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.
Not any more than Richard Dawkins tells you what to have for lunch.
I know you probably think I'm being mean but I feel like you aren't allowed (or aren't allowing yourself) to have an original thought without checking it against the doctrine first. It makes me sad for you.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Is there "Catholic" cheese? As in some type of cheese was mentioned in scripture or given Papal preference or is always dragged out at Easter or something?
Is there "Catholic" cheese? As in some type of cheese was mentioned in scripture or given Papal preference or is always dragged out at Easter or something?
This is a 100% serious question.
"Blessed are the cheese makers?" It's paired with SPAM of course.
Not any more than Richard Dawkins tells you what to have for lunch.
Lame comparison.
The whole point of scientific belief, making the jump that because Waragainstsleep would say this must mean that he's an atheist and somebody that would respect Dawkins, is that you don't need a single deity or representative to live by. The science stands for itself with or without Dawkins.
The whole point of scientific belief, making the jump that because Waragainstsleep would say this must mean that he's an atheist and somebody that would respect Dawkins, is that you don't need a single deity or representative to live by. The science stands for itself with or without Dawkins.
Plus, condoms are nice.
I think its fair to assume that someone who has such a strong external influence in their life is going to struggle to understand how someone else could not. Just as I struggle with the notion of someone having such a strong influence on their daily life.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I wonder if Hillary's use of illegals to drum up support among immigrants will backfire? Most LEGAL ones don't like or respect the illegals.
My brother in law is a perfect example. He came to the US from Mexico over 30 years ago, but just recently became a citizen. I have not asked him, but from his FB posts he will be voting for Trump.
I get where someone could be resentful they had to jump through all these difficult hoops, while someone else does not, but I don't get the part where it is not seen that such a policy would have made it easier for them back in the day.
I get where someone could be resentful they had to jump through all these difficult hoops, while someone else does not, but I don't get the part where it is not seen that such a policy would have made it easier for them back in the day.
They played by THE RULES, and the greedy, stupid, illiterates did not.
So, HILLARY didn't read the constitution either? The democrats/Hilary campaign are being a bunch of A-holes.
What ever happened to the BS "Seriousness of the charge" crap? pretty much the same BS as 16 years ago, when the bitter and immature Democrats broke off the "W" keys off all the White House keyboards. I KNOW because I worked for the company that replaced all 168 keyboards.
They played by THE RULES, and the greedy, stupid, illiterates did not.
I said I get the resentment part, it's the other half I need an explanation. The part where it's greedy and stupid to wish things weren't less difficult than they were for themselves.
That said, I find this particular pro-resentment argument to be overwhelmingly petty. As if they're being deprived of a job picking vegetables.
So, HILLARY didn't read the constitution either? The democrats/Hilary campaign are being a bunch of A-holes.
What ever happened to the BS "Seriousness of the charge" crap? pretty much the same BS as 16 years ago, when the bitter and immature Democrats broke off the "W" keys off all the White House keyboards. I KNOW because I worked for the company that replaced all 168 keyboards.
Appearing on KABC’s McIntyre in the Morning, the hosts of the show were expecting Dr. Drew, known as “America’s most trusted physician,” to debunk claims that Hillary is having significant health problems, but Pinsky instead dropped several bombshells.
Being feeble just makes the murders she's committed all the more impressive.
That just means she has access to a phone and a bank account.
"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 should note, I joked around, but the Dr. Drew thing was actually interesting. Drew opines she has a shitty doctor, and more details should be provided about her pre-existing conditions, some of which may exist due to poor medication choices (see: aforementioned shitty doctor allegation).
I usually don't go for equivalency politics, but I feel I've got to mention Trump's "doctor's note", which is genuinely shameful. I'd say whomever wrote it should lose their license, though it seems pretty clear they already don't have one.
You're side-stepping the point. Somehow, in your view, Trump being a reality TV star outweighs all his positions on the campaign. That seems... superficial. Or intellectually lazy.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
If you're voting for Hillary just because you hate Trump more, you are not only throwing your vote away but you're actively supporting corruption, crony capitalism, and "the establishment" you all claim to be such a vile burden on our nation using a logical fallacy. It's at the very least hypocritical & IMO, a supreme measure of the idiocy & ignorance I outlined above.
You're being ridiculous. It's a simple case of principle vs. pragmatism, and when the entire country is subject to the results, principle is entirely self-serving and selfish. It's easy for a white male to roll the dice. Not so much for a minority, immigrant, female, LGBT or the impoverished to do so. Electing Trump would have direct consequences, Hillary being corrupt or not.
I may not like crony capitalism or interventionist foreign policy, but I'm not willing to throw the social safety net and minority rights into the trash just to supposedly make a point.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
In our election system, you cannot vote against anything. You can only vote for things, no matter how much the established elitists want you to believe otherwise.
The simple act of voting encompasses both.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
We need to get away from this bullshit that these candidates are feeding you that they are the only choices. It's almost as if you've lost the ability to think for yourself, as this "common knowledge" only exists to the degree of it's beholder's gullibility. As I said in my previous post, we do not need coordination - we need momentum.
We had momentum in 1992 – nearly 20% of people voted for Ross Perot. What was accomplished? It's been over 20 years and we still have the same parties. Stop blaming people for working logically within the confines of a flawed system.
I mean, why do you think vote trading sites popped up during the 2000 election? Because people know that voting for the third parties can change election outcomes in a manner they do not favor.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
We still have Congress to keep either Hillary or Trump in check for the next four years - this election is already lost so why not use it to identify and vote for a candidate that is actually worthy of that vote, hoping to set the stage for elections to come?
The congress dominated by the same two major parties as the candidates?
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I respectfully disagree here. Is this really the best we have to offer?
Once again, you're side-stepping the point. I didn't say this was the best we had to offer, I said being a reality TV star didn't necessarily mean you can't be a good president.
I should note, I joked around, but the Dr. Drew thing was actually interesting. Drew opines she has a shitty doctor, and more details should be provided about her pre-existing conditions, some of which may exist due to poor medication choices (see: aforementioned shitty doctor allegation).
I used to like Dr. Drew, but after listening to him and Carolla its pretty obvious he's in it more for a buck than good doctoring. Plus, politically, I think he has an axe to grind.
I actually thought he was pretty on-the-level when he was with Carolla. It was once Carolla split and he became Celebrity Rehab Doctor is when things fell to shit.
The main takedown I've heard of the critique is at least one of the drugs she's on appears to be more common than DD thinks.
There's also an attack on whether commenting on someone you haven't personally examined is ethical, but if we can't subject Hillary's doctor's statement to analysis, then why bother releasing it?
He asked to see hrc thurs and fri thru normal channels. I asked and she said she doesn’t want to commit to anything for thurs or fri until she knows how she will feel. Also she says that she may want to go to ny and doesn’t want to be committed to stuff in ny…
I keep stopping in on this thread and being surprised that take any of it so seriously.
Originally Posted by Chongo
Dr Drew Gives his .02 worth.
Another doctor is asked about Dr. Drew's concerns. Dr. Drew in not what you would call a friend of Trump. This one says Hillary had a stroke. I don't remember seeing that on the news.
So, for our Hillary health conspiracists, what is the argument here? That because she might die vote Trump? That the possibility of dying disqualifies her from office somehow (explain how)?
I recall McCains health was one of my concerns in 2008, but what eventually turned everyone off was the thought of Palin taking over. I don't think there's an argument to be made that Tim Kaine is equally unqualified.
Also, if Hillary is so sick, how did she manage to work as SOS for 4 years, withstand that grueling televised Benghazi hearing, and a year of campaigning.
I suppose I'll have to peek at people on my ignore for the riveting answers.
You're side-stepping the point. Somehow, in your view, Trump being a reality TV star outweighs all his positions on the campaign. That seems... superficial. Or intellectually lazy.
Perhaps I feel Trump is better suited as an entertainer, and has brought that paradigm to his campaign. His positions are that of a reality TV star's - and this is what I take issue with. I don't believe there is any seperation between "Reality TV" Trump and "Presidential Candidate" Trump - I find that to be disturbing for a great many reasons.
You're being ridiculous. It's a simple case of principle vs. pragmatism, and when the entire country is subject to the results, principle is entirely self-serving and selfish. It's easy for a white male to roll the dice. Not so much for a minority, immigrant, female, LGBT or the impoverished to do so. Electing Trump would have direct consequences, Hillary being corrupt or not.
We could start a whole new thread on why voting for Hillary is anything but pragmatic, but I'll digress to answer your accusation more generally - the phenomenon that got us Trump & Hillary is exactly what you've described - pragmatic and completely unprincipled. At a certain point, how much of your princeple are you willing to sacrifice in the name of pragmatism? All of it? Sure seems that way. It's almost like you're saying "Don't let horrible be the enemy of atrocious".
I may not like crony capitalism or interventionist foreign policy, but I'm not willing to throw the social safety net and minority rights into the trash just to supposedly make a point.
Last I checked we still had a constitution & Congress was still the ruling legislative body of the land. Congressionals like to win their elections.
The simple act of voting encompasses both.
Not when it's a purely pragmatic vote - to vote for horrible to save yourself from atrocious. There's a distinct lack of principle in that, well, principle.
We had momentum in 1992 – nearly 20% of people voted for Ross Perot. What was accomplished? It's been over 20 years and we still have the same parties. Stop blaming people for working logically within the confines of a flawed system.
This was long before we as a society were able to communicate & coordinate on the scale we are today. The idea that this two party system is absolute is exactly the bullshit the MSM & political leaders have been feeding us for eternity. We have the means now to subvert that control - something we didn't have in the early days of AOL (long before Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc).
I mean, why do you think vote trading sites popped up during the 2000 election? Because people know that voting for the third parties can change election outcomes in a manner they do not favor.
Which is still no excuse, IMO, of voting against your principle.
The congress dominated by the same two major parties as the candidates?
Yes. Don't let horrible and atrocious be the enemy of good.
Once again, you're side-stepping the point. I didn't say this was the best we had to offer, I said being a reality TV star didn't necessarily mean you can't be a good president.
I am saying that. Perhaps that's where your confusion with my point is coming from.
Where is the health part? I only saw Foundation stuff.
Originally Posted by BadKosh
The first email they listed:
From: Doug Band
To: Huma Abedin
Sent: Tue Jun 23 1:29:42 2009
Subject:
Cp of Bahrain in tomorrow to Friday
Asking to see her
Good friend of ours
From: Huma Abedin
To: Doug Band
Sent: Tue Jun 23 4:12:46 2009
Subject: Re:
He asked to see hrc thurs and fri thru normal channels. I asked and she said she doesn’t want to commit to anything for thurs or fri until she knows how she will feel. Also she says that she may want to go to ny and doesn’t want to be committed to stuff in ny…
So in early June of 2009 she was feeling lousy. WHEN was it she supposedly fell and banged her little baseball sized head on the marble floor? When did she start wearing the goofy glasses?
Top