If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
As a wealthy, educated woman why would she have her staff research that? Thats what doctors are for.
Maybe she was worried about all the conspiracy theorists.
reasons to google medical ailments:
family member has it
friend has it
celebrity you have heard of has it
visiting dignitary you have to meet with has it
people fundraising for a cure have asked you for money to help cure it
really like michael j fox
This is a fancy way of telling people to shut the **** up.
I would disagree that's somehow a more worthy argument than what it's being addressed to.
It is, and I realize that it is a very poor debate tactic, but why does lunacy require proper form and etiquette?
Why can't we just tell people to stop being dumb rather than setting a good example to people who we know it is not going to make a difference to, no matter how polished and academically sound the argument is?
The same goes with arguments to the Young Earthers. You can spend hours going on about carbon dating and science this and that, but at the end of the day they are going to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old no matter what is said. Maybe the best tactic with these sorts of people is to just slap them around a little bit and hope they get a clue?
You are a saint for being so patient with these arguments. I just can't conjure up that kind of patience. The country is plummeting towards rock bottom and people are obsessing over Clinton's sniffles? Can't deal with that, sorry.
I just assumed she was a [biological] woman so I'm pretty sure that makes me exactly the opposite of a bigot. I don't see how Criminology makes you an expert on identifying blurred, weird-loking syringes in poor quality internet videos. She still just comes across like every other loony conspiracy theorist on Youtube. No doubt the syringe caused 9/11.
You don't see what criminology has to do with investigating? Okay then...
Originally Posted by Paco500
What is at issue is her interpretation. Anyone who argues a 'comic' reaction is a seizure is either a lying zealot or not terribly bright. Either way, she demonstrates limited credibility.
This wasn't about her "chai reaction", try to keep up.
I assume this is an attempt at wit? Keep at it. With some hard work and dedication, you'll get there tiger!
My attempt was better than what you're trying to pass off as humor, geez.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
So, a Secret Service agent puts their career on the line and leaks to Alex Jones instead of FOX?
That's out of character for you (attacking the source). Likely he went to Jones because Jones was offering $$.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Can we create a subsection of this forum for the nonsense?
Only if you promise to stay there.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
That's out of character for you (attacking the source). Likely he went to Jones because Jones was offering $$.
Whereas Fox already shelled out $20m to Carlsen and $40m to Aisles and will likely need the rest of their reserves for all the other ladies who ever worked there.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Hillary Clinton was sporting a mini earbud wired to receive stealth communications from her campaign handlers during Wednesday’s Commander-in-Chief Forum carried live on NBC from New York City, True Pundit has learned.
While Clinton was fielding questions from NBC’s Matt Lauer and the public Wednesday night on live television, a quiet buzz started circulating in New York law enforcement circles about Hillary’s left ear. NYPD sources involved with the NBC forum’s security detail confirm Clinton was wearing an ‘inductive earpiece,” the same technology employed by almost all lead Broadway actors to receive forgotten lines and stealth off-stage cues from directors. The flesh-colored earbud is easily concealed. There are no wires running directly to the ear like you see with the units employed by Secret Service protection detail personnel.
One of my local stations played a clip, you can see it in her ear.
Okay, I'm giving up on appealing to sensibilities in encouraging more focus on key issues.
For now on, I'm just going to document all of the fluff so that when nice things don't happen and there is some question why, I can just point you at at least part of the cause.
Okay, I'm giving up on appealing to sensibilities in encouraging more focus on key issues.
For now on, I'm just going to document all of the fluff so that when nice things don't happen and there is some question why, I can just point you at at least part of the cause.
That's out of character for you (attacking the source). Likely he went to Jones because Jones was offering $$.
I'm attacking the plausibility of the claim.
FOX would kill for this story, and I don't think money is an issue for the outfit which just paid for silence at the going rate of $10 million per butt cheek.
That FOX didn't run it calls the journalistic rigor of the claim into question.
It should also be noted the Jones people didn't say it was an agent, so the doctor in the video couldn't even get past his first piece of evidence without mischaracterizing it.
Chongo, some of those are real issues and not what Besson is saying is "fluffy."
In more fluffy news, saw that some criticized Clinton for not smiling during a discussion of a serious issue. Currently there is more awareness against catcalls and men harassing women "You'd be prettier if you smiled". Were any of the men in the room criticized for the same thing? Falls back to "wo-men must look pret-ty" caveman logic which I hope I don't have to explain should not ever be an issue for a presidential candidate.
Whereas Fox already shelled out $20m to Carlsen and $40m to Aisles and will likely need the rest of their reserves for all the other ladies who ever worked there.
Okay? I guess this has to do w/ the sexual harassment allegations, but I couldn't care less since I don't watch them (and it has nothing to do with whether they pay a former SS agent $10k for a story).
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
Sherlock she ain't.
There are segments that are very accurate, but since you've not watched them you wouldn't know.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I was watching some random Benghazi hearings on YouTube just to reacquaint myself with the issues, and I must say, it's amusing how many armchair lawyers there are on YouTube.
Say what you want about Hillary overall, but she was clearly lawyered up (which is also understandable given the charges she was facing), so for civilians to share their own simplified verdicts is like us following along with open heart surgery and saying "you gotta cut that red dippy part with that first tool you used".
My metaphor aside, this is another example of how facts sometime aren't as important as the court of public opinion (whether that is towards guilt or innocence).
I guess it's crazy hard to rebound from these sort of situations. Just ask Anthony Weiner.
38. In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.
The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.
The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: "All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator"(137).
If, indeed, everyone has the mission and responsibility of acknowledging the personal dignity of every human being and of defending the right to life, some lay faithful are given a particular title to this task: such as parents, teachers, healthworkers and the many who hold economic and political power.
The Church today lives a fundamental aspect of her mission in lovingly and generously accepting every human being, especially those who are weak and sick. This is made all the more necessary as a "culture of death" threatens to take control. In fact, "the Church family believes that human life, even if weak and suffering, is always a wonderful gift of God's goodness. Against the pessimism and selfishness which casts a shadow over the world, the Church stands for life: in each human life she sees the splendour of that 'Yes', that 'Amen', which is Christ himself (cf. 2 Cor 1:19; Rev 3:14). To the 'No' which assails and afflicts the world, she replies with this living 'Yes', this defending of the human person and the world from all who plot against life"(138). It is the responsibility of the lay faithful, who more directly through their vocation or their profession are involved in accepting life, to make the Church's "Yes" to human life concrete and efficacious.
The enormous development of biological and medical science, united to an amazing power in technology, today provides possibilities on the very frontier of human life which imply new responsibilities. In fact, today humanity is in the position not only of "observing" but even "exercising a control over" human life at its very beginning and in its first stages of development.
The moral conscience of humanity is not able to turn aside or remain indifferent in the face of these gigantic strides accomplished by a technology that is acquiring a continually more extensive and profound dominion over the working processes that govern procreation and the first phases of human life. Today as perhaps never before in history or in this field, wisdom shows itselt to be the only firm basis to salvation, in that persons engaged in scientific research and in its application are always to act with intelligence and love, that is, respecting, even remaining in veneration of, the inviolable dignity of the personhood of every human being, from the first moment of life's existence. This occurs when science and technology are committed with licit means to the defence of life and the cure of disease in its beginnings, refusing on the contrary-even for the dignity of research itself-to perform operations that result in falsifying the genetic patrimony of the individual and of human generative power(139).
The lay faithful, having responsibility in various capacities and at different levels of science as well as in the medical, social, legislative and economic fields must courageously accept the "challenge" posed by new problems in bioethics. The Synod Fathers used these words: "Christians ought to exercise their responsibilities as masters of science and technology, and not become their slaves ... In view of the moral challenges presented by enormous new technological power, endangering not only fundamental human rights but the very biological essence of the human species, it is of utmost importance that lay Christians with the help of the universal Church-take up the task of calling culture back to the principles of an authentic humanism, giving a dynamic and sure foundation to the promotion and defence of the rights of the human being in one's very essence, an essence which the preaching of the Gospel reveals to all(140).
Today maximum vigilance must be exercised by everyone in the face of the phenomenon of the concentration of power and technology. In fact such a concentration has a tendency to manipulate not only the biological essence but the very content of people's consciences and life styles, thereby worsening the condition of entire peoples by discrimination and marginization.
Hillary has said in addition to being pro Roe, the SCOTUS judges she will appoint must also be in favor of overturning Citizens United. Will she add that they be willing to overturn Hosanna-Tabor? Passage of ENDA and getting it before a Hillary packed court would be one way.
Bill Clinton is accusing Donald Trump of veiled racism in his use of the "Make America Great Again" slogan but there's just one problem: Clinton himself frequently used the slogan himself on in previous campaigns.
Clinton made the stunning accusation against Trump during a recent stump speech in support of his wife.
"That message, I’ll give you America great again — If you're a white southerner, you know exactly what it means," Clinton told a crowd in Orlando, Florida this week. "What it means is I'll give you the economy you had 50 years ago and I’ll move you back up the social totem pole and other people down."
Clinton himself has used the slogan "make America great again" on numerous occasions in the past, including in 2008 when he used it in support of Hillary's presidential campaign. According to his own logic, wouldn't this make Bill a crypto-racist?
(
Last edited by Chongo; Sep 10, 2016 at 11:44 AM.
)
How about BubbaDementiaGate? He doesn't remember using "Make America Great Again" in his and Hillary's previous campaigns.
Don't attack his candidate, his Hillary love is too much for you. He, and most other Dems, don't care what she's done, no matter what it is.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
How about BubbaDementiaGate? He doesn't remember using "Make America Great Again" in his and Hillary's previous campaigns.
I can't believe I have to spell this out. This is too much work for somebody that isn't even voting for Clinton...
"That message, I’ll give you America great again — If you're a white southerner, you know exactly what it means," Clinton told a crowd in Orlando, Florida this week. "What it means is I'll give you the economy you had 50 years ago and I’ll move you back up the social totem pole and other people down."
Clinton is making a claim that Trump is claiming that America was greater in the past, despite black oppression and the various modern social advances which have taken place (gay marriage, etc.)
You can easily make the claim that Clinton is reaching here as far as the intended interpretation of when Trump is implying that America was great, but generally speaking his argument is that America is no worse now than it was in the past. Socially speaking, America has evolved (more gender and race equality, tolerance, etc.), so I would certainly argue that in this area he is absolutely right.
The problem with the slogan "Make America Great" is, like a lot of Trump's claims, it is extremely vague and undefined. When was America the most great, exactly? Rhetorical question, I don't particularly care for what you think the answer to that is.
The problem with the slogan "Make America Great" is, like a lot of Trump's claims, it is extremely vague and undefined. When was America the most great, exactly? Rhetorical question, I don't particularly care for what you think the answer to that is.
I take it you didn't watch the video. Bubba used "Make America Great Again'" in his POTUS campaigns AND Hillary's 2008 run. Perhaps Bubba, being from the party of slavery and Jim Crow, wanted to take us back 150 years to the antebellum south.
(
Last edited by Chongo; Sep 10, 2016 at 05:50 PM.
)
I take it you didn't watch the video. Bubba used "Make America Great Again'" in his POTUS campaigns AND Hillary's 2008 run. Perhaps Bubba, being from the party of slavery and Jim Crow, wanted to take the back 150 years to the antebellum south.
Okay, so then you can say that he is a hypocrite, forgetful, and equally vague but how does this make racist? You can also say that Trump's claim does not make him a racist.
Okay, so then you can say that he is a hypocrite, forgetful, and equally vague but how does this make racist? You can also say that Trump's claim does not make him a racist.
One also needs to take into consideration Bubba doesn't know that getting head is defined as sex,or what is,is.
I'm going to attempt to be constructive, but it's going to be a struggle.
I often hear people ask the question "why do poor Republicans vote against their self interest?"
Could the answer be a vote for the person who thinks they're a deplorable, irredeemable, vile sack of shit isn't in their self interest?
If the Democrats could just ****ing stop acting like that, the GOP would have died out 10 years ago.
Of all the concepts the Democrats can't ****ing figure out... being ****ing nice to people.
Ah the good old double standard in action. Democrats should be nice to Republicans who are selfish, greedy, racist, homophobic misogynists. Who also hate non-Christians and poor people. The reason Democrats have trouble being nice to those people is because they are ****ing awful and do not deserve being nice to. They don't deserve listening to or respecting. They just barely deserve to not be lined up and shot. Which is exactly what they would do with people they don't like and just one more reason not to be ****ing nice to them.
So Clinton is absolutely right when she says that 25% of America is deplorable or irredeemable. And CTP is likely right when he says thats a low-ball number because even the 'good' republicans who just want lower taxes and smaller government are kinda selfish and are by association condoning the above assholes by taking their side. He is of course, much further off the mark with his hatred of progressivism and feminism but I'm sure there are a few Clinton fans who suck. I for one though will never put oversensitivity or being thin-skinned anywhere near the level of mindless hatred that he is equating it with.
I would have liked to see her stand her ground instead of half backing down. Frame it as a choice for Trump supporters. Are you a deplorable POS or are you one of the hard working folks who has been let down? Something like that. Probably would have tracked well with them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Ah the good old double standard in action. Democrats should be nice to Republicans who are selfish, greedy, racist, homophobic misogynists. Who also hate non-Christians and poor people. The reason Democrats have trouble being nice to those people is because they are ****ing awful and do not deserve being nice to. They don't deserve listening to or respecting. They just barely deserve to not be lined up and shot. Which is exactly what they would do with people they don't like and just one more reason not to be ****ing nice to them.
So Clinton is absolutely right when she says that 25% of America is deplorable or irredeemable. And CTP is likely right when he says thats a low-ball number because even the 'good' republicans who just want lower taxes and smaller government are kinda selfish and are by association condoning the above assholes by taking their side. He is of course, much further off the mark with his hatred of progressivism and feminism but I'm sure there are a few Clinton fans who suck. I for one though will never put oversensitivity or being thin-skinned anywhere near the level of mindless hatred that he is equating it with.
I would have liked to see her stand her ground instead of half backing down. Frame it as a choice for Trump supporters. Are you a deplorable POS or are you one of the hard working folks who has been let down? Something like that. Probably would have tracked well with them.
Says the guy who supports the party of slavery, The KKK, segregation/Jim Crow, Margret Sanger's Planned Parenthood, etc.
OK, still think it's ?
The Hulk is helping Hillary get into her van when she faints. They were denying anything was wrong until this video was posted online.
Yep, she passed out in public. I'm sure she was simply overcome by her emotions at the 9/11 memorial...
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Top