Total posts: 5,875
Other than Biden and his son's actions in Ukraine, how was it an American president's business? Of course Trump mentioned Biden. That was where the issue concerned America.
So the dems say he did so for personal gain, but that is something they simply assume, and then pretend their assumption is fact.
The impeachment is total partisan nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
No, that's comparing what Clinton did to your imagination. You are assuming what Trump did due to your bias and rabid TDS.
Your imagination will not be used to convict anyone. Trump will be acquitted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
Putting a dollar into a hat and pulling 5 out is not how UBI works.
Of course. Nothing works that way. Which is why the UBI is nonsense.
The money giving to the people will get circulated through the economy, creating a trickle up economy.
Where the money goes is not the problem, where its supposed to come from is the question.
The money will be used for development and innovation, and will indirectly return to the people (more jobs, better services, etc.)
Sorry man, but that is just illogical. It makes no sense. No system can put out more than is put into it.
Also, what other candidates talks about economy the way Yang does?
Most other candidates probably took some economy classes sometime during their education.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
The operating system and software in the brain is all hard-wired.
By whom?
The brain cannot program itself, you have to program it by going to coding class.
You certainly cannot be saying that "nothing" programmed software complex enough for sentience, or the equally absurd, that the brain programmed itself.
Its OK to say you don't know when you don't know.
Show me a person without a brain who does not act like a dead body and I'll think about changing my mind.
Like a dead computer you're sure doesn't have a program? Lol. Its OK. Not everyone can understand everything.
personhood is not a function of physical brain structure.
What is it a function of?
Something else no one has yet figured out. That's why people like you who say personhood is a function of physical brain structure cannot answer so many questions about brain function.
Created:
-->@HistoryBuff
I'll live.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
They knew that lying about a blowjob was a stupid thing to try to impeach someone for.
So you're omniscient about the democrats too. Lying under oath is an impeachable crime.
I didn't dodge the question.
Sure you did. You were asked what were the democrats thinking and you compared Clinton and Trump. That was a dodge. You answered after I pointed out your dodge tho.
the men who wrote the constitution decided this a very long time ago.
The men who wrote the constitution gave sole power to interpret the constitution to SCOTUS. A power they exercised in the Gore/Bush election.
You are saying I am biased because I pointed out to you that you were, incorrectly, implying that they had.
No, I'm saying you are biased because though you can point out that the vote is not yet in, you've already convicted Trump.
I'm starting to remember why I usually don't respond to you. You are REALLY baised and kind of nuts.
You're the one claiming to know the thoughts and intent of all republicans.
So i'm going to return to not answering you. there is nothing to be gained from it.
Certainly not for you. But I will keep your biased comments to playback when reality shows you to have been deluded by TDS.
That will be fun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Unfortunately America still clings to an undemocratic method of selecting the president.
This gripe would have more traction if it was made before the vote. If Hillery had won the EC vote, she would b prez.
So even if you lose by millions of votes, you still get to rule against the will of the majority.
Untrue. Under our system, Trump did not lose. He won. And our system is approved and validated by the majority of Americans. Trump rules by the will of the American people using a 300 year old accepted system.
If you don't impeach him then you are essentially just giving him permission to keep doing it.
Untrue. Beating him in an election would stop him from doing it, and prosecuting him afterword would be justice.
If there are no consequences to abusing the office of the presidency, then he may as well be a king.
Losing an election and then being dragged to court would be quite severe consequences. Democrats are not acting in the best interest of the country.
And again, you dodged my question. Do you know why you have to dodge?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
A program or software has a physical reality as a bunch of divots on a DVD or magnetized spots on a disk or the charged state of a bunch of gates.
So until a physical reality such as a bunch of divots on a DVD or magnetized spots on a disk or the charged state of a bunch of gates exist, there is no program?
When you type the program in it goes into memory and is held there by electrically charged gates.
Where is it before you type it in?
In the physical structure of your brain.
Where was it before it was in your brain?
If you turn off the power the program goes away, if you turn the power back on you have to type it in again.
Untrue. A hard drive retains programs stored on it even without power. But this doesn't matter to my point that personhood is not a function of physical brain structure.
Your brain is different from a computer, it doesn't store software the same way a computer does.
I know. I said that the brain is more like a chip, a processor, than a computer.
The operating system and software in the brain is all hard-wired.
By whom? You certainly cannot be saying that "nothing" programmed software complex enough for sentience, or the equally absurd, that the brain programmed itself. Have I misunderstood you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Actually I didn't know how scuzzy Yang was till I visited his site. He's just a political crook. He will be a good education for the young idealists who follow him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do tell me how on Earth you can say Corbyn is a liar or swindler when compared with Boris Johnson?
I did not say Corbyn was a liar or swindler when compared with Boris Johnson.
Lesser of two evils? LOL?! Wrong. Go ahead, tell me why.
Tell you why what? I don't even know why you think I said Corbyn was a liar or swindler when compared with Boris Johnson.
What I do know is that most people reject liberalism. It doesn't make sense. Even usual labor voters voted for Boris. The vote was a rejection of Corbyn, he knows this, which is why he's stepping down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Boris is not hated, but is certainly not very loved either.
But the vote was actually against Corbin, not for Boris. People can't stand moron liberals telling them stupid things any simpleton should know is nonsense.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
All of a sudden, you aren't interested in your lame contradiction lies anymore?
Whether the bible is true or not, your questions were stupid, because the answers were in the text. You were ignorant of what you were talking about.
You lied in order to claim a contradiction. You are a liar. A fake. A fraud.
If you believe the bible is untrue, what does it matter to you if what you call a false narrative is untrue?
You are empty Stephen. Your bluster and silly bitterness show it. What happened to you to make you so warped?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
Never heard the term Ponzi scheme next to UBI before.
Andrew Yang Will 'Literally Give Everybody Money' — Like OneCoin Did
17 Nov 2019 · Unlike previous statements about UBI, which he has termed the ... In particular, OneCoin, the notorious cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme whose creators the ...
The Marxist dream of Universal Basic Income is a Ponzi Scheme to create an ...
16 Dec 2017 · The Marxist dream of Universal Basic Income is a Ponzi ... required to fund a UBI in the State of California for a year.
UBI had warned Bengal of ponzi scheme menace - Hindustan Times
UBI had warned Bengal of ponzi scheme menace. Hindustan Times The most prominent member of the State Level Bankers' Committee (SLBC), the United ...
Universal Basic Income – Empty Dreams of Paradise | Intereconomics
In short, a UBI would not only make us richer, but also happier. ... is the same sort of fallacy that makes people fall for Ponzi schemes
You are just young and inexperienced.
I'm not exactly sure to what you're getting at here. Please elaborate.
If everyone is getting a UBI, but only some are paying into it, it is a ponzi scheme. So the few who pay, will have to pay more to cover those who don't.
Tag me if the debate happens.
Created:
Posted in:
Remember the Hillery polls?
Why do liberals have such short memories?
The polls showed her winning the popular vote.
The polls showed her winning the election.
She won the popular vote. The polls were correct.
Then why were snowflakes wailing in the streets? Why were you sufferers of TDS stunned like deer in headlights?
...recent polling shows every democratic candidate beating him.
Then why not just beat him in a couple of months in the election, and then prosecute him when he doesn't have the immunity of the office?
Hmm?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
If you can cite lobotomies performed after 1967 in the US I'd be interested in seeing that.
Why would I cite lobotomies? I did not claim they are being performed. You claimed they were stopped because... Your reason given for why there have been no lobotomies since 1967 is untrue.
A lobotomy is a terrible thing to do to a person and a terrible solution.
Irrelevant here.
The fact that new treatments arrived was simply fortunate.
And the true reason why none have been performed since 1967
When you type the program in it goes into memory and is held there by electrically charged gates.
Where is it before you type it in?
If you turn off the power the program goes away, if you turn the power back on you have to type it in again.
Untrue. A hard drive retains programs stored on it even without power. But this doesn't matter to my point that personhood is not a function of physical brain structure.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
bmdrocks21 asked, "Were the Democrats too afraid of Clinton to impeach him for his crime?"
My guess is that your crippling bias will find a rationalization for that question.
Or you will dodge it.
Clinton lied about sex. Trump abused the power of his office in an attempt to extort a foreign country to smear his political rival. Its like comparing a guy who jay walked to a rapist. They are not even remotely similar cases.
What do you know? You dodged the question. The question was not comparing cases, but asking about the inner state of democrats during the Clinton impeachment.
Perhaps you're only omniscient about republicans.
the constitution is EXTREMELY clear. There is no grounds for the supreme court to get involved.
Only SCOTUS can decide this.
I may have missed it, but as far as I know the house hasn't voted on impeachment yet.
And yet you're %100 certain already. Biased much?
The house hasn't voted on it yet. And even if none of the republicans have the spine to say out loud that they know he is guilty, that doesn't mean they don't wish they could vote for it.
Now, not only do you know what the republicans will not do and why, you even know what they wish they could do! Your TDS has made you incapable of rational thought.
They are just cowards who are trying to protect their own career by not doing their jobs.
That is just your TDS deluding you into bigotry.
47% for impeachment, 45% against.
Untrue. When the entire country is polled, independents, and libertarians gave those against impeachment the edge. 54% and growing.
Also, whether or not people want trump impeached is irrelevant.
Lol. The people are the ones who decide Adolph. America has a representative government of the people.
The facts are that he committed crimes. Whether or not his cultists want him punished for those crimes is irrelevant.
Those you call cultists are citizens Adolph. The Americans without TDS outnumber you, and they know your "crimes" are hate fueled delusions.
Lol the same men who are defending trump now called him all sorts of terrible names in 2016.
Irrelevant. Trump cannot be guilty of crimes because you don't like him. Rational people condemn a man when he is guilty, and defend the same man when he is innocent.
Those like you, suffering from TDS, condemn based on your irrational hate, not in the actual behavior of the man.
They hate him. They know he is a lying, asshole criminal. But none of them will say it in public now. They are afraid of him and his cultists.
Even if you were right that they hate him, (and you aren't) that doesn't make him guilty, or gave them the right to railroad him.
Hate should have nothing to do with this. But I'm glad you're here. We had TDS sufferers during the 2016 elections and they were tortured by their old biased posts showing how clueless they were.
If you don't run and hide in Nov 2020, I will be reminding you of how deluded you were today.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The supreme court has no right or authority to get involved.
The Supreme court has the authority to get involved in any constitutional matter.
Your post also conveniently ignores that the republican party impeached clinton for lying about sex. We have been down the road of partisan impeachment.
Not every republican voted for impeachment of Clinton, and some democrats voted for impeachment. Do you know of any republican who voted for impeachment? The vote was 100% a party vote.
Luckily, this is not a partisan impeachment.
How is it not? Did any republicans vote for it? Any at all?
We are 100% certain that trump has committed crimes and abused his office.
We who? The democratic party of course, not the american people. 54% are now against impeachment.
And the democratic party was 100% certain that trump had committed crimes and abused his office on the day he was inaugurated. Your objectivity is in tatters.
The fact that the republicans are too frightened of trump to admit it just shows how weak they are.
And the fact that you can pretend to know the inner state of all republicans just shows how biased you are.
bmdrocks21 asked, "Were the Democrats too afraid of Clinton to impeach him for his crime?"
My guess is that your crippling bias will find a rationalization for that question.
Or you will dodge it.
Created:
-->
@David
The SCOTUS generally does not interfere with impeachment as the constitution says that the house shall have the sole power of impeachment.
Yes, but the house must conduct an impeachment according to the guidelines constitution. And SCOTUS has the sole power to interpret the constitution and decide when those guidelines have been breached.
It'll set a very dangerous precedent for the SCOTUS to require bipartisan impeachment.
I don't think so. I'm betting that the writers of the constitution never intended a party to be able to remove a president.
Remember, Bill Clinton's impeachment was pretty much on party lines.
But some members of both parties voted to impeach. In this case, not a single member of the Republican party voted for impeachment.
Trump's crimes are far worse than Clinton's.
If you democrats had not been yammering about Trumps impeachment since Jan 2016, I would have some faith in your impartiality.
Democrats have imagined a crime. The Senate will rectify this Democratic coup attempt, and the American people will see the wisdom our forefathers had in setting up impeachment the way they did.
Our system, when working properly, makes a coup by one party almost impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Not necessarily true. But the point is that changes in ability to function are not the same as change of personhood. Personhood is not a persons tastes or abilities, it is the person themselves, the thing that makes them different from another person with the same abilities or memories.A lobotomy has a negative effect on a persons personality, initiative, inhibitions, empathy and ability to function on their own.
Some people with lobotomies have remained recognizable after the operation.
...that's why no lobotomies have been performed in the US since 1967.
Untrue. That is not why. Medical science simply found better ways to deal with the problems lobotomies were supposed to address. Lobotomies are not illegal.
A program or software has a physical reality as a bunch of divots on a DVD or magnetized spots on a disk or the charged state of a bunch of gates.
So until a physical reality as a bunch of divots on a DVD or magnetized spots on a disk or the charged state of a bunch of gates exist, there is no program?
DVD or magnetized spots on a disk are used to transfer programs, they aren't the program. When I started learning computer programming, we programmed computers bit by bit directly into the computer. There were no DVDs. Programs exist before they are put onto magnetic medium.
If you just remove the processor Windows 10 is still going to be on the drive...
Thank you. My analogy says if you just remove a persons brain, the "person" is still going to be there.
..you don't need to remove the processor anyway, just unplugging it does the same thing.
Then you agree that "death" does not necessarily destroy personhood. Death stops our ability to "run" the program and interact with it, but the program still exists.
Created:
-->
@David
I am going to go out on a limb here and say here that there is a chance that the Supreme Court may weigh in on this matter, because one party should not be able to impeach a President.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Remember the Hillery polls?recent polling shows every democratic candidate beating him. Even klobochar and she is terrible.
Why do liberals have such short memories?
Created:
Posted in:
Where were all the libs claiming England had rejected common sense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
So did Ethan. Also a number of others, many of whom did not survive the wait.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The bible is inspired by God. The point here is, you were wrong. The text did say why no one stopped Judas. It does say why Judas was not excorsized. You were just ignorant, and now you want to ooze to another topic.Then how the fk did anyone know that Satan had had possessed Judas in the first place?
You paint yourself into a tight corner and then try to escape by making things up on the hoof,...
That the bible is the inspired word of God has been the Christian position for more than 6,000 years. Did you not know this?
You are a disgrace to your religion and your god!
My God loves me. And I'm not the one parading my ignorance around like a flag.
Re-asking a dumb question that has been answered already, doesn't make the question less dumb.
As I said, you are a fake. Smoke and mirrors is all you have. Go lick your wounds, and try not to be totally ignorant of the next "contradiction" you try to hock.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
If a person contends that personhood is due to physical brain structure, then a change in brain structure should at least change personhood.
If you completely removed someones brain they would have no personhood.
Let me ask you a question. If I installed the windows 10 operating system on my computer and then removed the computer's processor, would the computer cease to have the Windows 10 program?
The processor is what enables communication between me and the computer. The program is not the processor, though without the processor, the program is undetectable to me.
So my computer without a processor would be "dead", but could not be said to be without a program. Without the processor, I am unable to interact with the program (And vice versa), but the program would still be right there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
It wouldn't be a challenge. It would be like debating a flat Earther.
I don't do formal debates anyway, and if I did, I'd prefer it to be fair, that is not what we get now.
Maybe Water will take it up. If he does, I'll watch.
My post to you was last. So you can concede if you don't want to continue.
Thanks for staying polite and positive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Paul, would you happen to be an American atheist?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Stupidity has not helped you, but keep trying. It may suddenly start working.
In the main time, come up with another clunker I can debunk so you can do your obtuse song and dance again.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You already win Deb, because the main Site you attend was built /owned by a bloke who sold everything to build it.
Congrats!
And the debate at your site is much better than the debate at other sites.
Umm.... Good game, good game?
Do you want to live forever?
I'll be bac?
Avengers Assemble?
Lol
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
It probably never occurs to you to wonder why nobody responds to your threads does it?
The bloke who built your debate site was visited by Tim Berners-Lee one night and told to sell all of his possessions and build the debate site you attend.
Umm.... Good game, good game?
Nanoo, nanoo?
May the force be with you?
Have towel, will travel?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
I read your link, and I'm sorry, but Yang is a politician making promises he knows he cannot fulfill.
At the question of how he will we pay for this UBI ,(he calls it the Freedom Dividend) It says..
Andrew proposes funding the Freedom Dividend by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value Added Tax of 10 percent.
Think clearly now. The working citizen is going to lose his social benefits, AND get his taxes increased!
You cry, "no", his social benefits are just replaced with the UBI. Even if that were true, and it isn't, the citizen would simply be taxed 10% more than he is being taxed now. That's all. And the extra tax must be larger than his UBI!
So the government will tax everyone working, and then gave the same people back a portion of what they took.
Basically, every working person will be making less than they were before UBI. Yet Yang says, "putting money in the hands of consumers stimulates the economy."
But he isn't putting money in the hands of consumers. He's taking money away from consumers!. Its a shell game!
He answers every question in this oily politician way. When asked if his UBI plan would increase immigration to the US, he answers that America is already the preferred destination of immigrants!
Yeah! That's exactly why the question was asked in the first place! And then to show how dumb he thinks his supporters are, he says only citizens would receive the UBI anyway. Never disclosing that he is FOR open borders and granting citizenship to all immigrants!
How sleazy!
All we need to know is basic math. UBI schemes have failed the world over. It is simply socialism by a catchy name. And socialism fails because it destroys incentive in the population.
Here are economic facts we cannot escape.
1. An increase in taxes will depreciate economic growth. Econ 101.
2. A UBI will increase the amount of unemployed people in a society.
3. A UBI requires the wealth to be generated. But only some of the people will be wealth generators. That means the wealth generated by each working citizen will have to be more than his UBI!
Why would citizens support Yang when right now, they can keep all the extra wealth they generate?
And what is the incentive to generate more than your UBI when you won't get it anyway? That is exactly why socialism loses and collapses every time.
Please, look up ponzi schemes and educate yourself. I know you mean well, but the experts at economic science agree that the UBI is nonsense.
Now, the ratio of working to not working will make a huge difference. So let's put some actual numbers in. Yang has proposed a $1,000 dollars a month, and a 10% vat tax.
1. Do you know how much will be generated per person by this vat tax a year? It will have to be much more than $12,000 dollars a year per person!
Can most people making less than 30,000 to $50,000 a year afford afford a $20,000 tax bite? And most people do make less than $50,000 a year.
2. Do you know what the minimum ratio of working to not working must be for UBI to work? What is the unemployment rate in the US right now?
We can fill in some numbers and Yang's illogic will immediately be apparent.
One last thing. The excuse that the samples in Finland and Canada were too small, is dishonest. In each of those countries, the number of people receiving doles was limited, while the number of working people generating the wealth was not.
The plan did not fail because it ran out of money, it failed because both countries found that the UBI increased joblessness among the recipients, made periods of joblessness longer, and decreased the amount of tax gathered by the government from the generators of wealth.
The governments plainly saw that if the entire working class could not sustain the few they had on the plan within their economic constraints, a larger sample of recipients would make it even worse.
You tax a wealth generator, and he reduces his expenditures. This reduces VAT collected. Each month, the amount gathered to cover the unemployed becomes smaller.
The government will be forced to either increase taxes, which will further decrease vat gathered, or reduce the UBI, which will contradict the purpose of the UBI.
This is what economists in Canada and Finland saw, and it caused those governments to scrap the programs.
When politicians start using catchy slogans for their shell games, watch out! It isn't a dividend if it's coming out of your pocket.
Created:
Posted in:
-->@disgusting
I can't imagine anyone desperate enough to stalk you though.
I can. Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
Sorry man, but you have been taken in by an old fashion ponzi scheme. I don't care who tells me he can get more money out than is put in. I'll call him a loon or a crook.
Look at my links below. All economic heavyweights.
Canadian Experiment Quickly Shows Failures of Universal Basic Income ...
8 Aug 2018 · Last week the government of Ontario, Canada, announced it was ending a pilot program to guarantee residents a universal basic income (UBI). ... For the Ontario pilot, only low-income folks participated, and their benefits replaced unemployment insurance, the state pension and ...
Universal Basic Income: An Idea That's Already Been Tried And Failed Miserably
20 Dec 2018 · In other words, a program that provides free money. ... In Canada, Ontario's government decided to launch a UBI ...
Why Universal Basic Income is a bad idea
Though UBI makes for a good slogan, it is a poorly designed policy. Basic economic theory implies that taxes on income are distortionary inasmuch as they discourage work and investment. ... One should always be wary of simple solutions to complex problems, and universal basic income is no exception. Jun 19, 2019
Commentary: Universal Basic Income May Sound Attractive But, ...
Universal Basic Income: A Thoroughly Wrongheaded Idea
15 Jan 2019 · Though the idea of a universal basic income for all (UBI) has gained ... land, however, this source of revenue would dwindle and fail to support what the ...
The failure of Finland’s Universal Basic Income experiment
…thinkers have mooted Universal Basic Income (UBI), where all citizens get paid a basic wage whether or not they are employed, as the answer to this. Many UBI proponents, including tech entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and even Richard Branson of the Virgin conglomerate, have said that they see UBI as the only solution to the problem of mass unemployment caused by advances in IT.
The basic premise behind UBI is not unlike the premise behind universal healthcare and other universal coverage systems. The Scandinavian welfare states have grappled with such issues for decades. They have outrageously high rates of taxation, but, relative to other nations at least, a semi-efficient way to plow these taxes back into welfare schemes for their citizens.
So, it was not surprising that Finland, also a welfare state, was the first to begin experimenting with the concept of UBI in January 2017. The programme allowed 2,000 unemployed Finns to receive a UBI dole, even when they tried out casual employment at odd jobs. These 2,000 were to be compared against a control group of 137,000 employed Finns.
A spokesperson for Kela, the Finnish governmental agency responsible for welfare programmes said at the time: “Incidental earnings do not reduce the basic income, so working and … self-employment are worthwhile no matter what." I had written in this column earlier that this statement is only partially true since there are two problems with every dole. One: it must be paid for by all citizens, which means higher taxes, and two: doles act as a disincentive for recipients who would otherwise be forced to go out and find paying work.
The Finnish government had said that if the trial was successful, the programme could be extended to include all adult Finns. The premise was that this programme could end up saving more money for Finland in the long run—as it was supposedly less expensive than maintaining current social welfare services for the unemployed.
However, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an influential think tank, said income tax would have to increase by nearly 30% to fund a basic income. It also argued that basic income would increase income inequality and raise Finland’s poverty rate from 11.4% to 14.1%.
And now, Finland’s government has announced that the two-year pilot scheme which started in January 2017 will not be extended after this year, as the government is now examining other schemes for reforming the Finnish social security system.
This seems to me to be conclusive evidence that UBI programmes such as the one Finland has, or the one we have experimented with here in India, are simply not workable as an alternative to boost people’s income in return for job losses caused by automation, whether this automation comes through the simple mechanization of agricultural labour caused by using farm automation tools, or through advances in IT.
Apologists for the programme, including the New York Times, have claimed that it is not UBI that has failed Finland, but rather the reverse — that Finland failed UBI. The claim that the pilot programme was too limited in scope to produce meaningful results and that it should have been extended to a much larger population.
Essentially, this means several millions more need to be spent on a programme that has already seen trouble before we actually pull the plug on it. This logic is befuddling.
We would be better served spending the money to re-skill displaced labour to take on other types of employment. Mankind’s history ever since the invention of the wheel has been filled with continuous mechanization and automation, and we have adjusted to every new development by finding new ways to be productive
--------------------------------------------
UBI makes no sense.
Created:
Dr. Franklins parents think nihilism is stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Sorry, since you keep ignoring my questions, I'm going to assume you do not want a discussion, but an interrogation.
I am totally uninterested in being interrogated. When you want a discussion, I will be approachable. Have a nice day!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@DynamicSquid
UBI is a fantastically bad idea for the same reason perpetual motion machines are a bad idea.
There is no way to get more energy (in this case represented by money) out of a process than is put in.
It isn't that UBI is expensive, the UBI is impossible! Whether people deserve it is immaterial. It is not possible.
For those who will point to small scale UBI programs, most failed, and even ponzi schemes work for a while.
UBI is pushed by people who haven't a clue how money and economics work.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It also says - contradictory - 28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.
It isn't contradictory Hosea. Jesus spoke to Judas after handing him the sop. The disciples saw Jesus hand him the sop, but did not know what Jesus said to him. Your reading comprehension is poor.
BUT AGAIN!! this does not explain why Judas wasn't stopped.
Sure it does Habib. Jesus whispered something to Judas and the disciples saw him rise and leave immediately.
The disciples assumed, Judas was being sent on an errand by their Master. Why would they stop him? Also, Judas left before anyone could stop him, though no one would try since they thought Jesus was sending him out.
The explanation to your stupid assumption is in the passage genius.
Why didn't these disciples not stop Judas betraying Jesus..
They did not know Judas was betraying Jesus.
...and why did they not simply cast out this Satan.
Satan is not visible in the people he possesses or oppresses. Your question is idiotic.
Again your argument fails.
Lol. Its scripture Habib, not my argument. You said the reason was not there. I posted it.
But you have said they did know above that they did know, silly little billy.
No liar. I didn't.
So at least one person apart from Jesus did know,...
Know what? What Jesus said to Judas, or that Judas would be the one to betray Jesus? I won't let you get slippery with what it is that was "known".
...why wasn't he stopped
Again, because he left immediately. And because the passage says they assumed, because Judas was group treasurer, Jesus was sending him to buy something for the supper. Ask again and the answer will be the same.
...why didn't the gifted disciples cast out the Satan that had - by all accounts - " entered Judas"?
Because Judas left immediately and because they did not know Satan had entered Judas. The answers are in the passage written 2,000 years ago Einstein.
They had been sitting right next to him all fkn night sharing supper and wine and bread.
So? What do you think they had, Satanic radar? The bible doesn't have to address your dumb assumptions. The text says Satan entered Judas only just before he rose and left.
Yes you keep saying this simply because you have nowhere to go with this argument.
I keep saying it because you post things that you know are untrue. You lie.
You simply cannot explain why the disciples FAILED to notice a Satan...
They were not supposed to. Because you think they should have means nothing.
...and also FAILED to cast Satan out considering that they had been endowed with the gift to do so.
The gift to exorcize is not the gift to recognize possession on sight Hosea. And again, Judas left immediately.
They are not fake verses, that is, unless you are now saying that the verses above are not the words in the bible.
The verses of the bible are fine. You are the liar. You posted lies, and are now trying to pretend it is these new verses that I am calling you a liar about. You faked previous verses. Would you like me to post your lie again?
Are you saying that those verses above are not in the bible/ yes or no will do, Jethro.
I'm saying you posted fake verses in a pervious post. Should I cite the post?
Well if that is the case you are as badly trained in biblical studies as you are anything else.
And yet you dodge my questions in every post. And I've got you lying and pretending not to see the explanations in front of you. Nah, I think I'm doing fine Jethro. Keep playing obtuse, it may start working for ya.
Asking questions is not trolling.
Never answering questions is. And lying is. And posting false verses is. And pretending not to see answers is. You are a troll. And you've met a troll whisperer for the first time. Lolz will abound.
It just pisses YOU off because you cannot explain my questions away and YOU, like others here, do not like these anomalies, contradictions and half stories being highlighted for others to read.
Lol. That must be why you keep posting them even after a clear explanation is given to you from the text itself. Go ahead, you will find the Gentle Readers, even the atheist ones, are not as stupid as you think they are.
Posting in bold will not make you more credible. I don't care if you insult me as long as I show you to be the fake you are.
And you are a fraud. Here is one example from above.
for example, the passage of the last supper says clearly why no one questioned why Judas left,
No it doesn't...
And we saw that it did. You lied. How do I know you lied? I showed you the passage in the previous post, and you posted yourself the passage where it tells us why no one questioned why Judas left, and yet you claimed again in this post that it didn't exist. You lied. And you're still lying now.
Your claims of contradictions are all ridiculous assumptions caused by your ignorance. And yes, making dumb claims and then dodging questions is trolling.
Whisper, whisper, whisper....
Lol
Created:
Posted in:
Actually, if stupidity keeps stalking me, it will get banned..... again. So I will have a choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@bmdrocks21
Disgusting doesn't operate with facts like normal people, his thoughts to him, are facts in reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I never forgot, so I didn't have to remember. ; )
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Yeah, Since GoT, Breaking Bad, and etc, TV has gotten a lit better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
This is what Discipulus_Didicit said in post #10 about your concern that the UBI would be "giving poor people an excuse to do a whole bunch of nothing all day."
you probably (again I might be wrong) subscribe to the belief that implementing a UBI would encourage people capable of working to instead not do so and simply live off their new monthly government check. This is a common objection I have heard to UBI and quite honestly I find this objection even more laughable than the idea of UBI itself given the amounts involved in most UBI proposals and my experience in successfully fighting my way out of poverty over the last decade or so.
Do you think he has a point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The clique, who hates theism, does. And on Dart, as was on DDO, the elite rule.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Its grueling Alec. Like intellectual Navy Seal training.
Each troll is different and has different tactics and agendas. You have to use a troll, not just contradict him. Most trolls will have the presence of mind to know not to answer questions, but their dodge is just as bad as having to answer honestly. So simply asking them questions shows their troll underbelly.
Trolls lack impulse control, so pushing their buttons gets them to negate their own arguments.
Much of the training I can't tell you about because it would forewarn trolls, and to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
Of the 5 religion board trolls that switched over from DDO, only one remains, and soon his stalking and spamming will get him banned because he cannot control his troll impulses. All I have to to do is wave the red cloth, and step out of his way as he charges.
Of the two big trolls native to Dart, one seems to have lost his joy of trolling and isn't posting, and the other, as you can see, is threatening to fly off the rails.
Its a hard thankless job, which sometimes requires me to trade popularity for troll demise, but that is an acceptable price to pay.
It's dangerous, and none professional should not attempt to directly confront a troll. So I step in and relieve the Gentle Reader of the burden. Like how Speedrace did not need to confront the moron racist troll himself at all on the "People Should Not Be Allowed To Make Personal Attacks On The Mod" thread. No thanks needed.
Its my job. I was trained for it. And I happen to be fascinated by trolls and morons. The internet is a wonderland.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
...for example, the passage of the last supper says clearly why no one questioned why Judas left,
No it doesn't...
Jhn 13:26 - Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the sonof Simon.
Jhn 13:27 - And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
Jhn 13:28 - Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.
Jhn 13:29 - For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.
Jhn 13:30 - He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.
Tell us another lie Habib.
...they didn't understand a thing as tong on, you idiot.
Of course not genius, that's why they didn't stop Judas. But is your claim about to morph into the disciples not knowing what was going on?
I am asking WHY no one stopped him,...
The answer is in the passage Jethro. See the verse bolded just for you? (Jn 13:39)
But still no one questioned where or why he was leaving on such an important occasion. WHY??
You have to read the passage genius.
Quick! Pretend you didn't see this!
..why no one drove out the Satan that had "entered him".
Because Judas went immediately out: (verse 13:30) He left immediately. Simple reading will cure your ignorance Habib.
And no man at the table recognised Satan either, did they you buffoon.
Lol!! You think Judas transmogrified into a half goat demon with horns? How daft are you? That is your contradiction? That Judas didn't grow a red tail? This is what happens Gentle Reader when people get their information from movies instead of the bible. Lol.
And AGAIN, you have failed to explain why the disciples , after being granted the powers to cast out demons, did they not cast out Satan.
They can only fail at what they try. If Judas left immediately, they had no chance. Think man. This isn't rocket science.
Satan had entered Judas well before the last supper and they had been sitting at the same fk table as him fk knows how long.
Did Jesus know?
Why post fake verses?
I haven't.
You have. And it is still up in your post. I pointed it out. The server here can only be changed by Mike. I hope you aren't accusing him of changing your post.
...verses that you now are saying are fake,
Nice try liar. You know which verses you faked, don't try to pretend now that I'm talking about the verses you only just now posted. Why lie?
Your a fool and a failure of the first caliber.
And yet I beat you like you're a small girl, and you dodge questions like a cheating spouse.
...all I have are questions that you cannot fkn answer.
Yet I've again answered all your questions by posting the verses that answer them.
I have nothing to lie about.
That is true, but yet you keep lying. My guess is you think saying that I put words into scripture that weren't there will convince people who aren't paying close attention.
But I'm still gratified that you believe you need to lie to make the charge of a contradiction. And that you need to pretend to be obtuse and lie again when I answer you out of the bible.
The answers are here. I posted them. Everyone can see them. Pretend again that they don't exist so we can see how desperate and ignorant you are.
Go ahead.
Created:
Posted in:
@disgusting
What our genius got....
Most liberals are not "Democrats"...
What was said...
Some liberals are not democrats,..
Never let your poor reading comprehension influence your beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Excellent post. Agree on all points and all movies chosen. This post is like the kind of vote that clique vote mods hate. Too smart to be dismissed.
Funny you should mention Tarantino. I just saw an interview where he said that he viewed the audience like an orchestra and him the conductor that leads them.
The two interesting things about this was that first, in his analogy, the movie became the musical instruments and was manipulated by the orchestra, and second, It is the orchestra that makes the music, not the conductor!
In Tarantino's view, it is difficult to say who "makes" the movie. No wonder his movies are so likable. If I made a movie, I would like it! One thing I like about him is that his movies tend to be emotionally satisfying. Why other filmmakers don't see the necessity for this is a mystery.
Created: