Total posts: 4,363
-->
@Theweakeredge
teeth then? Hair? Skin?
Recall with whom you deal.
Teeth: no, teeth, so-called "baby teeth" do not fall out; they are pushed out by mature teeth. And mature teeth are pulled out, or are struck, all external actions on the teeth. Even teeth that rot in the mouth do not just fall out; they are weakened by the rot; by the poor care applied to them by the person affected. All external actions.
Hair: dead tissue, by which cause the follicle fails.
Skin: also dead tissue.
You may argue that a baby is born by external action. Yes, by convenience, but nature can do it entirely on its own, without even the mother's direct involvement, and does.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
When we chose to act, we chose to inherit the responsibility for the act.
if you cut the connectors
Ah, but cutting the connection of the heart to its surrounding tissue; that is an outside action, not a natural function of the body. So, is the act of cutting the umbilical an outside action. It isn't really even necessary. Ever ask yourself, bud, what happens if the umbilical is never cut? By nature, the umbilical is sealed off in a few hours, and the whole of it will detach in a few more hours to a few days. All by itself, by nature. I may slip in philosophy, and bow to your greater education therein, but my family background in medicine goes back three generations. Although I did not pursue it professionally, I've been an avid student my whole life. I get it.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
If one accepts the notion that God is the cause of everything that now occurs, I suppose one could arrive at the conclusion that God causes miscarriages, etc. Does he? I do not subscribe to that opinion. In fact, I don't believe God is the total, eventual cause of anything. He has initiated everything, by creation, but I'm of the belief that evolution is not even just the other side of the coin, but that it is on the same side of the same coin; the next process following the initial process of initial creation. Creation plus evolution. However, I also do not believe God retired and went fishing. He's still involved, watching as we cause events ourselves. We're all, people, other animals, plants, and Earth, herself, processing as we go, some by good choices, some not, and, sometimes, events occur outside our choice or control; the nature of the beast that is the third rock from the sun.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I believe the record for live birth [viability] is at 19 weeks. But, I'll agree, 24 weeks is not so rare anymore.
And, thanks for entering the discussion. It certainly needs your perspective.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
As I've said, the incident of rape causing pregnancy is very low, therefore, by the numbers, the choice to engage sexual activity, still carrying the risk of pregnancy, in spite of artificial contraceptives, which have a far more percentage of failure than pregnancies by rape, means, in the end, that women who choose to take that risk have negated any right to their body, haven't they? Or, are you that married to do-overs?
Further, since a woman is biologically designed by nature to bear the function of the womb-nurture of children, and birthing those children as the means of continuation of the species, which nature can be halted by a simple procedure to prevent the potential of pregnancy permanently [a matter of freedom of choice, yeah?] why does a woman get to do-over her free choice to have sex with risk of pregnancy, which is one of her natural functions?
Moreover, the claim that a fetus is part of her body, a part she did not choose [except, she did, as demonstrated above, with little exception] is patently false. Mother and fetus do not share DNA. The fetus, umbilical, placenta, amniotic sac and its fluid all share unique DNA differing from the mother. They do not even share blood. Only nutrients pass through the blood barrier in the placenta. All of that fetal tissue is not the mother's body. Given her freedom of choice to have sex, she inherits the necessity of responsibility along with that choice.
And, finally, to further the argument that the fetal tissue is not part of her body [whence, therefore, her right to privacy over the existence of the fetus? - particularly since the abortion procedure is hardly a private occasion], when she comes to full term, and occasionally even before, nature begins the birthing process. Simply put, if the fetus is part of her body, why does the fetal tissue - all of it - fall out, separating itself from her body? Otherwise, my friend, when she opened her mouth, her tongue would fall out. It doesn't, because her tongue IS part of her body.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Speculation is encouraged with some rational support.
Biden hoped to move foreign policy emphasis away from the Arab-Israeli conflict to China and Russia, because his Democrat predecessors have always had trouble dealing with that conflict; mostly because the support is for the aggressor side. I have presented the argument that David purchased the the threshing floor of King Arauna, the Jebusite [a descendent of Ishmael, therefore, an Arab in modern jargon], and the surrounding land, now called the West Bank. No one has purchased it since. Some argue that military possession of another's land is legitimate. Fine. descendants of Ishmael occupied that land that is now called Palestine upon the departure of many, but probably not all of the tribes of the House of Israel during the famine crisis, led by Jacob [Israel] into Egypt. When the House of Israel returned some 400 years later, they took it back. When the House of Israel was decimated by Babylon [historic Arabs] in 600 BC, the Arabs took it back, and so on over the millennia since, including, by the way, the re-occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by the modern nation of Israel in 1967, and they have occupied it since [legitimately, by the original purchase, and by military occupation, which opponents of Israel maintain has been the legitimacy of the Arab possession of the land].
So, whose occupation is legitimate? The last guy to do ity, that's who. And the last guy was the one who bought it in the first place, and no one has bothered to do that since.
But Biden making deals with the guy who says "Death to Israel" kind of reveals his hand in the matter, and it does not support Israel, does it? Is that rational reasoning in your book, or not, that he opposes a united Israel with its capital being the site of the US Embassy?
Created:
-->
@Undefeatable
meaning that it was a forced event?
What was a forced event? Taking contraceptives, or that the sex was forced? Either way, it points to the too frequent failure of contraceptives to succeed at being contra-. Abortion statics just do not support that a high number of abortions are due to forced sex. Yes, it happens, but very low numbers compared to women who pull the trigger on abortion simply because they do not want to be pregnant, but were willing to be sexually active. With freedom comes responsibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
--> @oromagiThat's a dodge, so that's a no. You have zero examples of Progressives calling "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" a constitutional right, in spite of making that claim.No, that is not a no, that's no dodge; that was a red herring."red herring" is concession. fauxlaw does not now believe that Progressives mistake "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" for constitutional guarantees, contradicting his own OP claim.Another dodge, I didn't ask you if you think the Consitution is amendable by evolution of society.No, I did not dodge. That was an accusation: Progs do believe the Constitution is amendable simply by evolution of society.gobbledygook. what does this mean?Example, the 2nd Amendment was once tried to be amended 700 separate times by Congress, when Democrats were Democrats.What Congress? What year? What bill?Since they are not, anymore, but by wearing the name, amendment has been put on the shelf. No one trues, anymore, but by evolution. Is that a dodge?unparseable gobbledygook.Show me the last effort to change any constitutional mandate by amendment by a Democrat.There's one in the pipeline right now, limiting to power of presidential pardon:That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:The President shall not have the power to grant pardons and reprieves to—“(1) himself or herself;“(2) any family member, up to a third degree relation, of the President, or a spouse thereof;“(3) any current or former member of the President’s administration;“(4) any person who worked on the President’s presidential campaign as a paid employee;“(5) any person or entity for an offense that was motivated by a direct and significant personal or pecuniary interest of any of the foregoing persons; or“(6) any person or entity for an offense that was at the direction of, or in coordination with, the President.Any pardon issued for a corrupt purpose shall be invalid.”.Republicans should favor the amendment since realistic appraisal of popular vote trending indicates that the Republican Party won't likely ever again achieve the White HouseAOC is no more upholding the 2A than she can uphold jobs in her own district.another red herring. I have given you two examples of AOC upholding 2A to which you refuse reply. Since that's what AOC said and you are not contradicting her, your claim that AOC is not upholding the 2A is proved false.In other fake news, fauxlaw is French for "fox is always right"
verbosity meaning: merde.
Created:
-->
@Undefeatable
Do you just pretend that one of the consequence of sex is the potential of pregnancy. It is a surety that artificial contraceptives are not 100% effective. It's like trying to do the sane thing repeatedly, expecting different results. If women do not want to get pregnant, but still want to have sex, there is a radical, but available solution. They have that freedom to decide. That they don't is the fault of people who oppose abortion? Cheeky.What about their freedom?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
No. I misspelled dance.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
"Evidence" from the left:
"Trump will have us in a war!"
What war, my friend? Yes, my comment is speculation. Is that suddenly disallowed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kadin
Guns pose a unique threat compared to other items. They are the most common weapons used to facilitate murder.
And? Which of those guns, on its own, murdered a human being? You're after the wrong weapon. The weapon of need to ban is in the head. But you cannot regulate that, can you? Like I said, the spoon is a viable weapon in the desperate head. The next four choices, knives, other firearms not designated [but not rifles and shotguns], other unidentified weapons, and by hands, exceed the number of murders by handgun. In fact, further down the list are "assault weapons," yet that is the most significant target of the left. Why? Because, as AOC revised the 2A, the target is "weapons of warm," which is not the subject of the 2A. The 2A specifies "arms." It's generic in its nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
That's a dodge, so that's a no. You have zero examples of Progressives calling "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" a constitutional right, in spite of making that claim.
No, that is not a no, that's no dodge; that was a red herring. It was just to demonstrate your monolithic thinking as a Progressive, and you bit the bait; the very thing you accuse. Typical. You mean you do not believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are constitutional rights? Your heightened ire leans in that direction...
Another dodge, I didn't ask you if you think the Consitution is amendable by evolution of society.
No, I did not dodge. That was an accusation: Progs do believe the Constitution is amendable simply by evolution of society. Example, the 2nd Amendment was once tried to be amended 700 separate times by Congress, when Democrats were Democrats. Since they are not, anymore, but by wearing the name, amendment has been put on the shelf. No one trues, anymore, but by evolution. Is that a dodge? Show me the last effort to change any constitutional mandate by amendment by a Democrat. AOC is no more upholding the 2A than she can uphold jobs in her own district.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
three examples of prominent Progressives calling life, liberty and pursuit of happiness constitutional rights?
You don't need three examples. You entirely miss the point of the next two sentences.
Are you saying you don't believe that the Constitution is amendable,
No. The Constitution is not amendable by evolution of society; exactly what I said. It takes more than just evolution, doesn't it?
Is it? or is just another one of those panicky fears that Fox New viewers frighten each other with nightly without ever checking in on the real world?
Too bad I don't watch Fox News. Sorry to spoil your paradigm.
cities and states with strong gun laws have managed to cut gun violence significantly
You mean like Chicago and NYC, where violence has increased significantly this year?
Created:
Posted in:
@RN,
Sorry, no beauty there. I lived for a year in DE with Biden as Senator. A nice guy, but harmless, not by beauty, but because it's an empty vessel.
Created:
Posted in:
You may think this post is misaligned; that it belongs in "society," or maybe even stretched to put it in "politics." Nope, it is rightly placed.
Whereas Picasso left us with an intriguing message: “Art is not for decoration; it is an instrument of war;” da Vinci left us with a more contemplative tone. He taught a concept he called saper vedera, meaning “knowing how to see.”
Volumes have been written about what that means, but, as usual, things that appear complicated are usually solved by Occam's razor. We assume anything profound is a puzzle of consequential difficulty when it is really so simple, we usually stumble over the meaning while trying to solve it.
Let me try.
Knowing how to see transcends art; it is to be applied in all our efforts. The Balinese, for example, have a saying: “We have no art; we do everything as well as we can.”
This scratches the surface of “knowing how to see.” In a nutshell, knowing is simply a matter of finding beauty and organization in everything we see and do. We tend to shun that which is ugly; but who decides what is ugly? Anyone who refuses to look deeper, look wider, or look with unbiased eyes.
I hope you are beginning to see that I am far beyond the realm of typical “art;” but it is an art to see a glimmer of what the Balinese, and Leonardo, are saying. Art is not the sum of our beauty, nor the totality of our best endeavors.
We, ourselves, in all our conditions, have beauty, regardless of our skin color, eye, nose, and lips shapes, body type, hair color, clothing style, etcetera, etcetera. Rather than criticize and denigrate these differences, we are meant to celebrate how different we are at skin level, then associate with one another to discover that beneath the skin, we all have joy and sorrow, feel pleasure and pain, rejoice and disappoint. It is the human condition. All of it is worthy of investigation and respectful celebration.
It does little good to segregate whose life matters more than another. Just see all of us and everything and refuse to say that any of it is ugly.
I think that is what Leonardo meant. I recognize that often, in this Forum, I see and comment on “ugly.” Such is the political, geographic, still-learning man. Mea culpa.
Created:
Posted in:
One issue needs to be assessed critically lest our children grow up thinking there is no reason to parse constitutional issues of importance. Progressives are fond of saying that the government needs to “protect our children and others from this senseless gun violence.” Sounds good and right, but they confuses the right of gun ownership with the violence perpetrated by people. Guns never have, and never will, of their own volition, kill a single individual. If we ultimately severe the hand from the right to hold a gun with continued legislation — or executive order — those hands will find other weapons to commit their violence. Do we ban the spoon? It, too, can be a killing weapon, don’t you know?
However, the deeper issue is the confusion by which Progressives jerk “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” from the Declaration to also call them “constitutional” rights. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, declared these rights to be “self-evident,” “endowed by [the] Creator,” and “unalienable.” And if, as Progressives believe, the Constitution is malleable, a “living document,” as the progressive left is fond of saying, then “unalienable” is subject to revision merely by evolution of society.
Many may think this distinction is not important, but parsing is necessary because “these truths” of “life, liberty…” et al, are not controlled nor granted by government. It is the duty of government to assure they cannot and will not be taken from us — thus, “unalienable” — by anyone or any institution. Additionally, although constitutional, the second, and, indeed, the other nine Bill of Rights, are, likewise, “unalienable.”
That Progressives wants to truncate the second amendment is evident; that they can do so is less evident, regardless of altruistic motives. They demonstrates how lax their understanding of the Declaration and the Constitution is, and what “unalienable rights” truly means to us.
The read of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will occupy a few hours for a slow reader. I suggest we do so, again — or, for the first time — before the next presidential election. It is critical that, as citizens, we understand what a president is duty-bound to “protect and defend” so that we are certain he, or she, is doing it. You may find that the current president is not.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Always curious to me that Democrats favor abortion when at least 1/3 of the aborted would have been Democrats... and many of those who managed to survive act like they were.
Created:
Some thoughts in regard to the current abortion case before the Supreme Court: Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization from MS.
Progressives have the SCOTUS decision of Roe v. Wade [1974] interpreted by a dancing manipulation around its findings. 1 US Code, §8, to which Roe v. Wade, curiously, does not refer, legally defines a “person.” What does that say about the Roe v. Wade interpretation of 14th amendment privacy; a word the 14A does not include? 1 US Code, §8 describes a person as Homo sapiens, born alive, at any stage of development.The Latin classification,Homo sapiens,means, literally: wise man, or, human, as distinguished from other species of the genus, Homo.All three conditions must be held to claim personage.
The first element of definition clearly distinguishes humans from any other life form, as if anything else could, or should, be nurtured in a human womb.
The third describes the zygote [the fertilized egg], the embryo, [its subsequent multi-cell development], and the early-to-late-term fetus.
The second element, emphasized for this discussion, is the core of the pro-abortion argument, whereas, all three support the pro-life argument. It is, by strict definition, “born alive,”that is abortion’s fundamental argument. Its opposite, stillborn,means that the organism, although born and although Homo sapiens,is dead tissue; therefore not a person.
It will not be honest to use the pro/pro schism using the qualifier “choice” only because choice’s interpretation, opposing that of “life,” is abortion, and usually not some other alternative, such as adoption, or a mother/father/both-raised child. Nor will this argument entertain troubling aspects of the choice of abortion in the cases of incest, rape, or the danger to health of mother, child, or both. These are fraught with pitfalls on both sides of the argument too great to expand on here.
Allowing that no one, well-meaning, or not; not parent, not doctor, not cleric, not biological father, should assume to decide in the place of the pregnant female, it is a decision fraught with competing factions. They all must defer, ultimately, to the pregnant female unless she, herself, defers. That would, at least, uphold the Roe v. Wade interpretation of privacy.
“Born alive” means the organism is fully expelled from the mother’s body, alive, and regardless of the stage of development. Note that “viability” [meaning it is likely to survive outside of the womb even though in earlier stages of development] does not exist in 1 US Code, §8 verbiage.
However, one must take exception to the Roe v. Wade unspecified “person” argument because a criminal indictment may still be brought against a person who desecrates a corpse. Why shouldn’t its alternative also be criminal; the desecration of a pre-born, who would, if all else were equal and left to nature’s intent, be born alive?
Moreover, a person who slays a pregnant woman is often charged with two counts of homicide by 2004’s Victims of Unborn Violence Act. Do these points of order strain the progressive Roe v. Wade interpretation, let alone that of 1 US Code, §8, of what defines a person? These extreme conditions would infer that the dead have certain rights that are shared as a sub-set of rights held by living persons. Should 1 US Code, §8, let along some aspects of Roe v. Wade, be clarified by more accurate legal definition? Or do we continue, blithely, blindly satisfied by precedent? In this non-lawyer’s opinion, precedent exists by virtue of poorly written law.
The hook abortionists hang on in 1 US Code, §8, if not by precedent, is that “born alive” means being fully expelled from the mother’s body, and still alive. If the zygote/embryo/fetus does not fully expel, it is not yet “born,” and is not yet a person. Its natural development to “viability,” let alone to full development, is terminated artificially, and satisfies the progressive argument because it does not yet meet the strict definition of birth.
“Behold!” the progressive says, “abortion is, therefore, legal.” Some even expand the fetal development beyond viability to include full development, and even partial birth. New York State has just stepped over this line because New York conveniently does not define what it means by “the life and health of the mother,” let alone the fetus. With vague interpretation, a headache, let alone declared mental stress, is threatening to at least the mother.
Other states are sure to follow.
It is convoluted logic. Legally, it seems to be sound, but only because a person is not a person until born alive, according to 1 US Code, §8, specifically, and the Roe v. Wade decision by unwritten interpretation. But, what of the also legal Victims of Unborn Violence Act?
This single aspect of live birth is both the steps and the music of the progressive dance. Some progressives do know what they talk about and use the language of the law as written to their benefit. They dance around it like Gene Kelly, to music distant, and dissonant to some.
Created:
Posted in:
Among animals that can't survive without it, yes.
That is almost, but not quite the condition of humans. There are at least two needed proteins [some nutritionists call them essential] the body cannot manufacture, and whose source is exclusively from flesh. Veggie-sourced proteins can substitute, but not as efficiently as meat protein. Humans are, by design, omnivores.
Created:
Posted in:
@ RM
I actually prefer demostic, but it cannot mean tamed. Sounds more sinister. No, maybe not. Is it a person who demonstrates? Good word; needs a good meaning. Just checked my OED. It is not currently a word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Wordsmithing's ultimate honor is the creation of new words, rather than using old words in new contexts. Like "mouse."
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Ask Abraham. He's the father of the two sides. But recall whose is the birthright.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
You've just admitted that it was not Trump who "was actually recorded as saying..." that, but Don Corleone, the Godfather; a fictional character. You know, like all woke heroes of the left. Thanks for clarifying what I've been saying all along. Woke = pure fiction. Like Green New Deal. Like son of a bitch, they did. Like Death to America.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Thor and Loki are not bothers.
Yeah, what she said. The contrary is woke, however, so it must fit. And, I'm sure poundmeThomas will add this to my list of failures.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
According to the woke, Lightfoot just woke up, and , thus, is not racist. Doesn't matter what she says, it must be coherent. Just like Rollover Joe, 'cause he's weally woke.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
he tries to extort a foreign nation.
With the regime change in Ukraine in the June 2019 election [Zelensky had just been elected, yeah?] Trump held up the payment due for FY Q1 2020, due by Sept 30, 2019 for about 8 days, and, now assured by the phone call with Zelensky, paid it in September before it was due. The last quarter's payment, for Q4 2019, had already been paid the previous quarter, so all the hype about Ukraine urgently needing the aid rapido speedo to combat the Russians was all a Prog hoax because Ukraine already had the payment to finish out the last quarter of FY 2019. Forget that? Never knew it? Trump is not the dolt you make him out to be. As I said, your hatred blinds you to the facts. This payment schedule was set up by the Act that Oba'a set up in 2014, a payment schedule that paid for each quarter by the end of the previous quarter, but Democrats conveniently forgot the payment schedule when it came to bitching about Trump making a late payment. Do we forget Biden's story in Jan 2018 about delaying the billion dollars was, in fact, a threat to Ukraine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
my solar panels - a 39-panel array - will function entirely off the grid, if need be, during the day, and a conversion ability to store for use at night. I have two separate bbq and 2 years of briquettes, or I can build a fire with acres of trees, if needed and cook with a reflector oven for indirect heat, or over the fire, or in the coals, or dig a pit and cover with live pine boughs over the top. Cooking; no issue. I have an insulated 70 sq ft root cellar that maintains a constant 5 C, and another full-house footprint cellar, 1/4 of which has freeze-dried and canned food stored at same temp, about 3 years' worth. about 3,000 gallons of water in underground cistern, plus 400 gal above ground [conservatively, 2 years worth of use potable], and a live 10-month active stream. Septic well for the other end disposal from latrine. I'm prepared for virtually anything but a direct nuke.
Created:
Let them begin an education is critical thinking - the only skill that makes education a life-long endeavor.
Created:
This is about as historically concise as I've ever read: https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/why-maps-point-north-on-top/
Created:
-->
@FLRW
A string of nonsense.
1. Trump, then a privater citizen and entrepreneur, held the Miss U. in Russia, no doubt, for an enterprising profit. Free market capitalism, which doesn't really care who's paying if the consequences are not future-limiting. I currently have two Russian clients who purchase my writing skills on a regular basis. They pay better and more on time than some of my American clients. Their payments do not expect any under-the-table benefits to them other than the product they receive. Free-market capitalism in which everybody wins. Period.
2. There is no constitutional requirement of birth for anyone but the President of the United State, not even the President's spouse. Doesn't matter where the spouse is born since the spouse has no official, constitutional function. The spouse need not even be a citizen. Looks better, sure, but there is no constitutional requirement.
3. The President's spouse, any President and any spouse, has no access to the nuclear codes. No, I don't think that happens. Should a President tell his spouse the codes, which change daily, anyway, is a felony and violation of the oath of office.
Take your wish balloon and blow it up elsewhere. I expect you to think about this stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
I frankly do not know who created the acronym, CC, related to climate change, but somebody did. I've been using it for a number of years. I find it also is Creative Commons, an organization that endeavors to free up knowledge access on many subjects. One is the Covid 19 pandemic. I could call it CC - covid crisis. It is also CC - climate change.
OK. What's the big deal that warrants a Forum topic? Well, consider the two CCs noted above; climate change - to me, a hoax to separate us from our individual freedom and our cash [donate to clean the clouds, such as by carbon credits - OMG! another CC!], but I also see it as CC - covid crisis; an effort to... separate us from our individual freedom and our cash. How?
Well, we already know how the GND would enforce something called "participatory budgeting," meaning government participation in private industry budgeting, which ought to be strictly within the control of private industry. Nope. GND, as an official government bureaucracy, must have a hand in it... to, uh, separate us from our individual freedom [to make our own budgets] and our cash [tax increases].
So, what has it to do with Covid? What have we just been through due to Covid? A planned experiment. In what? Why, taking your individual freedom and your cash. Industry, merchandising, and school shutdowns. Basically, all the reasons to leave the house, taking jobs and education in the process. You think we are coming out of that crisis? Sure, but what have the proponents of CC and CC learned? That they can... separate us from our individual freedom [to work, be educated, shop, eat out, etc, etc,] on a more permanent basis simply by imposing a different CC down the road.
Result: We depend on government for our sustenance. Something like perpetual support checks to compensate loss of jobs, and, ultimately, loss of private enterprise, leading to....
Care to guess what Marxism really is, and its effects on a free society? CC. Communist Control. Starts with your loss of individual freedom, and your cash...
because what will stop them from taxing your single-payer income? Wait, wasn't single payer ACA just all about health care? Just another brick in the wall, dummy.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Says you, but the transcript does not. You are making leaps of judgment of topics of conversation; I'm merely identifying people Zelensky and Trump talk about. Your argument is convenient because you hate Trump, but Trump is gone. You cannot let go. What else do you have to bitch about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I once managed to make a test, not made to test your question, but it turn3ed out to be a good test for it.
Once, in Thailand, I hired a taxi to take me from Bangkok to the edge of a jungle. I paid him the outbound fee, and a portion of the wait time, which I estimated to be three hours, and then take me back to the hotel. I was equipped with good hiking boots, a topo map and an orienteering compass [on which I once passed an orienteering merit badge on the way to being an eagle scout.]. My mistake was not having a weapon. I had a small Swiss army knife. Dumb. So, I marked the taxi location on the map, then struck out into the jungle. There was a path for about 200 meters, then nothing. I made my own path, lacking a machete. Dumb. Nevertheless, it was a fascinating experience I recall vividly. Everytthing attracted my attention, both visually, tactile, and auditory. My nose has never worked very well, and didn't then. What attracted me? Sheer new experience. An hour in, I realized I may no longer be at the top of the food chain, and that was immediately terrifiying. I turned and started back out, now needing my compass and map to find my way back to the taxi. I came out about 40M from the taxi.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
This isn’t complicated. Even if there was separation between these two things, that’s where the phrase “the other thing” comes in.
Yes, separation. seven items of separation, and you've spelled them out:
1. Favor
2. CrowdStrike
3. Mueller
4. Ukraine
5. Zelensky talks
6. Giuliani
7. Barr
8. Yovanovitch
9. The other thing - Biden
So, which of those items, 2 - 9, is the favor? They are 7 items of discussion BEFORE "the other thing."
Tell me, does it makes sense to you that I ask you:
1. Double_R, do me a favor
2. I'm having a server issue
3. I've talked to Henry
4. I've been in your area, I see problems, there
5. "We're getting things improved here, and. blah, blah, blah" you say
6. You could talk to John
7. You could talk to Bill
8. I'm taking care of Julie.
9. There's another thing...
Which item is the favor I'm asking you help to solve? I talked to Henry. Was I talking to Henry about the server? I didn't say. Your area has issues, and you're working on them. You can talk to John and Bill, but I've handle Julie. Are we talking about the server problem, or something else? Maybe helping your area clean up. Maybe what ev er was discussed with John and Bill, which was not necessarily about either the server or your area problems.
Oh, there's another thing. Is that thing about the server, the other people, or your area clean-up? You want it to all be about the other thing, but there's no evidence that's the favor I want since it comes so distant, even by a count of words, because the subjects of those words vary too much to assume the favor only comes by 7 degrees of separation. Does that go over the head? Or can ten-minute conversations only ever be about one subject, only, because that's all Democrats can handle in 10 minutes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
@oromagi
You're both talking around the issue that is my OP: CRT is not, itself, a problem; it is the people who think that it is a problem needing solving. However, no one pushing CRT will, and perhaps cannot, demonstrate a single CURRENT law or agency policy whose text has offensive, racist commentary. Everyone wrings their hands over Jim Crow, which was dismissed by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and any law or policy extant then has been dissolved and re-written. It is why I maintain the system is not racist; individuals are, and they exist on both sides of the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
You mean constructive as in, maybe the environment that is in greater crisis and needs cleaning is between the ears and not the clouds?
Created:
Posted in:
@ Stephen
The apostle John, at least, was present at the crucifixion. All the apostles, less Judas, and even Thomas, eventually, and, ultimately, upwards of 500 people witnessed the risen Christ, in person. Cherry picking again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
only people and never ideas have standing before the law
The OP was quite clearly using the word "standing" in a different context
oromagi seems to have a valid question because these two quotes from your #29 are in opposition. Let's recall that the OP precedes "standing" with "leg," so I am obviously anthropomorphizing the idea of "standing," therefore, negating your legal issue. Or, if you will, no anthropomorphism because we also refer to the supports of tables and chairs as legs on which they "stand." It is a thing, not a person, and still has standing before the law. A contract, a thing and an idea, has standing before the law. Your injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability are all covered matters even through a contract and not a person.
I said:
Theory is not empiric, pure and simple. Until it is no longer theory [either proven wrong, like geocentrism, or substantiated by empiric evidence, it remains conceptual.
You said an idea cannot have standing, but, tell me, what is a law before it is enacted? An idea. Action taken by our constitutional representatives to consider a bill [an idea] and, if approved by signature, the idea becomes law, just as sufficient empiric evidence turns theory to fact. Are you really going to tell me that an idea cannot have standing if sufficient evidence is presented that it is mere formality that alters its designation? Best look at the definition of locus standi. In science, a theory proven fact only means that the theory was always a truth, we just could not prove it. Locus standi has the same understanding. Therefore, a truth may always have standing; it just needs sufficient proof.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I agree with Poly
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Look, I'm not the one flying the banner for either GND or Biden. Both of them speak with a forked tongue. So if Natgas and Nuke energy are clean {I agree], why does GND oppose them? Not to mention that solar [I have a 39-panel array], wind, geo, hydro, use petroleum as a lubricant [we're missing AlGoreGooeyJuice] and as raw material for all the plastic components. So, how clean is GND, after all?
Created:
Posted in:
You contradict the first half with the second half.
Did I?
First half: I do not believe we ought to abandon nationalities.
Second half: I appreciate their different cultures.
Therefore, because of differing cultures in different nations [yes, some nations have similar cultures, like USA and Canada] we should maintain different nations. There are certainly cultural differences between USA and China. What contradiction? Do we need a dictionary, again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
'I'm all for natural gas,'"
And, as usual, Biden speaks with a forked tongue that he uses like a spoon, because he has declared support for the GND. "Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face." https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/. Why am I not surprised?
In other words, have you really eliminated Trump in concept, because he was accused of having the same tongue, wasn't he?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Because it seems Democrats cannot forget that Trump is no longer the President, because Biden is such a disappointment to those same Democrats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
"The Green New Deal will convert the decaying fossil fuel economy into a new, green economy that is environmentally sustainable, economically secure and socially just. The Green New Deal starts with transitioning to 100% green renewable energy (no nukes or natural gas) by 2030. It would immediately halt any investment in fossil fuels (including natural gas) and related infrastructure." https://www.gp.org/gnd_full
This is the launching document of HRes 109. No, HRes 109 does not mention natural gas, but that does in no way mean it is off the agenda. HRes 109 is just the turning of the spade of groundbreaking action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
So, is your conclusion that since Israel knew it would not be annihilated, this time, Israel has no right to defend itself? Let us recall the mantra of much of the Arab world: to wipe Israel, a sovereign nation, off the map. Israel has no such designs on the Arab world, and that is demonstrated by the three treaties Israel signed with Arab nations last year, under the Trump administration, so, let's consider just who are the aggressing actors, here. Meanwhile, what do you think are Biden's intentions in that regard; more peace treaties?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The issue is that if the GND is so bloody urgent, seems it should be a worldwide urgency, but, not to Rollover Joe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What about pre-David
I said
land that had been Abraham's, Grandfather of Jacob.
What I did not mention is that Isaac, not Ishmael, was given the birthright. In the next generation, Isaac gave Jacob [the second-born of twins], not Esau, the birthright.
What blame? Should anyone but we who try to interpret without the only record in existence attempt to find blame? Maybe the record ought to be given more credence than it is.
And all land ownership, is expropriation or theft anyway.
That is a gross simplification which the record does not berar out. The land in question was sold by Araunah, who owned it, to David, and there is a record of that sale, but who can produce a record of subsequent sale? If they could, don't you think it ought to be produced?
Because the U.S. and it's allies have and never will be able to settle the issue.
That's probably true, So, in the end, the one who will settle it, ultimately, with a concession that "every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ" is Christ, himself, upon his return. "And lo, I come quickly." Well, that was given 2,000 years ago, and has not happened, yet, but then, "quickly" must be interpreted the way God interprets time; much longer than we do.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
As I said, your "analysis" and Schiff's parody, are remarkably similar. From the time Trump mentioned "I need you to do us a favor, though" and any mention of Biden, there are seven degrees of topical separation discussed which you and Schiff completely ignore to get to Biden. The transcript just does not support that common, Democrat theory. Read the transcript again; and one without the editing suggestions of the media, nor Schiff's parody.
Created: