwolf54 " For heaven’s sake, people associated her with good food. That really had nothing to do with race or with the personal history of the “mascot” or spokesperson. It was the same for Betty Crocker and Chef Boyardee. Get a little perspective."
You're telling me to get a perspective, after writing that? First Crocker and Boyardee aren't racial stereotypes. Nor are they stereotypes of a racist past, complete with slavery, and blackface.
Secondly, no matter what good tasting pancakes she was associated with, it's still a racist stereotype, from a past of slavery, and taken from a blackface vaudeville act.
And that has EVERYTHING to do with race and history. And you claiming otherwise doesn't change it.
Finally, you can keep right on denying it, but that won't bring back the label,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mike C "Actually I have talked to conservative friends that now live in rural America who believe trump called it a hoax...."
That is (one of) the main danger(s) of what Trump said, and good enough reason (if not proof) that he did refer to it as a hoax. Of course, it was a statement to his base, at a rally, and meant to rile them up against the Democrats--and therefore be in favor of the Republicans, namely Trump.
They all laughed, sneered, and yelled when he said it. And they took it to heart. Trump didn't stop and explain to them what he meant. He didn't have to: They knew what he meant.
It's like waking up with a terrible hangover, having gotten really drunk the night before, and having said some awful stuff (which you meant, but would never say in mixed company).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oolong2 They aren't conflating anything. He said, "we all have things about our party we don't like," because of how the one boat of Trumpists swamped the other in the video, when the other flew the Nutzie flags.. He said, "For example, I detest how the Democratic party far left has welcomed protesters who are taking the side of Hamas." And he lists other examples. They didn't say anything about "conflating being pro-Palestinian to being pro-Hamas." Sounds like you're reading into it, since it wasn't mentioned. And he specifically said that HE doesn't like it, as in personally. One person is NOT the Democratic party. I dare say, this isn't why you "hate" tens of millions of people you don't know, because it's only one, and he speaks for himself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is yet another instance when all Trump has to do is nothing, and he would come out ahead: He didn't even have to do this rally. Who would've thought the less of him, for not even mentioning a rally? If he really wanted to do something, and stroke his ego, then hold a pay-per-view event. People would still pay him; they would be able to watch all over the country; and he would be seen as at least acknowledging his supporters' health. Even when he did the rally, and it failed, all he had to do was nothing. No one would've thought the less of him. He could say that concern over the pan-freaking-demic (for God's sake) kept people from attending. His team didn't have to blame everyone else.
*
But both of those have one thing in common: acknowledging Coronavirus as a real thing that's happening. If he did that, he would be admitting Dems and scientists were right. For Trump, and his supporters, Dems can never be right--because then those acquiescent supporters would have to stop and think, every time the Dems claim something, and wonder if the Dems are correct. That can never be, not for Trump. He's absolutely right about everything, knows everything, has the best words, knows more about everything (even when he admits he's not a doctor). And Trump supporters must, therefore, be the same way, and never admit they were wrong. Sad. The whole thing's just pathetic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@akj7 I'm not saying what is or isn't news. I'm just saying, as I wrote before, "I don't know that this neutrality in the news you speak of has ever existed." Please find me examples of this.
I'm a history buff, and have read, as I said before, newspaper articles from the 19th century. And I've read and watched others, throughout the 20th century.
Should Walter Cronkite not have cried when he reported JFK's death? Just been neutral? Should reporters not react at all? I get that, perhaps, you're not talking about that, so much, but about the dramatic music here on NowThis.
That's what NowThis does, and has always done. But you want them to change it? Or you just want to say they shouldn't do it, because it's your right to say that? Well, okay.
1
-
@akj7 I'll say this one more time, but I really don't think you're acknowledging what I write.
"I don't know that this neutrality in the news you speak of has ever existed."
Most reporters show "personal preferences." NowThis, though, has the "dramatic music and highlighted text." NowThis is not the 6 o'clock news. You get these things on a NowThis video.
"The viewer is supposed to make sense of what is presented to them and take position themselves."
Even without the music, reporters have always, always reported with their personal view, unless they don't care about the story at all. Reporters said Abe Lincoln looked like a gorilla with his long arms; Kronkite cried when reporting JFK's death; newspapers splashed a bold-type headline when WWII ended.
Why watch NowThis if you really don't like the music? This impersonal news reporting you speak of does not exist, never has. The news is made personal, so that the viewer/reader takes it more personally. That's my take on it. But, please, find me examples of neutral, monotone reporting. Because even the slightest change in tone would show emotion; and emotion is personal, hence, the reporter's personal position.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's the thing: By definition, a belief is not a fact. If you actually knew a thing, you wouldn't have to say, I believe. But when people spend time with their beliefs, they come to stop thinking of them as something that isn't a fact. Instead, a belief is real. And while there's a grain of truth in that (it is true that they have a belief), they can no longer think of their belief as anything but a fact.
I think this mostly comes from religious people, or anyone trying to decide about something, without having enough facts for an informed decision--indeed, it being impossible to have enough facts. For example, you believe you know why someone does something: loves or hates you, hires or fires you. But since we actually know so very little about how all things work, sooner or later we just have to believe. And the more beliefs we have, the more susceptible we are to mistaking beliefs for knowledge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's an awesome quote. As for how it applies to AOC, and the nutballs wanting to debate her....
First, she doesn't owe anyone a debate. I'll be just fine to never see her debate anyone, ever. Debating can be a very messy business. (Wrestling with a pig fits my image of the debate process perfectly). A person could not be at the top of the game, during the debate, and lose terribly to someone who is having a good moment of clarity.
Secondly, the other person could seek to not necessarily win the debate, so much, but to get the other person "dirty." A good debater would do both: They not only seek to prove their point(s), but to make the other person look and feel stupid. Sometimes the other person is stupid, and that needs to be revealed. Other times, a debate can be won by someone, and the loser is painted as being dumber than they really are.
Debates are not entirely free of superfluous nonsense. But someone could use the normal debate tactics of confusing your opponent, unnerving them, not to so much "win," as to make the other person look bad. Some people just want to watch the world burn. Some people are trolls. For some, it's not enough that they win, but that others lose. Marjorie Taylor Greene seems to be such a person.
Anyone on the right, who got to debate with AOC, would only seek to make her look bad, however they could accomplish it. They couldn't possibly debate, because they have nothing to stand on. But they would sling a lot of mud. Remember Trump debating Biden? That, but worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I can't but wonder, with these Karens, if they perhaps see themselves in the pre-Civil War south. See, back in the day, a white woman was practically nobility. Everyone tipped their hats to her. And if a black man dared to even get in the way of one of these queens, that man would be killed, or have his foot hacked off, or got 50 lashes. So, for the most part, black men, back then, would never ever even question a white woman. Those women could do whatever they wanted, to a black man, and get away with it. See the similarity?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lolowilderkind English teacher? Awesome. Do you have a favorite writer or writers, even if they are just your favorites this month, which is how I like to think of it?
I had some wonderful English teachers, going all the way back to 1st grade. My teacher, the divine Miss Beasley, used to give us story prompts as grammar and calligraphy exercises.
She'd provide a paragraph, with the basic beginning of a short story, and we'd have to finish it, while practicing our letters and punctuation.
Oh, how she would gush over my stories. She praised me in front of the class. I stuck with writing all my life because of her, and my other teachers as well.
I love Kurt Vonnegut's novels, and have been getting into Joy Harjo's poetry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For anyone interested in the flight to Mars, here are some basics: It's roughly 140 million miles to Mars, while only 239,000 miles to the Moon. Given the Earth's diameter of 7,917.5 miles, the distance from Earth to Mars is about 17,682 Earth diameters (or Earths put end-to-end). Whereas the distance to the Moon is 30 Earth diameters. It would take about 8 months to reach Mars, and 3 days to the Moon. "Space is big, really big. You won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DavidChadderton-g7d "Jesus never taught followers to believe in the Bible (did not exist then) or the Torah."
What makes you say that? Sure, the full Christian Bible didn't exist then, obviously. But the Tanakh did.
T: Torah, the Teaching of Moses, the first five books.
N: Nevi'im, the books of the prophets.
Kh: Ketuvim, for the Writings, which include the psalms and wisdom literature.
Everything Jesus taught came from the Hebrew Scriptures. The Golden Rule is from Deuteronomy, for example. Most of what Jesus taught came from Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and the Psalms.
Perhaps you're attempting to qualify your claim with the word "believe." Believing is a little tricky with what Jesus taught, and can go either way. On the one hand he said:
"And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world" (John 12:47).
But he also said:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matt. 5:17).
So he absolutely taught about the importance of the Hebrew Scriptures. "Belief" back then is not as the word is used now. Back then belief was shown through actions. Now (largely), belief is just something people claim which can't be shown.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GrundyMcCall-1701D So many similes! You could be a poet. Sure, chief: legit, indeed. Still doesn't explain why you're here, especially since you haven't "watched any TYT content in many months."
You need reminders of why you don't like something? Do you touch hot stoves, or lie down in traffic, or shove ice picks under your toenails?
I mean, I know what I don't like, and I stay away from those things. Seems to me, you just wanted to do some trolling, or express yourself with similes.
I'm glad I could provide you that outlet, along with TYT. Careful about those naps in traffic!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Trump supporter response (whether politician, voter, or Faux Noise) is to take the opposite approach that Democrats take. And since all things Progressive and intellectual are identified with Democrats, Trump supporters hate all things progressive and intellectual. And since Democrats came down on the side of science, at the start of this virus, Trump and his supporters had no choice; they had to not support the science.
Remember, the "hoax" Trump talked about, was the response to the virus by Democrats, and mainstream media; not the virus, the response that this was really, deadly serious, and we need to prepare. If Trump and his supporters allowed the Dems, progressives, etc. one thing that they were right about, then their propaganda about Dems being 100% wrong, all the time, would find an exception, and fall apart.
Thus, these people protest a virus. They BELIEVE they know...somehow...naturally, without having learned anything. Therefore, the scientists, who did learn, and got fancy-schmancy doctorates, don't know anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drhexagonapus "secular doesn't mean no religion, it just means it doesn't take religion or religious conviction into consideration."
O' mighty Zarquon! I'm too tired to get into this. I said I wasn't a bloody constitutional scholar, you ultra maroon.
But you wanna keep pushing, because you assume I don't know definitions, or maybe that I'm a religious believer. So you want to correct me. Okay, bubba. Let's dance!
First, I know definitions. I'm a writer, have an unabridged dictionary, not to mention freaking Google. Secondly, I am NOT A BELIEVER. Got that?
The actual definition of secular: "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis."
None! Got that, you nincowpoop? lol. You're making me break out the Bugs Bunny quotes.
You know what the antonym for secular is, my little soup spoon (and making me break out the Douglas Adams)?
RELIGIOUS! Yes! Look it up. So secular does not mean what you said. It means what you said it doesn't mean.
Besides, none of this...NONE OF IT!!...has anything to do with what I wrote. Not a jot, or a tittle. Nada! For fudge sake. If you're gonna take me to task, at least do it for what I actually wrote, instead of straw-manning me into arguing FOR something that I wasn't arguing FOR to start with.
Frack! (Making me quote Battlestar Galactic now.) :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's weird how Republicans can be cruel as can be to liberals, BLM, "illegals," and so on. And how they're anti-science, against Fauci, thinking it's okay to nuke a hurricane, but refusing to wear masks or take vaccines. And then, without missing a beat, spin around and be fighting the immoral liberals, on behalf of innocent little unborn people, on what the scientific definition of "life" means.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump is not only a liar, but a bad one. Who doesn't know, at this point, how the test is performed? I've heard it described many times, on the news, and here on David's channel. A good liar crafts a story ahead of time, so they don't have to make up stuff on the spot; they do a little homework, and get their story straight.
Trump doesn't know how the tests are done. Also, doctors know (because even I know, again, from watching David and others) that you don't have to show symptoms to be carrying the virus. That's why everyone needs to be tested. So, if Trump does have the virus, but just refuses to be tested (which is likely the case here), then he is spreading it to everyone he comes into contact with. Imagine that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not just that Trump "could steal the election," or even, as Emma said, if he had the opportunity. He has a blank check for opportunity and reason. Trump said, get rid of the mail-in ballots (during a pandemic), and then he will trust the outcome. He even hedged on that, saying, there will be a peaceful transfer of power, when there is no transfer, when he wins. So, unless he wins, Trump will cry fake news. That's how he has always been.
And it's not just Trump. We've seen the armed militias, not to mention the unidentified federal troops. Trump and Pence both said that they have to get in the new SCOTUS, so the Supreme Court will be able to handle the controversy Trump has created, about the mail-in ballots, and decide the election--as 6:3 conservative body. Trump has set the stage. The militias are ready. And the police seem to be with the militias. They are all ready to shoot and attack liberals, African-Americans, anyone who would dare protest Trump seizing power.
I don't know how all that will go down. But I know neither the Democrat nor the Republican voters will accept the other side winning this election. We both think the other will cheat. And all of this happens in a couple weeks. May the soldiers who died for American democracy have mercy on our souls.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ana and Emma always get along so great, and really seem to work well together. I'd love to see more of them. I think they really nailed the conservative mindset here. Their empathy was right on. They helped me to engage my own understanding of conservatives, which is often difficult for me.
I'm an '80s kid. I still think of the computer as a typewriter, in many ways, but with a TV attached to it. And I'm fine with that. I'm terrible at finding anything on my computer. I surf the web like a pro, but I forget where files are on my computer. I had to make shortcuts for them to my desktop. Also, I never carry my phone with me, because I still think of the phone as a landline. And I don't really want it with me when I go out, which can be bad, if I ever have to make an emergency call. Plus, I miss the big hair, and knowing all the bands, and Miami Vice.
However, I still have access to all those things. Just because the world has moved on doesn't mean A-HA's "Take on me" is lost forever. In fact, I can watch the video any time I want. I even watched the making of that video, and saw interviews with the band members. I can find any band's concert, from most any year. '70s Linda Ronstadt, live, singing "Willin'"? No problem. Sure, even though I wish that Catherine Bach stayed young forever, in her Daisy Dukes, and that I had stayed young forever, with my purple mohawk, change does bring good things.
But I ain't eatin' no "impossible" nothing! That's okay, being Southern, I can go to actual southern diners. lol. Keep rockin' in the free world!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@emm8357 Good Looking man isn't being entirely honest with you. He's a known troll here, so can't expect him to. Here's what DeSantis' law did result in, when it came to Rosa Parks:
"Florida textbook altered to remove references to Rosa Parks’s race."
That's a headline take from "The Hill." It wasn't just her race, but they removed any mentioning of race in the Rosa Parks story, to comply with DeSantis' law, and get committee approval for the textbook to be used.
How can you possibly teach anything about her, and what happened on that bus, how she got together with Dr. King, how they protested, how the dogs were set loose on them and they were jailed...without mentioning race? It's absurd.
But, looking deeper, DeSantis' law did result in books about Parks and King being banned.
From the Miami Herold, dated 9/30/2021:
These were children's books, picture books, about Rosa Parks and Dr. King. They were among a group of 200 children's books banned from the library. They were titled, “I am Rosa Parks” and “I am Martin Luther King, Jr.”
These picture books were banned because they were seen as “divisive” and “bad ideas.” If you like, search Google for the article. Youtube deletes posts with links, otherwise I'd link it here. But I gave you the info needed to find it.
1
-
@5APPH_13 "Try to find anything that a child needs to know. How about eating poop? anol/ohral segs? I don't need to see that, why should kids???"
Do you really think books like that are in an elementary school library? Obviously not. You know what they did remove? The Encyclopedia of Mammals. Yeah. Can't have that. And a picture book of Rosa Parks, and another of Dr. King. Picture books, so no words, no "liberal agenda" or "wokism."
And yes, children should know about mammals. So that's one thing, for sure, that they need to know, which you asked us to find. They're removing books in barrels. Barrels line the hallways. I've seen videos of them, with teachers pulling out the books I mentioned, and showing them to the camera.
Honestly, "eating poop" and "anol/ohral"? There's no such book. It's your turn to show us such books. Find them. Where? What's the names of those books? Sick of this obfuscation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
6 Haunted Days What justice is served by your lack of sympathy? How are you paying him back?
Don't get me wrong, I freakin hate Trump supporters. The worst part is I don't understand them. And they don't want me to understand them.
Can't you see the potential lesson here? I'm sure he didn't care about the scum in jail either. If he thought about it at all, it was justice that they suffered in jail.
Until this moment, if I thought about the Jan. 6 rioters in jail at all, I accepted it as justice. But now he's starting to see a little bit; he's showing some humanity and humility. And I have the slightest insight and respect, now, for a Trump supporter, which I never had before.
My sympathy means nothing to him, changes nothing for him. I'll never meet him. My sympathy affects me, and whoever might read this: that I won't have to keep mindlessly hating this ostensibly mindless person, who, suddenly, is mindful of how others have suffered.
1
-
Interesting, I haven't ever thought of the Santa thing from that angle: Since Jewish people aren't Christian, they don't celebrate Christmas (as such), and so there is no believing in Santa. Believing in Santa is a Christian thing. And given all that Christians believe, isn't that just the icing on the cake? From childhood they're taught, or expected to believe in something that is entirely not true. And would it really make such a huge difference if they were taught the reality of the situation? Sure, it would mean less make-believe magic and mystery, but more actual magic and mystery of the real world.
Parental and family love is magical, mysterious, and wonderful: likewise, when considering the Christian God vs physics. It's amazing, learning how everything came to be the way it is now, finding out how huge the universe is, its age, and how relatively recent the Earth took shape, what all happened there, with its geological and biological evolution. That, or God made it in a week.
If I wanted to get someone to believe in all that Christian religion stuff, I think starting them with Santa Claus would be a perfect gateway drug.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Americans' use of the flag transformed overnight, after 9/11. I hardly ever saw a flag, and then they were everywhere, on houses/apartments, one after another. People were driving with flags waving like they were ambassadors. Then George Dubya's people started wearing the flag pins. And the pins became mandatory. And Trump hugged the flag. And American exceptionalism skyrocketed in popularity: America first (which really meant "only").
All that seemed more like nationalism, than patriotism, to me. And when Trump said he was a nationalist, that cemented it. For his supporters, you'll see the stars and stripes flying beside the Nazi and Confederacy flags, given equal standing with Trump flags and Blue Lives Matter flags. It's a prop to them, an act, a deception.
1
-
1
-
1
-
But, but, but Hillary, Hunter, witch hunt, the best words, YMCA! And Biden isn't even the President, so we can't blame him. Trump is the President, which means...wait, what? Which means Trump's own DoJ is the one doing this witch hunt. Right? I'm lost. Oh, that's right, it's JFK, who never really died, who's the President. I think? And so this is his fault! Frankly, I'm blaming Bigfoot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Republicans don't care if their representatives get arrested by the FBI, and charged on 13 counts; they don't care if their former failed President, for whom they'll vote again, committed sexual assault. And they sure as heck don't care about policy, politics, or morality. Want they want is to elect insult comics, so they can transmogrify serious issues into schoolyard name calling; they want to make America like it was before women could vote, back when you could burn a cross in someone's yard.
But the most important thing for them is deny their ignorance of all things intellectual and moral, by saying it's the Dems who are mindless and immoral. Long as they don't have to face facts, in other words, they're good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CiriOfcentra-jl1fd No, yeah. Do a side-by-side comparison please. I'll start:
Nazis were far right.
Democrats are...uh.
Nazis hated liberals, socialists, LGBTQ, and what they called fake news.
Democrats...uh.
The Nazi leader built his entire political philosophy on prejudice against a minority, while riling up his base to do the same.
Democrats...uh.
Yeah, no. You're so far off that's it's obvious you have no understanding of history, let alone the history of German from the two world wars. If you did, you would have provided examples to start with, instead of some insipid, mindless statement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BooBoo-pu1jh What's at issue is equality. The hetero women should not be turned away; the trans people should not be turned away. Period! Once inside, if hetero women have issues with the trans people, or vice versa, then that's on them.
Instead of hetero/trans, imagine if the situation was based on race: white/black. Do you turn away black people, because the white people feel uncomfortable? No.
The trans people are NOT being respected, because of some hetero women, except we don't even know if there are any such women. Carson says so, without providing any proof, or testimony. Regardless, no one should be turned away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turkwendell6904 We can start with Baltimore I guess. You wrote that they have 8% proficiency on math and 16% proficiency on reading."
I just read, from the Baltimore Banner: "The county went from 14% of its schools scoring below average in 2019 and to 24% in 2022. The city went from 53% to 75%."
Doesn't sound too bad.
Wow, they have the lowest math scores in the state, according to WPDE (ABC, channel 15 news). That's impressive. 93% of their 3rd graders couldn't do 3rd grade math. Yikes.
But, hey I was terrible at math until I turned 21, and became a physics major. Now I have a BS, masters, and doctorate in physics. But that's anecdotal evidence. What else can I find...?
The city also has 86% of its citizens with high school diploma or better, according to towncharts for Maryland. But 77% of high school-age are reading at an elementary school level, according to the Washington Examiner.
Well this is all over the place. Sounds like you're cherry picking the worst data, to make some kind of point about "Democrat-run" cities.
1
-
@turkwendell6904 Now that I look up the mayor of Baltimore, I think I see. So he's African American, and the youngest person elected to the position in over a century. And he's a...Democrat!
So you're blaming all these math and reading problems on him? Because he's a Democrat? And looking at Maryland's governor: a Democrat. Holy double Dem, Batman!
Whatever is going on in Baltimore, they obviously have problems in K-12 education. But to claim that's because of Democrats is pretty silly.
Of the top 10 states in education, something like 7 have Democratic governors, are usually blue states. 1 is Republican and is usually a red state. And the other two are swing states, and can go either way.
The worst state in the country for education is a Red state, though. All hail West Virginia!
The thing about statistics is that it takes more than one or two examples to get the complete picture. If we're talking percents, then that means per-100. So we'd need 100 examples, minimum.
And when we do that, Red states are the worst in education.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RA-ym5uf "I'm not sure you know what the word "irony" means, frankly."
As a wordman, I'm a writer, and I know what irony means. In short, it's when the literal meaning is opposite the intended meaning. Or I could just look it up on Google.
What I'm saying, professor, is that those Trumpists are the most demented bunch of know-nothing bozos I've ever seen. And I'm not being hyperbolic. They make troglodytes look like Einstein.
"Are you intimating that Biden is not mentally deficient?"
As for "mentally deficient," that's a far cry from dementia (which is the word they used), since dementia is an actual, measurable, definable state. But "mentally deficient" could be used to describe anyone who was deficient in some way mentally.
"I'm not a republican or a democrat, but this stuff goes both ways."
There is no "both sides do it" anymore. That ended, for sure, on January 6th. Anyone who still says that is most likely a Republican, who's trying to sound like they're neither. That or they're from another country: And if that's the case, I apologize.
Regardless, if "mentally deficient" is how you want to define it, then I'll reword my post for you:
"Hearing a MAGAt talk about Biden being mentally deficient is the ultimate irony."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Naruto Runnn "im not full of hate. I know Trump is being guided by God. 😉 I'm very happy! It's u democratic sinners that are filled with hate."
Okay, but if you're a Christian, then you should know that God made everything and everyone. "...the world is mine, and all that is in it (Psalm 50:12). That includes Democrats; it includes everything.
"You are not grumbling against us, but against the LORD" (Exodus 16:8).
So you might claim that it's not hate you're showing, but you are calling Democrats sinners, looting, rioting, anarchist, etc. So you are grumbling against the Democrats, at the very least. Since God made everything, you are grumbling against the Lord.
Now, you might claim you're not, but, if you're a Christian, you know that God knows. Lie to us; lie to yourself, but you can't lie to God.
1
-
Naruto Runnn "fools like u, use the Bible to justify ur sins. Instead of following and hearing God's message."
You aren't even using the Bible, at this point, to justify your sins. Let's take a look at the Bible.
"For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect" (Mark 13:22).
"They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God" (John 16:2).
The closest you get to using the Bible is your wolves in sheep's clothing remark. Do you know the actual verse? It's another having to do with false messiahs, and their supporters.
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves" (Matthew 7:15).
A Christian must always guard against two things: First, false prophets, who, Jesus said, would deceive Christians; and, secondly, Christians have to guard against their own arrogance.
Your lack of humility, and accusations, and bearing false witness, your judgments ("Let he who is without sin first cast a stone...." (John 8:7)), as well as your defense of a man who is obviously not a Christian--though he claims to be one--and, finally, your ferocious, wolfish attack against people, who are just as much God's as you or anyone else...all this shows that you have been compromised and deceived.
You're also obviously into conspiracy theories, with that talk about the unborn. I'm telling you this to help you. But I wonder if you already know.
1
-
1
-
Naruto Runnn You didn't say what Jesus taught about same sex marriage and abortion. Did you? No. Do you know why? Because he didn't say anything, even remotely, even something you could take out of context, about either of those.
Jesus did say that we shouldn't judge, even if a person we want to judge has sinned, such as the woman who committed adultery. Yet here you are, spamming your judgments throughout this thread.
He also said to love your neighbor as yourself, and that this was equivalent to what he called "the first and greatest commandment." Do you recall that commandment?
""Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37).
Since those two are equivalent, as he said in Matthew 22:39, they are equal, one and the same. So the first and greatest commandment is that we love one another with all our heart, soul, and mind. You are judging, not loving. Judging belongs to God, not us, because we don't know enough to accurately judge.
1
-
@jefflibby6680 "I hate Biden like you hate Trump."
So you hate the President? Doesn't that poke holes in your assumption that you love the country? I don't hate Trump, never did. So take ownership for how you feel. This isn't about me. It's about you, and the millions of others, who hate the President. You don't have to hate him, to disapprove of his policies, or the way he governs. So the hate is something beyond that.
Since you don't know Biden, personally, then the reasons to hate him must have come from somewhere else, someone who does (at least) claim to know him. Who was it who taught you to hate him? Can they be trusted? Do you know them? Or are you taking the word of someone you don't know, to hate someone you also don't know? This is worth thinking about, because you aren't alone in this. Millions of people are taking the word of people they don't know, to hate someone they don't know. And that hatred has already spilled over once, in an attack on congress. What about the next time? Think about this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
German citizens who became Nazis did not know, or see, that "Nazi" was a word that would be synonymous, forever, with evil. The same for Trump supporters. Like Hitler, Trump tells so many lies, that by the time you prove him wrong on one, he has told 10 more. Like Hitler, he overwhelms us with lies, threats, character assassinations, and now riots. Riots, by the way, were the final, necessary step, to prepare his Nazi citizens for the apocalyptic violence that was to come, and to justify it in their eyes. Trump has followed the Nazi playbook, from start to finish, including being elected in a Republic. If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it, if they want to believe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@longpp2289 I see. Yes, I do see the unrest and aggression. And there were similar steps taken before 1861. You know Lincoln didn't get a single white southerner vote? Boy, they hated him. And when he won, without getting any of their votes, they must have felt cheated, betrayed by their country.
Of course the reason they refused to vote for him wasn't that he was an abolitionist. Back then, new states were being added to the Union, and if those new states outlawed slavery, then there would be that many more states to vote to outlaw it nationwide.
Lincoln didn't say much about slavery, but he said enough to convince the white southerners that he wasn't on their side, where slavery was concerned. So they didn't vote for him.
My point is this: The reason for hating your President, and feeling betrayed by your country can be valid and good, or false and bad; one means patriotism; the other, treachery. However they felt, the Confederates betrayed the nation, not the other way around.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If 56% voted for DonaldMcCheese, then 44% didn't. So that latter group DID find their needs met by the culture, or at least not rejected by it, or were able to deal with it without sacrificing their morality. That 56% group cannot be reached, at least at this point; and perhaps they never could. Their masculinity isn't being threatened, just what they believe is masculinity: 44% don't agree with them. They are really looking to lash out, and need an excuse. Why are they wanting to lash out? Because society advanced and left them behind. While we aren't all that advanced, they're in the Stone Age. And they're mad because we aren't. I don't see how to change the fact that they're "a couple cans short of a six-pack, truly gone fishing, Alpo between their ears," except for medication maybe and shock treatment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This problem has always come across to me as just a marketing ploy gone awry. Some research and statistics must have shown that reboots and girl power have an audience. The statistical algorithm factored in the various hashtags, and decided that showing diversity will make the corporations money. And, since they don't really understand what's actually going on with any of it, the research algorithm probably showed that a common thread, the antagonist through it all was the toxic Caucasian male.
These movies and TV shows don't get any part of feminism right. They don't seem to understand what diversity means, as they're merely shifting the males away from the dominant roles, and replacing them with females: But the toxic, dominating role is still there. And, what's worse, men didn't even really play that role to start with; it's just the soulless statistical analysis that reached such a clueless conclusion.
Without a doubt, their statistics didn't lie about how some people would be into this sort of thing. A lot of people, it turns out. The Last Jedi has some serious, diehard fans for example. As long as their corporations keep making money, then they'll likely not question the veracity of their robotic statistical analysis. But they certainly aren't doing any favors to the various "movements" they seemingly support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jimi_Lee "No, the point is that we have problems everywhere. Blaming people who live in Alabama only stokes resentment and division."
You make a good point. If you had written that, instead of "Sounds like Rebel HQ is trying to start a civil war," "Parts of Southeast California are more dismal than anything you'll see in Alabama," then I would have agreed.
There are problems everywhere. But Alabama was singled out, and with good reason. Pointing to those other areas doesn't change what Alabama is like.
However, Alabama is part of our country. And, therefore, what's happening there affects and reflects on us all. But we can't just say nothing is wrong there, either.
The resentment and division comes from their condition, not from pointing it out. And it is that resentment and division which is already happening, before it was pointed out by the UN. So saying otherwise is untrue.
That resentment and division is caused by their impoverished way of life. The country abandoned them, like it did Flint, MI, like it did the homeless, like it has done so many times, to so many groups throughout history. And now that resentment has stormed the steps on January 6th; it forms groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. And it will continue to build and fester until it erupts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wow. So, first, I'm guessing they bought all the masks they could find? Where did they get the masks, otherwise? And, second, am I the only one who immediately thought of the Nazis burning books? Same basic thing: They got these symbols of knowledge and understanding from somewhere, maybe buying them; maybe the Nazis stole them from libraries. And they demonstrated...what, exactly? They don't need no stinkin' knowledge? They're told all they need to know? They're making it so no one can easily find a mask to buy anywhere, or, as it were, a book to read in Germany?
Here's a book burning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHCmiWaHUCw
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ricardocantoral7672 "Things are bad enough but because of people like you falling for the fear mongering, you are going to make many people suffer."
How am I falling for fear mongering, and how am I going to make many people suffer? When you claim things, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise anyone can just say anything.
"according to the left"
There is no such thing as a left in American politics. Do you know what "left" means? Evidently not. And why? Wait for it...because you have fallen for fear mongering. Right wing politicians and their mouthpieces bank on making "the left" into a threat, while also saying how they're not a threat at all, being so dumb and naive. And such ignorance will make people suffer.
See how I didn't even claim anything, but explained it instead? That's how you make a coherent point. And where did that quote come from? If you don't provide a link, at least say where you got it. Dealing with people like you, who assume they're intelligent, but clearly aren't, is extremely tiresome--but humorous. You always make me feel smarter. Keep up the good work!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@VictusG I would not go to Fox News and post what you posted. That's what I meant. See how you twisted it, in your confirmation bias? It's obvious.
You live in the echo chamber of your own mind. In there, you are a genius; in there, you are the king: You know the truth and see the truth, for what it is, without human frailty.
That's why you're so bent out of shape talking to me. Because I'm showing you this personal chamber of yours. I feel sorry for you, unless you're just trolling.
Hate to break it to you, but you're extremely biased, and assume way too much, and came here hoping for...what? To confirm what you learned in your personal echo chamber.
My advice to you is to get out of your head, before you go completely insane. Learn some astronomy, quantum physics: quarks and quasars. That will show you your place, and reveal this chamber to you completely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Kamala's campaign wanted to ride that comedian's joke to election day. They can forget about that." False equivalence. First, disparaging Puerto Ricans about being from Puerto Rico is about denigrating them for being who and what they had no choice in being. Trumpits had a choice, and have chosen every day to stick with all the garbage he says and does. That makes them complicit, responsible for it. They weren't born into m@g@, unlike Puerto Ricans were born into being Puerto Ricans. Secondly, m@g@ has accomplished nothing good, decent, moral, patriotic, or uplifting. Its existence is filled with venom and vitriol toward everything that isn't m@g@. So, when Joe said that, that's what he was talking about. If you want to start being good people, now's the time. If you want to stay on the garbage scow, as it sinks in the swamp, so be it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Beliefs should normally be used for something that is impossible to know. Where faith is something to do with the future, and is, therefore, impossible to know. That's how I differentiate between them. So there isn't much use for beliefs (since we have faith), even when having to do with some sort of god. Everything else is possible to find out about. No one knows everything, but it's up to each of us to learn what we don't know, and/or admit we don't know it.
But, for a lot of people, belief and faith are the same thing. And yet they claim to know what they believe. This can start with religion: Maybe some people feel uncomfortable with there being no historical evidence for Jesus whatsoever, so they claim to, in fact, "know" what are really beliefs: son of God, virgin Mary, dying for sins, etc.
The problem with beliefs being mistaken for knowing is that anything we don't know can then be believed with certainty. Therefore, we claim to know what we don't know. And since we "know" it, we don't need to reconsider, or think critically, or ever learn anything new.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marybrown7203 I'm reading two books right now, thanks. Breakfast of Champions, by Vonnegut; and The Pegasus Bridge, by Stephen E Ambrose.
The point is you and that other person assumed the OP meant "At 8 years old." They didn't say that, though. So you would have to make that connection yourself.
I did not. It made more sense to me that something big happening at 8-years old LEADS to, or RESULTS in such an opinion as the OP stated. You, on the other hand, made the assumption that this lifetime of growth happened entirely at 8-years old.
When the writer doesn't specify some detail, you go with what best suits the most reasonable scenario. Just by you thinking it was "incredible" should have suggested that maybe you didn't understand, or assumed incorrectly.
I suggest reading good writers, so you can develop reading comprehension. Because reading the rules doesn't seem to be working for you. Maybe your style of learning requires examples.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First, I doubt you have access to "all the dems." Therefore, you can't determine with any degree of certainty how they felt. Secondly, even if you could somehow read the minds of tens of millions of people, discovered that they did all, indeed, feel that way, that still doesn't make them responsible; and that's because they felt that way AFTERWARD. So, even if it's true, and they all went back in time, after feeling that way because of what happened, why would they then be responsible for it, since it already happened without them going back in time, and without them feeling that way? You created a temporal paradox for no reason! lol
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are people who can "doublethink" naturally. It's like their talent. On the one hand, they fully accept the science of medicine, the engineering of trucks, cars, and planes; on the other, they assume their beliefs are facts. To really believe in something, one must also accept that they don't know the facts about it--otherwise they wouldn't say, "I believe...," but, "I know...."
Believing is the absence of facts. Yet, somehow, they come to see what they don't know as what they do know. Because of this, beliefs can be dangerous: Such people come up with their own version of reality. That's called psychosis.
1
-
What's really pathetic is that comic book titles have lasted for decades, and the so-called MCU is struggling to make a halfway decent movie. For example, Thanos first appeared in Iron Man #55 in 1968. And it wasn't until 1991 that "The Infinity Gauntlet" happened. That's 23 years of Thanos showing up now and then, and the readers getting to know him and his love for Death. Not to mention the decades of getting to know Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, etc. before Thanos snapped his fingers.
And they kept the stories going, every month, for decades. I think the biggest problem with the movies is they either don't want to be comics, or they fail to understand what makes comics work: either too realistic or not realistic enough. Of course, many people of the average movie going public couldn't give a flip at a rolling donut for comics. So we get these one-hit wonder movies that run out of steam as soon as they build up steam.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@upgrade1015 "King of no wars"
Except the wars that were already going on, like Afghanistan. With all his talk about ending war between Russia and Ukraine, and Israel and Palestine, he sure didn't end the one in Afghanistan. But, as @fianad6338 said, he ran on doing that. He just didn't. Nor did he end the ongoing war between Israel and Palestine, even though he sent his expert son-in-law over there to do just that. Oh, but he could end it after he's elected again...for sure! He swears!
"and good economics"
Except when the pandemic hit. Obama had even left him a plan on how to handle a pandemic, which he ignored; and Obama had a world-wide pandemic investigation team in place, which Trump had disbanded. Then Trump downplayed the virus, saying it would go away, that it was another Dem hoax, and tried to make money from it by claiming these pharmaceuticals he had invested in would prevent Covid. Of course they didn't. Even after he caught the virus himself, first thing he did was rip his mask off. All of that resulted in an economic recession of bigly proportions.
You should know what you're saying, before you say it. At least check your "facts."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
However the Right, or the gun people, etc. explain this, you can bet they will find a way. And they'll act like it's nothing at all to be alarmed about. Looking through these comments, I see one person already began: It's about mental health. The guy was schizophrenic? So it's not about guns, or politics, or race, or sex/gender. Problem solved. (Brushes off hands, slaps knees, and drops the mic on the way out.)
Just one thing: So if it's about mental health, how did this guy get a semi-automatic rifle, and ammunition? How did he make it across the country? Well, he didn't make it across the country; law enforcement was on the job. Thank goodness. But there is that small problem about a schizophrenic with such a rifle, even if it was left in his car. That's the gun control problem in a nutshell: Crazy, dangerous people with mental health problems can get such a weapon.
Wouldn't this be the main reason to own such a weapon, too? Isn't he, possibly, protecting the country from those who would destroy it, as per the 2nd amendment? How can anyone establish who is (and isn't) a threat worthy of a January 6th insurrection, or the murder of multiple Asian-Americans (who dared to, ostensibly, bring Covid to our shores), or this guy? I'm sure the guy who busted into the back of that pizza parlor was absolutely certain that children were being tortured, and killed, there.
I don't know what to do, here, except that we should be having, at long last, an actual, honest conversation about just who should be protecting us, and from whom.
1
-
So they don't have to leave the country, I say we give Trump supporters a walled-off chunk of real estate. We could think of it like the situation in "Escape from New York," or that Carlin joke about giving all the criminals a state.
As for the rest of us coming for you Trump supporters: Those interviewed people were projecting, showing their guilt. They know, deep down, that they have acted against the greater good of the country. While there's no war, for there to be war crimes, I would say Trump supporters have committed political crimes. They have been cheesy little Nazi-wannabes, even cultish. They've worshiped Trump, putting him and his desires over the country.
Also, did you catch how that couple mentioned the NWO: New World Order? They're already in deep, over their heads, with propaganda from Trump, Fox, radio talk shows, right-wing internet sites; but they also have tons of conspiracies on top of that. They walk in darkness, and know not what they do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@st0n3p0ny Who are the America haters? How do you know they hate EVERYTHING and EVERYONE in America? To me, that would be the definition of hating America.
I've seen people claim that Ilhan Omar hates America. And that's how I think of defining such a thing. So how do you define hating America? And if they don't hate the whole thing, just certain parts, ideas, people, then why say they hate the whole thing? Confusing.
I mean, I hate strawberry icecream. Does that mean I hate America? You may say, Of course not! But what if you were a strawberry icecream enthusiast? What if, to you, loving strawberries, and icecream, together, was unique to America, and was the symbol of our great country?
(I apologize to the strawberry icecream supporters out there.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ToothTwister77 Okay, you're assigning a motive to people you don't know. You're assuming that motive, based on your bias. But, okay, let's go with it.
They hate Trump. Period. But why? There must be something there. Well, first, this happened at Ginsberg's funeral. So let's assume they're booing of him had to do with that.
What's going on with Trump and Ginsberg, that would make people boo him, at her funeral? Well he's rushing through a new SCOTUS. Right? His pick could last for 30-40 years. Right? And it would mean a 6:3 conservative supreme court.
Okay, why would they boo that, assuming it's what brought them there? (See we're assuming all this? We don't know anything, just making it all up.) Well, Trump could declare the election fraudulent, because of the mail-in ballots--as has already done--and he could then take the matter to the supreme court.
You seeing some context now? And this is all just assumptions. There's a lot more going on that just that. A lot. We're talking about Trump here. He's no angel. He's no innocent victim. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
1
-
@BJSal916 Let's play a little game. It's called "I don't know wtf I'm talking about." The way we play is that we pretend (just pretend) that we don't know what we claim to know. Then we look at our claim, and imagine each part of it being wrong, just faulty thinking, false assumptions. But, to play the game, we have to go and prove each part of our claim, without relying on the original sources that showed us such information.
So, I'll help you, and enumerate your claims. You go through each one, and just pretend you don't know what you're talking about, and you need to find what the truth is: not if you're telling the truth already (which is called confirmation bias), but what the actual truth is. Just pretend you're me, looking at your claims, and trying to make sense of them. Ready? Here we go!
1. She represents identity socialism!
2. She wants to dismantle America and
3. She relies on fear and panic for control.
4. She loves division.
5. She hates Israel.
6. Instead of being grateful she's not stuck in Somalia, she rather talk shit about America.
7. She should go back if there's so much oppression here.
Good luck!
1
-
@BJSal916 Now, see, you didn't prove anything. Did I explain the game badly? Let me spell it out a little more. How would you prove to someone else that what you said is true?
I could say anything here. Hmm, for example, Coca-Cola comes from unicorn pee. You didn't know that? Everyone knows that. What, prove it? I'm sure I could find some conspiracy website that knows the truth about Coca-Cola, but what about using different sources? What if I actually had to prove it?
I'll give you another example. There's no proof, whatsoever, to all that garbage about Rep. Omar marrying her brother. See, unlike the unicorn pee, I can fact check these things. So can you! And you should, because you need to back up what you claim, if not for my sake, for yours.
"We found no public records or credible sources contradicting Omar’s account of her past, nor any substantive evidence corroborating claims that Elmi is her brother or that their marriage was otherwise fraudulent. In addition, some of the claims offered in support of the rumor don’t seem to add up."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-marry-brother/
Now, go away, and try to use some critical thinking, and discover the truth. Good luck
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you want to get your 3rd party going, then you, yes YOU! are going to have to do a lot of work, yourself, to make it happen. You are going to have to counter the big national and international media and corporations, who follow the big 2 parties. Are you prepared to do that? Can you? And you're also going to have to organize a massive army of people, who will go out and beat the pavement and advertise, too.
Otherwise, your candidate is invisible. I've never seen anything about a 3rd party candidate, in this election. Also, can your candidate get more than 63 million votes/305 electoral college? If not, then this 3rd party thing is not at all realistic. If you want that to change, then get busy.
1
-
This makes me feel sick. I'm all for the 1st amendment protecting your right to your religion. But the center of that protection is "Congress shall make no law about establishing a national religion." The individual books in the Bible were written before the scientific method was a thing, back in the day when people accepted whatever they wanted as "the truth." That is not education, certainly not in the 21st century. In the text, Jesus said, "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Otherwise, you were doing to be seen by others, and were a hypocrite. The Bible isn't even history, since the standards for ancient "historians" is nowhere near what it is now. It's not be to be a book of science or history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I couldn't deal with their southern accents, and I'm from North Carolina. Now, don't get me wrong, that accent, when coming from an intelligent, inquisitive, loving person is pure gold. But when coming from a place of spiteful ignorance, anti-American sentiment, and a seething hatred for life (from these ostensibly pro-life people), it sounds...pathetic.
These small people, who would, otherwise be home making a quilt, or fishing, or watching their DVD collection of the Andy Griffith Show, have a cause. They have a grand purpose: to take down the Deep State, which is their term for the United States. It's just sad, and they're putting other people in danger with their anti-mask/vaccine philosophy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1987BillyBob Billy Joe Jim Bob, doing his trolling thang. Listen, troll, of course those things matter. The OP didn't say otherwise. Look again at what they wrote: "That one unanswered question was the entire deal-breaker for the entire debate." See? You and your straw man, Billy Joe Jim Bob. Yeehaa! The reason it was a deal breaker, to me at least, was that admitting who won the election, realizing it was investigated by some 62 courts (many of which had judges appointed by DonDonTheCon), is the Kidergarten-level of governance, the constitution, and the American way, that if you can't get that, or understand it, then you've missed the most basic first step of thinking and being an American. And if you Repubs and Repub trolls can't admit to it, or are unable to think that little bit, then you're lost. Enjoy your home on the range. Round 'em up!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Beatitudes: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you." She pleaded the gospel to him, and he insulted her.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadeTaylor "How do you believe the universe came to be?"
That's a very big question. First, science isn't a belief. If you want beliefs, there are lots and lots of creation stories out there. Native Americans have some fun ones, so do the Norse. If you're religious, I advise you to read as much mythology as you can, specifically creation stories, to start with. Every time you do, think afterwards about the Biblical creation story.
Now, if it's science you're curious about, learning facts that have been proven and stood the test of time, by having many scientists around the world review and check the data--so that no one person's bias is accepted as fact...then you have your work cut out for you.
I suggest you find Carl Sagan's Cosmos series. This is a book and a series of videos. You can find some here on YouTube. Sagan is an amazing writer and teacher. Watch all of them, no matter what they're about. His use of critical thinking is an example of the scientific method.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First, I'm so happy David played the Alex Jones blurb about the bonus show. He doesn't always, just as he doesn't always play Trump saying "Obamna." When David doesn't play it, I say it to myself, so I can laugh. Happy he did it this time.
Secondly, that poor caller. He really didn't have anything to say, besides ad hominems. Of course, in his conspiracy addled mind, all those things about socialism, etc. are true, and he's fighting the good fight against Satan. One bit of elementary critical thinking that always cracks me up: If socialism, Deep State, and so on is true and such a great and powerful threat that it has fooled the whole world, controls vast armies of people, then what are a bunch of know-nothing bozos like this caller going to do about it?
If the conspiracy was true, then David would let the Deep State lizard people know that this caller is aware of their secret plot, and the men in black (or would it be LGBTQ in rainbow) suits would zap this caller with their sparkle-laser guns, and send him to sleep with the gay fish. You'd think they'd catch on that "big brother" hasn't come for them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, they believe it, not so much think it. It's understandable, since how each of us perceives the world is (necessarily) through our personal five senses. That's why people used to believe the Earth was the center of the universe. It's why thinking of ourselves, individually, as the center of the universe comes so naturally. So how, then, could the person at the center of it all...be wrong? The answer seems obvious to me: None of us are the center, none more important than the other, or better or worse than the other. The cure for this natural, ancient way of believing comes from logic and empathy. We have to be able to look through the eyes of other people. That's not easy. It's much easier to see with our own eyes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-mn8cb4wh5r First, J6'ers attempted to stop, interrupt the transfer of power, as it was going on in congress. That's at the very least; at the most, who knows what they would have done, if they had got ahold of any Democratic lawmakers. And DonDon sent them down there, telling them to "be strong" and "stop the steal." That's what an insurrection is. Secondly, he has never stopped constantly repeating that it was stolen. He's still on that, despite some 60 judges he personally appointed ruling otherwise. So, yes, he's still inciting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-tj3et5ep6t "Was King Cyrus Christian? Moses? Is God a Christian? Was Jesus?"
You say Christianity is a way of life. That's true. You also seem to think you know God's plan. You can't possibly know that, no matter how you (or anyone) interprets prophecy.
Christianity is built on one idea/action: "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35). So, to be Christian, you love one another. This is echoed throughout Jesus' teachings, including the golden rule: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12).
It sums up the Law (meaning the Laws of Moses) and the Prophets, because those are the two components of Judaism, i.e., the Old Testament: God's laws. In Leviticus we also find the golden rule: "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD" (Leviticus 19:18).
The Bible talks of where the term "Christians" originates in Acts 11:26. The people of Antioch heard this new cult talking all the time about "Christ." So, they started calling them Christians.
So, Christianity, as such, wasn't known until after the time of Jesus. However, most everything in Christianity came directly from the Old Testament, and Moses was in on the establishment of the Law, and the golden rule. And who was Moses, what was he like, how did God think of him?
"Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth" (Numbers 12:3). God said Moses was trusted in all his house (Numbers 12:7).
So to say Moses wasn't Christian, per se, misses the point. He had every characteristic of being humble, loving God, and following God's will.
King Cyrus is interesting. In the Bible, foreigners who aren't privy to the Hebrew's God still know of God, and do his bidding: such as Balaam in Numbers 22, and Cyrus. No records exist that say Cyrus had any particular religion. But he was open and tolerant to ALL RELIGIONS. (Is Trump?)
Moreover, everything we get about God choosing Cyrus comes entirely from the Bible. Historical records show a slow trickle of the Jews (whom Cyrus freed from Babylonian slavery) returning to their Promised Land--and not the mass exodus as seen in the Bible.
But it was the practice, back then, to help freed slaves rebuild their land and culture. So this statement is likely true, "This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: "'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah" (Ezra 1:2), to an extent.
So, in the Bible, God calls Cyrus because Cyrus is tolerant, and will free the Jews, and help them to rebuild, including their temple. Doing the will of God is Christian; so is being tolerant, so is freeing those who are in bondage.
To say that Jesus and God are not, or were not Christian is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. It is through them that we have Christianity--if you believe, at all, in the Bible. If you don't believe in the Bible, how can you believe that God called Cyrus, or Trump.
1
-
@0130wallace It's a parable, not meant to be taken literally. But I agree: Most people aren't bad or good, but do bad and good things.
I was thinking more about your question, it's actually really hard to answer. When you see a person, who says they're a Christian, they might very well not be acting like a Christian when you see them.
All my friends are atheists, because, on the whole, I've found that atheists and agnostics are more friendly and kind--maybe because they aren't believing they can do no wrong, as long as they believe in Jesus.
I'm certainly not a perfect Christian: I'm guessing there's no such thing. At best, a Christian practices mindfulness, catching themselves as they do something immoral, or before, or that night. Christianity serves as a reminder to try and be good. I wish I could answer you better than that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WERC-lawyer It isn't that the system has broken down. Rather, it's funding has been diminished and denied. What's more, the teachers (or the education system) have been, and are continuously blamed.
This is all to make public schooling look bad, so that private, for-profit schooling can take its place. And when I see someone blaming the education system (whatever that means), I see more of that same sabotaging.
How can you blame education, when it clearly didn't fail others? What's the difference between the Trumpists and the people who go on to get master's and doctorates?
I'll tell you: because the latter never stopped learning, while the former did. If you stop reviewing and learning new things, you'll forget some/most of what you did learn, and won't be able to learn anything new: You'll be out of practice, like not jogging for 10-30 years, then going for a run.
Yes, education needs to be better funded, and teachers need to be better paid. No doubt. But Trumpists failure to critically think today is their own, not their 9th grade math teacher's from 30 years ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So Trump let the virus spread, unchecked, though he was advised to start social distancing, and testing, right away. Two possibilities: Trump is just so stupid, that he really believed what he told the country. In other words, Trump told the truth, but was still criminally negligent.
The other possibility is that he knows what we're all seeing: people rallying behind the president during a crisis. George W. Bush sailed into his second term, because of this very thing. So, Trump was criminally negligent, and lied, because he wanted the country to go through a catastrophe, in order for him to get re-elected.
I know that probably sounds crazy, like I should put on a tin foil hat. But, the only other option is that Trump told the truth. I don't buy that. He lies. He's a liar. And he lied to ensure a second term.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Like Republicans and the abortion issue, the South tried to leave slavery up to the states. They insisted on it. But more and more states were added that were against it. They tried terrorism in "Bleeding Kansas," but that didn't work either. They finally realized it would have to be at a national level, and that the North wouldn't go along with it (though some northern individuals agreed with them).
Now, more states are saying they don't want to ban abortion, and more Republicans are dropping the topic altogether as they campaign. So, since the greater number of people are against the Republicans, the Repugs want to take the ban to a national level. It's the same thing all over again, with freedom for actual, living human beings in the balance.
Oh, and the South had Biblical justification for slavery. Look up "Curse of Ham," if you're curious.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrTambourineMan. Hmm so Ivanka converted to Orthodox Judaism, when she married Jared--who was a Democrat (like Trump) before that Presidential election. And Trump hired her and her husband, even though they were Jewish.
First, the Don Don and his daughter have an interesting past together. Not sure you want to open that can of worms. Secondly, Jared's father donated millions to Jewish hospitals in the U.S. and Israel, and was then jailed in 2008 for tax evasion, illegal campaign contributions, and witness tampering.
As for how anti-Semitic Trump ISN'T, there was that thing in the summer of 2016. Remember? He took an image from a alt-right message board (How did he get it to start with?), which was evocative of the Star of David, with money in the background. He used that to label Hillary as corrupt.
This is a deep rabbit hole. Was Trump's father a racist, and Jared's father a criminal? What was going on between Trump and Ivanka? Does having a daughter who converted to Judaism mean he's not anti-Semitic? The questions keep going.
But if we pull out Occam's Razor, and apply it here, I'd say Trump is interested in money and power. That's it. He doesn't care at all about religion, except where it might intersect with his power. And people who are interested in power are usually bigots. That's just basic psychology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danialhillmann5374 Oh look, it's Danial Hillmann, the stereotypical troll. You know, Hillmann, I can see your intelligence, buried beneath your idiotic trolling. I'm willing to bet you do have intelligent, coherent thoughts about all these topics you troll every day.
But you also enjoy provoking people to pay attention to you, with your apparently dumb ideas. You must be very lonely, where any attention is good attention.
Seems to me you could actually speak your mind, be intelligent, provide thoughtful commentary, and be well received by everyone, and get the attention you crave.
1
-
In the olden days, when slaves were set free, some nations (who had enslaved them) would give them money, material, whatever was needed to start anew. Babylon did that, in the Old Testament, when Cyrus freed the Jews. To not do that was seen as cruel. Thanks to all the delaying tactics, of both North and South, after the Civil War (and the cost of rebuilding the nation after a costly war), that ship has sailed.
Most of the problems that remain can be dealt with just by focusing on poverty, not even so much race. But the problem of race, independent of poverty, still remains. That does, indeed, require reparations. Most of the problem has to do with not even acknowledging the problem. A lot of people see race as an "agenda," or virtue signalling. And it may well be, in some situations, for some people. But that doesn't explain away the problem. Nor is it true of everyone. Instead, it delays dealing with it, which has been going on all along.
In order for a problem to be dealt with, the first basic step is to admit it. Then we identify which of our habits and behaviors lead to the problem, and we deal with that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How many people did those Republicans infect, before they died? To me, this was one of the lowest points in United States history. (And that's really saying something.) How can a person not understand that we all make mistakes; we can all be wrong, at any time, but especially when we assume we're right?
Instead, they went out into the world, to stores, walking down the sidewalks, maybe passing it to their families--who infected strangers. Such lack of compassion for innocent people, such undeserved arrogance! I'm not glad they died. I'm sorry they were bamboozled by people who got away with it, and are still doing it. I hope we all learn from this: that our arrogant ignorance comes with a terrible cost; and that only if tempered with humility can we hope to prevent ourselves from backsliding into the reptilian core of our brains--where thoughtless aggression reigns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Everyone, regardless of race, in positions of authority have abused that authority!"
I don't know about "everyone." That would mean every single person, most of whom I've never heard of, or have any information about. That would be prejudice, which means "judging someone before you know the facts (hence, the prefix pre-).
"I’m indigenous from Oklahoma and I get tired of racism being confined to whites and blacks!"
What nation? I don't think anyone is saying racism is just about whites and blacks. It's just that such racism relative to whites and blacks is observable from the national stage on down to the people in this video.
"African Americans in power, particularly police and educators, don’t prove to be inclusive either."
I don't know what you're saying here. Keep in mind, you're talking (literally and actually) about ALL African Americans here, or so it seems by what you wrote. So that's prejudice again. If you judge someone before you know them, or their factual details, that's prejudice.
"My first experience in the army with racism came from a black sergeant."
Okay. Well, none of us were there. So we don't know what happened. And you didn't say. Racism can come from anywhere: I think that's what you're trying to say. And I agree. Before the Civil War, some native Americans owned black slaves.
"I’m sick of people constantly blaming white Americans for everything!"
I thought you're native American? No one is blaming white people for everything, because that would mean every single thing.
"If ignorance has anything to do with racism, are we not ALL guilty?"
Guilty of what? Being racist? So, since we're all ignorant, and racism comes from ignorance, then we're all racist? Is that what you're saying? That doesn't quite add up, We're all ignorant about something, or some things. But that doesn't mean we're ignorant about what leads to (and causes) racism.
For example, someone could be ignorant about calculus, but know algebra very well. That doesn't mean they're ignorant about ALL math.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@muddywater4505 @johnbecker9242 @kdenso3196 Just because some Dems are pussycats (minus the cats), and went hysterical after that one single debate, doesn't mean we all are. We're different people. I know that's totally different from maga, where you're all in lockstep, like geese on parade in Berlin. So you're assuming we are like you. And, johnbecker, you obviously don't know what a sociopath is. You likely heard DonDon being called that, and thought it would be cool to use the word for people you've never met. I know, in magaland, you can any word to mean anything you want, can lie and smear with impunity. But we're civilized over here, whereas you want to bring back barbarism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You won't fix your educational system, you won't put your guns away, you don't feed your hungry, you won't train your cops to be decent human beings, you have no healthcare, you ignore your violently racist history, and you allow extremely unqualified people to take serious positions in office."
All true.
"For real, America... why?"
Oh come on. If you know that much about the U.S., then you know the answer. I'll spell it for you: M-O-N-E-Y. In order for the people who have way too much money already, to then make even more, they have to do really crooked, awful things. We can't do anything about those people. If you have suggestions for how we can wrest control away from the super rich, I'd love to hear it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When Trump interrupts them, points at them, and says, "excuse me." They should do the same lame hand gesture back, and say, "No, I won't excuse you." But seriously, I think part of this is at least based on the Civil War-era concept of State's Rights: The national government is the monarchy, but all the states are fiefdoms, who pledge fealty to the King. That's at least how they're hoping to gain their supporters' confidence.
But beneath that, what it truly is, is something so obviously bad, that even Trump knows he can't talk about it. I imagine he's making money off it. He claims ownership--"belongs to us...it's ours"--which means he can sell, or profit from, what is his. That's the only way I see to explain his remarks, which didn't clarify at all what Kushner said.
And Kushner...man.... I've heard of someone undressing you with their eyes. Kushner is murdering you with his eyes, and eating your flesh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ikkeligeglad "Empathy is something you experience as a child and copy before you get to school" "Empathy is something you experience as a child and copy before you get to school" If you're going to try to refute what I say, you'll need to do better than "nuh uh." Empathy is not a simple thing, like learning to tie your shoe laces. You are looking through the eyes of someone else, looking with their experience, not yours. Unless the child is some sort of Buddha prodigy, that isn't going to happen by "copying." And it certainly won't happen before you go to Kindergarten. If it was that simple, the vast majority of people would have picked it up, and we'd see it being practiced all around us. That's not happening. You may get some instinct, or understanding as a child (like I did). But to practice it takes a honed intelligence, wisdom, and humility. Also, unless you have a source, then your "quoting psychologists" really doesn't amount to much.
1
-
1
-
@rickywade5964 It's not just "seeing." Look up the def. It's sharing. Sharing! And it isn't just their point of view, but their emotions, their mental state, their motivations. That requires you to not see through your eyes, but theirs; to think as they do. And being outside your own life and mind in that way requires intelligence, wisdom, compassion, and humility. Intelligence: because that doesn't happen naturally, but through thought, concentration, and a healthy well-ordered mind. And that comes from mental discipline: i.e., intelligence. Otherwise, everyone could do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very, very close. I would only slightly edit what you wrote: "Your assumption is God is always [what we think is] moral." The Bible actually addresses this seeming inconsistency a number of times. But people would actually have to read it to find it. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" (Isaiah 55:8). And: "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand" (Deut. 32:39). And: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7). I could go on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was thousands of people who stormed past police, past barricades, broke the glass on doors and windows, continuing to go through the police. They videoed all of it, and put it on their Facebook, which is how I know what they did. They were proud of it. It was the high point of their lives. They did all of that to "stop the steal," which is how Trump put it: and he still claims the election was stolen. Over 2,000 entered the building.
Members of congress fled for their lives, hiding in storage closets, including Republicans. Those "bunch of people" smeared their waste on the walls, checked every office for the hiding members of congress--like Pelosi and AOC and Pence. Yes, and they built a gallows for Mike Pence. They wanted to stop the transfer of power from Trump to Biden, which congress was working on at that time.
That's why it's called an insurrection, and why their sentences are nowhere near the severity of what they deserve.
1
-
@chezmoi42 "No, it's exactly what we see from far too many who call themselves 'Christian'."
I'll grant you that it's what YOU SEE. You see the anecdotal evidence, and assume that's it? I know this isn't true of you, because you've commented elsewhere that there are good Christians. So why did you say it here?
What aren't you seeing? You think you see everything? That's oddly Biblical--assuming you're God. You know, that's what got Adam and Eve into trouble: The serpent told Even she could be like God, if she ate the forbidden fruit. And what more does a weak person want, but to be all powerful, all knowing, etc?
"They think because they are 'saved' that they can do whatever they want and still be welcomed into what they imagine as heaven."
On another thread, you accused me of generalizing. But look at this that you wrote. Can you not see it? Or are you just unwilling to admit you were wrong?
That's what sin is, you know: doing what you know to be wrong. Repentance is being sorry you did it, and trying your best not to do it again. But, News Flash You're human, and therefore weak, frail, and of limited mortality. So you will do again what you know to be wrong.
Why? Because you deserve to have your way (or so we feel, and by "you" keep in mind I mean everyone, myself included). But then we come to our senses, and repent again. See? That's how it works. Sometimes we're don't mean it, and it's crap; sometimes we do mean it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xjarheadjohnson "We don't need those ancient stories; we can , far better, determine "right" from "wrong" without them."
You're perfectly free to ignore all folklore and myths. Knock yourself out. I enjoy reading. I read a lot. So I've read the Bible too, along with Dickens, Henry Miller, Vonnegut, Joy Harjo, Carl Sagan, Douglas Adams, Albert Einstein, and on and on.
And you don't have to look for a needle in a haystack to find the morals in folklore and myths. But you do have to read the stories, and not just dismiss them out of hand, in order to find the morals.
Of course we invented them. Who else would have? I'm not religious. Don't assume I am. I'm a writer and an intellectual. Have my B.S., masters, and doctorate in physics. I don't "believe" in anything. I know, or I don't know.
You don't have to believe a story is real to learn from it.
Edit: Wait, if you really think, ""We don't need those ancient stories; we can , far better, determine "right" from "wrong" without them," then have you not read any of those things you quoted before? Have you not read about Zoroastrianism? Did you just copy/paste all that, and don't really know any of it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@galt820 "Because nobody wants to lick your boots just because you think you have moral superiority, especially over a mistake. Get over yourself trying to tell people to apologize and bend the knee."
*
Wow, listen, bud, you completely misrepresented what I wrote. Here you go. Read it this time:
*
"I have a question: Why even delete it? Does he (or his staff) think someone hasn't already copied or downloaded it? I mean, it's all over the news. Is deleting it their way of apologizing? Why not just apologize?"
*
See? I wasn't telling anyone to apologize, or, as you so melodramatically put it, "bend the knee." You got the entire tone and purpose of my post wrong. I was asking, Why delete it? And, if the deletion was an apology, why not just apologize, instead of trying to delete something that is now all over the news.
*
So, "get over yourself," yourself, and don't worry about me. In fact, YOU are acting as if you have "moral superiority." And now his posting the video was "a mistake?" Or was deleting it a mistake? You're assuming a lot, as you did with my post. Also, it sounds like YOU are licking Trump's boots, among other things. Thanks for your over-the-top reply, though.
1
-
@galt820 Oh, so you never said you support Trump. Does that mean you don't support him? Is it really that you're an interested, impartial observer, who's "just tired of "orange man bad" types? But you're doing more than just observing. Aren't you? You're insulting, taking a side, and then claiming that I'm doing some game.
*
What morality was in my post? I asked a question. I didn't say there needs to be an apology. Did I? Look again. I'll even quote it for you again.
*
"I have a question: Why even delete it? Does he (or his staff) think someone hasn't already copied or downloaded it? I mean, it's all over the news. Is deleting it their way of apologizing? Why not just apologize?"
*
See? Now where is my garbage morality? Where is my orange man bad? Where is my asking for, or demanding, an apology? NOWHERE! You're seeing what you want to see. Let me repeat that, and isolate it, in its own paragraph:
*
You're seeing what you want to see. Now, why don't come back with another, "I know you are but what am I" reply, since you don't play YouTube debate games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ScottTeuber They aren't reporting the news. Okay? They are using an older video to talk about something that is current. In that same way, you can write an essay about law and order in the 21st century, using the Code of Hammurabi.
It's really not that complicated to understand.
Sometimes the clip they use is current. And, let's face it, they aren't using the Code of Hammurabi, but, as you said, using something from a few months ago.
This is a commentary channel, as I said, not just a news channel. Now, you're either too much of a troglodyte to get that, or you're a troll talking trash.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ShortFuseFighting "youre not too bright, are you? its CLEARLY a grammatical choice i consciously made in order to save time when speaking in a casual setting."
Wait. If that's true, then you really have nothing to complain about with what the OP wrote. And, as a writer, I have to say, your diction stinks. You really just wanted to deflect from what the OP wrote. You obviously don't give a rat's hind end about grammar in a YouTube post. And the OP even expressed empathy for the MAGAts, instead of just calling them MAGAts.
Also, as a writer, I saw nothing wrong with the OP's post. Maybe, if we were to workshop it in a grad-level creative writing class, we could offer some editing suggestions. But it's more than fine, given this "casual setting." So if you can't comment on the subject at hand, but feel the need to bring up something else, then you're the problem here: your lack of focus, specifically.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jesse_- "We wonder the same thing about how people can be democrats. It’s no different."
It's way different. Democratic voters wouldn't still vote for the person they voted for last time, if that person did only one of the things Trump has done.
For example: being found guild guilty of grape (without the g. Sorry, censor algorithm).
While I admittedly can't speak for others, I wouldn't have voted for Trump to start with. He wasn't qualified, having no experience whatsoever in any kind of politics. He didn't even appear to have the intellect or temperament for the job. He mocked a reporter who had a physical disability. He mocked everyone, like a spoiled child.
But I certainly would have kicked him to the curb when he botched Covid so badly. And, at bare minimum, after 4 years of him being President, I would never vote for him again, after his lied to his supporters (and lied 30,573 times in office) about how the election was stolen: And that riled them up to riot, and storm Congress, where they rubbed their feces on the walls!
So your false equivalency is absurd, as this is barely scratching the surface.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Two quick plot holes for MAGA: 1) If Biden is "sleepy...in his basement...suffering from dementia, ect.," then how is he also the head of a crime family, which has so far escaped even suspicion (let alone proof) by everyone? 2) If the MAGA people Trump refers to here are patriots (you know, the ones who were arrested and imprisoned for their involvement on Jan. 6), then how is it they were used or tricked by the FBI (or Antifa), who were, as Trump claims, actually behind the riot that day?
And was it a riot or a tourist visit? There have been 750 MAGA people sentenced for that day. Most were caught and found guilty because they had live video streams of it on Facebook, as they were doing it. So where is their video of the FBI and Antifa? And, finally, if Biden is so unfit to be President, how is he fit to be the head of a crime family, which has so far avoided detection, and for which no Republican officials can find any proof?
Those are some pretty glaring plot holes.
1
-
@aaronbates4255 Yes, hicks can be found here and there, all over. But they dominate the south.
@dianne8936 I agree completely. I've never understood why Lincoln wanted to bring back the South into the Union. Sure, at first, maybe they fired on the U.S. by accident, they were hot headed. But even then. Think of it as a marriage. Your crazy husband or wife wants nothing more to do with you. On they way out they nearly beat you to death with a cane, and set fire to your car. Would you really want them back? They don't bring anything to the marriage; totally dependent on you.
Then they kill your dog, your cat, break your windows, invade your workplace screaming the Rebel Yell. No way! You kick those traitors to the curb, and never take them back, at the bare minimum. Frankly, go ahead and let Sherman and his bummers put them in their place. Let Grant's soldiers kill one Confederate boy from every family. Stomp them like bugs. But then, set them adrift.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's assume he (and you, and I) don't see color. Fine. What about other people? Even if we assume everyone in California is "color blind," what about the rest of the country, and the world? Can he (or you, or I) speak for everyone, everywhere, and say, "race isn't an issue; let's focus on something else." No. Absolutely not. We speak for no one but ourselves. People have prejudiced thoughts, and act on them; people have bigoted thoughts, and act on them: So, yes, people have racist thoughts, and act on them.
*
Not facing a problem allows it to remain. We all, each and every one of us, has to face the prejudiced, bigoted, and, yes, racist in ourselves. Or it remains.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This will go down as another example of Trump's inability to form a coherent sentence. Remember how he called Coronavirus a Democratic hoax? Well, that can't be proven, because he didn't say it that clearly. He referenced "Russia, Russia, Russia," and the "perfect phone call," and the impeachment as being "a hoax," perpetuated by the Democrats, to discredit him--even though he's so innocent! Then he said, "This is their new hoax," talking about Coronavirus. Then Trump supporters claimed he didn't call Coronavirus a hoax, but, rather, the attempt by the Democrats to use Coronavirus to throw mud at Trump. The hoax was how they used it against him? I guess? But, now, we plainly see Trump supporters pushing for too-early opening of the states. Why? Because they believe Coronavirus is real, and deadly? They'll deny he said it, and he didn't really, actually say it...but he meant it, maybe? He's like a Beat poet, who is really high on KFC, utterly unfathomable. Except, of course, his base knows what he means. And, even through all the gas lighting that will result from this, WE know too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Examining Trump's speeches is always a surreal experience. Take just one example here: "This is not the time for politics." He says this while attacking the Democrats for doing a "witch hunt," which it wouldn't be, if Trump was innocent. He said this same thing earlier, when some people were pointing out how he downplayed the virus, after the Stock market plummeted.
It's always the time for politics, when Trump wants to play it. He has a childish nickname for everyone he considers to be a political enemy, not to mention that he sees people as political enemies, which is not what someone who didn't want to play politics would do.
I hope the investigation goes differently this time. Trump's criminal, wannabe-mobster behavior should have never been tolerated. He not only should've been investigated, as he was, but ridden out of town on a rail, branded a traitor, and imprisoned. But, this time, he has deaths to answer for, which are his responsibility, as they resulted from his decisions.
Also, how is this investigation going to "waste valuable resources?" Is Dr. Fauci going to investigate him? Are the people who make the tests investigating him? Talk about walking and chewing gum at the same time. The government is held accountable, when things go wrong. Plain and simple. Trump wants no accountability. He gave himself a "10," if you recall.
Despite Republicans' best efforts, we are still a Democratic Republic, and not a Fascist state. Trump is President, not dictator. We are still the voting public, and not [all] mindless cultists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@k.c1126 Yeah, nothing in the Bible justifies this. Sure, when you isolate a Bible quote, with no understanding of what the text refers to, you can make it seem to support most anything. "The Curse of Ham" is an example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
And Joan of Arc was burned at the stake because she wore men's clothes: "A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this" (Deuteronomy 22:5).
I could take this path, to prove the point, and say that Jesus wants us to kill each other: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).
Since the Bible requires "faith," and mixes that term and idea with "belief," without any further thought whatsoever, a person could then believe that anything they believe is fact. This results in the kind of beliefs we see in this video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@terrencemyers1033 "Ham the youngest son of Noah is the progenitor of the dark races; NOT THE NEGROES, but the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans, and Canaanites."
If you take the Bible literally, which is absurd, and if we are to discount science and history, which is equally inane.
I'd put my knowledge of the Bible over your conspiracies any day. You're a hate monger or a troll: one of the two, if not both.
You've shown no knowledge of the Bible here. You cherry picked a few names, couple of verses, and combined them with some hate-filled garbage you no doubt read on the internet.
Besides, you didn't dare to disprove what I said in my reply. Namely, Israelites had no Satan. "God is one God." The word "satan" comes from the Hebrew, which means "an adversary." It was not a proper noun, i.e., a name until Christianity. For the Israelites, and later the Jews, a satan was anyone (or anything) that was against what you were doing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What percentage of Trump voters think like this woman? My guess is 50%"
At this point, people who vote for Trump know what they're getting. They have to be fine with it. That often means accepting lots of conspiracy theories, which make Trump seem like the victim. So to still be with Trump, you have to accept at least a few of those theories. One, for example, is that you'd have to believe that MAGA did not storm Congress on January 6th: It was antifa, or the FBI, maybe the lizard men, or crab people. But not MAGA. Because the Trump voters are MAGA, and they would have to then accept that January 6th happened because of people like them.
And that's just the beginning. What were those papers doing at Mar-a-lago? Trumpists believe Trump either had the right to them, and/or that he had declassified them, or that they were planted there, and/or the entire thing was a ruse, a political hit job perpetuated by Biden to take Trump out of the race. Know why they have to believe that? Because otherwise it would mean they supported and voted for a guy who took secret documents home, for who knows what purpose. And it means that person, their guy, is now lying. But why is he lying: They can't ask that and still vote for him.
That's just two examples. There are so many things Trump and the other MAGA politicians have done, that the voters have to use "doublethink" for. Their brains are so used to believing, and accepting their beliefs as knowledge. And they're so used to believing the opposite of facts. Bitter is sweet to them. And sweet is bitter.
The only possible exception to this would be people who pay no attention to politics at all, and only vote Republican. But they would have to know nothing, and have paid no attention to the news, or even been told by a friend, or heard other people talking about Trump. 50%? Please. They are in the bell jar, if they vote for Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelburk9171 "Man on the street Q and A segments can be edited and cherry picked to prove a narrative."
"Can be" is doing some heavy lifting there, especially given who these people vote for, and what they believe. Maybe they edit out the parts where the Trump supporters talk about Quantum Mechanics and quasars? And MAGA people must actually spend their free time doing logical proofs, and protesting for the equal rights of minorities? And the videos cut off the end of each of their sentences, where the Trumpists all said, "Nah, I'm just kidding."
And since these interviews are done at Trump rallies, maybe we don't get to hear from the librarians who support him, or the physicists, or all the LGBTQ folks? You know, all the ones who couldn't travels hundreds of miles to hear Trump speak.
1
-
I sometimes wonder why I lovelovelove watching these videos. (Sorry, one "love" just doesn't cut it.) Yes, I love dogs, have since my earliest childhood memories. I was born in the Chinese year of the dog. But, here, I think it's because you help these dogs, and therefore their families. I see a dog who needs help at the start, and a dog who has been helped at the end. That's really beautiful to me. Also, all these dogs are just wonderful to watch. Their personalities are all so different and unique. And I enjoy all the detailed work you do, especially (for some reason), shaving out their paw pads.
I just want to thank you for this, for giving me something bright to see. :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
"When did the news division have to start making money?!"
Pretty much everything is about making money. Reminds me of something Henry Miller wrote:
“To walk in money through the night crowd, protected by money, lulled by money, dulled by money, the crowd itself a money, the breath money, no least single object anywhere that is not money, money, money everywhere and still not enough, and then no money, or a little money or less money or more money, but money, always money, and if you have money or don't have money it is the money that counts and money makes money, but what makes money make money?”
1
-
1
-
@lesgilbert50 "Left are the most racist people I know of, both black and white."
If you believe that, then you're starting with an incorrect assumption. And everything else you think, that requires that assumption, will also be incorrect.
First, "The Left" is not a single entity. When this name is referred to, it usually comes with a set of already established, understood personal characteristics, like you'd give to a single person you know. But you aren't talking about a single person. Nor are you talking about people you know.
That's why this is wrong, just from the start. Then you claim the person who replied to you is "trying to twist the definition to fit your narrative. Crap this this is going to tear this country apart if it is allowed to continue without being confronted."
So you then shrink the whole Left into one person, after you had accepted the Left to be a group with all the same characteristics, none of which you could know, but you somehow automatically know. But instead of group, it's a single person you're responding to for the first time anywhere, online. Yet this person is twisting and tearing the country apart.
See how this incorrect assumption was based on a starting incorrect assumption? See how you're assigning singular characteristics to a group, as if you knew the single person, but can't possibly know all the group? And how then you reverse that, and give all the group characteristics to a person, who can't possibly represent the entire group?
So, as you said, I'm not buying your definition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@МаксимЛяшко-и3ъ That's what gender is: how people see themselves. I'm not making this up. It's science. Here's what the Canadian Institute of Health Research (the science part of their government's website) has to say:
"'Sex' and 'gender' are often used interchangeably, despite having different meanings:
"Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I feel bad for the people who believe they understand, without putting any thought into it, or doing any research. They just naturally "get it," or so they assume. What makes me feel bad for them is they don't see why so many other people come to different conclusions. After all, "It doesn't take a genius." The shame is that such people miss out on the humility of learning something from scratch, the hard work and critical thinking that helps them get to know themselves (and others), and the eureka! moment when they finally understand that, either they don't/can't understand, or the new thing is relatable, with a bit of sympathy and empathy.
There are very few geniuses in the world who just "get it." And no one knows, or understands, everything. So each one of us has to approach each issue with new eyes, and an open mind. Well, that, or just assume (as Homer Simpson said) "Everyone's stupid but me."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Interesting. I never put that together, since they're in different books, which were written at different times, by different people. Not to mention, even if someone could argue about there being a first-hand witness to Jesus praying, and that witness' testimony was passed down to different people, at different times--it still doesn't speak to that witness actually being able to witness it. And some of that is Peter praying, not Jesus. Islam came AFTER Jesus had died, according to the text. Right? It was in the year 610 of the common era. Jesus was a Jew and practiced Judaism, which branched into Christianity and Islam. So he couldn't have practiced Islam, since it didn't exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thomas Faulkner What has gone wrong? Through the popular vote, the country elected Hillary Clinton. But the electoral college vote went to Trump. So he won, even though he lost by a couple million votes. But that's still, roughly, 40 million people who voted for Trump. They are absolutely loyal to him. What went wrong there?
Propaganda. Propaganda has seen a massive resurgence in the United States these past four years. Some of those 40 million do have their eyes wide open. They're cruel, racist, and want to harm the country, in revenge for electing a black man, or revenge for downsizing, revenge for whatever reason. Some have pet issues, like coal mining, and going backward, into the past: Make America Great Again. But most have been taught, and taught well; they behave as taught, they believe as taught.
These are people who should have never been given a voice. America has always had its uneducated hillbillies, living in the backwoods, high atop the mountains. But the internet gave them a voice. The Republicans, as they shifted further and further to the right, amplified that voice. And Trump is their king. In a nutshell, that's what has gone wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because millions of people of voting age don't vote, and have never voted. That skews the representation to bizarre levels. Also, a little less than half of those who do vote only do it for entertainment purposes, not policy or national growth; if not entertainment, then because they want to overthrow the gov; or they want to destroy society, causing an apocalypse, so Jebus will return. Add to that the wide-sweeping, 24/7 disinformation on right-wing radio, TV, social media, and internet forums...and you can see how muddy and befuddled their thinking has become. For them, sweet is sour, and sour is sweet; light is darkness, and darkness is light; evil is good, and good is evil.
1
-
1
-
The father-son pair is in the wrong for making a citizen's arrest, while armed. This is not just about race, even though it clearly is about race, it's about idiots with guns too.
They murdered him, even if he was guilty of theft, with a stolen TV in his arms. But he wasn't guilty of doing anything wrong. They saw a black man in their white neighborhood, in Georgia (which has a history of racism). They called the cops, and didn't wait for them; they took the law in their own hands, and murdered him.
My fellow Caucasians, I'm sure you're not racist, or an idiot with your firearms. OK? So this isn't about you. It's about those two men. Get it? Stop taking this personally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Really, he had no agenda for his first time. Everything he promised, he either failed at doing (like the wall), or someone else did it (like the Obama deal mentioned here, or the Senate approving judges). What did he set out to do, and succeed at doing? He even failed at his big thing, jobs and the economy, because of his continuing poor handling of the Coronavirus. All he did was give lots of money to the super rich, alienate our allies, and say and do a bunch of stupid things--which excited the poor, stupid people enjoyed, as if he was some '80s insult comic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Do people believe [Trump]?"
*
I often wonder if people really believe what they claim. How can we know, whether or not they believe? How can they know? And, if they do actually believe, what is their definition of "belief"? Do they realize believing means they don't "know"? If they knew, then they wouldn't have to believe. Do they realize that, besides the existence of an infinite all-powerful being, we can, mostly, learn the facts, and actually know things: We don't have to believe.
*
So when Trump says what he does, do his supporters think of him as God, and, therefore, unknowable? Or do they go someplace safe for their news, and confirm their own bias? Belief is a weird thing, so often mistaken for knowing. But, to answer the question: Yes, if they're a Trump supporter, they believe him, as if he was God--breaking the 1st commandment, by the way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think the point he tried to make in this video is that Democrats are left, relative to the extreme right. Dems might even be extreme left, relative to the normal right, or what's normal for them today. They definitely aren't actually left, or even center left, as you say. But the relativity of accounting for a right wing that is speeding further to the right, with every President they elect, gets confusing, especially when the right-wing voters and media always talk about "the radical left."
And the result, and this video's point, is a center (or middle ground) always moving to the right. I don't think many Americans would even recognize a left-wing, even if it slapped them on the butt.
1
-
1
-
What amazes me (and it shouldn't) about the supposedly law-and-order Right is how much of this they turn a blind eye to. Sure, they're claiming everyone else is fake news, when they follow the playbook of fake news, to the letter. And they're convinced that everyone but them isn't thinking clearly, when it comes to Trump, that we wave TDS, and we're just out to get him, because we hate him personally, in spite of what a great job he did as President. And those who have any idea, at all, about what's really going on with him, just want to make the Libs cry, and are so ready to burn down the country to save it, that they actually get off on what he does.
1
-
@RobertEmery The Bible isn't "cool" with slavery. It was written by people over a period of thousands of years, when slavery was common. Those people wrote about all kinds of things that were part of their everyday life. Further, the Bible is not just one book, with one author. It is 66 books, each with multiple authors, translators, and a way of writing that is fundamentally different than what we know today.
So it isn't like looking at a Stephen King book, and saying King is cool with blablabla. Actually, that brings to mind another point: Was King okay with sucking the blood from people's necks, and rabid dogs running amok? No? But he wrote about it. How odd. Oh, it was fiction. You think the Bible is historically accurate, then? Or not? Is it fiction? Or not?
1
-
@RobertEmery "you forgot to mention the number of translations and edits made by man."
I did not forget to mention it: "the Bible is not just one book, with one author. It is 66 books, each with multiple authors, translators"
"It is 100% man-made, not the literal word of God."
I didn't say it was the literal word of God: "It was written by people over a period of thousands of years, when slavery was common. Those people wrote about all kinds of things that were part of their everyday life. Further, the Bible is not just one book, with one author. It is 66 books, each with multiple authors, translators, and a way of writing that is fundamentally different than what we know today."
So it was obviously written by man. Point is, when you say the Bible is cool with slavery, you're wrong. You're trying to be Hitch. But you ain't Hitch. Not by a long shot. That's okay: No one can ever be Hitch, but Hitch.
1
-
@RobertEmery "mostly old fishermen's tales intended to keep people on their best behaviour or face the wrath of their invisible sky daddy."
You really don't know what you're talking about. Is that so hard to accept? A person knows or they don't know. You don't know. And that's okay. There are many, many things I don't know. But I know about the Bible, because I've studied it, as a non-believer, and wrote almost 50 essays on it over a period of 6 years. I've read it cover-to-cover over a dozen times, also read study Bibles and commentaries. That's long enough, and enough material to be equivalent to a degree.
"It literally says you are allowed to beat your slaves, as long as you don't beat them to death."
I already spoke to this. Did you not read what I wrote, or acknowledge it, or comprehend it? Here:
"It was written by people over a period of thousands of years, when slavery was common. Those people wrote about all kinds of things that were part of their everyday life."
Again, the Bible doesn't say it, since the Bible was written by many different people, over thousands of years. But certain people, living in times and places where slavery was common, did write about it...because it was common. And since you accept that the Bible isn't the "literal word of God," then it must be the words of these few contributors, not all of them.
"Talk to the Christo-fascists about the Bible...."
So throw the baby out with the bath water? You know, the unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, got a degree in advanced mathematics? Should we throw out mathematics too? Science, physics was used to make weapons of war: Should we throw that out?
If you don't care what the Bible has to say, fine. If you have no intellectual or sociological curiosity about it, all good. Other people do, though. And we are not all believers in "sky daddy" or "the flying spaghetti monster." So to see your uninformed bias, and gross generalizations prompts a response.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RobertEmery "how were they right if it wasn't a sin back then?"
I already answered this. I'll repeat myself, on the off chance that you're not a troll: The person who commented that slavery IS a sin is right, given the present tense of the verb. We realize it is a sin TODAY. Okay?
"Who changed slavery from not being a sin to being one?"
No one changed it. The vast majority of nations realized that it was immoral, starting in the 19th century.
"Either the (man made) Bible condones slavery and it's not a sin, or it doesn't and it is a sin... You can't have it both ways."
I've already spoken of this. Getting tired of repeating myself. The Bible doesn't condone anything, because it's not one book with one author. That's the primary reason. And that reason works whether God inspired it or not, because men used their understanding to write it--different men at different times, in different places.
"The fact that the Bible tells you how to treat your slaves, not that owning slaves is wrong, proves my point."
It does not. That's just your confirmation bias. You aren't nearly as logical and reasonable as you assume. Again the Bible doesn't tell you any one single thing. Get it? In the Bible, people wrote about what was going on in their day, which included slavery sometimes--especially in the Old Testament. And as with any mythology, they projected their values onto their god.
"Still waiting for you to point out where the Bible even implies that slavery is a sin."
Sin is harming others, and/or harming yourself. Sinning is any immoral act, in or out of the Bible. The Bible didn't invent the word or concept, as you claimed before. So, yes, of course many parts of the Bible speak against immorality, and loving one another.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"blessed is he that dash his children against the rocks."
That's not an actual quote. And it takes things out of context. The Bible has plenty of sex and mayhem to go around, without making up stuff.
"O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. / Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" (Psalm 137:8-9).
If you don't know, or haven't read the Bible, Babylon enslaved the Jews. It was a huge turning point in Jewish History, and in the story of the Jews in the Bible. The psalms are songs and/or prayers. They have many authors, and cover a long period of time.
So, the Babylonians decimated Jerusalem, and carted off the remaining Jews who had not already been enslaved throughout Israel. In turn, the Persian Cyrus the Great took over Babylon. He freed all of Babylon's slaves, including the Jews.
That means the Bible wasn't saying to dash your children against the rocks. Okay? They were saying that the Babylonians, who were in the process of being taken over when that psalm was written, would be hating life so much that they would dash their children against rocks to spare them from Cyrus' army--and it was wishful thinking, on the part of the vengeful psalmist's part.
If you want to talk about God and children, and hate on the Bible some, then why not talk about how God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his first born son in Genesis 22? That's a weird story. You don't have to make up stuff about the Bible being nutty. Just use what's there. Of course, it would help to read it first....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First, there's no Yahweh. The Hebrew alphabet has no vowels. So, using the English alphabet (mind you), it's YHWH. The sequence of consonants Yod, Heh, Waw, and Heh: Yahweh is derived from the sounding out of those consonants. After the Babylonian exile, they stopped using YHWH, and instead referred to their god as Elohim. Secondly, the idea of Yah being an "ancient Sumerian god" does not come from any academic papers. There was no such god. The main Sumerian god was Enlil: others include AnKi, Enki, Ninhursag, Utu, and his father Nanna. There is no Aserath in Sumeria. YHWH was the god of all things for the Israelites: There was no Satan for them, as that's a Hebrew word for "adversary," which was any one or any thing in your way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sith Lord God is everything, in the scriptural text. Here's an example that summarizes this idea:
"There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand" (Deuteronomy 32:39).
And this one gets even more to the point:
"That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. / I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (Isaiah 45:6-7).
This is a more complicated version of the Judaeo-Christian God than a lot of people can deal with. In fact, once Rome became Christian, and the Roman Catholic Church became a thing, and the Bishops got the text in their hands, this idea was replaced by Satan.
Satan is a Hebrew word, meaning "adversary." This was adopted, changed, away from Judaism, which had no rivalry for God. But their old way is much easier, I think, to understand: "God" is the word for everything, all of it. This includes war and peace, good and evil--which are all words that WE assign to a thing. Whatever that thing is, it is of God, and by God, according to the text.
1
-
Sith Lord "lol, no god is not everything. For being a christian, there is nothing christian about your believes."
You evidently read what I wrote, to get that much from it. But you also ignore what I wrote. I explained how that works. And those aren't my "beliefs." I stated, deliberately, that that's what the Bible says.
God is "alpha and omega." Yes? "The first and the last." Remember? And not just the extremes, but everything in between. This was explained in the creation story: God made everything. That would include the serpent, Adam and Eve, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
The serpent told them, “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). So God knows good and evil, created them, in fact, along with everything else.
All of this is according to the scriptural text.
1
-
Sith Lord "you want to pick and choose what convinces you. You are not as smart as you think you are. The bible makes the claims, you cant use it as evidence."
I see. But YOU are as smart as you think you are. Is that it? Listen, bub, what you're ignoring is that I'm agreeing with your first post here. And I'm agreeing with Kathryn's post, that "God is love."
How many times have you read the Bible, all the way through, I mean? I've lost count. I write essays on the Gospels, almost 50 under my belt. I read commentary by William Barclay, Bible dictionaries, study bibles--which go into the history of the scenes, and the meaning of the original Greek (used in the New Testament), and Hebrew (used in the Old).
More than that, I'm not a believer, as such. I tend to not believe in anything without proof. No proof means I'm unable to know it. And if I don't know it, I can only say that I believe something about it, or admit I don't know it: I choose the latter. I got my B.S. in Physics. I'm no genius, but I'm certainly no fool either.
If you want to talk about what the Bible says with me, I welcome it.
1
-
Sith Lord "dont start judging."
You're judging.
"LOL, countless? How many is that."
I don't know, more than 12. Stopped counting after that. How about you? How many times have you read it? You can count to a trillion, but how many times have you read the Bible?
"LOL, you wright essays? So what?"
Means I've read and thought about the Bible a lot. Takes a lot of understanding to write an essay. You ever written one about the Bible?
"There is no proof that the bible is true and there is a magic man in the sky."
I didn't say there was. I qualified all such statements with, "according to the text." I also told you I don't believe. See all that judging you did, in one post?
Now, do you want to LOL at everything, or do you want to talk? What if I told you there was way more in the Bible than belief? Way more. What, exactly? Aren't you curious? I was, so I studied it, and learned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jesus repeatedly said to "tell no one," when his apostles spoke of his holy nature. He also didn't refer to Yahweh as God, but as Father (or Abba in the native Aramaic). He said Heaven was not a place, and no one had ever been there; it was actually within each of us. And you reached that state of being, when you were born again. And you were born again when you were sorry for bad things you had done, and tried to never to do it again, AND by learning the gospel (or good news) which was this: Loving others is the only way to make you feel better about your interactions with them. So, to answer, it's "the one who keeps it in his pocket," and ministers not with holy words, but by helping others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@barton_dean39 I'm a Democrat. But I'm not just going to agree with all Democrats, no matter what. "Kissing babies" has always been a thing. It communicates humanity and compassion to voters. So, even today, someone can say they're "doing it for the children" for the same reason.
Dubya did this with "No child left behind," for example, which crippled education. Let me be clear: Biden was the one who put forward the original bill, which is awesome. That shows his genuine humanity. Had that bill passed, as is, it would have benefited everyone: corporations and children alike.
I'm not saying Pelosi is evil, or a lizard person, or anything like that. She broke up the bill because it would be less money all at once. She made what she thought was the correct political analysis. I might have done the same thing. But when she did this (claiming that it was for the children), she made it possible, instead, to allow for the corporate handout part of the bifurcated bill to be voted on--without anyone messing with the other part. That's my understanding of it, anyway. And I'm by no means a political expert. But I don't think I'm "full of it" either. So keep your ad hominems to yourself.
1
-
"Mansion Man" is running for senate? I'm sure the Right wingers like him, because he brandished a weapon at some passing BLM protesters. But doesn't it bother them that he also lives in a mansion? Aren't they wanting "outsiders," people who represent them? Does a person in a mansion really represent these people? Are they able to forget about, or tolerate, or doublethink their way through this obvious conflict of priorities? Do they think that a man who protected his mansion (when there was nothing threatening his mansion) really understands the common, everyday American? Seems to me like he'll give more tax breaks to the rich.
I don't know how to break this to them, but those protesters have more in common with everyday Americans. They should be supporting such people, instead of the super rich jerks, who only care about being super rich and a jerk. But I guess the "jerk" part is worth funneling more money away from the people, and to the rich. Otherwise, these Republican voters would insist on Democratic Socialism, so they could be in charge of their own work places, instead of some wealthier boss.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Always, ALWAYS, when Trump, or any of his supporters say anything, I remember the Bill Maher segment, What would a d--k do? Even if Trump thinks as he speaks, he doesn't have to say it. He could just lie, even, and assure everyone there will be a peaceful transition; say, Of course there will be, because he respects our Democratic process; say, Obama gave him (Trump) a peaceful transition, so he (Trump) will pay it forward. But no. Not Trump. For him, and his supporters (be they elected officials or citizens), it's ALWAYS What would a d--k do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2QXMGYluzo
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He managed to work in his usual favorites: "tremendous" and "the numbers," to name a couple. I did notice something I never realized before. What he says about himself is laughable to everyone, except his supporters, who take him literally, and treat him in the way that he claimed they behaved already. For example, we now know, for certain, that Trump's claims of a fraudulent defeat in the election are bogus. But he keeps saying it. He's a habitual liar, probably even to himself. That's what happens when no one makes you face your failures. But his supporters still believe him, as always. Trumpists are skeptical of everything and everyone, but Trump--and, of course, the rest of their bubble.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@man.itz.ashton "you can’t just say no. yes. a skeptic is someone who inquires further into things. he should read what people have said"
I'm not just saying no. You can't read everything everyone has ever written. It's impossible. You ever thought of how much time you have to live, subtract all that you have to do, and see how much time you have. And then see how much you can read?
Your time on earth isn't infinite. So I'm not going to read what some yahoo writes about UFOs. Besides I have read a great deal of what has been written already, when I was younger.
What are you going to spend your time studying, looking into? Study a foreign language (or multiple languages)? One or more musical instruments? Math, science, history? What kinds of math, science, or history?
How about reading? If you read one novel per week, then that's 62 novels per year. If you do that for 50 years, that's roughly 3,000 novels. What will those books be? You have to choose, spend your time in the way that you think is best.
So if you want to look into UFOs, go for it. Fine. I've certainly read about 10-15 books on the subject. But I see no point in looking further, because there is nothing to look at but guesses and lies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oceandrop7666 And if someone made up their mind (as in "period") about you from a picture, you'd be okay with that? See, when you judge someone so completely, without knowing anything about them (up to and including her thoughts as to why she dressed that way), then you aren't really hurting them--if it's someone you don't know.
You're hurting yourself. You're teaching your brain to not accept proof (since you have none), but to double down on beliefs and assumptions. That hurts you. It gets you used to shoddy thinking, which gets you used to accepting whatever you insist on (period), as opposed to accepting that you don't know the truth.
It's okay to not know what you can't know.
Unless you know her thoughts, her past, everything that's in her closet (literally and metaphorically), you can't know the truth. You can only assume. If you want to sell yourself short, no one can stop you. But if you want to do what's best for you, that is if you don't want to accept what you can't know as absolute truth, then save the judgements for yourself--since you're the only one whose thoughts you know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump and his supporters are nationalists. Both flag burning, and kneeling during the anthem, insult their national fervor. What they're saying is, essentially: "America is inherently the best, without doing anything; Americans are intrinsically the best; it doesn't matter what we do or say, because we are the best regardless of any actions."
*
Of course, that only goes for them, their political party. Democrats aren't counted as being part of the best, nor are Liberals, black lives, Puerto Ricans, our news media, or any ideas contrary to their own--e.g., American socialism is not a good thing; Americans having abortions are evil, even though they're Americans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xv.luc1d Painting a rosy picture, there, aren't you? Okay, but:
What does he/you mean by "Working hard, Obtaining financial freedom, Training your body to be healthy, Taking care of your family, Having loving relationships with women and Honoring your Bloodline?"
Even someone who is just baking cookies for the children of the neighborhood, could be putting poison in the cookies. Just because you make it sound innocuous, doesn't mean it is.
"Because Tate only promotes those things."
"Only" being the key word though. Right? Not only is there lots of wiggle room in your brief description, but I seriously doubt that he "only" does those things.
For example: Jeffrey Dahmer was only a collector. (He collected body parts from the people he killed.) Billy the Kid only sold horses and cattle. (He was a rustler, and stole the horses and cows, and then sold them.) Hitler loved his country, and wanted to put Germany first. (I'm sure you get my point.)
But what else did/does he do?
For another perspective, Sir Isaac Newton was an alchemist. And alchemy is nothing but pseudoscience. But he didn't ONLY do alchemy. The person you're defending is a criminal. He sexually assaults women. His deluded story has to do with the Matrix, and he likes influencing other lost males into defending him on YouTube, among other things.
So I ask you: "Do you think those are bad things?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think conservatives have an interest in fear partly because of its use in the English translation of the Bible, especially the King James. They don't take into account the transition of translation that occurs when you take something written not only in another language, but to and for a culture well removed from our own. And they don't seem to understand the ideas that were part of that culture, and how those ideas were rearranged to fit into the point of view of the 17th century King James Bible.
For example: In the text, the English translation uses "fear" a lot, when talking about God. "Fear the Lord" and "fear of God." But, when translated properly, taking into account the ancient Jewish culture, the 17th century English culture, and our own in the 21st century, fear is more accurately translated as "reverence." And reverence is defined as "a deep respect for something, the honoring of something."
So the text isn't actually saying to fear God (and therefore insist on others fearing you, since you want to be God), in the way that we would fear a violent attacker, but to develop a deep respect for all things--which is what God really is: all things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
What did Trump mean by, "I study history"? Does he sit and read history books, when he's not rage tweeting? Does he watch documentaries, when he's not binging on what the "lamestream media" says about him? I study history, and that's what I, personally, do. If you read a lot, then good diction, phrasing, and tone creeps into your speech. I don't see any of that with Trump.
Has he referred to any other historical event, or person? Trying to think, but I don't remember. He didn't really know who Frederick Douglass was. One time, he said, "Lincoln was a Republican. A lot of people don't know that."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bradynlotterman8164 "CNN literally encouraged rioters and looters all last summer"
Really? They "literally encourage rioters." So they actually, and not just metaphorically, or hyperbolically did so?
Let's just assume they did. The point of this story is that one of the January 6 insurrectionists is claiming that Fox filled his head with lies and hate, and pretty much brainwashed him into storming Congress, along with the rest of the mob.
So, if one of those rioters and looters, whom you claim CNN incited, gets caught and taken to court, and they then try to get off by saying CNN made them do it, THEN you can come here and make the comparison.
Until then, it's just whataboutism, deflection, and a refusal to accept the point of the story: which is, either A) Fox News is actually dangerous, or B) the insurrectionist doesn't actually believe in his cause enough to accept responsibility for what he did.
1
-
1
-
@marshamarshamarsha4567 As usual, along with all the others saying this same crap, you're missing the point. See, one of the January 6 insurrectionists is blaming Fox News for what he did. He's saying that, by watching Fox a lot, he got it in his head to storm Congress.
Now, when some CNN watcher does any such crime, and blames what he did on CNN, THEN and only then can you (and all the other mouth breathers) come here, and point out what I said about Fox, and then say it's also true of CNN. Until then, you got nothing, but your own bias, and a lack of understanding about the story we're here to discuss.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BraveJustDefend We can both claim, back and forth, that so-and-so is propaganda, or such-and-such promotes hate, etc.
But we have this one single example of a person saying that Fox made him do it. That's the point of the story. You want to ignore that, and tell me to create my own youtube channel? just because you want to spew your own garbage, which would be better suited on YOUR own youtube channel?
I think what happened here is you didn't watch the video, or read any of the other comments in this thread. I think you saw something about Fox, went trolling, found my comment, and saw that you could say something about CNN.
But it doesn't fit, because there were no criminals who have blamed CNN for their crimes. That simple. You want to preach, go make your own channel, instead of telling other people to do so.
1
-
1
-
@hermit1620 I'm just going to copy/paste what I responded to another person, who apparently...uh, believes people commenting on Youtube actually invent and decide sweeping punishments, as opposed to, you know, Congress and those kind of people.
"You realize, of course, that none of us have the power to do anything like what we're suggesting? And even if we could (as one person said) send all Republicans on a vacation to India, it would be very complicated, if not totally impossible.
"So relax, no one here is going to insist you take physics, in order to qualify to vote."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@craigcrawford6595 You have no sense of humor do you? What else do you take literally, that is, obviously, not to be (and incapable of being) taken literally? The Bible? Do you believe Superman is a real story?
Read this carefully: We (here in these comments) have no means of taking away your "constitutional right(s) because that [sic.] don't want a vaccine." And even if, somehow, the people who made the laws (as opposed to those of us commenting here) actually proposed, and intended to pass a law that DID take away...yadayadayada...even if that happened, we/I wouldn't support it, because WE ARE LIBERALS, LEFTISTS. Right? Remember?
We are not about taking away your constitutional rights. You probably don't believe that either, if you take the rightwing propaganda literally. Leftists fight for the rights of trans people, African Americans, Asian Americans. Right? Remember?
So stop taking our humor literally. Learn reading comprehension, so that you recognize the TONE of the writing, and so you realize that we aren't lawmakers, and we're leftists, and so obviously wouldn't approve of these things.
And stop playing the victim! No one is taking your rights, except, maybe the people who fill your head with this rightwing garbage, and convince you that you're the victim of the authoritarian liberals---which is a contradiction in terms.
1
-
@craigcrawford6595 "Do you actually understand what I said? Methinks not, at all."
Yes, your complicated point. I should know better than to engage with an obvious troll, but I enjoy trying to talk to people like you. However, after a day goes by, and you show no signs of anything but deflection, denial, and your cries of victimization, I bow out. Done. I'd rather do something more productive, which is anything, at this point. Thanks for a complete waste of time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williammiller3277 I know: 100 years war, crusades, inquisitions, the so-called Curse of Ham, and so on, up to the point of Roe v Wade, and LGBTQ hate. Plus, why do you think Rome became Christian? It made it easier to conquer people, because the Romans convinced them their barbaric religions were actually Christianity.
And I know you didn't say it was its sole use, but you didn't mention any other use--in that first post or this second one I'm replying to.
I don't want to get into some back and forth with someone who has made up their mind already. It's pointless. I probably shouldn't have said anything to start with.
But if you believe all there is to Christianity are the mistaken notions of those who abuse it, then you're accepting their mistakes as the sole truth of it. If you don't believe that, then fine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulw4044 Okay, but then I need some input from you.
"Jesus replied: “'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' / This is the first and greatest commandment. / And the second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’" (Matt. 22:37-39.)
The first and greatest commandment, then, is to love God with everything you got. Okay. Fine. But what does that mean, exactly? The answer comes in the second one, which the various English texts translate as "equally important,...like unto it,...like it."
And that would seem to be easily interpreted as meaning "equivalent to." So the first one equals the second one. And since the first one asks to love God with everything you have, then what that first one is really saying is to love your neighbor with everything you have.
Jesus went on to say that was all the Law (the 5 books of Moses) and the Prophets (which is everything else that Christians call the Old Testament). So the entirety of Judaism comes down to this: Love one another with everything you got, in the way that a religious person loves God.
And since Jesus builds Christianity on Judaism, then what he says there refers to Christian love as well. To spread that word, that message, is a heavy calling. Loving one another is something the greater mass of humanity has not yet accomplished.
So, if you want to minister, then you need to come from a place of loving everyone and everything, because that's what God is (in human terms): everyone and everything.
1
-
@hunglikeahorse---fly "ok... there's a passage where your "one and only God" says to not worship any other God's. There are OTHER gods???"
First, pull your claws back in: I'm not religious. I am well read, however, and write essays on the Gospels. I'm a wordman, i.e., a writer. I read and write about all kinds of stuff.
Back to your post, yes, in fact the very first commandment is, "That shalt have no other Gods before me."
This is stated many times, in many ways, throughout the text. That doesn't mean there are other gods, but rather that other gods are worshiped. Right?
Couple of basic things to keep in mind here. First, this text was written at a time when there were a lot of Israelites mingling with the other cultures in Palestine. The text also speaks against that. But they did it any way.
Even the Jews' greatest Biblical hero, David, married Bathsheba, who wasn't a Jew. Interestingly enough, it was from that "abomination" of a marriage that King Solomon was born. And it was from Solomon that the Gospel of Matthew traces Jesus' ancestors. So Jesus was born from this unlawful practice, which was mainly put in place to stop the Israelites from worshiping pagan gods.
And the law had a point, in that, among many others, Solomon worshiped pagan gods. But from the worshiping of other gods, we get Jesus. :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulcoy9060 "Ah, so you failed the reading comprehension on both aspects of my sentence."
I didn't fail, because you didn't write a sentence. You wrote a fragment. Let's look at it:
"Just like Joe Biden, AOC, Ilham Omar, any LGBT+ Congress person, etc.,"
You ended it with a comma. Did you plan to write more, and didn't? This isn't about my reading comprehension, as NOTHING of the context that you later provided was in that fragment you posted. It could mean anything.
I'm not a mind reader. You have to write what's on your mind, or no one will know it. Now, when you did actually write not just one, but many complete sentences, enumerating your points, then I totally agree with you.
Okay?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why can't he admit that he did something selfish? Don't we all do selfish things? Why not admit he abandoned his post? Again, haven't we all? We mess up, make mistakes, and look out for #1: Isn't that the definition of humanity? Just be humble, and admit he wasn't thinking clearly. And then he could do everything in his power to help people, who were suffering in the storm. Isn't he a Christian? Shouldn't the duty to help others kick in at some point? No one is a perfect Christian all the time. Peter denied Jesus three times. But, at some point, as Jesus told Peter, "when you come to yourself," then you do the right thing. Did Cruz do the right thing, after denying his position as a leader of a suffering people?
If a person can't admit they were wrong, when they get caught, and were obviously wrong, then how many other times were they not caught? So Cruz not only abandoned his post, he abandoned his Christian duty, and blamed it on his daughters, thus abandoning his respectful role of being a father.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@X2LR8 "I believe in hiring based on merit, skills, talent and experience."
I already spoke to this, and you ignored it. So I'll say it again:
The point of this video is that if the past few centuries (i.e., the entirety of the U.S.) had been actually based on merit, then there would be no need for diversity hiring.
Instead it was based on racism, sexism, nationalism, and bigotry in general. So being against diversity, you are for the other. But you're a troll, and it doesn't matter how many times someone repeats themselves to prove you wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Luis M Coriana "Leftist always think that anything that disgree with them is nazi."
It isn't just anyone who disagrees. We see democratic politicians and voters disagree all the time. Disagreeing isn't the problem. Nor are the people who are called nazzi (sp intended) just disagree: They aren't saying innocuous things, like cake is better than pie, or Elvis is better than the Beatles. But that seems to be your position. Poor innocent right wing extremists are just disagreeing...but about what?
Well, they disagree that women have the right to an abortion, that LGBTQ people should have any rights; that the Encyclopedia of Mammals should be in a K-12 Florida school library, etc. And it's how they disagree, which is with book banning, stripping away rights, or just simply with their guns: The majority of terrorism in the U.S. is from right wing extremists. The leader of the Proud Boys, who helped organize January 6th was just sentenced 18 years in prison...for disagreeing. So your argument is really lame and silly, and cliche by this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Which is worse: He's ignorant, or knows what he's doing--and is, therefore malicious. I've wondered about this with Trump supporters. It could easily go either way, with Trumpists, since they're millions of individuals.
I think Trump has been concerned with the "numbers," as he put it. I think he's used to doing anything, and getting away with it. And I think, with this virus, he can't get away with it. Schools are shutting down (like Harvard), for the foreseeable future; a neighborhood is quarantined in New York, with National Guard on hand; over 30 states have known cases of infection.
Trump is used to BSing his way through, as David pointed out, on a previous show. But here, the BS will not hold up much longer, even to his cult. And, yes, if he's thinking someone might purposefully infect him, I'd take that as a possibility of him having someone infected; that, or he's freaking out, being way over his head.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Reminds me of the end-of-the-world cult, who believed their leader had calculated the day when the world would end. (I searched for a specific name, place, and time for this, but there were far too many such cults to find anything specific.) Of course, the world didn't end, and so they just pushed back the date.
These people are desperate for their "secret knowledge." It's the only way life can hold any meaning for them. Because, otherwise, they are small, insignificant nobodies. That's why they chose Trump, why the listen to Q, and why they stormed Congress: to be part of something big, which would counter their very small lives.
There are better ways to be of importance. Adopt an animal from a shelter; you have saved a life. Volunteer to teach literacy. There are lots of adults who can't read. Help them. Even a smile can save someone's day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My dad's family came from France; and my mom's, England--in about the 17th century. Do you honestly think, just because America had slavery, and a whole chunk of the country, over centuries, refused to make up for it, or, indeed, change their way of thinking about the people they enslaved--and their descendants--that I should send half my family to France, and the other to England, just because of a bunch of idiots, who can't look beyond skin color?
You ever thought of returning to where your ancestors originated? I ask because, since you seem to hate, that others hate, you might be happier there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Not_that_Brian_Jones "I really don't see why I would need to be offended to reply. That is ... bizzare to me."
You don't? Somehow I'm not surprised. Why did you comment then? You had to have felt the impetus to comment for some reason. What was that reason?
Obviously, it's because you "see the caller's point." And what was that point? That he was offended. A joke isn't as funny when you have to explain it.
And by the way, it's spelled "bizarre." Don't you have spell check? "Bizzare" isn't even a word. There's "bazaar," but you weren't close to that one either.
Anyway, I replied because you claimed another poster (@Tim) was offended. And then you claimed that another poster had somehow illustrated your point that your reply lacked punctuation and capitalization.
You thought it was ironic, maybe that @Tim was offended in someone else taking offense, because @Tim had replied--as there was no other hint in what they wrote that they were offended. But if that's true, then you were offended, because Pakman offended, and then you were offended again by @Margaret.
So I found that ironic. Are you new to words? If English is your second language, I apologize.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mike-gv2ol Problem is, you aren't at all clear. Only just now, here, have you actually stated what it is you're trying to say. Finally! Let's look at it:
"I am clearly talking about when she has the choice to get an abortion but DOESN’T when he doesn’t want the child."
First of all, that's not what the senator in the video is talking about. He said the man shouldn't be responsible, because he would then insist the woman get an abortion; and the senator wants to stop abortions.
But you're saying the man would insist on an abortion; the woman would "opt out" of the abortion, against the man's wishes; and so the man, who didn't want the child, would be stuck paying child support. He can't "opt out."
Then you're pro-choice. Let's make that clear. What you're actually doing here is saying the real point of this senator's proposal--which is to make it so men don't have to pay child support. Congratulations, you said the quiet part out loud.
You get a woman pregnant, then you take the responsibility. If you don't want to, then you can sign a court document agreeing that you'll never have anything to do with the child. Ever. At all. This has been around for a long time already. So you can opt out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For those who came in late: Guns don't kill people; people kill people...with guns, in America, a lot. Restricting access to guns doesn't work, because criminals can still get guns; so we shouldn't reduce access to guns. The NRA has a massive gun lobby, and absurd influence, but that doesn't matter because (say it with me, in monotone unison), "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." We should (and do) have government control over whether or not women can get an abortion, but government control over guns, and access to the kinds of guns used in these shootings is an attack on freedom. Any gun laws, beyond what we have already, automatically means Democrats are coming to take your guns, and red meat, and Bibles. People need guns, in case the American government becomes tyrannical, which has never happened; and, meanwhile, people are being gunned down by maniacs, just so we can have guns, in case the government turns tyrannical, which has never happened; but, if it did, people would have guns to protect themselves from the tyrant's armies, drones, air strikes, missile strikes, and so on.
Also: Do you even know what an "assault rifle" is? I doubt it, so arguments against all the above cliches are worthless. (Did I miss anything?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anytime someone claiming to be a Christian doesn't mention loving everyone, forgiveness, mercy, or compassion, you can tell they aren't the good kind of Christian. When they talk about the Bible, and don't mention the beatitudes, Jesus' new commandment, or how no one is supposed to judge others, they aren't the good kind of Christian. And anyone who ever, ever claims to know what an infinite God wants, they are equally disingenuous as the others I mentioned, or candidates for a padded room.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm curious if anyone has stopped to think what they would do, in Christie's position, back when he wasn't speaking out against Trump. Sure, it's easy for us to look back, now, having not been in that position ourselves, and say what he should have done. But use a little imagination. Try really hard to put yourself in his place. Would you, honestly, risk your career to speak out against Trump in his first term? What if he had a second? What if you could advance if you supported him, or lose everything if you went against him?
Try. I know it's hard. But, really, be honest with yourself. You don't even have to reply to me here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Besides being absolutely right, and able to explain science in the simplest possible terms, Bill Nye also performed an experiment. Experimental science allows us to test a hypothesis. We didn't always know this. Long, long ago, the brightest thinkers assumed you could just think about a thing, and that's all you needed. They didn't test their theories, but just assumed they were right, because they had thought about it. Unfortunately, many people still practice this (and many other) millennia-old modes of thought...belief, really.
*
If you want to be sure you're correct, design an experiment. It's fun. Anyone can do it. You saw how simple it was for Bill Nye. One of the main reasons for experimenting is that we humans have a natural tendency toward personal bias: We (meaning you, I, each of us) believe we're awesome, and everything we do and think is perfect; the universe exists just for us. So we don't even wonder if we're wrong--which means we usually are. That's why experimenting is so crucial, because it removes, or considerably lessens, the likelihood of personal bias.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnconnor2572 "The "trained marxists" in BLM....bunch of angry communists"
*
The people in BLM are neither Marxists, nor Communists; matter of fact those two words have so very often been used as trigger-words, to put down a people, de-legitimize them in the eyes of those who hate them.
*
"...go around crying racist? All lives do matter no ifs, ands, or buts. If you think any differently you're a racist"
*
I'm not sure what you're saying here, because it's not very clear. Are you saying BLM, and the people who support them, are calling people racists, just because they don't agree with BLM?
*
Let's take a look at that. On the one hand, yes, you're right: If people don't agree that black lives matter, then, yes, they're racist. On the other hand, with what it seems you're actually saying, BLM is just CALLING them racists, hypocritically so, and only because those other people don't agree with whatever BLM agenda you believe is going on.
*
On the other hand, you could be saying that all lives do matter; and if you think any differently, you're a racist. As I said, you aren't being very clear. Let me explain something:
*
"Black Lives Matter" does NOT mean no other lives but black ones matter; just as "black power" does not mean power to ONLY black people; and just as Feminism does not mean those Females believe they are better than males.
*
In order to de-legitimize those groups, who were only asking for equal rights, other groups claimed that the BLM, black power, and Feminists all hated them, and saw themselves as superior, and so they fought back with All Lives Matter, white power, and anti-feminism.
*
But what those other groups [the All-Lives-Matter crowd] revealed (and still reveal) is that THEY are the ones who believe themselves superior. And how dare the women, or the "blacks," or any other group ask to be treated as if they matter.
*
That's all they want, you know: to be treated as if they matter. It's a tragic declaration, to insist that ones lifes matters, only to be met with, "no, no, no! All lives matter."
*
If all lives matter, then black lives do matter. So you can say, individually, black lives matter, yes; Native American lives matter, yes. And then you can show them they do matter. If they are wrong, in believing they do not matter, then they need to be shown they matter. Instead, they're countered with All Lives Matter--which shows their movements don't matter, and, therefore, they don't matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This has long been a point of confusion and outrage for some women, especially if they look at '90s female comic book heroines. Though Drinker did a great job explaining why being sexy sells, I'd like to add my own two cents.
Know why sexually appealing people are able to sell things (including movie tickets)? Because sex sells. Know why sex sells? Because, without sex, there would be no human race. it's that simple: Sex = survival. And, as organisms, our main goal in life is to survive.
Sure, this is often manipulated to sell things. And sex can easily become the only thing we see, when we look at a person. Very rarely are we seen as a human soul, or some such thing. It's much easier, and therefore natural, to see people in the simplest terms, which is to say sexually.
That's why people get put in the "friend zone," or why a particular kind of look (such as bad boy, brainiac, nerd, etc.) is an instant turn off, or turn on. This is natural. But it also depends on how far you take it, if this sexual stereotyping becomes a crime, such as murder, rape, kidnapping.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Your all sinking."
Wow, it's almost like you know each and every one of us personally. You know our thoughts, past, present, and future. I mean, because, otherwise, you don't know squat. Right? You're (which is how you spell it) just generalizing.
Since you don't know each of us personally, you then throw us into a group, which you then claim is totally homogeneous, and completely knowable--which allows you to know the group, when you have no clue whatsoever about the individuals? Because, otherwise, you don't know squat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm no magabilly, but that's not what the Sieg looked like. First, they didn't beat their chest like that, which he did twice. Secondly, they didn't raise their arms to the side like that. Their arm went straight up in front of them. Maybe he was trying to do the salute, but didn't know how to do it correctly. Originally, before it was adopted and appropriated, it was a normal greeting in that country: like when we wave to each other. So, whenever anyone greeted another person, that other person was in front of them. When it became their official salute, they had to be facing the person they were saluting. There are plenty of things he and DonaldMcCheese have actually done and said that we can focus on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hope-kf1nl "The assertion that embracing elements of other cultures is 'messed up' ignores the reality of our interconnected, multicultural world."
I don't think that's what I was talking about, at all. I said expecting others to embrace your holiday, when they have their own, is messed up.
Do you celebrate the holidays of other cultures and religions? On your own I mean. I don't. Maybe I should?
The history of how Christmas came to be is messy. It goes back to Saint Nicholas, but it didn't really become a thing until the 16th century, with the idea of "Father Christmas."
So what is Christmas? Ever looked it up? I just did: "the annual Christian festival celebrating Christ's birth, held on December 25 in the Western Church."
The -mas suffix comes from the old English word for mass, "as in a church service, especially one in the Roman Catholic Church including a celebration of the Eucharist."
I'm not Christian. But I find history to be fascinating, especially the history of words, and how commonly held beliefs came to be. So there you go. :)
1
-
@Hope-kf1nl You seem set on the idea of Christmas not being Christian. You've talked around that point, but as far as I can see, you haven't actually said why you believe that way.
Are you not religious? Is that it? I'm not religious. I know a lot about the Bible though, and other world religions, myths, folklore, traditions.
Is it because you aren't religious that you want to think of Christmas as being secular? Are you just playing devil's advocate? Is it just because you believe Jews should celebrate a Christian holiday?
I don't understand why you're so insistent on that point, despite it being in the name, being rooted in Christianity, and being celebrated only (or at least largely, in terms of religious persuasion) by Christians. And I'm curious. Can you tell me?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thought experiment: Imagine you're a Trump supporter. "Are you ready? Are you ready?"
You voted for Trump, for whatever reason(s), but at least partly because he spoke to something personal in you. You take criticism of Trump personally, just as he takes criticism personally, instead of understanding that the critique is aimed at what he did. As an analogy, a baseball player fumbles a ground ball. The coach yells at the player. Instead of realizing he/she made a mistake, the player takes it personally: They didn't just make an error, the coach (and anyone else criticizing the play) is saying the player is a bad person--as far as the player interprets it.
So anything directed at Trump is taken personally by Trump supporters.
The more time we put into anything, the more it becomes part of our lives, part of who we are, our identity. They ARE Trump supporters. To admit that they were wrong about him would undermine their identity: the baseball player analogy. Now, we're all wrong, about who knows how many things, how many times during the day. No one knows everything, so, inevitably, we're mistaken. But if the things you do are equated to who you are, personally, then a mistake becomes a flaw in your character: You didn't lose; you're a loser.
So Trump supporters cannot admit they were wrong, if, as said above, they take Trump personally, and identify themselves that way. And the more complicit they are, i.e., the more times they defend Trump, or let something he did/said pass without accepting criticism, the more dedicated they are. They reach the point of no return.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do Republicans never think things through? Well...of course they don't. What am I saying? They're told what to believe, and they accept that belief as undeniable fact. Problem solved.
In the recent shooting, one of the three adults killed was a substitute teacher. So not only should all people who are currently teachers be armed, but substitutes as well? That would mean all teachers who have never used a gun must be trained. Who's paying for that? What if they don't want to be trained to use a gun, or carry one, or draw it there--in front of their class--and trust their newly trained aim is on point?
And would this only be for public schools, which are run by the state, or private schools as well? That elementary school where the substitute was shot and killed was a private Christian school. What about those teachers? Assuming they're Christian, Jesus said, "Put away your sword. He who lives by the sword also dies by the sword."
Didn't teachers take the job in order to teach? Maybe some go to a shooting range, granted, but certainly not all. Some of them would likely hate the idea of firing a weapon, carrying a loaded gun.
How about the kids? If the teacher gets shot and killed, whether they're armed or not, then it's up to the children to defend themselves. Should we arm them too? What happens if they get into an argument on the playground, and someone's boyfriend breaks up with them, or otherwise angers them in some childish way? Should we make laws to excuse the armed elementary children, when they shoot each other, since they need to be armed anyway?
That's just an example of what happens, Republicans, when you stop and think things through.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The possible silver lining here is the country will go down in such obvious, even ostentatious flames that no one will ever vote for anyone like him again. People will lose health care, get sick from the unregulated food prep, go broke from the tariffs; and he will be condemned on the world stage, as the other leaders see us as being like a leper colony; everyone will lose freedoms because of the evangelicals, especially his supporters, since they're certainly no angels. And as even his supporters protest, he'll get frustrated with them, talk down to them, turn the troops on them; and they'll be sheep without a shepherd, as it dawns on them how wrong they were, and how awful he is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shawnstephens1251 "Dude, you and yours have cried wolf so many times nobody is buying this anymore. Every second of video is another vote to "Make America Great Again'. Anybody that doesn't want a great America doesn't belong here."
First, when did anyone ever cry wolf with accusations about Trump? That's one thing I don't get about MAGA. There is no such pattern of people trying to defame Trump, by saying things that can't be proven. You'll probably say, What about Muller? Muller didn't clear Trump; he left the prosecution of him to the government, and the Republicans stalled until it disappeared. And so on. The problem is he uses his money and power to avoid prosecution.
Secondly, who are you to say who doesn't belong in the United States? And just because they don't agree with MAGA, which attacked the U.S. government? Finally, anyone ever defined when the U.S. was "great," given that it wasn't when Trump took office? Did it become great after he took office? You know, with his mishandling of Covid, and so many people dying. And his election denying, January 6th, lowering America's standing in the world.
Maybe you're the one crying wolf, by saying others are crying wolf. Every thought about that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Newsmax, Fox, etc. play to their target audience. It's not meant for the rest of us. Their "reporting" comes across as nonsensical to us. But, to a Trump supporter (or whatever you call such people today), it would make perfect sense. I first realized this while listening to Trump, who made no sense, ever...because he wasn't talking TO Democrats, but to his base.
If you accept that Champ is dirty, and in need of love, then that means Biden neglects his senior dog, and even mistreats him. So Biden's love is fake news. Right? This goes along with the story that Biden's marriage is fake. This, then, shows Biden, himself, as being a pretender, a sham. Right-wingers love crying, "hypocrite!"
1
-
1
-
Mark Paperhanger Yes, really. Unless you think Trump has anything in common with a socialist, political activist, and trade unionist. That's just for starters, but it automatically kills the comparison. It's about as false of an equivalence as you can get.
He ran for President 4 times, on the socialist ticket. Republicans think (incorrectly) that Dems are socialists. But Debs was actually one.
You know why he was jailed in 1918? He said, “The working class have never yet had a voice in declaring war. If war is right, let it be declared by the people – you, who have your lives to lose.”
Back in 1897, he helped found the American Socialist party. How much further should I go?
One of his more famous quotes is, "While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."
He gave that 1918 speech wearing a frayed tweed coat. Do you really think that is at all like Trump? Debs was ACTUALLY a man of the people. He was with them, not on a private jet. Trump likes to pretend he's with the everyman, but has never shown any willingness to literally live as they do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ihcterra4625 As for expressing your beliefs publicly, Jesus said:
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. / But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matt. 6:5-6.)
How can ostensibly religious people be trusted, if they don't even know or follow their own Bible?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ihcterra4625 "freedom from religion isn't a thing in the constitution.
"If you want to be religion free, knock yourself out. Just don't go preaching it to others or you are breaking your own rules."
Aw come on! I was in full agreement with your other post. How does what you wrote there fit with this insightful truth you wrote, which I agreed with:
"I always agreed with that. Faith isn't a show and they should know we are Christian by our love. Not our criticism, derision, judgement, hatred and anger."
That's Christianity right there. That's it! Perfectly stated. But now you don't want others to be free from your religion? Are you schizophrenic, or what?
I explained exactly what freedom of religion meant, and how the founders had good reason to also mean freedom from religion.
It means you have no right to make laws from your religion, or because you believe (or claim) your god told you so. It also means others can't be made to accept, acknowledge, or give a rat's hind end about your religion.
That's why we don't have prayers in public schools anymore, or sacrifice live chickens by the full moon to bless each session of congress. Because, if we allowed anything like that, people who aren't religious but pretending to be so, or even crazed people who believe God told them to cook people in ovens, would cease control. And there would be no stopping them.
It's wrong, and straight out of the mouths of Marjorie Greene and Lauren Boebert. Love your neighbor, and leave it at that. If that doesn't work, then forgive those who hate you, and keep on loving them. That's it. That's all. Anything else is neither Christian, nor American.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@t0dd000 I said, it's up to us to study on our own, after we complete formal education, throughout our adult lives. How is that incorrect? You didn't say: just went off on some strawman, that has nothing to do with my point. A person can be poorly educated in school, but read, study, and learn on their own, as an adult. I did. When people don't do that, they fail to maintain a healthy, robust intellect. I see it everywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jacob-ye7gu "Except in socialism they do it all the time, instead of just during a crisis."
This is the point that so many, on this link, are commenting about. If the socialist idea of "free money," that comes from tax payers, and "big government," is okay in a crisis, how much better would it be all the time?
We spend all that money anyway, whether to taxes for socialist programs, or to insurance companies. Would we rather spend it just on ourselves, and still go broke paying hospital fees? Or "throw it in a pot," so everyone, including ourselves, won't go broke paying hospital fees? It would be a simple obvious choice, were it not for the big corporations, who lobby our politicians, who spread propaganda about how evil socialism is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DebunkingLeftistPropaganda "There is no way for you to debate this, when your criticism is rooted in the person itself and not the policy & approach."
I was with you until you got there. Trump Derangement Syndrome? Really? You believe people are against him because he just...I dunno...smells wrong?
I don't think so. This undermines your entire argument, revealing it as a Gish gallop, and revealing you as insincere, and not nearly the intellectual you pretend to be.
There's no way an intellectual would side with Trump at this point, certainly not after all he has done.
"Hatred of the messenger."
No. Hatred of his message, his actions, his words, his more than 30,000 lies while in office, his mishandling of Covid, January 6th, what happened with E. Jean Carroll, the 91 indictments, and his big lie about the 2020 election: just for starters.
You haven't debunked diddly squat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is actually worth looking deeper into: how Native Americans reacted to Christianity: I mean initially, before they were forced to send their children far away to Christian schools, and denied their own names, and given "Christian names" like Jeff or Sandra. I have a couple books on this. Here's my favorite story:
I don't remember what nation the natives were from, but some ministers came to see them, and told them the story of Jesus: born from a virgin, died on the cross, etc. The natives said that was a good story, and then volunteered to tell the story of their beliefs. The ministers shut them down, and said Jesus wasn't just some story, and he was there to save them from Hell. Not much has changed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ryan88881 "Also when you say "what quantum level electrons are on right now", do you mean to say "quantum state" rather?"
I meant energy level there. Electrons are up to all kinds of craziness, and their activities and behavior are described by different numbers--with different functions and definitions.
The levels are determined by Planck's constant, as each one has a numerical value of energy. Electrons can only exist in (or on?) a level, not in between the levels.
There's also the value of "spin," which isn't a literal spin, but just what they called it back in the day. That spin is either up or down.
The "state" of an electron (or any quantum system) would be its numbers--one of which is the spin. There are lots of names, numbers, definitions to exercise your brain with in Quantum.
And, no, I didn't know that about Lewis Carroll. I love his books, though. Makes sense.
1
-
1
-
@Ryan88881 I'm excited by how excited you are! I envy your journey. In regards to probability:
It is all over the place in Quantum--which is a pun. And that's because particles pop in and out of existence, and we never know when or where they'll be. We can only calculate the probability of when and where.
By Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, if we do know the current location, then we can't know the momentum, and vice versa.
Probability also comes into play before the wave function collapses. This is what made Erwin Schrodinger so mad. He insisted, with his thought experiment, that the cat was either dead or alive, whether we opened the box to look or not.
Poor guy: In Quantum it's both, neither, a probability that we can't know for sure, until the wave collapses, and we look inside the box. There are many, many other examples of probability. If you haven't started studying statistics yet, you'll do yourself a big favor by starting asap. Have fun!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SneakySteevy "Sorry french is my first language."
If this is true, there are a couple of things to note. First, your English is light years beyond my French. And that's giving me way more credit than I can even describe. Secondly, if French is your first language, then why are you so concerned with evangelical, conservative, Republican, American talking points?
Because you are awash in their propaganda.
"You perceive it as discrimination but it is not."
What is not discrimination, exactly? Everything that is claimed to be discrimination? Because that can't be true. Discrimination exists. So your broad generalizations about it hold no meaning, without specificity. And you offer none.
"Someone who feel threatened isn’t the proof that there is a threat."
Again, no specific examples to qualify what is and isn't a threat. Since there are obviously threats out there, then, without qualifications, your broad brushing statements are false by definition.
"That is psychology 101."
No it isn't. I studied psychology, and it most certainly isn't something that can sweep away all discrimination and threats, just because you believe there aren't any.
"We are A LOT to say to wokes that what they are perceiving isn’t what they think it is and instead of verify or asking questions they just attack those person."
So no one should believe their eyes and ears because you said so. What a farce of an argument, a deflection in lieu of an argument.
"Laws of causalities is totally ignored by woke."
I majored in physics, and that isn't what causality means by a long shot. Causality is an If=>Then statement: If this, then that. But you're saying what people experience, and have recorded, and is widely available, isn't true. And therefore the implication is false.
But if it is true, then your implication is false. And since that truth is circumstantial, and you've given no room for circumstances, then it's your interpretation of psychology, philosophy, and physics that is false.
And, it occurs to me you haven't even elaborated on what this actual reality is, that people have perceived for 2,000 years, before the coming of woke. What is it? Other than you're right, and woke is wrong. Sorry, my ostensibly French friend, you sound like an evangelical, conservative, American, MAGA Republican.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SneakySteevy That is beside the point here, and is just another deflection. I've explained what woke is. You haven't begun to debunk that. I've given you every opportunity, but you persist in not giving any example of 1) what human thought in the past 2,000 years leads you to believe differently (like that even matters if you did provide it; who cares?), 2) examples of when perceived prejudice and discrimination against race, sex, gender is only perceived and not real.
Instead, you have shown that the flawed perception is on your end, i.e., your own, and that you're perfectly fine with the prejudice and discrimination that does happen--because none of it is real to you.
And I don't believe for one second that you're from France, Sneaky Steevy. I hate to think of anyone from that wonderful country would have such a childish username, and would be such an evangelical, conservative, MAGA Republican.
Though I guess anything is possible, especially if you moved here, and got swept up in that hateful propaganda.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You dare call us racists? You [insert racial epithet]! I'll attack you, for calling me a racist!"
Let's pretend, for a moment, that there was no racism in any of the acts done by police or citizens, and no hate crimes committed, ever. So there was no racism displayed at all. OK?
Well, now, in denying that they are racists, they have committed violent, racist acts. So, of course, they're actually racists. More than that, they're dangerous. What if a black person had punched a white counter-protester in the back of the head, in front of a cop?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Struggling with why these right-wingers are against the vaccine, first of all; and, secondly, why they instead are all about stuff that hasn't been approved. I kinda get they don't know what's in the vaccine. So why put unknowns into their bodies? But have they ever looked at the ingredients in any kind of mass-produced food: sweets like cookies, soda? Do they know what all those ingredients do, what they are? Is it okay because no one has died of Nutter Butters?
But then I realize two things. First, don't look for logic in the illogical; secondly, maybe their reticence doesn't make sense, because the real reason is they want to own the Libs. If Democrats are for something, Republicans have to be against it: First rule of Republican Club is reject whatever Dems suggest (and so is the second rule). Plus, this way they get to start fights in grocery stores, and go insane at school board meetings. Sounds like a party!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You *read" it, then, before "rending" it? Cover-to-cover? Maybe multiple times, to make sure you understood it as an adult? I gather from your single-sentence comment that you also looked into the history of it? So you know about the J document, P document, etc., and the final redacting? Yeah? You know how the first few books in that J document were 500 years before the redacted version, before Judaism began? You've studied Hebrew to understand the OT, and Greek for NT, to make sure you're not depending on a butchered English translation? Surely. And you've noted the differences in the OT and NT, the different writers in each single book, of the 66-book compilation? And you know how those wars started pretty much with Constantine in 300 C.E.? Which seems to imply that the Bible was around before people justified their wars because of it, and was a tool used by the Romans and others. Right? And there was slavery apart from the Bible, having nothing to do with it, not to mention greed.
1
-
1
-
@joshknoll5172 "As a teacher, I find all of these people absolutely examples of the failure of our education system."
How can you be a teacher and assume that? I say "assume" because you have no proof. First, these old people are not a product of our current education system. So do you have a problem with the system from 60-70 years ago? What, exactly? Secondly, besides "the education system" being an extremely vague and broad term, what exactly do you expect them to do about it? Follow people around for the rest of their lives, going door to door a couple times per week, to make sure they're still studying and learning on their own? Because, otherwise, it's UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL whether or not they reinforce what they learned in formal education, as well as continue to learn and grow--not their teachers...teacher.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hirnlego999 "But they are commanded to worship a genocidal dictator who commits people based on though crime."
Been watching Christopher Hitchens, sounds like. Hate to break it to you, but you aren't Hitch. So you probably don't know very much at all about what you're saying.
First thing to know: If you take the Bible literally, then you can certainly call the God of that text what Hitch called him.
But isn't taking the Bible literally what you're arguing against, where Christians are concerned? Isn't it silly to take it literally? Why are you doing it then?
Second thing: Joseph Campbell was in a much better position than Hitch to describe religion. First, he was much smarter. I know that's hard to imagine, because Hitch is at least 1,000 times more intelligent than I am. But, yes, Campbell was smarter. And he didn't spend his life confronting people, telling them they were wrong.
Anyway, Campbell said, "Religion is misunderstood mythology." The reason this is more intelligent than Hitchens' take is, first of all, Campbell was an intellectual and not a sensationalist showman and debater. So what he said and wrote wasn't designed for the stage, but for the mind. Secondly, Campbell really knew all the world's myths and religions: way more than Hitch.
Finally, Campbell's description works, where Hitchens' (and yours) falls apart when you stop taking the Bible literally: which, again, is the wrong thing believers are doing.
So when you think about the Bible now as mythology, just try it on as a hypothesis, then everything falls perfectly into place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"This President is the most informed person on Planet Earth!"
I nearly spit out my coffee. First, as opposed to what other planet? He's the most informed on Earth, but that one Martian has him beat, at least on Planet Mars? Secondly, how can anyone be "the most informed" person on the planet? How do you judge that? Are people being tested? Where do I sign up? And is he the most informed about EVERYTHING, or just Russia, or just politics, etc.? Finally, why does Trump have to be the best at everything? e.g., "I have the best words." But, anyway, this "most informed" takes the cake, especially since he wasn't informed about this Russian bounty thing, which other people, even foreign governments, were informed of. Really, aren't the British now more informed than Trump, because they knew about the bounties?
*
This is what happens when stupid people try to lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@A T Wow, you didn't even give any reasons for anything you wrote. At least come up with some theories. It shouldn't be that difficult. But maybe that's why conservative men can't find love on their conservative dating app: because they're too dumb-stupid, too selfish, too insanely psycho, too obsessed with their conspiracies that they would hardly ever think of the woman.
If all women wanted was to find someone posting a picture with a truck, wearing sunglasses, then they can find that anywhere. If they wanted some dumb jerk who believes having conspiracy theories, and hating the government makes him a patriot, then they would have flocked to that dating app. But no.
Can you even imagine dating a man who isn't into women's rights? I think not, unless they're already married, and over 40-something years old...closer to 60, maybe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Belief is a weird, dangerous thing. By definition, belief isn't knowledge. We don't say we believe, when we know for a fact. But many, many people come to accept their beliefs as facts. Once that happens, and they're unable to prove their "facts," because the facts are really just beliefs, no one can prove their "facts" are wrong either--because their facts are really beliefs, and, for these people, they have "a right" to their beliefs.
What's worse, no one can prove that they actually believe what they claim to believe. So they could just be lying about their beliefs, and using them as an excuse. Belief and proof are like oil and water. So, in the case shown in this video, I have to ask, Do Trumpists actually believe the election was stolen? Does Trump really believe it? Do they believe AntiFa was behind the insurrection attempt? Do only some of them believe it? Do some believe the stolen election, but not the AntiFa thing? Who knows? Do they even know?
Nothing about a belief is rational. When you accept that you don't know a thing, and can only believe it, and then accept that belief as a thing you know, then you use a kind of doublethink; you rewire your brain, replacing black with white, white with black; sweet for sour, and sour for sweet. When that happens, nothing is what it actually is anymore. Rather, it is what you believe it to be. That's what has happened to Trumpists.
1
-
1
-
banjaxeguitars banjaxeguitars "Speak clearly and in measured sentences. You write now for posterity."
I have been, and always do, to the best of my ability. Yes, I know and love Leonard Cohen's poetry and songs. If anyone interprets that speech by Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees as an indictment of humanity, then yes: I am one. And it isn't much of a stretch to so, given this verse from John (my favorite gospel):
"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19).
If you take the story of the gospels literally, then no: Jesus wasn't speaking to everyone, only the scribes and Pharisees. But the scribes and Pharisees thought they knew everything, and so didn't need to learn anything. That sounds like all of us, at some point, if not all the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@guymontag349 I've seen some people make this claim. He's referring to what David said about Jonathan. The verse goes:
"How I weep for you, my brother Jonathan! Oh, how much I loved you! And your love (1) for me was deep, deeper than the love (2) of women!" (2 Samuel 1:26).
So some people assume David was gay for Jonathan. But if you look at the Hebrew wording, there were two different words used for love there:
1: ’a·hă·ḇā·ṯə·ḵā.
2: mê·’a·hă·ḇaṯ.
I marked them in the verse above.
1: the word means affection, friendship, comradery. It's used 40 times in the Old Testament.
2: This is a rare word, used only twice in the Old Testament: once for God's love, and once here.
And keep in mind, this verse was when David found out Jonathan had just died. He's weeping for his lost best friend.
The problem with people trying to interpret the Bible in English is they miss subtleties like this. I'm just a beginner, a real novice with Hebrew. But the person who said David was gay doesn't know squat. David was a real ladies man. Just ask Bathsheba. :)
1
-
@jamieparker8362 "He is a hypocrite, complaining about hunters while eating meat that is farmed."
I said the he spoke to this. Granted my post was rather lengthy. Did you miss that part? And he admitted he was still responsible for the deaths of those animals. That's not the kind of thing a hypocrite says.
But, by calling him a hypocrite, you can dismiss his point. Right? Which is odd, because you seem to agree with his point.
"99% of the people that I know that hunt eat the game they hunt. We were raised that if you are killing an animal for sport, you are not a hunter but just a killer."
True, just a killer. As for 99%, do you mean "most or some," or have you calculated the statistics? (Sorry, pet peeve of mine.) "...of the people I know." Anecdotal evidence then. What about the people you don't know? And do the people you know NEED the meat to survive? Would they have nothing to eat any other way?
One thing about this video, the guy doing it opened a whole other can of worms by bringing up hunting. The conversation about gun legislation gets splintered enough with gems like, "Guns don't kill people." But now he got the hunters riled up.
The main point here is that "hunting" is used as an excuse for no gun legislation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The second amendment, for many, hinges on the attractive, manly responsibility of each private citizen being able to own a gun, just in case the U.S. government becomes a dictatorship, which needs to be put down. Now, we never needed this, in our 245 years of being a nation. The militias of yore became the state national guard; we had police, even neighborhood watch, and, of course, army, navy, marines, air force. And, as time went on, the idea that a private Rambo-type could actually take on an evil-U.S. military became laughable: drones, fighter jets, not to mention tanks, chemical warfare, and legions of soldiers.
But, and here's where marketing took over, how can you appeal, politically, monetarily, personally, to millions of Americans who would, otherwise, not be interested in the boring, plodding, yawn-fest of politics and voting? Easy: You activate their second amendment fanaticism. You say your political opponents are coming to take their guns; the much feared day (that hasn't happened in 245 years) is finally (almost) here! Now vote for everything Republican; hate everything Democrat, and buy lots of guns!
It was a dumb marketing ploy that never should have worked. But, as with the greediest companies, they knew their customers, and how to manipulate them. And the dummies fell for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump has always wanted to get away with anything, and everything. When he does, his impunity empowers him to do more, and more, and more. And he won't stop, ever, because his base is behind him, unless people stop him. When that happens, as we see here, he'll get worse, crazier, more dictatorial.
1
-
1
-
@capablancauk "I will say as a prefix "it is claimed in the Bible" Do I have to clarify the bloody obvious?"
Yes, because it isn't obvious to us that you see the difference, unless you tell us. As for what is claimed in the text, it's not as simple as you're claiming. Sure, Jesus said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. / For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—" (Matt.10:35-36).
Now you can't stop at any one point in the Bible, like with any other piece of fiction or nonfiction. If you stopped when Joan of Arc successfully and heroically turned back the English, then that would be a completely different story from the English burning her at the stake. If you stopped when Bruce Wayne's parents were killed, there'd be no Batman.
First, let's realize that it's because of belief in Jesus, Jehovah, (and so on) that a lot of people throughout history have taken up the sword. Right? We could similarly say that Obama's presidency resulted in a drastic rise in racism and bigotry, even resulting in Trump's presidency. Now did Obama cause that? Was it part of his plan? I think not. But if we had elected someone of the standard Presidential skin color, then there would likely be no Trump, or anger/fear of "wokism."
Back to the Biblical text: Did Jesus ever mention the sword again. Yes!
"Put away your sword, Jesus told him. Those who use the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52).
Hmm, same book (Matthew), but if we were to take them both literally, then Jesus is saying two different things. Let's see: He said he came to bring the sword, but also that we should put the sword away. We need something other than crude literalism to understand this.
Jesus' "I have come for [or because of, or to]" is a long series. It isn't just one thing. He didn't just come to bring the sword. You can study something without believing the most literal interpretation of it, or even without adopting it as your belief system. The Bible is fascinating, being a collection of 66 books: And we don't know who exactly wrote any of them. Their authors have been lost to history. But millions upon millions believe it with equally crude literalism, taking these unknown writers at their apparent word--just by saying that God (whatever that is) "divinely inspired" these ghost writers.
The text can be seen as prose poetry. And is fun to read as such. You don't have to believe it, anymore than you believe Superman is real. You can neither believe nor disbelieve, and get along just fine. You can learn so much, if you don't shut the door between you and the material.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A little while ago, Trump claimed that BLM, anti-Fa, or just regular ol' snowflake Liberals would bully people during voting. He asked his crowd of cheesy Nazi-wannabe rally-goers to also go to these voting places, to PROTECT the other Trump supporters from these "thugs." Of course, his supporters did his bidding. (Good dog!) And, yet, they found no BLM, or anyone else, intimidating voters.
So, with nothing else to do, they decided to become the thing they believed they came to fight. That's really Trump supporters in a nutshell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All that really drives this anti-vaccine garbage is the conspiracy element. I used to be a conspiracy theorist, before the internet was a thing. And I asked myself one day: Assuming all I believe is true, and a national or world-wide cabal of powerful people were conspiring to do whatever, how would I know about it? I'm nobody, with no influence. Then I thought, How did I first hear about this? Who was the authority, or "Deep Throat" who clued me in on this, which I would otherwise know nothing about? And why would they come to me, or other nobodies, with their above top secret information? And what can I do to stop or confront this dastardly deed?
All it takes is a little logic and clarity. I certainly would never have risked my life, after hundreds of thousands have died in my country alone. Nor would I (and a bunch of other Roswell/Bigfoot/JFK conspiracy theorists) have stormed Congress, demanding the truth. And if we ever did, and got arrested by the FBI, and still nothing was done to further "the cause," then I would really question its validity...because it obviously has none. And if it did, wouldn't you rather take every chance to live to fight the power another day, than die because you believed you were special, with your secret knowledge?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dodegagon1641 "Tyt wants to connect safe armed protestor with racist."
That wasn't the point, at all. The point was that, a group of Muslims, African-Americans, or Native Americans couldn't have gotten away with this. They didn't say those protesters were racist. They did say that those bozos got away with this because they were white.
"Haven’t you seen Native Indian protesting their land and met with swat teams and arrested. And btw their unarmed(the protesters)."
This is exactly right, and demonstrates the point. Look up the DAPL protests, in case you missed it. They were unarmed, protesting on THEIR OWN LAND, and were still met, arrested, maced by SWAT teams. That's the point.
1
-
@dodegagon1641 "I'll make this simple.
People do not need to literal say something to mean something. Read between the lines."
I think you're making this too simple, or too complex: I can't decide. You are reading "between the lines," i.e., interpreting based on nothing. You turned this into a thing it isn't. While I'm sure you'd like to claim the same thing about TYT (or me), you are the one seeing racism here.
Racism is to disparage a person, because of their race: generally done by someone of another race. That didn't happen here.
"Tyt already hates gun wielding citizens...."
Why do you have such a victim complex? What you interpret is, again, not what is happening. They hate gun wielding psychos, in the capitol building, screaming at the legislators. See how different that is from what you say?
"Its not about races. It's about government and its people standing up."
If it's not about races, then why are you saying that TYT is making this about races? If it's about government, then why aren't you (and the screaming gun dudes) protesting Trump? People standing up to what? The governors protecting you, and others, from being infected and infecting others?
"government take over"
You think the governor is going to take over? Take over what? If anyone has the military might to execute a coop, it would be the federal government. Are you saying Trump is going to take over? And if anyone had the military might to take over, do you think some couple dozen dudes will stop them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RogerPalacios-n4t You are very articulate, thoughtful, with a good understanding of how to write: especially for someone who "barely finished high school." I have almost no formal understanding in psychology. I was a physics major, musician, writer, actor. I'm fascinated by how things work: whether those things are protons or people. I've been a people watcher for 50 years. I'm a quiet person, and love to listen to others speak. Writers and actors have to do that, to write dialogue, and to perform it, respectively. So I've learned a lot of psychology, using the scientific method from physics, over the course of these decades.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Disney being political is not what I've been seeing. And I haven't been hearing this "message" either. They're a soulless corporation, just like all the rest, with a 2023 net worth of $150 billion. Does anyone really think the CEO of such a monster has the slightest tendency toward equality and empowerment of minorities? They're only moved by their quarterly returns, by losses and gains. At some point a few years ago, a Disney focus group must have determined that the latest fad to monetize is the aforementioned equality and empowerment.
But the way they handled it was tone deaf, and totally indicative of no one there having the slightest idea what they were talking about. It would be like someone who has never touched a drop of alcohol deciding to tell stories about raging alcoholics. Sure, you could see the drinks, hear the guzzling and hiccups, but it wouldn't take someone of the Drinker's status to recognize that the people in the movies weren't acting at all like drunks. This should be an obvious indication that, not only was Disney not part of "the message," but they were faking it, just to make money--either from the demographic their focus group pointed out, or the online controversy (and resulting publicity).
The message being seen, and totally misrepresented by these clueless money grubbers, was/is not a political one: It's only been made political by people who also have no idea what "being woke" means. The real, actual message is part of the ever growing zeitgeist that freed the slaves, gave women the right to vote and the right to credit cards in their names, and so on. As our society evolves, we conquer more ground, moving ever forward. Now people are either trying to deny that racism and sexism exists, or forcing themselves to admit that it does exist: That's what the African-American Vernacular English word "woke" means. Disney tried to make money from this. Their results were laughably incompetent.
This isn't a case of "Go woke and go broke." It's just a heartless corporation trying to take advantage of controversy, but lacking any understanding of the material.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MichaelSmith-jb5md Atheists tend to be intellectuals. And intellectuals like to read. Further atheists were often brought up by Christian families. But when they grew up, they saw things differently. And, being intellectuals, they went back and read the Bible.
Christians, on the other hand (and on average, keep in mind), tend to have also grown up in Christian families. They DID NOT eventually see things differently, but accepted what was told to them, and never felt like they needed to read the Bible. And what they were told usually boiled down to this:
Believe that Jesus was the son of God, was born of a virgin, died on the cross for your sins, and was raised on the third day. There's usually nothing in their beliefs about being kind and treating others the way they want to be treated. It's all about their beliefs. They believe that all they need to do is believe.
(Keep in mind I'm speaking generally, as some Christians do know their Bibles, and some atheists do not, etc.)
1
-
@AdamtheRed- In the text, Jesus was a liberal and a progressive. But if we were to take the basic definition of God literally--i.e., infinite, maker of all things, the beginning and the end--then God would be liberal, conservative, male, female, alpha, and omega, all at the same time; God would be everything we taste, smell, see, etc., all that we call good, and all that we call bad. All of it.
1
-
@MichaelSmith-jb5md "Proof you have never read the bible"
I've read the Bible over a dozen times, straight through each time. So, if anything, what you wrote is proof that you don't know how to prove things.
Yes, Rome conquered Palestine, and therefore conquered the Jews and occupied their cities, and Rome persecuted the early Christians. But then, in 300 A.D., Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. So Rome became Christian. Did you not know that?
Also, I write essays on the gospels: almost 50 under my belt in the last five years. So if you want to talk to me about the Bible, bring it on.
"You kind of left out the good parts which you turds always do pick and say what you want then twist what is being said."
First, I can only include so much in a single post. Secondly, are you not familiar with what Jesus said about calling other people unkind names, putting them down?
"But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell." (Matthew 5:22.)
I take it you aren't at all familiar with that. Though, if you knew anything about what Jesus taught, you should be able to derive it for yourself. Because, if you were familiar with it, you wouldn't have written this:
"YOU are dumber than bag of hammer handles and a box of rocks combined."
All you're doing is showing you aren't a Christian.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@batgurrl I thought that too, or maybe it was a term. Then I decided to look up "word" in the dictionary. I never thought to look it up before: it's meaning seemed evident, a given.
But, as a writer, whenever I catch myself thinking that way about a word, I always look it up. Check it out:
A "word" is defined as something having a specific meaning. A "term" has meaning only when its word (or words) are contextualized.
So "Goblin mode," while having two of what we call words is really what the dictionary defines as a word, because it has a specific meaning.
I don't think it's wrong, necessarily, to call it a phrase or a term, as both would be correct in certain circumstances. But it is what the dictionary defines as a word.
(I'm a big Yvonne Craig fan, by the way.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The snake was in Eden. Adam and Eve had children after being kicked out. But, yes, the text only refers to three sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth. One of the weird things is that, after Cain killed Abel, God sent Cain off to wander alone. Instead, Cain found a wife somewhere, while off wandering. Now, where did that wife come from?
Yeah, if you take the Bible literally, it makes no sense. If you take it as ancient Jewish mythology, or even just storytelling, then it's a wild, fun read.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most people don't know how to handle mental health issues. I know, I know: Something had to be done, and duct tape fixes everything. It's hard to know what we might do/think in such a situation, until we're there. So it helps to think about it ahead of time. What's required, when dealing with someone who has mental health problems, or anyone outside the norm, is to ask yourself, What would I want done to me, if I was that person? And/or, Will what I'm about to do help or harm them?
Everyone I see in these comments, and on this show, are thinking of the other people, not the woman in question. She's not the problem you need to solve, but the person with a problem you need to solve. Huge difference there. I wouldn't call what happened to her "a breakdown." That's way too generic: like someone diagnosing your sickness, by just telling you that you're sick.
She's panicking. It's called "a panic attack." That's still pretty generic, but more specific than a breakdown. Her panic is her problem, which she can't solve on her own. She needs help. How do you help her with her panic, then? By duct taping her whole body, including her mouth? That will make things much worse for her. But, you say, we're protecting the passengers. Maybe, in the sense that you've removed the inconvenience. But she's still there, screaming for fear of her life (as she sees it), and the passengers see what would happen to them, if they got so unruly. And the inconvenience of her screaming is still there, albeit muffled by duct tape.
But, the biting and spitting, you say. I doubt she was biting or spitting, unless someone tried to restrain her. I doubt she was running amok, randomly biting and spitting at people. She wanted out of the situation that made her panic. We don't know why, maybe claustrophobia, agoraphobia. Maybe she hoped she could handle the situation, and had to fly. We don't know why she was on the plane. But her reason is important here. They landed and committed her, preventing her from doing what made her dare to get in a situation that would rouse her fears and anxieties. This was another bad move, besides throwing gas on the fire, by not dealing with her problem, but treating her as the problem.
So how would I have handled it? Again, can't say, unless I'm there. I know they tried to calm her down. But how, I wonder? We speak with a certain tone. It's the tone that communicates, even more than the words. If you're telling someone to calm down, but speaking in an authoritative, threatening tone, which has no signs of sympathy or empathy, they will hear that tone. And they will become more afraid (knowing you might duct tape them to the seat), or panicky (because you're on your own, and these people will harm you, if you can't calm down). Whatever else was going through her mind, she was thinking that too.
So you speak with sincerity, using a calm, helpful tone. Ever tried calming an animal, like a horse? Same thing. Words mean little, because the person or animal isn't thinking of, or able to process, words. But they hear the tone, and the easy-going, slow rhythm of your words will get through (most of the time). Once you've gotten through, and they have calmed enough to hear your words, find out what they need, to fix the problem they have. Chances are, they'll know. She wanted off the plane. Assure her this will happen asap. And make it happen. Stop at the next available airport. Sorry to throw you off your schedule, but her life is at stake, as she sees it.
With this, the other passengers would have seen your humanity, kindness, and empathy, instead of your barbarity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Disney is a corporation. And corporations work based on what focus groups tell them. There's seldom any personal involvement from the individuals in those groups: They are safely tucked away in a bubble, and far removed from their product. This is fine when we're talking about deciding a new slogan (e.g., "Wells Fargo: the bank of doing" ugh!), or the colors used on a box of Oreo cookies. But it falls flat when we're talking about art, or even simple, creative writing.
Corporations don't do very well at all, usually, with anything creative and artistic. And that's because they're completely detached from the life that results in creating art. That's why we get Rey Palpatine, Rian Johnson, and one remake/reboot after another. And, apparently, their focus groups have decided that Mary Sue = equality, and equality (or inequality) is a thing that's happening. Therefore, people want Mary Sue Palpatine, and a female director who is a real live girl boss, ostensibly.
What's really wretched here, besides hiring for purposes other than creative love of the work, is they don't even understand what "woke" is, or why equality is a thing that people are talking about. They're far removed from the reality of all that. They don't understand how they're alienating life-long Star Wars fans, who just want a good, fun movie.
Corporations are automated human beings. They are like androids, programmed for making money for already rich people. And those rich people are so wealthy, they apparently don't even care too much if they lose money by using automated human beings--who can't produce good stories, which would make them more money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NCIR721flyover First keep in mind Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them." (Matt. 5:17.)
However, what he then did was immediately get into the common misunderstandings people had back then (and still today), which they got from the Old Testament. That passage can be found in Matthew 5:21-48.
He wasn't really negative about the Old Testament, just how people misunderstood it, took it out of context, and made a religion out of it. And by religion I mean Scribal Law. "Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"
The entire 23rd chapter of Matthew is Jesus laying into the established religious leaders. But he loved the Old Testament, which was the whole Bible (Torah) back then. He especially liked and quoted from Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and Psalms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@darrellvalentine7316 "No, they think people who never went to college, like myself, who just went to work, shouldn't have to pay for your degree"
You pay for it with your taxes. As an American citizen, you pay taxes. Welcome to the United States.
"because you we're irresponsible and borrowed more, than you can afford to."
We're talking about a roughly $80,000 loan needed for college. That figure from a nurse who gave an interview. She works two jobs. Imagine. Nurses work for 12 hours per shift. Then she has to go to a 2nd job. And for a decade or more she has paying off the loan. But even with the loan, itself, paid, she still has interest. So she wasn't irresponsible, and didn't borrow more than she could afford.
And she's a nurse, whose education is used to help countless people.
1
-
@darrellvalentine7316 "You must be so nieve, as to believe, that you won't see a tax increase,"
It's "naive." And I didn't say we wouldn't see a tax increase. I said it was part of taxes, and as American citizens we pay taxes. What I didn't include is that we don't get to choose what we pay taxes on.
"He's basically wiping out the middle class, and stretching the gap, between the rich and poor."
This has been going on for a long time. Stop blaming Biden for everything.
"I thought Progressives cared so much, about this silly concept of in-come inequality?"
And that's why millions of people are getting part of their student loans forgiven. Can you not see that?
Listen, I gather that this doesn't benefit you personally. You didn't go to college, so why should you pay. I could appeal to your empathy, sympathy, or explain how there are other things you pay taxes for that you don't use.
But why even bother. Simple truth is this: Everything you've said has already been made a cliche by people who are against Biden and the Democratic party--which you are. That's the thing here...not taxes, or classes, or loans, or responsibility. It's a culture war. And I see it.
So just pay your taxes, dude.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@badazzfeliciano "I think anyone can be broken free with evidence and logic."
This just isn't true. If someone's BELIEFS aren't based on evidence and logic (as beliefs tend to be), then evidence and logic won't sway them.
Ask anyone about any conspiracy ever. Then give them the facts that debunk their theory. And, sure, do so without getting negative with them. But there's no way they can be convinced.
See, beliefs aren't facts. If they were, then the person wouldn't say, "I believe" or "Me, personally." They'd say, "I know," and they'd present the actual evidence.
The problem is, for the believer, they stop differentiating between belief and fact, and take their beliefs to be fact. A religious person doesn't just believe their god exists: They KNOW. And a JFK conspiracy theorist doesn't just believe their conspiracy, they know it.
So they have the facts already, in their minds. And the actual facts, with which you present them, are part of the coverup, and can't be facts, since the believer has the facts already.
Listen to the MAGA people. They always qualify what they say with, "I believe...." But when presented with facts, always (and I mean always) dismiss them, because it's part of the coverup.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@die-no-mite6752 You're right, near as I can tell. Joe said it. Meant it. Was he wrong? I don't see anyone claiming that he was wrong. What has m@g@ accomplished this whole time? It has been nothing but insults, dishonesty, and vitriol directed at everything not in the party. There hasn't been a single good, kind, decent, loving, compassionate thing any of its politicians or supporters accomplished. Not one! It's not even trying to do good. Its politicians and supporters ask of themselves, every day: What terrible awful thing can I do, to make the libs cry? And there's always something. EverySingleDay. Care to talk about that? I doubt it. If you do, it'll be more dishonesty. Can you be as honest as you're saying the press secretary should be? As Honest AS BIDEN WAS ABOUT YOU? I doubt it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He said that at the end of a long, varied list of all the different kinds of people he claimed voted for him. It was a "best of times, worst of times" list, with the pairing of opposites: He ended with: "We won with the educated; we won with the uneducated." And because it was the end of the list, and he was riffing, improving, he added, "I love the uneducated." Even though he has said countless awful things, which people could quote and be correct about, some people keep going back to that quote. By removing everything else he was saying, and implying this was said as an admission of his true plan, a saying-the-quiet-part-aloud kinda thing, the quoting of it as a single statement is disingenuous and a shortcut to thinking. Just shows how he didn't win with all of the uneducated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fact checking should happen, in the same room, as Trump speaks. He lies way too much, over crucial stuff. With the internet, several people could be looking up what he claims. His supporters don't see this, and are unaware of the truth. Fox won't tell them. So, if you want to air his speeches, you should have to deal with the fact checkers, who'd be present, in the room with Trump, and interrupting him every single time he lied.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Where does it say, "People have the right to believe and think whatever they choose."
Let's assume we do have that right. Well, first, that right ends when your beliefs and thoughts become actions, and harm someone else. You can believe and think whatever you want, as long as you keep it to yourself. In fact, beliefs only make sense inside the head of the believer. To everyone else, it's nonsense.
Secondly, if you have that right, so does everyone else. So bigots should not be bigoted. But they are, so evidently we don't have that right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When a police officer does something violent, and terrible, and is fired, then they are a civilian. They should be tried and jailed just like a civilian would be, if a civilian did what that cop did. Not only do these pigs need to be held accountable, charged, and jailed, but so should the people who approved of their past evaluations. Everyone, all down the line, and up the ladder, should be charged and jailed, if they can give no good reason why they allowed such a person to do anything but serve and protect: They're all responsible, and part of the problem. And if the cop killed someone, by kneeling on their neck, for instance, then that's murder, and they need to be treated like a murderer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump isn't very good at his propaganda. He's really obvious, like a cliched villain, twirling a mustache, in an old Republic serial. I don't know if people in his base believe him, or just play along. But I do know that this is yet another disaster, occurring during his watch. It's arguable whether or not he caused or facilitated it. But he certainly fanned the flames, which now approach his door....The flames of ignored, dismissed, denied, and delayed racism knock on all our doors. Only when we all admit there's actually a problem, will we begin to overcome it: That goes for Covid-19 and racism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If Fox News was sincere, and fair and balanced, they would admit that their shows promoted what inspired the shooter. Their words were his words.
Whether or not he got this from Fox, Tucker and others are still spreading these lies that galvanize their base. That's the reason why they espouse this nonsense, because it engages people who would otherwise not be engaged, and probably wouldn't even vote. Fox (and other right wing mouthpieces) tell them that the normal "everyman" is under attack, from immigrants, leftists, and anyone who isn't just like them. That way, when Republicans go against a group of people (like with abortion), their base sees it as a preemptive move, or payback, against those who have (or will very soon) attack them.
1
-
1
-
I guess that's something. But it took them a year, and no one was even fired. When a citizen breaks the law, that's bad enough; they get arrested, sometimes jailed, maybe even killed by police. But when cops break the law (33 times at that), this should be more severe, since they are supposed to be enforcing the law. If police don't obey the law, they are criminals, like every other thug, except with badges, guns, tear gas, dogs, riot gear, and so on. And they broke these laws by threatening/harming civilians, whom they're meant to serve and protect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimohara Good old Jim. Can always count on you to write something vague, and drop the mic like you just proved "up" is really "down." Besides, your whataboutism is nowhere near the subject at hand. Oh. You probably didn't watch the video. Probably didn't stop and think about it. Not big on stopping and thinking, huh? If you did, you'd know the subject was how personal bias can influence objectivity, to the point of negating it, if the person doesn't first set their bias aside. Can't really do that, though, huh? There'd be nothing to post then. And would have to not make a strawman, changing the meaning and subject of the discussion, just like the OP and David said. Well, thanks for illustrating the point...I guess.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I looked up the percentage out of curiosity, because I can't sleep, and why not. The numbers vary wildly.
CNN says between 100,000 and 1 million. That variance is a factor of 10. That's absurd. Whoever came up with that should be ashamed.
Some place called fur science (lol) estimated "between 1 in 2,500 and 1 in 5,000 people, or about 1.4 – 2.8 million furries worldwide." While they claim to do science about furries, I don't know if those raccoons can calculate very well.
Something called "huck mag" says 250,000 (with no variance at all). And so on. I think we can see these numbers are all over the place. Some of the websites did use the phrase "identify as a furry," which was annoying. I think the point of putting on an animal costume is you're putting on a costume.
I don't know though. I've never done it. I think we can safely says it's more than a couple, and less than a significant percentage. lol.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If nothing else, what this "fraud, truth" stuff accomplishes is as follows: keeps Trump's plight against the "Deep State" in the news, further radicalizes his base (which keeps them engaged), and allows for another round of the "Two minutes hate" against Biden. But, more importantly, it sets up future claims of voter fraud, in future elections--not just for the Republicans to claim against the Dems, but to preempt actual voter voter fraud claims by the Dems, when the Republicans inevitably attempt it...which they will, with gusto.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@karlheven8328 You could look these things up, yourself. But, yes, the burden of proof is on the OP, since they made the claim. So I'll look it up. Let's start with a Google search for "desantis racist."
From an NBC article: DeSantis passed a law that "no longer permit[s] public colleges to spend money on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts. It also limits the way race and gender will be taught in the state’s higher education institutions." How does the law limit it? Look it up.
Maybe you're unfamiliar with how much DeSantis has been overstepping what any sane governor would do? He's pulling back on what schools are allowed to teach, in regards to African American history, and is actually rewriting history. There's a lot going on, and I can't quote it all.
As for the homophobe claim, that should be obvious to anyone who has paid the least amount of attention, as he considers LGBTQ to be woke, and has declared war on "wokeism." As he said in the video, he made a law that teachers can't use a student's preferred pronoun. A law. He actually passed a law about it. Then there's his war with Disney, because they did something that he considers to be woke. Have you not heard about this?
These claims aren't partisan, unless the truth is now partisan--which, frankly, I don't doubt. My post is getting kind long. Should I keep looking it up for you? Tell you what, go through that list, and look up each item yourself. Maybe the reason the OP didn't include examples of all the garbage DeSantis has dumped in Florida, is because his post would be even longer than mine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheZenGarden_ "What is the "Hebrew" name of the Creator's son?"
Trivia? That's not fun. We can just look that up. Besides, I already checked out your username, and I think the answer you're looking for is there. Besides, this is what you wrote:
"No, it means people who do not personally know the text, are assuming things that they dont have the contextual knowledge to understand one way or the other."
And that's why I said that about taking it out of context, because I thought that's what you meant. And some do take it out of context. I've pointed out quite a few of those in these comments. Are you Jewish? If you are, then I'll respect you and stop calling it the Bible, if you like.
But, yeah, trivia is boring to me. Anyone can look up anything. I didn't know the Hebrew name for Israel, for example, which I assume is the answer you're looking for with "the name of the Creator's son." So I looked it up, and copied and pasted it here: Yīsraʾel.
Right? Yawn. I want to talk about the Bible in context. I thought that you wanted the same thing. Do you not?
1
-
@TheZenGarden_ I'm here to ask for you to show the context missing from what people are saying about the Bible. You keep refusing to do that. Why? And what have you done instead? Wasting my time by refusing to answer my question about the missing context. Oh, and just being a little booger about it:
"its not a surprise to me that you obviously dont know what you're talking about!"
Listen, bud, I never claimed to know much about anything but the Bible. As for Jewish: The 10 (or was it 9?) tribes of Israel separated from Judah and the half tribe of Manasseh. This went back a long way, and was building for a long time, but certainly saw it really go down during David's reign. Those 9-10 (again I forget) were called Israel, while the remainder were of Judah, hence, Jews. That's where the name comes from. I'm going from memory, but that's why I asked if you were Jewish. I asked nicely, and you insult me.
Hebrew is what foreign nations called the Israelites in their early days. It was also the name of the Israelites' language, which evolved into Aramaic when Babylon enslaved the Jews. The remainder of what had been the 12 tribes of Jacob (i.e., Israel, as renamed by God) were enslaved by other nations: They were scattered, and most never returned. They are referred to by Jesus as "the lost sheep of Israel."
I remember all that from the Bible, which, as I said, I know well. You haven't shown otherwise. But it seems you're wrong about the Jews not being Hebrew, as I stated earlier. So there's that. Maybe it's different outside of the Bible? I am wildly ignorant about their history outside of the Bible. Besides, that's not what I'm here to talk about.
I'm here to ask for you to show the context missing from what people are saying about the Bible. You keep refusing to do that. Why?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem with ages 70-80 is that most are not just out of touch, but really out of touch. People of that age grew up, and grew old, during an entirely different culture. Americans aren't the same as they were in the 1950s, '60s, or '70s. World population has more than doubled; popular music has gone from Elvis to Simon and Garfunkel, to heavy metal, glam metal. I'm 50 years old, and have no idea what popular music has been like the past 20 years...nor do I care. And that's just music. (Think of Trump dancing to the Village People.)
How about overpopulation? What's it like in big cities versus small towns? How are people living? What do they need/want? I have no clue. But those rich old fogies are way past my cluelessness, given that I'm not even rich. And how much do they care about how out of touch they are? Can they even comprehend it, or is it like the Dunning-Kruger effect--where they're so out of touch, they can't tell how far gone they are?
What to do? I don't know. Everything about how America works is so far gone, broken, falling apart. Maybe this is the best we can do, though. I'd like to try something different. How about (brainstorming) having our government representatives serve like we do for jury duty: Everyone has to do it at some point. Everyone! Imagine. We'd actually have a Representative Democracy that way. And, if nothing else, it should be more entertaining than one group of elderly idiots versus another.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't think it's right to blame "the education system." First, what are we even blaming then, and how do we fix the entire system? Schools and school teachers are not responsible for their former students seeking continuing, life long self education. If their students stop reading, except little bits here and there online, on Facebook or forums, then their teachers have no control over the ignorance that results.
The practical purpose of formal education is to teach you how to teach yourself, which you'll need to do for the rest of your life. Imagine Marjorie sitting at home reading Dickens, or Henry Miller, or Carl Sagan. You think maybe she's a big fan of poetry, like Joy Harjo, or Lawrence Ferlinghetti? Think she prefers the Beats to the Romantics?
Do you think Trump and his supporters read Kurt Vonnegut, or Anais Nin? And that's just literature. You think they're reading about science? Maybe studying calculus in their spare time? How many musical instruments do they know, or how many foreign languages? Have they spent any time in the last 20 years reading anything at all? No. And that's why they're stupid. Not because of "the education system," whatever that is. They're stupid because they study nothing at all, and refuse to even spend a quiet evening reading.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump (and his mouthpieces) certainly didn't help matters, at all. But, honestly, ignorance breeds hatred. And, what's more, there's no better way to enjoy camaraderie, within your own group, than by participating in that group's hatred of another group. That's how Genghis Khan brought peace to his warring tribes, by having them fight against OTHER tribes; same goes for the Iroquois. Hate groups really love their own, as they're hating others.
But, mostly, I think it's about ignorance. It's easy to hate what (and who) you don't understand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"When did equality become some radical agenda???"
*
Great question. It's difficult to sum up, for why it was done in the past. But, now, it's very easy to see: When Trump (or Republicans) politicize something, then all the Trump supporters take it as part of their belief system. So they were against kneeling during the anthem, because Trump said so; they were against the "caravan," because Trump said so. And, they were for opening the states too early, because...you guessed it, and because, as Trump said, it was for their freedom. Ah, but actual freedom, equality, civil rights.... Well, what does Trump say? That's why.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertwright2583 "As far as truthfulness, when has any Democrat spoke the truth about anything!"
*
This immediately followed one claim that Biden had Alzheimer's, which is false, with another claim that he has dementia, which is also false.
*
Are you a Democrat, for lying so much? And Trump must be a Democrat too, for lying so much. Did you know that he has averaged 23 lies per day, since Coronavirus hit, and that was back in May.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarkowitz/2020/05/05/trump-is-lying-more-than-ever-just-look-at-the-data/#6743065d1e17
And, here, says Trump has told 16,000 lies since becoming President:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/479041-fact-checker-counts-16k-false-misleading-claims-by-trump-in-three
But, yeah, look over there, at the lying Democrats! Look at the monkey! And, if you believe this crap you say, you're even lying to yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In "Animal Farm," when the Pigs' spokes-pig was asked tough questions, she danced back and forth, and that somehow allowed her to not answer. Here, the spokes-pig's answer was always whataboutism. Why did Trump do this terrible thing? And her answer: This other person did a terrible thing; so go ask about him. The reason whataboutism is a logical fallacy is that she, in dodging the question, doesn't actually defend what Trump did. She just says someone else did a terrible thing. But, what she's saying, or not saying, is that if the other person did a similar thing, which was terrible, then what Trump did was also terrible. Hence, logical fallacy, and dancing pig.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A lot of people can't stand to talk about race. If they were to admit systemic racism is a problem, then they would be forced to deal with it, or forced to admit they're racist. The goal, from Reconstruction, through Jim Crow, segregation, Civil Rights Movement, and on through to today, has been to do as little as possible, to let it continue, by denying it, demonizing people who try to bring up the problem, and, even worse, through murder and intimidation.
*
They kick the can down the road, so they don't have to see changes in their lifetimes, so they can continue treating an entire race like sub-human garbage, so they can feel supreme. The first step toward fixing a problem is to admit that problem exists. And so they refuse to admit it, and the problem remains, barely making any headway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@st3ppenwolf "I am not sure what you leftists are thinking about this, but it's not working"
We "leftists" aren't doing "this." We aren't doing anything. We aren't an organized group with an agenda. We aren't out to groom kids, or drink blood in pizza parlors, or any of that other junk.
And neither are our elected officials. No one is. All that stuff is just lies. And that means all the people telling it to you, trying to convince you, they're all lying to you.
They want to rile you up. They want to sell their product, and shut out the competition. So they say all that crazy stuff about us, that we're demons, or we have a mind virus, that we're absolutely absurd, but somehow an imminent threat....just so you'll never listen to anything we say, and call any news fake, except what's approved by their party.
That way you never learn anything. No facts, or science, certainly no sympathy or empathy: All so they can guarantee you'll vote for them, no matter what they do--all so they can make money, by stripping away rights and regulations, and thereby poisoning the ground and the water. So they don't have to pay for safety measures.
You have to snap out of it. If you don't, then they have tens of millions of people ready to do anything, go down with the ship if necessary, storm Congress, strip away rights from everyone--you included, eventually. Yes, they'll turn on you, soon as you're not needed anymore.
So please. Just stop and think. How could we or anyone organize everything that's claimed to be woke? And why? For what purpose? It makes no sense. Woke is defined as being aware of prejudice and discrimination. Yet they claim such a thing is a terrible danger to you. Why? You have to come to your senses, or your cult will destroy the country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Only during times of war has our country been unified. And that's true of everyone, even Genghis Khan's Mongols. But even that hasn't been working for decades. (We weren't unified in Viet Nam, or Iraq.) We are a melting pot: The U.S. has all kinds of people, with different points of view, unique talents, and individualistic hopes and dreams. Because of this, we have always fought each other, going back to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, to say nothing of the decades leading up to, and following, the Civil War. But we are a special place (or we have been) because of COMPROMISE, not acquiescence.
And, yes, compromise is nearly impossible with politics now being a team sport.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mzliz1249 "I NEVER WANT TO HEAR “NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW” EVER AGAIN!!!" I'm curious: Have you never seen the guilty go free, or the innocent given harsh sentences? I know this is a bad, with him being guilty of 31 felony counts, and about to be Pres. But surely this isn't your first insight into how courts work, how money works, and how capitalism fuels our nation. This isn't a Sunday School kiddie cartoon. It's real life, with real people, most of whom aren't very nice. But that's why we have to be nice, kind, forgiving, and merciful: because otherwise it wouldn't happen. Don't let this experience sabotage your heart; let it galvanize you. Otherwise, you'll notice more and more how unfair everything is, and how selfish and greedy many people are, and it'll ruin you. Be the good person you want to see. Break the chain, or add another link to it: your choice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To be able to say they tried to impeach Biden. First, the optics of all of this was for their base, but especially going through the apparently legal, official motions of impeaching him. Secondly, since Trump was impeached, they want the optics of taking revenge, but they're also genuinely petty enough to suck up to Trump by trying to impeach Biden.
Finally, this is the same thing they did to Hillary, and it worked back then: They want to show Biden (as they showed Hillary) being in court, having to answer questions, always blasting her (and Biden's) credibility and trustworthiness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlexDrewsumin "Something can be both metaphorical and ironic son" I didn't say otherwise, junior. I said literally is the opposite of metaphorically. I know you're not the OP. I already said this, but I'll reiterate once more for you: Your original post, the thing that started this insipid conversation is "he literally recited it." Now why say that? I don't know to whom you were replying. But it seemed to me that you were claiming it was his quote because he recited it. Now you've dragged me along in this trolling way, continuing to insist that you didn't say it was his quote, just that he recited it, and it was your "opinion he's talking about himself." HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT? Just that you're admitting he got the quote from somewhere else? My original reply to you still stands, despite all your obfuscation: "Reciting something isn't saying, believing, or implying: whether recited "literally" or not." Muting you now, you sorry sack of tish.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So China attacked us through our voting machines? That would mean Congress wasn't trying to steal anything, and the "stop the steal" narrative, which Trump used to incite a riot on January 6, was false. Those Trumpists should have been attacking China not Congress. Now that I would like to see.
The biggest problem with conspiracies: They're BS from axiom to conclusion. And that means two people can have two different, mutually exclusive theories on a single event.
Also, a born again former Crack addict, who wears his Christian cross on the outside of his shirt, and won't stop talking, and believes God chose him and Trump to accomplish...(what, exactly?)...should never ever be taken seriously by anyone. Someone should get this guy "Statistics for Dummies," and send him home to his pillows.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@serinatang4184 You make time for what's important. Reading is healthy. It's good for your health: You sit still, heart rate slows; you calm down. You focus, and use your intellect, your imagination. Depending on what you're reading, you could be learning new things about science, or the ocean, or the history of the Apache(!!), or the inquisitions, crusades, other cultures, the golden age of piracy(!!). There's so much to learn, you'll never learn it all: That's how much there is! And there are amazing story tellers, the best writers, the best minds in the history of the world. Reading is worth making time for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@southslastrebel2575 First, whataboutism: trying to draw attention from Dumpty's lies. Secondly, his falsehoods are recorded and listed; and he is known to lie more than Harris. So no matter how many examples you list, they'll never be more than DonDon's . Finally, what you're referring to is something she said in the debate with him: “As of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone, in any war zone around the world, for the first time this century.” This is true or false, depending on how you define "war zone." The definition from the Defense Dept agrees with her, while the IRS does not. Up to you, but think I'll go with the Def Dept, since they'd know better than the IRS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@truecrimewithglenclark9098 I didn't find a video, but thought you'd want to see that Trump has, indeed, condemned white supremacy:
"Trump, Aug. 14, 2017: Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."
"Trump, Aug. 15, 2017: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."
And, also: "After nearly two dozen people were killed on Aug. 3, 2019, in a shooting at a Wal-Mart in El Paso, Trump said: “The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online consumed by racist hate. In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart, and devours the soul. We have asked the FBI to identify all further resources they need to investigate and disrupt hate crimes and domestic terrorism — whatever they need.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/
(You have to scroll down to the bottom of the page.)
So good for Trump!
1
-
@truecrimewithglenclark9098 Oh, man, I guess you didn't read it, except for the parts that confirmed your narrative. As I said, reality is more complicated than conspiracy. Allow me to show you the parts that you missed:
1. "This picture of Biden and Byrd was taken by the Associated Press in October 2008."
2. Byrd "sought to become a member of the KKK in the early 1940s.”
3. Byrd was "encouraged to pursue politics, citing his savvy organizing skills."
4. "Byrd went on to become the second-longest-serving U.S. congressman in the country’s history, clocking six years in the House of Representatives and 51 years in the Senate. During his time in the Senate, he was both the minority and majority leader, and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations."
5. "While running for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1952, [Byrd said he] quit paying dues and dropped his membership in the KKK after about a year of involvement."
6. "Throughout Byrd’s political career, he continually denounced his involvement with the Klan.
“The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan,” Byrd said in a 1993 interview with CNN’s Bernard Shaw, according to Slate. “And I’ve said that many times. But one cannot erase what he has done. He can only change his ways and his thoughts. That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear. You will read it in my obituary that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.”
So yes, he was a member of the KKK, for a few years, toward the end of the 1940s. You get that part? Did you see it? Biden met him 40 years later. Okay? See that?
Listen, we all make mistakes. We all do stupid things. We all have done mean things, been cruel and heartless at times. That's life. The important thing is what we do after we realize what we have done.
I debunked your story because your take is not only incomplete, but false. First, how it was false: Biden did not give the "eulogy at the funeral of a prominent Kkk member." He was not a member of the clan, nor had he been for 60 years. You miss that part?
And your story was incomplete because you didn't say how he had only been a member for a few years. Next time, read, check the facts, and be sure you know what you're talking about.
1
-
1
-
@truecrimewithglenclark9098 "The white supremacist loving man who coined the term super predator"
"Look at the crime bill, 1994, where you called them 'superpredators,' African Americans are 'superpredators,'" Trump said. "And they've never forgotten that."
"This is mostly false. It was Hillary Clinton, then the first lady, who used the word "superpredator" to advocate for the 1994 crime bill that Biden co-wrote more than 30 years ago. Biden did warn of "predators" in a floor speech in support of his bill, however."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/first-presidential-debate-trump-biden-n1241282/ncrd1241486#liveBlogHeader
Doesn't it bother you that you buy into all this BS, which is so easily shown to be false?
"I think it's important the voters know who m there dealing with."
You aren't showing voters the truth. You aren't even allowing yourself to see the truth. And I'm getting bored with debunking this garbage Trump has said, only for you to deny it, or pivot to something else. So I'm done with you. Good day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JTEA856 "That’s not a fallacy."
Whataboutism is the fallacy: a logical fallacy. Do I really have to explain it to you?
See, you mean to call out hypocrisy. That's the supposed point of whataboutism. But, instead, what it does is you say (using the current example) that it's okay, or doesn't matter, that the guy broke into Pelosi's home--because "the left wingers...stoked the flames of hate during the rittenhouse trial."
But two wrongs don't make a right. Even if you're 100% correct about the rittenhouse thing, with no finer points to make, that doesn't mean the newscaster lady in this segment was wrong about Republicans fanning the flames of hatred and violence.
So the main reason whataboutism is a logical fallacy is that, even though you set out to prove the other people were hypocrites, you prove yourself to be one.
You excuse violence by saying the other side excused violence. That's hypocrisy. And it deflects away from the situation at hand, happening right now. Get it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maxkrystal7403 "you are just proving my point"
I'll show you what I mean by explaining how the other person proved your point. YOU proved MY point. I had wondered if the Russian trolls, the ones behind #walkaway, were also behind #neverbiden. (See the similarity?)
You wrote, "tell that to the Iraq war veterans who aren’t voting Biden because he supported that war moron"
You could've just written, There are Iraq war veterans who aren't voting Biden, because he supported the Iraq War. But you had to add the insult. And you ignored it when I conceded that I hadn't thought of such a possibility, by claiming, "I called you a moron because you claim everyone who criticizes Biden is a Russian spy. you are just like the maga chuds with your conspiracy theories"
So you insulted me again, and misrepresented what I wrote. I gave you the chance to concede that you misunderstood me, by writing and explaining, in great detail, what I meant. You gave no credence to that, whatsoever, merely claiming that I proved your point.
So, all that makes you a troll: You insulted, when you didn't have to; you ignored what I wrote, at best, and misquoted me, at worst. Hence, you appear, to me, to be trolling with this anti-Biden crap. Also, you're ignoring that, one fewer vote for Biden is one fewer vote against Trump--which is my point.
I would vote for a dead dog over Trump, an empty chair, a wisp of a cloud, a garbage can full of rotten eggs; I would rather dive into a swimming pull full of double-edged razor blades, than be complicit, in any way, in helping Trump get reelected.
1
-
1
-
@maxkrystal7403 "how do you get the idea that we are Russian bots"
I don't. I've said this multiple times here. I'm not saying ALL anti-Biden, #neverbiden people are Russian trolls. I said, again, if I was a Russian troll, or in charge of that situation, then #neverbiden would be the way to go.
The Russian trolls did #walkaway for the midterms. So it would be in their M.O. Some people who are anti-Biden have their reasons, like the Iraq War veterans you mentioned, or whatever other reason. Some, no doubt, are Trump supporters trolling; and some are probably just every-day, run-of-the-mill trolls.
Whatever the situation, they are all doing the same thing, which is encouraging people to not vote for Biden, which means, as I wrote, one fewer vote against Trump.
1
-
1
-
@drg8687 Jesus didn't say anything about LGBTQ+, or slavery. To say the Bible endorses being anti-LGBTQ+ and pro-slavery, you'd have to go to the Old Testament.
Jesus said love your neighbor. What then could we guess, given that basic info, he'd say about LGBTQ+ or slavery? Keep in mind, the writing of the New Testament goes back to at least 2,000 years ago, on the other side of the planet, in another language, for another culture; while the Old dates back to 3-5 thousand years ago, on the other side of the planet, in another language, for another culture.
So how did people treat women back then? What did they think of slavery, or anything but hetero sexuality? And who wrote the Bible? Those people who were doing those things, of course. So what does their Old Testament say, therefore? Well, it reflects their belief system.
Keep in mind it's only in the past decade or so that our modern American system has even begun to scratch the surface of equality for LGBTQ. And it was less than 200 years ago that we had slavery. Now, do we throw out every good idea or notion any American has ever had, because we also had those ideas?
You're free to do so. But I think jazz is worth keeping, and the idea that we are all equal. We haven't yet reached the point where that's totally true, in practice. But the idea is worth keeping. Same goes for the Bible.
1
-
1
-
You do NOT have the freedom to infect others. If the people in these rallies sign a waiver, and go into it of their own accord, then they should also be quarantined for two weeks. They are not only a threat to themselves, but others too. But they aren't doing this of their own volition. Trump has convinced them that Coronavirus is no big deal. He's not wearing a mask; said he refused to wear one. They believe they're safe, either because it's a "plandemic" (as I've seen them refer to it), or because they're convinced that they're "covered in Jesus' blood," or that Democrats, and "the Liberal Media," have arranged all this just to make Trump look bad. And Trump isn't just giving a speech: There will be music, celebrities, a secondary location--because the first arena has sold out. This will be a Trumpist jamboree! The event of a lifetime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelmorningstar8645 "You are out of your league."
Well. Sorry to tell you then, professor, but I did read books on all of that. For example, I read Shelby Foote's Civil War series, biography on John Brown, Sherman's and Grant's memoirs, book on Nathan Bedford Forrest, etc. I enjoy reading about 19th century America.
And, yes Africans sold other Africans into slavery. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I said was that if the South had been "brown," as you so eloquently put it, then they probably wouldn't have had other "brown" people as slaves. Besides, it was your stupid point, not mine. Fact is, the South was run by people who were very much not "brown," and the brown people were their slaves.
To say I'm ignorant, however, only shows your ignorance of who I am, and what I know. I stand by everything I wrote. But let's look more at what you wrote here:
"When your neighbor says you have no right to exist and starts amassing an army on your border they started the war"
How can you claim to be a history major, and think that's what happened? No way, NO WAY did the Union tell the Confederates they had no right to exist. Where do you even get that? Do you have some different meaning for "exist," like maybe you're referring to their existence as slave owners?
The Confederates took the first shot. That is a known fact. That southern Senator beat the other senator in the head with a cane, because of what he had said about slavery and slave holders. Again, known fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kailandra29 I'm confused by your reply. So let's make sure we're on the same page, and understand what each of us is saying.
About that language myths book, you wrote, "it debunks a lot of the things language worriers are worried about."
That seemed to be directed at the OP. Yes? And that would mean you were calling the OP a "language worrier." Right?
That's why I responded to you. You seemed to be calling an English teacher a language worrier. That's why I wrote:
"Is there anything that you know really well? That you care about, and spent a lifetime doing? How do you feel when people act as if they're knowledgeable about that thing, when they're really totally ignorant?"
I don't know what you found ironic about that. And I find it very odd, given my understanding of your initial reply, that you're a linguist. So you have studied words. And yet you're not a language worrier? It's okay when people speak incorrectly, because, "Generally, I listen to their perspectives because I never know when I might learn something new"?
How can you learn anything new about language from someone who is using the language incorrectly?
Of course the language changes. English is a living language. But there are rules for any given time period. And people who ignore those rules aren't using the language correctly. What the OP was talking about was David's way of speaking, and that a lot of people don't care how they talk.
Apparently, if I understood you, you see this as being a language worrier? If that's true, then why aren't you listening to the OP's perspective, "because I never know when I might learn something new"?
1
-
@Kailandra29 The way we use words matters. Think of your favorite song, and a quote you really like. If all that was necessary was to be understood, we should still be using Native American sign language, or just grunting.
But we're also talking about more than that, we're talking about a former English teacher, who commented specifically to approve of David's use of language.
So if you still understood that teacher, then what problem did you have with what they wrote?
If language is neither correct nor incorrect, then how could what they wrote be wrong, and in need of your correction--by referring them to the language myths book?
The evolution of language, like all evolution happens slowly over time. Just because someone doesn't understand what "literally" means, and so uses the word incorrectly, and others also use it the wrong way, doesn't mean the definition has changed.
Sure, people can speak however they want. I can say the acceleration on the earth's surface due to gravity is 1.8 meters per second squared. Doesn't make it correct just because I said it.
In a given time period, there are rules for language. Our time is different from old English. But using our language back then would have been incorrect, because the language had not yet evolved.
1
-
@Kailandra29 "Why do you assume I had a problem with what they wrote?...you have chosen to read more hostility in my response than ever existed in it from my side."
That's why I asked you to clarify. I wanted to make sure we were understanding each other, before jumping to the wrong conclusion. But then you said that I did understand what you were saying, and that the OP was a language worrier.
As for my analogy, no analogy is exact. If it was, it would be an equivalence. What I tried to show was that science is fact, though many think it isn't. And whatever English language norms there are at the time, they are also rules, and taken as fact--though many people think they don't. So my analogy doesn't fall apart.
We're at an obvious impasse here. You want words to mean whatever the person speaking them wants them to mean. I've tried dealing with this, but in the end I have to just bow out.
Anyone who sees language as existing only to be understood, might as well still be grunting. And so I conclude by saying:
ooga booga, boo boo booga!
(I hope you got all that.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"But that’s not the world that I live in." Should be obvious that the world you live in is not the world everyone else lives in. That's not everyone else's fault. Want to talk "responsibility"? How about the responsibility to not make up, invent, fictionalize, catastrophize the entire world, just to shoehorn in a paranoid philosophy, which was preached on the internet, and taken to heart by people who wanted to invent their own world? Why not, instead, live in the real world? Sure, it doesn't fit your expectations: science says things are different from what common sense might suggest, for example. But it's real. And there's no self-deception. It's just honest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Doocy's question is really part of a cynical right-wing perspective on what it means to be Democrat, and Liberal: Dems and Lib-rats are stupid; they don't think; they're lazy, and don't want to work. Of course, this is part of their greater defining of themselves, as being the exact opposite of Democrats and Liberals: So, of course Dems are lazy, as we Repugs work hard! And of course they aren't thinking through the realities of economics, since that's what Republicans claim to do.
Doocy and Emerald are revealing to everyone the right-wing selling points: Come to the Republicans, we work hard, and don't like lazy people; we're smart, and don't like colleges with their liberal indoctrination, and so on. It's all really sad and pathetic. But, for their base, I'm sure it's pure gold.
1
-
1
-
1
-
How did we get to this place, in which we have a known lunatic as President, but can do nothing about it, except hope.... that Bernie fans vote for Biden; that the Russians won't interfere in the election again; that trolls won't convince people to "let it all burn;" that social distancing and no mail-in ballots won't make people choose between voting, and risk getting this deadly virus, or stay at home, and be healthy; and that the Republicans' plans of re-drawing district lines and knocking people off the voting rolls won't happen.... Did I miss anything?
Oh, I did miss something: We have to hope that the stupid general population, which is scared out of our freaking minds--or else just propagandized to the max--won't rally behind Trump, just because he's President, during this disaster, which he seems to be prolonging. What can possibly go wrong?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@troybehanna6167 Give me an example of "social justice." His father's business is this world. Us. His kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, is within us. And he wanted us to follow the example he set: loving one another as he loved us. So whatever is meant by "social justice," Jesus still taught mercy, compassion, forgiveness, and accepting all people: including lepers, criminals, and people who believe different things. Jesus was the most woke person ever. He was the most liberal too. He said to sell everything you had, give the proceeds to the poor, then follow him. Sound conservative at all? No.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the case of the poster, Terminal Sanity, we do have a Trump supporter. I see walls of text coming from him. You folks ever heard of Gish Gallup? David has talked about it. That and Terminal's whataboutism show that another poster, Monkeys on Wheels, was right when he wrote, "Why would they? They would support Donald on this."
I can't even begin to break down, and analyze what Terminal Sanity wrote. There's way too much, and most of it seems to be doing what it accuses others, such as this post of his: "Because youve isolated yourselves from opposing view points. You dont listen to anything Trump supporters say. You only listen to yourselves as you hyperbolically strawman and dehumanize Trump supporters."
It's hard to look through everything he wrote, being largely about Hillary or Bernie, or whatever. But he doesn't seem to talk about what the DOJ wants to do. Maybe he does? Since I needed three paragraphs to summarize what he wrote, imagine how much I'd need to break down everything he said. Hence, Gish Gallup.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Imagine you're on some right-wing forum. A new poster, calling himself Q shows up. He claims to have inside information, secrets, upon which the entire country hangs in the balance. Now, anyone with an ounce of skepticism, or the ability to stop and think, would reject this in a heartbeat. Right? This Q could be anyone. He could even be a Liberal troll, seeing just how much garbage far right-wing Republicans would swallow. Or, on the other end of the spectrum, he could be Trump, himself, trying to further rile up his base, with extreme lies.
Also, "We are Q" doesn't make any sense. You aren't Q; only Q is. You're someone who believes Q's lies--really amazingly stupid, awful, obvious lies too. So your signs should read, We support Q; We believe...We love Q, and so on. Of course, if you're looking for people who believe their secret knowledge, about the powerful Jews drinking children's blood, and seeking to overthrow Trump--which they haven't done yet, so how powerful are they?--If you're looking for them to make sense...well, it just won't happen.
1
-
1
-
"...your favorite President, me...."
*
There's always so much wrong with Trump, that no one can ever cover it all. But what about the above statement, from his Tweet? Who else would say that? Imagine Obama, Bush Sr, Reagan, Nixon, or anyone else saying that. I've heard, plenty of times, from rabid Trump supporters, that they see Trump as "the best President ever." While that's an entirely different, crazy discussion, I can see him addressing such cultists with such a claim. But what about everyone else? Is Trump ONLY speaking to his cultists? Actually, that's always been my theory, and the tweet corroborates it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With those Hillary/Benghazi trials, I learned that Republicans (and some independents) don't care what is said in the trial. People speaking in them might as well sound like Charlie Brown's teacher. What they thought went something like this:
"If it's a trial, then it must be serious, and real." Therefore they didn't trust Hillary. No reasons: just don't trust her. I heard that repeatedly. Likewise, with Trump, Kari, etc. having these trials about the possibility of elections being tampered with, they aren't going to care what was said in the trials, or how inept the prosecutors were.
"If it's a trial, then it must be serious, and real."
1
-
1
-
@thejedioutcast804 "Learn the definition of the word troll. A troll isn't just: " someone I disagree with. ""
Your straw man reduces my comment to me just disagreeing with you. That's not what happened.
Just as you did to me here, you dismissed everything the 4th grader said, by claiming his parents brainwashed him, or taught him what to say, and he's just "regurgitating" their talking points.
See, you can't know that about his parents. It's impossible. Therefore, your comment is nothing but a baseless assumption, meant to deflect. Hence, trolling.
And you did the same thing to me: the same exact thing. Of course, then you go on to assume a bunch of other junk about the child you can't know.
If you aren't trolling, then you're assuming your assumptions are facts, which can be easily and naturally deduced, like "the sun will rise in the east."
So if you aren't a troll, you're an ultra maroon. I'll let you decide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is not a case where using liberal phrases makes your stance okay. (By the way, "my body my choice" has been typically used for abortion. You okay with abortion, since it's their body?) See, if you don't get the vaccine, and tens of millions of other Americans refuse to take it, we're unable to reach herd immunity, as stated in this "fear mongering" video.
That means you could/will get other people sick, by not being vaccinated. Of course, the same goes for masks, social distancing, and everything else right wingers refuse to do, to help end the pandemic, even though they want things to go back to normal.
1
-
@user-yo9pv1ni6t You don't get to be a lawyer without reading a ton. I can tell who reads and who doesn't, based on how they write, or speak, how they use words, all of which shows how they think. People who read exercise their brains while doing so; people who don't read have flabby, out-of-shape brains. It's obvious. And her brain is tight and strong. Yours: seeing your multiple question marks, weird extra spacing for no reason, and a bias against her for no reason, while also claiming that an obviously educated person "shows herself as very low level EDU,," (with two commas), and you gave no examples: So Yours is the equivalent of wheezing after walking across a small room; compared to her being a marathon runner.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While I don't know what she's going on about with the blood of Jesus, there is this, which Jesus (supposedly) said:
"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. / Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him." (Matthew 6:7-8.)
Jesus talked about this several times. Prayer is not supposed to be about us asking for stuff. It's meant to be about us stopping what we're doing, being alone and quiet, and praying: "Thy will be done."
Prayer is a means of meditation, a way to connect with the cosmos (i.e., God), and accept what is out of our hands.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@basedandredpilled88 "the rioters and looters are the left blm and antifa"
This is the point of Whataboutism: to distract from the conversation, by making unsupported, unproveable points. We're talking about Trump holding rallies, in states where Coronavirus cases are spiking. OK? Get it? No one is denying him the right to hold a rally. OK? However, to attend the rally, people will have to sign a waiver, which will absolve Trump, and anyone involved in putting these rallies together, from all blame.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/12/trump-rally-supporters-sign-coronavirus-waiver
"To overcome this impediment, one that has claimed more than 115,000 lives in the US, the Trump campaign is asking supporters to sign a waiver that makes clear the campaign is not responsible if anyone gets ill from crowding with thousands of others in an enclosed space."
1
-
@basedandredpilled88 "there’s also freedom of religion, yet people weren’t allowed to attend church."
Are you sure? Do you know what the 1st Amendment says?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Congress didn't make any law telling people they weren't allowed to attend church. You know what happened? State governors issued stay-at-home orders, which included church. Here's what the NC Governor said about it:
“To continue our aggressive battle against COVID-19, I have signed a Stay at Home Order for the entire state of North Carolina. Though it is difficult we must do this to slow the disease spread,” said Governor Cooper. “We need our medical system to be able to care for the friends and family we know will become seriously ill from the virus.”
https://governor.nc.gov/news/governor-cooper-announces-statewide-stay-home-order-until-april-29
It took me only a couple minutes to find this stuff on Google. Next time, instead of accepting conspiracy theories, and not thinking for yourself, look it up; find the truth--especially before posting somewhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Steve-sg3uz Maybe I need to clarify what non-zero probability means. It's a term I learned my freshman year as a physics major.
It means the probability is extremely low, but not zero. Low probability events happen. And they happen a lot.
"nothing created something"
That's not what I said. I said something can come from nothing, or, rather, what appears to be nothing. But there's always something. There's no such thing in nature as a vacuum: a complete absence of mass or energy. Even in the vast reaches of intergalactic space, there is mass or energy.
The Heisenberg equation I referred to says matter can come into existence, seemingly out of nowhere. The trick is the amount of time it can exist is inversely proportional to the amount of matter in question.
So low mass can last a long time; and high mass lasts only a short time.
I don't know the probability of the big bang. I do recall the fact that probability dictates it should have collapsed back in on itself immediately. There should have been no expansion. But there was.
This fascinates me because we humans, and indeed the entire universe, shouldn't even be here. We owe our existence to a probability that was somehow broken, or didn't work correctly---or, more likely, a probability that was so remote and small that it should never ever happened. But it did.
And being in such a universe, that means non-zero probabilities are a fact of life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wouldn't it be better to stop trolling during a pandemic? You aren't spreading the truth, fighting the good fight, against the "fake news." You're doing what trolls have always done, which is buzz around our heads, being a nuisance. And that you threw a sexual slur into your initial comment further reveals your lack of good intentions.
Trump only calls news "fake" because he doesn't want his base hearing ANYTHING that would make them stop, and think. You can actually fact check everything TYT says, just like every other new organization. I invite you to do that, and, while you're at it, fact check Trump--who is actually the one spouting fake crap...imagine that, him saying others do what he is doing.
1
-
@earnesttbass8107 "I most certainly am spreading the truth it's that you just don't comprehend.."
I figured that you'd say something like that, which was why I pointed it out. Sorry, bud, but you aren't spreading the truth, and fighting the good fight (as I wrote), if you begin by writing this: "Big tytty fake news!"
That's not spreading the truth; it's trolling. If you wanted to inform everyone here, on one channel, for one video, and your one comment (what about everyone else in the world who's "misinformed?"), then you wouldn't insult me, or any other person commenting; this isn't our channel; we aren't the ones doing the news. And you wouldn't insult the people who are with TYT, because they aren't going to see your comment.
No, you're here to troll, during a pandemic, with a thousand dying every day. So spare me the Man of La Mancha claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@irfanmuratspahic2596 In the 260 odd years of the United States, only once (at the start) was there a tyrant to overthrow. Since then, especially since the 1990s, we have regular shooting sprees. And we can't seem to introduce even common sense gun laws, to stop the mass shootings because people are so sure that, any day now, they'll need more guns than there are citizens in America, to fight against a technologically superior combined military force of the U.S.
So people are dying needlessly, just so Billy Joe Jim Bob can daydream about fighting an old fashioned gun against gun war, ignoring that drones, jets, chemical warfare, etc, could obliterate him without ever presenting him with a target: That is, if that were ever to happen, which it hasn't in over two centuries, and likely won't. And, if it did, then those bozos would be deader than fried chicken.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeannerogers7085 The Romans had left the Pharisees in their position. But the Pharisees had no actual power. In the story, the Pharisees wanted to put Jesus to death for being a false prophet (which was one of the things they did back then). Since they couldn't do it without Rome, they went to the local governor, Pilate, who found Jesus innocent. The Pharisees whined, and said Jesus wanted to tear down the temple, and do other seditious, rebellious things, including making himself the king of the Jews. They said they'd go to Caesar, if Pilate refused them. Pilate knew Caesar hated any kind of uprisings. And if Jesus led a rebellion, Caesar would blame Pilate. To keep that from happening, Pilate knew he had to execute Jesus. He tried one last time to get out of it, by letting the citizens choose whom they wished to be released: a know murderer (bar Abbas) or Jesus. The Pharisees riled them up, and had them chanting for bar Abbas. That left Pilate with no recourse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ian Lev Who are you kidding, that you know who and what I care about? You don't know squat about me. You're assuming you know, believing that what I wrote is hypocritical, because...why? My turn to guess (and I'm saying it's a guess, because I don't know you):
I assume it's because, unless YOU assume that I'm lying, or being hypocritical, then what you're left with is that I'm sincere. And if I'm telling the truth, about how I FEEL, then you have to accept that police really are a problem, that the tragedy of insisting "black lives matter" is real; and that means Liberals are not 100% wrong, all the time.
And if that's true, then it means Liberals are right and sincere, at least sometimes. And, of course, that means you have to stop and think, about when Liberals are right and sincere. And if you have to stop and think, that means you don't just assume the right-wing is correct. And it's THAT which the right-wing cannot have.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@udhehfhehcuw9169 In 2021 the owner Dan Cathy donated to a group that spearheaded opposition to what was then known as the Equality Act, which would ensure rights for LGBTQ.
This goes back to 2012, when Dan Cathy came out against LGBTQ, making a series of comments opposing same-sex marriage. Here's a couple of the things he said:
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
"We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. ...We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized. "We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
Let the church say AMEN! Politicians came out and barred Chik-Fil-A from opening restaurants in certain cities, from 2012-2019. That's when Chik-Fil-A said they'd stop donating to anti-LGBTQ groups. That was a lie, because they did it (as I said) in 2021.
But it probably helped to get them to release their diversity, equity, and inclusion statement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielbrown1943 "The Bible Also Clearly Says in the latter days people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, ABSUSIVE, Disrespectful of parents, unholy, unloving, brutal, not loving what is good, slanderous, etc etc"
Hi, Daniel. I saw you posted a few times. As I said, I can't respond to a lot at once: just a little at a time, because there's a lot to say about each single verse. As to the latter days you mentioned:
"For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. // For nation shall rise against nation...and there shall be famines, and pestilences...//And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.//And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold" (Matthew 24: 5, 7, 10, 12).
To my knowledge, Jesus NEVER said to have nothing to do with sinners, or anyone, for that matter. Paul said that. Jesus ate with publicans. Jesus came for the sinners.
What Jesus did say is that when we aren't loved, we tend to not love in return. This is a variation on the theme of "turn the other cheek." This is what we're dealing with now. We have a chain reaction of hatred.
We can't blame any one person, because we're all in the chain. Personally, I have contributed to the hate...plenty of times. And I'm aware of it! What about those who aren't even aware of it? Are they more to blame, since we both caused the wickedness, which destroyed the love in others? Of course not. I am to blame just as much as anyone.
That's the point of loving, instead of hating. It's the same point of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." We cannot judge, because we have no place judging. But we do anyway.
1
-
@danielbrown1943 "This I believe is the "cognitive distortion"... So He Spoke Once About "do not judge", immediately followed with, "do not cast your pearls before swine", and in other passages, spoke of "Rebuke your brother if he sins, if he repents, forgive him"
I assume this reply was meant for me? I wrote, ""let he who is without sin cast the first stone." We cannot judge, because we have no place judging. But we do anyway."
Jesus did not speak "once about "do not judge."" He spoke often about it. Arguably, this was one of the main focus points of his ministry. I wish I could go point by point, with what else you wrote, but, as I've said, it's too much to cover. So let's stick with the judging for now.
Going back to Leviticus, what became the Golden rule said to not take revenge or hold grudges. God would be the judge. We need to just do to others what we'd wish they would do to us.
Jesus later said that God has given over all things to the Son, including judgment.
"The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands" (John 3:35).
Jesus goes on to say it is for judgment that he is here at all. Jesus, mind you, not us.
"Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." (John 9:39).
To cap this off, however, Jesus left us with the ultimate understanding of judgment of others:
"By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me" (John 5:30).
This is why we can't judge: We seek to please ourselves, not God, i.e., not the entirety of everything. However, Jesus' ultimate conclusion on how he, alone, judges, is the real show stopper:
"You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one" (John 8:15).
He further enhances this by saying that he doesn't condemn the adulterous woman, though everyone, including the Pharisees, have judged her to be worthy of death. And Jesus goes on to say...
""Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven" (Luke 6:37).
He says it plainly. Do Not Judge. Why? Because judgment belongs to God, who gave it to Jesus. And what does Jesus do with it?
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (John 3:17).
I could go on and on. Not judging teaches humility. That's the point of it. It is with humility, only, that we finite human beings, with a limited understanding, can see that, because we do not know what a person is thinking, feeling, or why they did what they did (because we don't have access to their future or past), we cannot accurately judge them. Only God can, by giving judgment over to Jesus, who neither judges nor condemns.
1
-
@danielbrown1943 Oh wow! You can read the Greek and Hebrew texts? Oh man, oh wow. I would love to be able to do that. There's so much in those languages that doesn't get translated to English very well, or at all.
I go to biblehub.com, where they have all English translations, as well as the original Greek and Hebrew for each verse. So I can follow along, slowly, with what's written. I really need to devote the time to learning Greek and Hebrew, and so happy for you that you have. There's so much to study, though, that I don't know if I'll get to it.
William Barclay's commentaries are free online, if you want to see.
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/dsb.html
1
-
@danielbrown1943 I love that part about wiping the dust from their feet. And I really love him sending out the apostles.
I want to share something personal. I write essays about the gospels. I go through parables, or scenes, and, using a variety of sources (dictionaries, commentaries, study Bibles), as well as my own love for interpreting poetry, I try to learn what the writer was trying to communicate, what this has to do with us, on both a practical (earthly) level, and on a spiritual (heavenly) level.
But I also have "works in progress." These are things that I don't understand, or just want to see how they hold up over time, what else I think of them, what further readings of the Bible reveals about them, and what I can learn through prayer and meditation.
The personal thing I wanted to share with you is one of my theories, a work in progress. It has to do with something Jesus said at the Last Supper:
"For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you" (John 13:15).
The theory, the assumption that I'm playing out over time is that this is a literal definition of Jesus. Everything Jesus says about himself is a lesson for us, a model, an example. Everything about Jesus, as well as every other character in the Bible, is really teaching us about ourselves.
This theory comes with the understanding that I'm not denying that Jesus was the Son of God, or denying anything heavenly. It's just looking at what Jesus means to us in the earthly sense. You remember this one:
"But if you don’t believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things?" (John 3:12).
After all, the goal is to be like Jesus, to "wash another person's feet," as he did. Points of view like this afford me some amazing revelations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When a society becomes a civilization, it has specialists. There are bakers who provide bread to everyone; farmers who provide fruit, vegetables, and livestock; elected representatives who govern so we don't have to: The point, especially in a capitalist society, is for each specialist to be paid for their work in providing services, and for others to pay them for those services. This includes law enforcement. So I'm not scared to bake my own bread, or any of those other things. But someone else does it, so I'm free to be the specialist in my field. Likewise, there are law enforcement agencies in every civilization. Someone made your clothes, brings fuel to your local gas station. You don't do it. Why don't you? Go ahead, make your own clothes. Scared? Of course not. You pay for them. Same with police. Grow up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BILLYKRYSTAL So you're predicting the future, by saying "only a period of time before...." Are you a prophet? Besides, I like this, but I don't like Cenk and Ana. Therefore, whether or not this helps some other show, in some way, I'll watch it. If your personal convictions are so set, then why even watch or comment here? You like it. Watch it. I don't know for sure that our watching it does fund them. But if it does, fine. I don't care. If you do care, then maybe stop? Will that remove tyt from the air? Will it change anything at all, if you stop watching and commenting? I doubt it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is it my imagination, or was she panicking, while the press grilled her? Her eyes, eyebrows: There was a look of sorrow, fear. This isn't just misleading the American people about Obama's birth certificate, or there being "fine people on both sides." This "betrayal of the public trust," and that's exactly what it was, was directly, or indirectly, responsible for the deaths of people under his protection, due to his inaction: a number that continues to rise, to who knows how many. What does it do to a person, to lie about such a thing? Sure, many/most/all Trump supporters believe Trump, without question, but what about her? I feel kinda bad for her. Part of her must know that she is complicit in death and misery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DisappearingNightly You got it all exactly right. How odd. The post of yours that I replied to was nailed by the youtube algorithm for using too many hate-filled, ignorant buzz words.
I can't even remember now what you wrote, except that you used the three words I asked you to define incorrectly. But here you are using them correctly. Very odd.
"Congratulations to you for correctly identifying me as a troll, even though I'm not the troll you wished me to be."
I see; rather, I don't. Okay.... I'm familiar with irony, satire, and parody. That's what you were doing? Okay....
You must realize, as intelligent as you seem to be, that none of those things translate into print, without a great deal of on-the-nose indicators. Yes?
As for being "easily-triggered," I don't like that word. It's used incorrectly on the internet. It's supposed to mean the "triggering" of a flashback for those suffering from PTSD: like me. It's not something to be made light of.
I tend to think everything through. What I wonder is if you think through HOW your writing is read by others. Do you write much? I'm a writer. Part of editing is imagining how someone who isn't inside your head, with access to your thoughts, will read what you wrote. Do you do that?
Not if you assumed I could easily recognize your post as being ironic. It's best to NEVER ASSUME. I do practice deep breathing, deep thinking, and I still missed your attempts to trigger people with your irony.
That failure isn't mine. It's yours. Your writing either didn't accomplish what you hoped, or it did, and you got an "easily triggered" reaction. Reacting to something isn't weak. We all react: That's just life. Only an immature troll thinks otherwise.
As for being "like your enemies," we all are. That doesn't happen just because of being triggered, but because we are all alike. Peace right back atcha.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@krunoslavkovacec1842 Typically, those of us who aren't transgender don't have to state our gender. For us gender is approximately equal to biological sex. Sure, there are some qualifications, like being a man means being either macho and quiet, or helpful and intelligent, etc.
But most of those are still such a small adjustment between biological sex and gender, that a special pronoun is unnecessary.
Then there are other people, who aren't "binary." They are neither what society calls a man, or what it calls a woman. And, for them, the pronouns matter very much.
1
-
1
-
Please give examples of their different names. From what I've seen, first mention of "the man" is hā·’ā·ḏām. And the first mention of Adam is ū·lə·’ā·ḏām. Both appear in Gen. 2:20. The first one means a "human being," in general; while the second is when he is first named, so removing the "the" article. Similarly, with Eve, she is first mentioned as "a woman" with lə·’iš·šāh. That was in Gen. 2:22, and means "woman, wife, female." She wasn't named until Gen. 3:20: ḥaw·wāh (Eve in the text), which means "life." So I don't see multiple meanings. I do see you taking it all very literally, when it obviously isn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wow. How dumb are Trump supporters? This isn't just "stupid," that we're talking about. It's some sort of critical mass of absolute rejection of intellectualism, blind hatred of "the other" (Libtards, people of other races and nationalities, etc.), and deferential worship of a Jim Jones/Hitler-type strong authority figure. They're a perfect storm of propaganda overload, racist jokes from their childhood, and a secret hatred of the Democracy and Republic that allowed Gays to marry, manual labor to be shipped overseas, and a really intelligent black man to be President. Trump (as Michael Moore put it) is "the hand grenade they can legally throw." These people have been compromised, severely, and are a threat to themselves and others. God help us all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@R0me0316 Yet freedumb also comes with people who understand their beliefs to be facts, and who hate the American government so much, that they're stocking up on military grade weaponry. And they refuse to allow even common sense gun laws, because they fear the laws might get in the way of their private armories. And they want those guns, as they themselves say, in case the American government becomes tyrannical.
And they stormed Congress on January 6th, because they believed the government was tyrannical. All of this is because actual "freedom" has not been qualified. Sure, we have basic laws that say you don't have the freedom to murder someone, or steal, or commit some other crime. But, evidently, you do have the freedom to hate your government (when it's a Democrat in the White House), and build your own stockpile of guns for when the big day comes.
And they believe freedumb gives them the right to be uninformed voters. A representative democracy (in which we vote for others to represent us in government) cannot last with an uninformed (or misinformed) public. So something obviously needs to be done.
1
-
1
-
@gerardgauthier4876 A straw man is when you ignore what the other person said, then twist the meaning of what they said, until it's something that you can easily argue for or against.
That's what you did.
Further, you ignored (for the second time now) what I said: You can't possibly know what the rich and powerful are doing or scheming.
Also, there are none so poor and weak as immigrants--whom you are claiming are being used by the rich and powerful against Americans, whom you see as poor and weak.
So what you wrote is a deflection, straw man, xenophobic, and whataboutism too--since you're really just ignoring the actual topic, and saying, Well whatabout blablabla.
Get it now?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Joerogainistriggered5025 "Biden has had more time off on vacation than any president in history."
You realize you can look this up, right? You don't have to just believe stuff anymore. You can fact check pretty much anything.
Most vacation days taken by Presidents (in descending order):
GW Bush: 1,020 days, In 8 years.
F.D.R.: 958 days, in 12 years
George HW Bush: 543 days, in 4 years.
LBJ: 484 days, in 6 years.
Eisenhower: 456 days, in 8 years.
Trump: 381 days, in 4 years.
Obama: 328 days, in 8 years.
Biden: 256 days, in 3 years (so far).
And it dwindles from there. So Trump took more vacation days than Obama, even though Obama was in office twice as long.
1
-
1
-
@musicman1eanda The kids taking your gun is only one problem. There are others.
Your kids would certainly know you have a gun, if all teachers are required to carry them. While some kids might think that's cool, others would not. They might trust you to teach them, but trusting you with a gun is something else.
Further, as far as the kids are concerned, they would see your gun if you had to take it out, because of a shooter, or shooters. If teachers are required to carry guns, you don't think that will deter the shooters, do you?
They will come in pairs, trios, or squads. If they hit one room at a time, then you could be facing off against multiple assailants, all by yourself. If they're cunning, they won't give you the chance to draw your weapon. They don't even have to enter the school, but let loose a fusillade from outside, no doubt targeting the adult first.
I could go on with the possibilities, among them being teachers who never owned a gun, and whose temperament isn't suited for killing people in front of their students.
And, what's worse, let's assume nothing goes wrong, and the single shooter walks in without their gun drawn, and insults your mother in front of the kids. They then reach for their gun, giving you plenty of time to retrieve yours from wherever you stashed it (so the kids couldn't see it). And you successfully shoot and kill the would-be murderer. Let's also assume no children get held hostage, and everything goes your way.
You will still kill someone in front of children. Granted, you'd be saving their lives. While some kids might admire you, or think you're cool and awesome, you'll psychologically scar the others for life.
This is way more complicated then you're letting on, or possibly even considered.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rodisbossman81 "Who said everything is God's will?"
So, you "believe" in the scriptures? Does that mean you take the Bible literally? Are you a Seventh Day Adventist? Let's have some fun.
"See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand" (Deuteronomy 32:39.)
God does all of it. Everything. This is shown many times throughout the Bible.
“The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up" (1 Samuel 2:6).
God hardened Pharaoh's heart. He made it so Pharaoh wouldn't accept what Moses was saying. And why?
"But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, / he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. / And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it" (Exodus 7:3-5.)
To glorify Himself. God didn't just create all the living creatures, but everything, all of it. So the world isn't evil. The world is God's, so it can't be evil.
"So that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other. / I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things" (Isaiah 45:6-7).
So forget all about that Satan junk. Satan is just the Hebrew word for "adversary." It's not a name, but an improper noun, which is why Jesus called Peter "Satan," because Peter opposed Jesus's crucifixion.
There's a lot more examples. I've read the Bible over a dozen times, and read lots of commentaries, and have several notebooks filled with notes. But I want to give you the chance to respond.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Imagine him maintaining that lie for four years now. Also, he announced that he'd deny it back in 2019 too. He always announces what he's going to do. Part of the thrill, I think--for him---is getting so many people to believe him, even though he admits ahead of time that he will lie. Personally, if I was in his place, I'd have a lot more fun with magaland. I'd tell them to all get mohawks, and dye it red. And they should skip, instead of walk. And they should begin every sentence with: "Hear ye, hear ye; beer me, beer me." And when asked any question, they should always and only answer by singing the B'52s "Love Shack" at the top of their lungs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Christ was not a Christian." I've heard this before. It has some merits, in that it attempts to distinguish between the religion and what Jesus taught in the text. Since a lot of the religion came from Paul's letters more than Jesus' parables, I can see their point. But unless you make that distinction, which doesn't happen with that single simple sentence, which is like a meme now, then it's like saying Jesus isn't Jesus. And that's just silly. Even the words Christ and Christian didn't come along until Paul's time. It was originally a mocking, insulting term given to the religious people, because they talked only of ChristChristChrist. Now the word "christ" did exist as an improper noun, referring to anyone who was christened with oil, namely a king. But it's a Greek word, the equivalent to the Hebrew word "messiah."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Totally agree. I've read a lot of black history: Booker T, WEB Du Bois, King, Malcolm, Nat Turner, slave trade, life during slavery, what happened after the civil war, on through early 20th century, up through the Civil Rights Act.
But I would never, ever claim to actually know what it's like. And I would never, ever speak as if I did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Romney didn't say anything about Trump, but Trump took Romney's marching with BLM as an affront. What does that say about Trump?"
Good catch, Emma! Trump has a narrative that his supporters believe and follow, to the letter. For example, Pay no attention to coronavirus; don't wear a mask; insist on opening the states. In this case, Trump continues to deny that there's any problem, because that would mean his Presidency wasn't perfect (like the phone call). So he denies that there's a problem with racism. Of course, part of that is because he's a racist, and so he denies racism even exists--since that would mean he couldn't possibly be a racist.
Here's a historical analogy: When Galileo discovered Jupiter's moons, with his telescope, the Catholic Church (which had a lot of authority back then), put him under house arrest, for the remainder of his life. Why? Because it was their narrative that Earth was the center of the universe, and humanity was the center of Earth, because we're made in God's image. Galileo said something that showed how we were not the center.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rossernator1288 "Aww bless your heart & way to live ur life in fear."
And you aren't living your life in fear? What about this:
"TYT is pushing China's propaganda and they are fake news. TYT are bullies"
So the Chinese are using TYT to push their propaganda? Or is TYT, with no actual connection to China, nevertheless, pushing what just so happens to be Chinese propaganda?
And, beyond that, TYT is fake news and bullies? Sounds to me like you're scared of the Chinese, who are possibly invading our country, through TYT? Or else TYT is bullying people, like the Chinese bully...whom, exactly?
There's an old saying: Before you try to pull the dust mote out of someone else's eye, pull the wooden plank out of your own. And bless you too. :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@B1ackWo1f13 Oh please. That "both sides" thing is over and done. It was never true to start with. We can just use the example in this video. Did a Democrat ever say anything like that? I give you permission to use whataboutism. Bring it on. And I do so because the answer is obviously no.
Did a Dem make it okay for states to decide abortion rights? Did Dems want to nuke a hurricane, sweep the forests, or play down Covid for those first few crucial months--causing hundreds of thousands of deaths?
It's Republicans: conservatives, MAGA, evangelical Christians, believers in Jewish space lasers, babies being held in pizza parlor basements, deniers of sexism, racism, and science.
And these conservatives are so sexually repressed, like Greene cheating on her husband, Madison and his declarations of masculinity, and always into anything having to do with stopping other people from having sex.
They also don't even know what mental health is, or communism, or socialism, or fascism, or fake news. They believe smart people are dumb; and dumb people, smart. They believe God wants them to hate, where their Jesus said to love everyone, and do unto others as you would have them to unto you.
They are either mentally deranged, or so stupid that it's a wonder their bodies don't cease up from the lack of a brain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not "literally" evil. That would mean "in the usual basic sense" and "without metaphor or allegory." But I can see it with the informal definition: "used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true."
Christianity has been used for evil, which is an old word meaning "creating hardship." But that's not all it's used for, and certainly isn't all it can be used for.
Even a gun, which is used only to kill human beings (or animals, if you're a hunter), can be used to protect others. And that, while it's sole purpose is to blast holes in living things. And so even a gun, with such a purpose, isn't evil, nor does it only create hardship.
How much more so, then, does something that asks for meditation on humility, kindness, forgiveness, etc.?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For him and his supporters, it's not about governing. If it was, none of them would be qualified or voted for. It's not about telling the truth, or using facts as the basis for policies. They aren't interested in policies. So it's about something else. I think maybe there are at least 5-6 different groups among his base, each wanting a different "something else." Whatever it is, their desire for it has led them to reject everything else: the morality of their religious upbringing, the patriotism for a country they loved: because they no longer love this country as it is, and want to MAKE it something else. To do so, they've set aside all the facts, the experts, the qualified personnel that gives us doctors, generals, even their own families. They sacrificed their whole world, to have this world with him. And they see everyone else as pagans, infidels, enemies of their faith in him. They would go down with his ship, if it came to that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Adam J "Englsh is not my first language, but thanks for the racism tho"
I take it you don't know what racism is? Let me define it for you:
"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group"
My reply to you wasn't racist, therefore, because I had no idea about your race. That means I didn't reply based on race, and so it isn't racism.
You should have stuck with being an omega. Know what the omega wolf is? The omega wolf is the outcast who leaves the pack, and becomes a lone wolf.
As a lone wolf, he learns to properly defend himself, and he grows strong. Then he can go to a new pack, dominate their "alpha punk," and become a true alpha.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I wonder how I'd react in Vance's position, by which I mean being Vance, but also being me. (A kind Quantum Leap hypothetical.) I think I would have turned down the offer to be DonDon's VP. Last thing I want is for supporters to chant how they want to hang me. But assuming I accepted, for my career, going against everything I'd said about him, I think I would have quit when they started talking trash about my (his) wife. It's bad enough to sacrifice myself, but to sacrifice my wife too? But, assuming I stuck it out: in for penny; in for a pound: I would have gotten out of there when they dug up my (his) speech from 2021 about cat ladies. If not then, when my (his) old college friend spoke up and called me (him) a chameleon, because I (he) had no soul or integrity. I mean, I'd hate be on display before the whole world as a soulless wet noodle. If not then, maybe when DonDon introduced me as JP Mandel: honestly that would have been it for me. I would've skedaddled out of there so fast, there'd be nothing but a vapor trail. How far will he go?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This whole thing reminds me of that time Trump said the hurricane would go into Georgia. (I think it was Georgia.) And, when it didn't, he showed a map that detailed the path of the storm afterwards, and he or someone else had extended the path with a sharpie, so that it did go into Georgia, when it didn't.
Now, all Trump had to do was say he made a mistake. He's not a weather expert. And even weather experts get it wrong sometimes. But Trump couldn't admit that he was imperfect. Heck, even his phone calls were perfect. (I still haven't figured out what a "perfect phone call" is.)
Republicans do this a lot: They double-down on mistakes. "To err is human," except for Republicans. And all it does is make them look worse, except, I bet, to their base--which is probably the entire point anyway. Republicans only speak to their cult, and what they say isn't meant for the rest of us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's what cured me of being a conspiracy theorist: First, I asked myself how a know-nothing bozo, like me, got all this "secret" information. If the most powerful people in the country (or the world) planned this conspiracy, how did that secret come to little old me? Well, someone must have leaked it: someone "in the know." So that person, with crucial information, on which the whole world hangs in the balance, decided to pass on that information to...me?
Second, What do I plan to do with my secret knowledge? Do I confront the Deep State/Illuminati/Freemasons/Lizard People? How? Do I share what I've learned, join a group of other "truthers," and eventually form a large enough group to...do...what?
Even assuming the conspiracies are true, what are you going to do to stop them? You're nothing. Your vote hardly even counts. So why did that "Deep Throat" secret informant share all this garbage with me, and the other idiots on Facebook? It doesn't make any sense. And, even if it did, I can't stop "the lizard people" from stealing all the babies...or whatever they're supposedly doing, anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
After dealing with Trump, and Trump supporters, for four years, then a Pandemic, and now this voter suppression: I'm so sick of him and his un-American, really moronic, racist, xenophobic garbage, all his whining, all his supporters defending him with their interpretations of what he says and does. If he steals this election, or if he loses, one group/one party or another will take to the streets. Yeah, I'm a nervous wreck, and, like the old Adam West Batman TV show used to say, "But wait! The worst is yet to come."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Llyd_ApDicta Yeah, I don't know what "defined" means. ugh. Ever read any fairy tales? Grimms', for example? They are all one-shot stories, not a continuing epic, like the Bible. Fairy tales and the Bible are also different from fables, myths, legends. While you can find something general these genres have in common, they each approach them in vastly different ways. There is usually a Flood story in most mythologies. Saying they all copied each other is absurd. Fairy tales have no flood stories. Myths also do not have a single progressing story, like the Bible. The flood is part of a greater story in the Bible. And, besides the story, there is the spiritual aspect, which is different from the mystical fairy god mother. This is a huge topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@goodlookingman4489 Let's get one thing straight. You're a troll. I know it. You know. And your whole Warren thing is whataboutism. It's an attempt to deflect away from Lake, who is now claiming that same thing that Warren did. But I like fact checking, and love proving your MAGAts wrong. Let's begin, troll.
"10 generations ago does not make her Native American"
I didn't say it did. But it's still a Native American ancestor. Doesn't matter if it's 20 generations. She's not claiming anything or asking for anything. She said her family had told her; and she checked; and she was right; so eat the fudge off the cake, troll.
"she did tick the box that she was Native American at Harvard as well as at Penn law school ."
Wrong. There was no specific box for a minority. So she couldn't have. Got that? That's where this whole thing falls apart. So swallow it. Further, Harvard said they claimed her as a minority: You know, that affirmative action thing you conservatives hate. So no box for her to check; and Harvard said she was a minority without specifying. Got that?
"On top of this she wrote a cookbook called Pow Wow Chow which was supposed to be Cherokee recipes but turned out to be word for word takes"
First, she did not write a cookbook. She contributed 5 recipes. Of those 5, 3 were claimed (by a radio talk show host ) to be copies from the French book you mentioned. A radio talk show host. Raise any flags for you? Did for me.
But, when you check, turns out the amounts of the ingredients are different, and the amount of ingredients are different: She said 8 eggs, they said 1; she had 10 ingredients in all; they had 4. And so on.
Some things were identical: both had crab, and both made omelettes.
The only fraud here is you. You should stop believing and repeating everything you read on Facebook. Plus, this is all whataboutism, and nothing but whataboutism. And you can't even get that right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Teri Rea. You know you're looking at only the literal interpretation of the Bible, which I bet you don't agree with, but still use like it's the only way. Maybe there's another interpretation?
For example: The Bible says God is everything, having made everything in his own image. So, then, God wouldn't be a singular entity, but everything. Right?
That would explain what loving God means: loving everything. That would explain God's will: whatever happens. And humanity's free will: whatever we contribute to whatever happens.
So the "deaf ear" from prayer (which you can't possibly know is deaf, even from a literal interpretation), would be the incorporation of our contribution to whatever happens--which doesn't always work out the way we want.
And diseases and suffering would just be part of the natural order of things, i.e., science--which doesn't really care what you believe. In fact, beliefs are superfluous, in this interpretation.
1
-
The number of things Trump isn't told astounds me. Remember all the times he said, "Nobody ever knew," and then said something everyone knows. He either doesn't know that person, or is deadpan joking, being sarcastic, or just has no knowledge whatsoever. At the best, he's completely in the dark, or his advisers tell him nothing; at the worst, he is, as usual, lying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CAC6363 Let me explain my explanation then. I explained the OP (as I see it), which addressed your original post here, in my first paragraph. That's all that was necessary to read, if you wanted to read any reply at all. Here it is again:
"I think the satire of the Texas secession is that the 2nd amendment is part of the United States constitution. And so that right was given to them by the very nation and government the secessionists hate and want to get away from."
See? Nice and short. Now if anyone wanted to read more, and see this in context (you, for example), I then wrote about how the Confederacy seceded, thinking they'd be better off, believing they'd be different, without big government. See now? Or do I have to explain the explanation of my explanation which explained your misunderstanding of the OP? (That is, if you'll read all this, which you probably won't.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jesseswalters "The quintessential Bible that we have today is a product of King James and the stories they chose. It was not a direct translation of any codex or the Gutenberg Bible."
This is getting tiresome. Okay (sigh): The Codex Sinaiticus includes: "the majority of the Greek Old Testament, including the Apocrypha along with the deuterocanonical books, and the Greek New Testament, with both the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas included."
So these things already existed. But you want to talk about arrangements:
This was done in the Vulgate. It included "included all 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament in the same language: Latin."
This was done by St. Jerome, and completed in 384 AD. So they already existed, and were in the order they're in today.
For the King James, they had 6 committees, and they used the following: "The New Testament was translated using the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of Greek texts. For the Old Testament, the Masoretic Hebrew text was used, and for the Apocrypha, the Greek Septuagent text was used primarily."
"Since the translators were instructed to use the Bishops' Bible (1568) as a guide, which was a revision of the Great Bible (1539), which was a revision of the Matthew's Bible (1537), which was a revision of Coverdale's first Bible that included all of Tyndale's translation work (1535), the King James version includes much of the wording of the Tyndale and Coverdale translations."
So they absolutely did not make it up on their own, using nothing else. They did not choose the stories. Keep in mind, King James was published in 1611. I had to do a lot of digging for all that. So I hope it satisfies you, because I'm really tired, and done with this.
1
-
@panchocarlo Very well said. While I agree, there is one personal thing I learned, after an adulthood of atheism:
When I lost a loved one, and they died, I understood for the first time the desire to believe there was a way, a place to see them again, where they were waiting for me.
I don't like beliefs. I think they're dangerous, addictive: believing one thing makes it easier to believe another and another. I study science. I either know or I don't know. And it's okay to not know.
That said, when I lost a loved one, their death shook all that. And when I lost another the very next week, and the grief was overpowering...I understood the need to believe in an afterlife--not so much that I won't die, but that I'll see them again. Not saying I believe, but I understand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cops need to be punished. Hard. If they did, in fact murder someone, not as protection, but as unwarranted, unnecessary slaughter, then they need to be treated as the murderer they are: prison, and, if legal in that state, execution. I'm not at all for capital punishment, at all! Except, in the case of police, who are used to getting away with it, and so act with all but absolute impunity, they need to be put down like mad dogs. Without adequate deterrents, I can see no way this will end. It will go on as it always has, ever since the days of the SLAVE PATROLS, which is what all this reminds me of.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drugmoney4996 "Do you think all "conspiracy theories" are false"
Of course not. A conspiracy is when 2 or more people get together in secret, and plan something in secret. So that certainly happens. But that's not a conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy theory is when some yahoo doesn't know, and is completely unable to know, what the richest, most powerful people in the world are up to. Yet they claim they do know.
"Shouldn't people investigate and research, to determine if something is factual, or not?"
Knock yourself out. I was into conspiracy theories in my early 20s. It was great fun. Then I realized that a know-nothing bozo like me couldn't possibly know what the elites are up to. And, if I did, then I couldn't do anything about it. So it was a complete waste of time.
You want to investigate and learn something: try science. Then you'll actually learn something that's true. Learn what a quark is, or a quasar; learn a foreign language, or a musical instrument. Then you'll have something to show for your time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brooklynmack4503 Ohhh. I didn't notice. Typos happen. You'll find them in classic literature, even. Editors and proofreaders don't catch everything.
And when you're dealing with a small staff, or it's just the writer proofreading it, then the mind can insert a missing word, in order for it to make sense. That's how I missed it.
Did you have anything to add about the substance of the video? Because, if you want to talk typos, you used two question marks in your reply to me: That's redundant and unnecessary.
Also, in your original post, you didn't include punctuation after the first phrase: "Whoever is writing these captions needs to take [a] breath[,] because this is the 3rd one in a week that I've seen with big typos." I also had to insert "a" in there, for it to be correct.
You had one long run on sentence. So that's two errors in your first post, and one in your second: two more errors than what you referred to as "big typos." How big are they now to you? "Lighten up, Francis."
"these glaring typos/grammar issues come off far worse when attempting to roast someone for their lack of intellect."
Bet you feel dumb now.
1
-
1
-
@brooklynmack4503 "Your reference of typos in "classic literature" really has little to no bearing"
Yes it does. You just don't see it. Allow me to clarify. If there can be typos in major works, what about here on youtube? You weaseled out of the typos you made, saying you weren't getting paid, so not a professional. Those people editing Mark Twain did get paid, and still made errors. And, yes, their job was to read the entire book, and proofread it.
"Lastly, you didn't even catch the glaring typo in the first place, so I would tone it down with the slights."
I already explained that. See, if you were a writer (and I'm starting to suspect you aren't), then you'd know how typos can slip by you. And you'd know why. I explained why: Because the mind knows what you want on the page, and so you read it as being there. That's how I missed it.
As for the slights against you: poor baby. You came in here flinging mud. You proved you haven't a leg to stand on. And you expect to not have mud flung back at you?
Want some mud? Here you go: I think you posted to cast doubt on the content of the channel, by pointing out their one, single typo. Anyone who makes a small mistake is likely to make a large one. Right?
But you're such an ultra maroon that you didn't even proofread your own post. Now, according to this logic (assuming it is, indeed, yours), your greater number of small mistakes means we should doubt whatever else you might say. See how dumb that sounds? Now go read a book. Try to write something, and see how many times you have to proofread it to catch all the errors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jondough4682 "you people have literally been talking about Trump 24/7 for the last 7 years. It's non-stop."
Well let's see if we can understand this. Of course, four of those years he was President. And he was doing and saying stupid, awful things nonstop. For example: changing the path of a hurricane with a sharpie, wanting to nuke a hurricane, wanting to deny Covid, then maybe clean Covid under the skin, wanting to fire the NFL players who kneeled, and so on. Plus he lied, or else said misleading statements. A LOT! Obvious lies too. He's on record for 30,573 such statements during those four years.
Then there was the year leading up to his Presidency, in which no one (including any Republicans) could believe he was running). Then, after his Presidency was done, January 6th happened. Then Mar-a-lago, and Trump had taken some 15 boxes of classified documents. So there was that. He lied about taking them, lied about returning them, lied about having anything else in his possession, lied about not being told the FBI was coming, lied about it being a raid, lied about them planting evidence. And so on.
Plus we have the ongoing investigation into January 6th, his involvement in that, and ALL his many many other investigations--all while he's endorsing certain candidates, and hinting at running for Presidency again.
That's the short version. Hope it clears things up for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewjohnson7946 "I think race is deeply ingrained in our DNA, like when someone feels hungry they eat"
This is an interesting hypothesis. First, I assume you meant, "I think [racism] is deeply ingrained in our DNA." Not exactly the DNA, but a learned way of seeing another person? Yes, I think so.
See, waaay back, when we lived in caves, or trees, and in small tribes, we had to be careful of strangers. Anyone from outside the tribe was a potential threat. So if someone who looked different came along, that person might harm your family.
But, beside this possibility of "species memory," which is really just a theory, what brings us racism today is harder to say. For the Caucasians in America, it's pretty easy to see: Blacks were slaves here for a few centuries. When they were freed, they were seen as the same less-than-human vagabonds that the whites had always seen them as.
That didn't change for another century, until MLK and the Civil Rights Movement. Gradually, because of the laws passed, whites had to allow blacks into their schools, restaurants, and neighborhoods, but only reluctantly.
Now, today, almost another 100 years later, the whites still see themselves as the overseers, and the blacks as lesser citizens. Racism was passed down to them, like family heirlooms, not through the DNA, but through family and friends.
Harder to say what causes racism for people who aren't white. If they're racist against whites, though, I'd imagine it's because whites have been trading slaves, making war on minorities for centuries.
But, basically, racism is a thoughtless, mindless reaction from a weak person, who wants to see themselves as superior. If they stopped to think for just a moment, they'd see they're only accomplishing the opposite.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Being anti-vaccine is based on a belief. So the real question is can you stop a person from believing?
Belief is the absence of knowing. But when someone believes long enough, their belief can become as steadfast as the knowledge of gravity. Eventually, they see their belief as knowing. So the question then becomes: Can you stop a person from knowing the wrong thing, i.e., believing in bogus knowledge?
Since actual knowledge is the absence of belief, and, to the believer, belief is knowing, then by means of a twisted kind of logic, it would be like someone trying to tell you that gravity doesn't exist. But we would have to convince the believer without using facts, because facts are actual knowledge, which is the opposite of belief.
Therefore, the only way to convince a believer is with another belief.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
An adult is responsible for their own stupidity, ignorance, and gullibility: not the schools, and certainly not the rest of the country. What should we do? Have teachers go door to door, every week, and make sure every adult is still thinking critically, still reading about science, etc.? I'll give you this, we should have a system that commits these people to insane asylums, when they go on national TV talking like she did there. She's a threat to herself and others. But how many tens of millions of people would be institutionalized? And how many people would it take to commit them all, and where would we put them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I don't go for personal attacks. That's not journalism...you guys are coming across as a circus."
I suggest proofreading before you talk about politics on your website.
Edit: And I hadn't even seen your other post below:
"It's bad enough you Schmucks, and I'll say it to all of you on The Young Turks, you guys are Schmucks, going after people because other acting skills? Are you that lame and your journalistic, or, I'm sorry ,you're so-called journalistic skills, have to have a laugh instead of disgusting of their issues whether or not if they were legitimate or not. Progressive my ass! For rank amateurs they were trying to raise issues, but all you saw was amateurs and you laugh at them. I may not like every damn Republican out there who I keep thinking is a trump follower, but I don't put down people who are trying to make a point. You've crossed and burned, no, nuked lines. You know better than Tucker Carlson and the ilk on Fox News!"
Yeah, you don't go for personal attacks at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have two main problems with belief. First: How do we know a person really believes what they claim? And second: Belief means you don't know, which is the opposite of fact. So, if you do know, you don't say, "I believe...."
So does this woman believe in Jesus? And what does belief mean to her? Does it mean she uses Jesus as an example, and expresses her belief through actions? Or does her belief begin and end with Jesus being the son of God, and he died for our sins, which means, believe this is true and you go to heaven? What does she believe "heaven" is? And does this kind of belief contradict my previously stated axiom, that belief means you don't know? Because, if you believe Jesus died for our sins, etc., then it would seem possible to accept it as fact, not as something unknowable.
More to the first point, anyone can claim to believe anything. ANYTHING. I can say that I believe Coca Cola comes from unicorn urine. Who are you to contradict my constitutionally protected right to believe any old thing? And how can you stop me from protesting Coca Cola, and fire bombing all their factories, protesting places that sell it, and claiming that a single political party is behind this vast conspiracy, to feed the public urine, and we should, therefore, storm Congress (or the back rooms of pizza parlors), to stop this real life Soylent Green? Of course, I don't believe that. But can you prove that I don't believe it? or that I do? Can I prove it, either way? No.
And, to wrap it up and bring it home, a Trump supporter believes all kinds of crazy things: Dems eat babies, Jewish space lasers, Trump is the best thing since Jesus, or that Trump is the new Cyrus the Great (in the Biblical sense). But do these people, who claim to believe it, really believe it? Are they just saying they do? and are they saying so deliberately, to deflect and misdirect arguments against Trump, or are they just repeating what they heard/read? How far will they go for their beliefs (these things they don't know, but act as if what they don't know are actually facts)? Will they storm Congress? Will they attempt to kidnap Governor Whitmer (of Michigan)? Apparently so.
Belief can be a very dangerous thing. It becomes necessary when we don't know, or are unable to know, but still, regardless, claim that we have something better than knowledge (since it can't be disproven) which is that we believe. Here, have a Coke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@terrencemyers1033 "Isrealite" is the Biblical term for the 12 tribes of Israel. One of those tribes was Judah. It is from Judah that we get the term Jew. Besides the Jews, the Israelites were scattered thousands of years ago, and taken into slavery. So, unless you're one of those 12 tribes, you cannot even begin to claim you're an Israelite.
As for Biblical "prophecy," the Hebrew word for it means spokesman or speaker. It does not mean to tell the future: That comes from other cultures, such as the Greeks. So there is no prophecy (as you're using the word) in the Bible. The only future told (IN THE STORIES) is what will happen TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STORIES if they don't change their ways.
So even if you took the Bible literally, that God talks to people (like, "Hey, how's it going, dude?"), then they do not tell the future in any way at all specifically. Jesus said, of the so-called "day of the Lord" that no one knows when it will happen except for his Father: neither Jesus, nor the angels know. You cannot claim to know what Jesus said even he didn't know.
And, if you take the Bible literally, you cannot claim to be an Israelite, as I said before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When he says, to the cameras, that Trump's government is going to "look into helping them out," do we really believe they're going to do much of anything, let alone pay for it all? But, let's say they do pay, and we don't turn into Venezuela, or become Communists, can we then finally admit we need to drop our dinosaur medical system?
In World War 2, when London was bombed, they switched to the health care system that they currently have. Why? Because people's lives were decimated, and they simply could not afford to pay what they would, otherwise, have been required to pay. They kept that new system after the war, because it works, and it doesn't lead to rampant greed on one side, and ruined lives on the other.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dear Trump, here's how you fix this mess: You need to be humble, and admit you don't know much of anything about medical science. It's okay. Really. I don't know much at all about it either.
First, apologize. That's how you must begin. Nothing else will start you on the right foot. Say you're sorry, that you wanted Americans to think you were knowledgeable about medical science; admit that you are not, that you could fit what you know about science into a matchbox, without removing any of the matches. You are the President. I, personally, don't expect the President to be a scientist.
Second, tell them how tired you are. Say you've been trying to understand this stuff, but it's really hard. And you just weren't thinking clearly, when you said that junk about disinfectants. Admit that it was a stupid thing to say, the dumbest thing you've ever said.
Third, apologize for letting everyone down. And promise, from now on, that you're going to let the scientists handle the science--which is the way it should be. You tell everyone that Fauci and the others will be giving the press conferences. They'll be available every day, to answer any question the press might have about what's going on.
This will salvage your bottom-of-the-barrel reputation. Trump supporters will like you no matter what. But everyone else needs to believe, or at least have reasonable doubt, that you're a decent person.
It'll be interesting to see what he actually does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What's weird is that a lot of Republicans couldn't stand Trump, up through the primary. They were all about Jeb: including Fox News, and many other current Trump supporters I, and my friends, know. But, somehow, somewhere, some people liked him enough to win the primary. Then everyone, all of sudden, were not just voters or supporters, but would stick with Trump no matter what. Scary, while also being silly and absurd, like if Police Squad made a horror movie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ghost_SniperAirsoft "taking our means to fight back when Tierney shows it’s face."
Tyranny, you mean. When was the last time we had a tyrant here, for which we needed guns? The Civil War? The Revolutionary war? And when was the last mass shooting? How many mass shootings this year? The past decade? Since Columbine?
Besides, no one is trying to take away all your guns. They're trying to balance their debt to the gun lobby with their responsibility to the public. So taking away all guns isn't going to happen. Ever.
What we're talking about is doing something, which is better than doing nothing. But people like you want to do nothing? I guess? Sure, whatever gun laws they want to make won't solve all problems, but it would be something. Still, they're likely to get no laws passed, because of the gun lobby. And the gun lobby can get away with it because people are afraid of tyranny, so want to be armed...just in case something that has never happened actually happens.
Meanwhile, what's actually happening, at a rate that's worse than the rest of the world put together, are deaths by mass shootings. Oh, and now armed, armored guards patrolling school lunch rooms, breaking into classes, telling kids to put up their hands.
And just what do you think you'd do, if a tyrant did get control of the government and it's military? What if they use drones, chemical warfare, tactical nukes? Do you believe they'll march in like the Revolutionary War? It's absurd.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daftwod "It took months for the footage to get LEAKED because it was highly inconvenient to the narrative."
Okay, so...that's why you're not posting the proof of what you say happened in this video? It hasn't been released yet. But...doesn't that mean you haven't seen the proof yet? Because it hasn't been released yet.
If you haven't seen it, how do you KNOW, for sure, 99-100%, that TYT doctored this video? You don't know. You just admitted as much. You make up your mind, without proof. Then you come here, and claim everyone does what YOU do--making up their minds without proof. But you have no proof to show them, because there isn't any.
Thanks for your concern, that I'm being manipulated by TYT. And thanks for trying to manipulate me into believing that TYT manipulated me. While we wait for a couple months, for the footage to leak, I'll just not doubt what I see. And what I see is that YOU are the manipulator.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Screencappedhats It's different for different people. So you likely won't understand, agree with, or approve of how they answer that question. For example, I'm not religious. So I am very much against believing any kind of dogma: immaculate conception, talking snake, or any crudely literal interpretation of the Bible. However...since I can prove neither the existence or nonexistence of an infinite being, a one who is the set of all possible sets, the total of everything, existing outside of the 4th dimension created by gravity, I can allow for such a possibility, without rejecting it, or accepting it. This being would be all there is, manifesting in part as everything we perceive. So whatever happens, that thing that happens is God. To pray to such a being is to commune with (and meditate on) the cosmos, the universe, from alpha to omega. To worship it/he/she/they/we/us is to love all there is, and all that happens. That's what the Bible teaches, minus the dogma (which came later), combined with various other religions. And that's how I see it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blaming Democrats is a cornerstone of Republican marketing. They insist that everything, 100% of what Dems do is wrong, stupid, or just plain evil. They can't allow even one Democratic idea to exist, to keep the Republican consumer buying their political product. It doesn't matter how low they must go--Dems kill babies--or how absurd and unsupported their claim is--sweep forests, nuke hurricanes. As long as they insist that Democrats are the cause of all evil, or, at the very least, Dems support that evil, then their voter base will consume their Republican product.
It's a combination of team sports rivalry, recreational hatred, and insisting that your product is better than your competitor's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1