Total posts: 4,140
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Yep. It's been a fun few months. See you next year. Have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
In this instance, "great" as opposed to "lesser." In any case, ask Dr. Franklin. I'll be off this site tomorrow until mid-January.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
McConnell has already basically announced there won't be any action. They won't allow witnesses or evidence to be examined. If the senate is going to refuse to actually hold a real trial, then there is no value in sending the articles of impeachment to them. They will just immediately announce "nothing to see here" and try to make it all go away.
Yes, that's a mistake on his part.
They are so afraid of what witnesses may say they will just prevent any witnesses from speaking.
I doubt that. The facts of what happened are fairly well known. The question is more about whether or not it's illegal and/or impeachable, and if so, is impeachment a good idea?
For example we just found out that the aid the 1st official request to hold up the aid was 90 minutes after trump's call with the ukranian president where he asked for them to dig up dirt on Biden. That 1st email also made it clear they wanted it kept quiet, showing they knew what they were doing was wrong.
Only Trump and his most ardent defenders refuse to admit that what Trump did was wrong. I'm not enough of a legal expert to know if it was illegal as well as wrong. Personally, I think the Democrats are barking up the wrong tree. A far better charge for impeachment would target the national emergency declaration over the border wall. The Constitution makes it extremely clear that only Congress has the power to appropriate funds, so that action was a blatant abuse and overreach of executive power. If I had the power to do so, I would impeach Trump over that. It wouldn't be popular, but such a blatant abuse being allowed sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I would probably agree, but it would be impeachment in name only, since they would take no action on it in that scenario.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That's a lot of <br>. Is that on purpose, or is the bug getting worse?
More to the point, a maximally great being would be one that is maximally great in every respect. It would be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.
Created:
One question I have is that, if the articles of impeachment aren't sent to the Senate, has Trump actually been impeached? The question has absolutely no practical effect other than Trump bragging about never being impeached as though that was somehow meaningful. The Constitution is silent on the question, so I would presume the answer is that no one knows the answer and that there's no practical reason to care. However, it interests me nonetheless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
The syllogism cannot apply to anything other than a maximally great being. One of the steps of the argument is that, if a maximally great being exists in one possible universe, it must exist in all possible universes, or else it would not be maximally great. Anything that isn't maximally great wouldn't have to exist everywhere. I've tried that objection before. It's no good. As much as I don't find this argument convincing, I've never been able to prove it invalid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I know the answers to the objections. I have no logical objection to it. I have no reason for it, but I just don't like it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This argument always bothers me. It took me a while to figure out what it meant, and even when it did finally make sense to me, it doesn't seem convincing. If valid, God has to exist. However, it always seems like it's missing something. I've tried to find an error in the logic and to disprove it (for the simple reason that, even though I believe in God, I don't like this argument), but I've never been able to prove an error in it. I don't know how to describe it, but something just feels wrong about it. So far as I can tell, it's logically sound, and I agree with the conclusion that there's a God, but I just don't like it.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I do too. They're so funny, and no one, not even themselves, can escape their satire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
This isn't the only shortfall in this story. For instance, one the one hand we are led to believe that a lowly shepherd boy the youngest of 7 killed a "giant". The "boy" it is said, while watching over his flock, whiled away his time playing sweet, beautiful soft music on a lyre, i.e. a bit of a mummies boy pansie, when in reality, he was already a warrior if the scriptures are to be believed.
Actually, if you had read the whole chapter, you would have noticed that David was anything but a "mummies boy."
34 But David said to Saul, “Your servant used to keep sheep for his father. And when there came a lion, or a bear, and took a lamb from the flock, 35 I went after him and struck him and delivered it out of his mouth. And if he arose against me, I caught him by his beard and struck him and killed him. 36 Your servant has struck down both lions and bears, and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them, for he has defied the armies of the living God.”1 Samuel 17:34-36 (ESV)
He was already a fighter. Furthermore, slings were a recognized and lethal weapon of war. There is absolutely nothing confusing about this story.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't have any must-reads, other than mafia games. I read whatever I find interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
True enough. If I wanted popularity, I wouldn't be a conservative opposed to Trump, a Christian and a YEC, or a poster responsible for large numbers of bad jokes.You got to be the way you are partly because you weren't consumed with popularity in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
An interesting opinion. I'd be curious to know if anyone else agreed with it.
Created:
Posted in:
We could just go back to the DART Times and get that running before making a podcast.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You must read quite a bit on this site. I'm flattered by your description of me. The best sense of humor? Original thinker? Creative? I wouldn't describe myself with any of those terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Thanks. I don't really have the time for more satire than this, but we'll see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The only sport I really follow is College Football. I do this for fun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Out of curiosity, is there anyone else on your must-read list?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Compare Doc's ELO with crossed. There is no way they're the same person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I would guess it's the new random threads section. It brings up old threads, which increases the likelihood of necroposting because people are seeing them again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Thanks. Merry Christmas to you as well, and a happy new year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Thank you very much! It's meant to make you laugh. Sadly, you'll have to wait until mid-January to read the next installment. I won't be online around Christmas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Why did you visit me in NP1 before I was confirmed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I visited you NP2 and got the nurse role NP1.
Created:
Posted in:
Disclaimer: This is purely for entertainment. It is not intended to parody any specific person, nor is it intended to be an accurate representation of the environmental movement. I am entirely aware that no one actually thinks like this (I hope, anyway). This is completely satirical. I do not believe any of this, nor does any of this reflect my viewpoints in any way.
Record: 20-23.
Last Week: 0-1.
Once again, I must apologize for my negligence. I am failing in my quest to save the environment. Worse, the environment has a negative record. We're all doomed.
Texans vs. Buccaneers
A bunch of murderous dead white men against a bunch of murderous dead white men. Inconceivable! However, buccaneers have far less diversity. Womyn were underrepresented in their ranks, and they had no Muslims either (I'm sure that whole episode of the Barbary pirates is just Islamophobic hate speech). Clearly, then, Texans, who actually had womyn and Latinx people, were more diverse.
Texans: 17. Buccaneers: 14.
Bills vs. Patriots.
NO!!! Not more dead white patriarchal, racist sexist IslamophobictransphobichomophobicmisogynistChristianslaveowning men! At least there was only one Buffalo Bill, so he did less mass genocides than the patriots. Furthermore, we're impeaching Trump, so we need to pretend to care about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution they wrote. We'll forget about this as soon as the next Democratic POTUS commits even worse abuses of power, but for the moment...
Patriots: 37. Bills: 10.
Rams vs. 49ers.
A no-brainer. Animals are more valuable than white men. If you disagree, then you're a sexist. I don't know why, but womyn would be most affected by your preference of white men over animals. It's the patriarchy, I'm sure of it.
Rams: 24. 49ers: 17.
Jaguars vs. Falcons.
This is plainly a difficult choice. Both are animals, both are carnivores, and both are beautiful parts of the environment. Falcons, however, are not endangered, and jaguars are.
Jaguars: 35. Falcons: 27.
Ravens vs. Browns.
Normally, we would pick the browns because it is racist not to pick brown people, but ravens are black, so that doesn't matter. Furthermore, ravens are animals, and they scavenge the dead corpses of disgusting, environment-destroying humans. Those are massive advantages. However, browns are undocumented migrants. Even though it sounds racist to assume that all of them are undocumented migrants, it clearly isn't racist because our policies are designed to help them become Democrat vot - er, become citizens of the world's most hateful country. Furthermore, ravens are for the birds, and we care more about windmills and green energy than birds.
Ravens: 34. Browns: 45.
Saints vs. Titans.
In a choice between Christians and mythical beings from a non-Christian religion, the mythical beings win every time. After all, we don't want to be Greek-Polytheism-phobic, and it's impossible to be Christianophobic because it's impossible to be prejudiced against a majority.
Saints: 7. Titans: 21.
Panthers vs. Colts.
Panthers are black. Panthers are endangered. Colts, however, are victims of humans. This oppression olympics is a difficult choice. However, since panthers are endangered because humans murdered them for sport, panthers have more intersectionality points, which naturally transfers to points on the scoreboard.
Panthers: 28. Colts: 24.
Bengals vs. Dolphins.
Dolphins are cute. Dolphins are in the oceans that are threatened by pollution. Dolphins are cute. Dolphins are one of the smartest of our fellow animals. Dolphins are cute. Bengals are endangered, but...dolphins are cute.
Bengals: 13. Dolphins: 20.
Steelers vs. Jets.
The machines that are the agents of our destruction against the people that make them. While we prefer to blame humans, this is one of those obvious cases when the inanimate object is the one responsible, just like guns are responsible for mass murders rather than the mass murderers themselves. Also, steel can be used for windmills, which will save the environment. What's that? You disagree? HOW. DARE. YOU. You have stolen my child...oh wait, that's what I told Greta to say. Wrong speech. My bad.
Steelers: 21. Jets: 10.
Giants vs. Redskins.
I can't believe that there is still a team out there that has such a racist name. Don't they know that's cultural appropriation? It's [the current year]. There's no excuse for this.
Giants: 34. Redskins: 3.
Lions vs. Broncos.
Lions are endangered. However, they are carnivores. They eat meat, and we all know what meat is. Mmmmuuuuuurrrrrrrrddddddddeeeeerrrrrrrr. Broncos, on the other hand, resist human control. Broncos for the win.
Lions: 35. Broncos: 52.
Cowboys vs. Eagles.
Patriots (we all know that all white males are patriots, and therefore racists) against the symbol of patriotism. I can't even. I can't believe this could happen. At the very least, eagles are animals. Furthermore, under U.S. law, it is illegal to destroy eagle eggs and thereby kill the baby. However, cowboys are men and don't even have a place in the discussion.
Cowboys: BIG FAT ZERO. Eagles: 23.
(Editor's note: The writer is currently being flayed for fat-shaming. Please bear with us.)
Cardinals vs. Seahawks.
Ohhh, I hurt. I'll never fat-shame again. I'm so, so sorry that people were offended. Now that my non-apology is out of the way, this ought to be a great game. Cardinals are red, which is communist, and that's so dope. Seahawks, however, are blue, which is for Democrats and is also dope. And now that I look at it, red is also the color of Republicans, so the cardinals are clearly KKK members.
Cardinals: 14. Seahawks: 28.
Chiefs vs. Bears.
Native Americans against their traditional predatorial enemy. I can't wait to see how the noble natives defeat their foes once again! Wait a minute, did I just use stereotypes? My bad! I didn't mean it! Really! Anyway, the bear is the symbol of Russia, and they helped Trump win. IMPEACHMENT 2019!!!!!
Chiefs: 23. Bears: 13.
Packers vs. Vikings.
Meat packers against white men. However, these are special white men. They're Scandinavian, and that means democratic socialism. Awesome!
Packers: 14. Vikings: 27.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Sorry for your death. We'll put a word in at your funeral that you died laughing.
Created:
Here's what really happened today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Thanks. I would have given you a chance, but I doubt there was any defense you could have made to save you. Drafter's DP1 claim of visiting me was all but confirmation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I entirely missed DP2 as well. When I read it, it was already over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Are you out of your mind? Well, I suppose I'd completely given up in the middle of DP1. VTL Ragnar
Also, I did not lie about the modified role, which can be easily proven by the message that I was a nurse in the DP2 announcement. It was a mistake on Speed's part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Welcome back. I seem to have slacked off on my predictions while you were gone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You need to go back and read #1 post and the thread topic.
I did. This was Squid's reason for calling her a joke.
You see, she's cool and all, and her campaigns are not that bad, but she's not going to get anything done. She's just wasting her time out their.
You didn't really address this in your post. What has she actually done, and what is she likely to accomplish in the future?
YOu would have to brain dead to think otherwise. And some around here appear brain dead. At least to me and my standards of moral and intellectual integrity.
What do moral standards have to do with being brain dead, and what do either of those things have to whether or not she is inspiring or has accomplished anything?
Yes it does. You confusing " Global Warming " with burning. Burning is a possibliity if all the methane in the subsurface of land at bottom of the oceans is released and the northern Boreal forests catch fire.The most detrimental resultant,--- putting aside the worst case scenarios above--- is erratic weather events where we are will continue to have down pours where the water runs off into the oceans and does nothing to refill freshwater aquafiers.
I'm aware of that. I was just too lazy to figure out how to put that in just a few words. I probably should have used a more accurate term.
The then there is a whole set of societal phenomena that could lead to a nuclear annihilation resultant scenario.
What does this have to do with Greta Thunberg or global warming (or anthropogenic climate change, if you prefer)?
May around here have much to narrow mind to think much beyond their personal armpits. That is how it appears to me.
How could you reach that conclusion from a thread about Greta Thunberg?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You seem to have missed the point. Yes, she probably inspires many people. However, she has accomplished nothing concrete. Furthermore, while it would require being comfortable with public speaking, it would not require a huge amount of bravery (more than I have, but still not a lot) to make a speech to Congress. Half of them agree with her, and the other half is shouted down as "deniers."
Also, how is this a moral question? The reason Congress isn't doing much about climate change is not that they're fine if we burn, but that a lot of them don't think we're in danger of burning. I know it probably feels good to believe that people who disagree with you must necessarily be immoral, but that's just not true, except in extreme cases. In this one, they disagree that the science supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming. That may, from your perspective, make them wrong, but it doesn't make them immature or immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
If I'm a fascist, then why do I...
...oppose state-run industries?
...oppose restrictions on free speech?
...oppose restrictions on free religion?
...oppose one-party rule?
...oppose wars of conquest?
...oppose police states?
...oppose racism?
...support smaller government?
...support gun rights?
...support individual freedom?
In other words, if I'm fascist, why don't I support fascist policies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
I think you would have to be really into the environmentalist movement to not see what's going on here. Which reminds me that I missed a week with my Environmental Wacko NFL Predictions.
Created:
Posted in:
I think that systematic racism is largely over and that the idea of white male privilege is a myth. Most of the arguments for its existence rely on disparities between races that favor whites. However, disparities are not necessarily or even frequently caused by discrimination. If that were the case, then whites would actually be an oppressed group and we would be living in a country of Asian supremacy. However, that is clearly not the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
How so? If I don't get lynched and live to the next DP, how will we know who the scum is?If he isn’t, then we will be able to confirm 100% who scum is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Gotcha! No, I'm completely fine with Lunatic. I like both of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Only a madman would make such a decision. You must be insane. Why would would need a lunatic?
Oh, wait a minute. That kind of Lunatic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@ILikePie5
@PressF4Respect
Do any of you have any results from the NP?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Pretty much, yeah. I've got nothing unless you let me live for one round, in which case I will be confirmed town. However, I can't give you any reasons to trust that other than my word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Or we could let them get modkilled, but then the mafia would win, unless one of them is mafia. Of course, I would lose either way, so I would prefer it if they showed up.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I can think of two explanations off the top of my head.
1. It wasn't a direct quote, but rather a paraphrase or a summary.
2. It was a direct quote from the Greek Septuagent, the most commonly available translation of the OT at the time. It was notoriously inaccurate, so we would be unlikely to find those exact words in today's more accurate copies of the OT. This happens frequently throughout the NT. The NT authors usually cited the Septuagent, so the wording in their quotes, even the direct quotes, is almost always different than what we see today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Of course, this begs the question of how this award is in any way meaningful if you don't have to accomplish anything to get it. I'm guessing the answer is that it's not meaningful at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I looked that up. If "You" is the best they can come up with for a person of the year, I guess that award doesn't require accomplishing anything to get.
Created: