fauxlaw

Isn't it obvious what I believe? You're in need of comprehension lesson's, too.

This string is about Biden. Who deflected, again? Practicing your poor comprehension, again? 

Spoken like a true apologist. The problem, my friend, is that Hidin' Biden misspeaks more than he can offer a clear, concise sentence. His mind is missing spokes.

As for presidential pardons, I suggest you look at the record of the placeholder, Oba'a

The next four years will be, if anything, entertaining. All I need say is, "Joe did it again," and y'all will know what I'm taking about.

In reply to a question to Joe Biden posed by Peter Doocy, Joe replied 'You're a one-horse pony."

Will one of you more familiar with Joe's euphemisms please tell me how many horses ponies are supposed to have, since Joe's reply was clearly an insult? While you're at it, tell me what face a lying pony soldier should have. And, tell me why Joe is fixated on horses, because his commentary certainly compares to what comes from their backends. Is it that they're hairy?

There is design in everything in the universe but for its disorganized matter and energy, of which the universe has in abundance for future creation. This is an ongoing, eternal process. Of what has been created, that is, organized matter and energy, there is opposition in all things. If you will, good and evil. One does exist without the other, and it is not a matter of God losing control; it is a matter of his following natural law, which is why he is God; he follows perfectly, but we do not. Yet.

Which are, to be honest, just their personal experiences. So, what's different?

My life and accomplishments are my proof. Do I need any other? I have property, money in cash, and investments. I have many friends, some of whom I have benefitted financially when needed, and by teaching. I love them, and that is reciprocated.

Never read Marx. have you?

When are you two, at least, going to stop complaining and start trying what I've been saying. Keep complaining, that's your result: Nothing. You complain, and gain nothing. I've been at this for over 50 years. It's not an overnight thing. You cannot expect it will be. And it is hard. I'm telling you it's worth it.

So, what I can do for myself, is of no benefit to another if I teach how to do it to another? You're saying that's not a truth. It's not a truth for you if you don't go try it yourself, and make it happen, that's for sure. But that's on you, isn't it? Meanwhile, I move on, because I know it's working for me. Believe what you will. It's your life. Just don't let somebody else direct it for you by telling you you can't do it. You know by doing, not by sitting there, thinking I'm crazy, and that everyone else who actually tried this is crazy. The world is full of crazy people, but they're crazy because they deny themselves the right to try. That's a life?  I am NOT the sole expression of capitalism.

I believe in the principle that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day That's not much. Next day, give him another fish. That can go on forever, but what s the gain to anybody?  Give a man a few lessons about how to fish, he feeds himself, and then can do do likewise for another. That's pure capitalism.

Look at the complaints you've racked up, all excuses about how unfair the rich are. So, go be rich. That's it. But it has to be your decision, and your commitment. But, when you're rich, give back. Not all rich do that, either, and that's what you complain about. So, don't be like them. But don't complain that the whole system is rigged, either. It isn't. To each their own, and that applies to what you do with your money, doesn't it. Be rich, and be charitable, but do the latter with more effort than just giving money. Charity is not giving money away, it is the pure love of Christ. It is hope for a better world, and doing something about it.

bullshytye. Greed is a loser's game. Greed is applying all the wrong methods of capitalism. I give 20% of my increase to charity, but I pick them. And I never , ever buy anything over the phone, including charity, or at the door. Never. My spending is entirely by my choice and my need or want. And never when it exceeds my budget. MY budget. Capitalism, when worked fairly, honestly, and generously, is the best system on earth, bar none. Anybody could do it, but few do. And then they complain about the rich. It's simple: decide to be rich, and go do it. Is that so hard? Actually, it is. You have to get out of your own, lazy way, and that is a major obstacle.

"Total failure" would mean that everyone in America who practices capitalism fails [we all don't, by the way. I mean PRACTICE, as in, it is a daily enterprise, not an occasional hit-miss. Can everybody do it? No. Many are too greedy, invest poorly and with no discipline. Most do not engage it at all as it could be practiced. By that, I mean that most people work for money. Got to a job for which they are paid hourly/salary. And that's it; they have no other revenue stream. I don't work for anybody on a continuous basis. I work, but it's my company, and it has been for over twenty years. I'm sole proprietor. I decide who I do work for, and they pay me. In addition, I make my money go to work for me [investment], and I'm diversified. Real estate, stocks, mutual funds, etc. That's the majority of my revenue stream. But I'm disciplined about it, as noted above. I've been doing that for over 50 years, starting when I was 16. My father taught me three things: ambition, planning, and execution. I'm better at it than he was. He started late, and gave me a head start. Anyone can do it, but few do. So, go ahead. Work for the man. Work for money, and complain you're not making it, and the world is not fair. Yes, it is. But you have to know when to hold ;em, when to fold 'em. It's a better way, it's legal, and it's mine.

What does child labor haver to do with pure capitalism? That was greed, which is a downfall of capitalism. See my post above.

Is that why there has never been a successful socialist system in its history [the record is USSR at about 70 years, but the average is about 40 years, such as Venezuela],  while the most successful capitalist system is the USA, at over 230 years, and counting? If course there are winners ands losers. But who's fault is that? Not the system. When I gambled [I don't anymore - it lost the thrill] I never, ever gambled more than 1% of my net worth. Usually, $100 was played of my money, Anything I won, went in my pocket and never came out again. When hte $100 was gone, if it was, I stepped away. I invest by a similar tactic, although the percentage has risen a bit, but the same principle applies. I simply do not lose long term. It's called discipline

Age? Too young to know what's going on.

Check the citation I gave to Edge, look at both of them

Relative to betting, there's knowledge and there's ignorance. I play cards,  but I rarely gamble because I can count cards, and not only know what I hold, but can pretty well guess what's in others' hands. It's cheating, so I don't do it when betting money, but I am [was] a professional statistician  - a Six Sigma Black Belt. 

AIDS did not cause social separation, and the like?

https://clas.ucdenver.edu/nhdc/sites/default/files/attached-files/entry_147.pdfNote the commentary from citation [15] relative to the royals, nobles, and peasants, and then tell me that more careful segregation did not occur. And, while you're at it,  you might note from whence came the plague to Europe to initiate the Black Plague, in citation [10]. History repeats when we ignore it.

Funny, coming from a ten-year-old at the time. 1M people still have HIV/AIDS today. 700K have died. By the time you were 10, the U.S. had travel restrictions prohibiting people with AiDS from coming here. How do you think we knew how to distinguish? For men in your age group, AIDS was the leading cause of death. And you're certain in the 15th century, nobles didn't segregate themselves? Do a little research, Draft. I invented nothing.

More evidence that it was not a star [probably was either planetary conjunction, a comet, or a nova], and certainly more evidence with other events [the coincidental tax/census decree of Caesar Augustus, and the notation of shepherds watching their flocks in the field], that point to the birth of Christ being in the Spring, late March to mid-April.

1. The Augustinian tax decree, with associated census [In the earliest Greek N.T. texts, the word employed is ἀπογράφω [a-po-gra'-fo], or "taking inventory"] was in the spring, according to extant Egyptian papyri. The Egyptians were better, more exacting record keepers than just about anybody else at the time. The record indicate that the Roman tax/census was conducted at the time in the spring. 

2. Shepherds did not "watch their flocks" all year long in the night. They did it in the spring; lambing season. Thus, the traditional reference to Christ as "the Lamb of God"

3. Why do you think our tax season is... in the spring? Coincidence? The ancients by that era, at least, also used a calendar, and had accounting tables, and figured in terms of seasons [quarters], did year-end inventories, all that. Wait another season, and, voila, tax season.

Yes, but everyone seemed satisfied with a negative test result, in spite of the fact that the test may not have been as current, or as accurate as needed to assure the test result still held. It was, in effect, an admitted immunity; i.e., one claimed to be free of AIDS, ergo be the hungered creature in the sheets

The said AIDS test negative result.

Did I mention an 'event?' Show me the word in my post; I'll tell you what event to which I don't refer.

But, the question remains: what of voter i.d. if a Covid passport is so appealing, and why isn't that [voter i.d.] an event worth having?

Do you have your Covid-19 Immunity Passport? Well, do you? 

Are you one of the progressive elites who will soon demand that we each have one in order to be an acceptable member of society? Elite society? A society able to move about in society, travel, hob-nob, eat indoors in restaurants in NYC, party... and whatnot? Do I hear whispered echoes of a similar "passport" from 30 years ago when you were worried about AIDS in a sexual frenzy that suddenly went cold turkey until you had proof of clearance from that plague? What do you want to bet that some elites in the 15th century had such "passports" to prove immunity from the Black Plague?

Yup. I hear your elite passport scanning apps on your smartphones coming down the pipe; lighting you up like Christmas trees.

So, why are you same people so averse to having proof [a "passport"] for voter i.d.? Hmmmm?

I concur. And RM had the winning username in my book. Very rational, in a face-pounding mild way [contradictory?] No, not in a multi-folded universe of numberless dimensions, and certainly a madman in all the right respects. In many ways though I never said it, I though of RM much like the troubling mad hermit who comes out of the mountain with a lantern, proclaiming "I seek God," and daring you to demonstrate same: the Nietzsche character.

Trump is not that influential, and I suspect the universe has not a single care for the politics of one country of 200 on one world in the suburbs of our backwater galaxy.

Ohio backed both the winner and the loser???? Nope. 

Don't know where that came from. Here's the reality of OH consistency of voting for the President:

1944 FDR over Dewey                                 but OH voted for Dewey                                                         

1948 Truman over Dewey                          you missed this one                                     

1952 Eisenhower over Stevenson          you missed this one

1956 Eisenhower over Stevenson

1960 Kennedy of Nixon                              but OH voted for Nixon

1964 Johnson over Goldwater                you missed this one

1968 Nixon over Humphrey                     you missed this one

1972 Nixon over McGovern        

1976 Carter over Ford

1980 Reagan over Carter by 500K        [this review does not include variation of incumbent v non-incumbent, just that OH voted for the successful candidate, or not.        

1984 Reagan over Mondale

1988 Bush over Dukakis.                         you missed this one    

1992 Clinton over Bush

1996 Clinton over Dole

2000 Bush over Gore                                you missed this one

2004 Bush over Kerry

2008 Obama over McCain                     you missed this one

2012 Obama over  Romney

2016 Trump over Clinton                      you missed this one

2020 Trump over Biden                          but OH voted for Trump

Since, and including 1944, there have been 20 presidential elections. OH voted for the elected president in 17 of them, that's 85%, not 60%. Yes, you missed a few elections; 8 of them

But your string of elections determined that OPH accuracy was only 60%, not 85, and no, you've misinterpreted. I find 85% a pretty accurate result, and remarkable considering OH's political ups and downs, as you noted.

Yes. I slipped a decimal, but that makes it worse. I four years, a 21% error rate fell to 3%, with a 10X increase in number of ballots? And that makes sense to you? AS I told HistoryBuff, there were detailed instructions in the 2016 election, too, so there's no valid justification for a 10X improvement. Ignoring condition of ballots, ignoring signature verification, and changing voting rules without the benefit of the state legislature make more sense, and all that happened.

Yeah, never-Trumpers. Might as well be Democrats.

I thought that argument would be tried. It's an easy assumption, but, unfortunately, it won't wash. 2016 had very careful instructions sent to every registered voter in 2016, and yet, the 2016 error rate was 7x the 2020 error rate.

Nope. Blatantly wrong. Not an assumption. We have the numbers available to anyone who wants to see them Look. I did.

nope. Lame excuse. You've ignored that that pattern of voting for Biden vs Trump includes the fact that mail-in republican votes has 21% of republicans voting for Biden, compared to 5% with in-person voting. You really believe that difference is real? Just because of mail-in v. in person? Pardon my laugh machine.

I predicted ypu would not want to do that. But I also invited you to look it yourself. You have not. That's on you.

Election Conspiracy Theory
 
One might think I am going to debunk presidential  election conspiracy theories as a sudden reversal of my known thinking with regard to this presidential election season. No. I have thought, still think, and will continue to think Joe Biden is the worst presidential candidate since Hillaryous Balloon Girl. Neither one are anything to shout about, truth be told. Neither had the sense to conduct an expected campaign, and it is hard to tell which had more absurd ideas on running the country.
While, with Hillaryous, I merely shook my head for the stupidity of putting your opponent’s name smack in the middle of your campaign [remember Love Trumps Hate?], I laughed constantly at Hiden’ Biden’s forced, repetitive faux pas, even avowing, at one point, twice, that he was running for U.S. Senate, not to mention the also twice-repeated mantra that he was to be in the Harris administration. Another killer was his claim that he would beat Joe Biden. Of course, the MSM quickly came to his defense: he did not say “beat Joe Biden,” but said he would “be Joe Biden.” I thought that was worse; who was he, then, if he was not Joe Biden? The Grinch? The amalgam of the Three Stooges? Something like that.
 
But, no, that’s not it, either. I tire of Joe’s continuous demonstration of his listless mind. I accept it: Hidin’ Biden is senile, at best.
 
First election conspiracy theory is simple: No one can describe why, in the string of the last 14 presidential elections [back to FDR in 1944] Ohio has backed the elected President in all but 2 elections [remember, Ford was never directly elected; he took over when Nixon resigned from his 1972 re-election in 1974 – so he was never directly elected, and lost to Carter in 1976], FDR to Trump’s re-election, Ohio backed the loser only twice: Nixon in 1960, and Trump in 2020. That is a remarkable string of predictable election behavior that baffles statistical probability, particuarly since every state in the country has swapped blue/red often. I know; I am  Six Sigma Black Belt. I breathe statistics.
 
Second election conspiracy: In PA, 2016, there were some 200K mail-in ballots; the first time PA flirted with mail-in ballots. IN 2020, PA had 2.5M mail-in ballots, a >100-fold increase. Of course, all lazily point to Covid-19 imposed restrictions, but the same restrictions applied to OH, FL, and other states coincidentally won by Trump, and states who have longer experience with mail-in balloting, and who had not near the troubles PA had with handling their over-bearing increase in this ballot type. What makes this conspiracy particularly troubling for Democrats to explain is why, with all the troubles of PA’s novice effort, their percentage of erroneous, discarded ballots dropped significantly from 2016, which was in the 20th percentile of erroneous ballot discards, whereas 2020, with a 100-fold increase in mail-in ballots, the erroneous, discarded ballots dropped to just 3% of the total number of ballots cast. Explain that phenomenon, Democrats. It also baffles statistical probability.
 
Third election conspiracy: In PA, the count of same-day election ballots plus absentee ballots [not the same as mail-in ballots, as the mail-ins were not requested, they were just sent out] resulted in an election that Trump won at 48.2% to Hillaryous 47.5% - a 0.7% spread.  The 2020 election result of just those ballots resulted in a similar spread, also favoring Trump, wherein 95% of Republicans voted for Trump and 5% for Hillaryous. However, the mail-in ballots resulted in a much larger spread for Biden wherein we are expected to believe that 21% of registered Republicans switched their vote to Biden, and only 79% voted for Trump. Statistically, the comparison of same-day/absentee to mail-in is, as well, baffling to statistical probability.
 
Are we beginning to see a trend?  There’s more, but that’s enough for now to get you started. I am purposely leaving off my researched sources. I want you to find them yourselves. I’ll tell you now, you will not find them in MSM; not if you only read headlines, which is the extent of much of the research I see hear. No, don’t look on Fox, either. I didn’t. Nor on Newsmax, where many Former Foxers went. Sorry, it’s the truth. I’m inclined to think you will not do it anyway. It isn’t that I have more time on my hands than many of you – and I do - it’s that you don’t care to be shown the facts. Therefore, find them yourselves. Maybe then you’ll believe them. Either you care, or you don’t. 

Me too.

>> Stephen

Is it "on par?" That claim would entirely depend upon the relative condition of the people acted upon by God and Stalin, wouldn't it? As "victims" of God and Stalin's relative actions, their actions would only be on par relative to the peoples' conditions the two affected. In the case of the people of the five cities God destroyed, they were not following the laws of man or God; they were unrighteous whoremongers, uncharitable, unloving of anything but themselves, and even contended with one another, seeking advantage over one another, backbiting, indifferent. They were bad people getting worse, endangering their own eternal conditions, courting their own eternal damnation. IOn effect, God did them a favor, but I doubt you even understand what that means. Look at it this way: these were people who, in spite of parental urging to stop touching a hot stove burner, continuously doing damage to themselves. Having tried all other avenues of approach, God removed them from the stove. 

Now, let's look at the people Stalin destroyed. He first usurped their freedom, then all other individual rights. He virtually turned them into slaves of his personal volition. What harm has these people done to Stalin, but to try to maintain their lives of simple pleasures and hard work, just to get by. These were not evil people. There's a stark difference between these beaten-down people, beaten by Stalin and his henchmen, and the people of the five cities of the plain, beating against themselves.

I'm actually a horrible speller; interesting given my other profession, writing, but, that's why I keep the OED near me at all times. However, there are flaws with even that device. Just as dictionaries are poor teachers of culture, they also tend to be poor providers of spelling. In order to find the spelling of a word, you must know how to spell it.

I'll agree relative to the unknown; it's entirely possible. I suppose it's even possible relative to the known universe, except that we do not observe the direction of expansion as flowing from our position.

I'll admit to being a bit cynical when it comes to academia, but I'm intrigued by your ability to draw God into even a discussion that might not be the first thing one thinks relevant to the discussion. I'll agree that God is in and about everything that exists/ I revere Him as our literal Father, that we are His literal children, and that He represents the ideal we should all try to achieve. If I don't mention it later, have a merry Christmas!

I'll bite.

Which "statement?" the first, your string title, "God and the BoP" isn't really a statement, is it? It's an incomplete sentence architecture, lacking a verb. "Religious people bear the BoP." Well, that's a statement, on it's own, but "religious people bear the BoP" of what? That they bear a BoP? And the argument is meant to deny that religious people bear a BoP?

Okay: Religious people do not bear a BoP. Now, what is it about God that there should be reference by argument for or against?

I'm attacking your architecture. Please be more concise. I see by response that most think the BoP is to prove God, or not. But I'm not certain you know what you're asking.

I'l note, for the record, that you've not provided any "base" either. I'm just not the one beating the dead horse about it. As I said, why should I believe you? 

And you do not. I get it. So what?

That made me laugh - thanks. I love making light of cereal box degrees. In fact, I have a very dim view of academics in higher education, even though I have two PhDs [History and English Lit]. Don't know if you know the original movie "Ghostbusters" [Dan Aykroid and Bill Murray starred in it, 1987, I think] They play two professors with financial grants to do paranormal studies, but their university cancels the grants. Murray is totally "laissez-faire" about their misfortune, but Aykroid says: "I've been in the private sector. They expect results!" That's my frank opinion about the value of a college education. College attempts to teach one how to think [it used to, any way], but I'm not certain it even does that, anymore.   Just a minor correction: that's cereal, pronounced as an 's.'  But, I get what you meant, as I do with virtually all your posts. Well done, my friend.

Before Galileo in 1610, we could see, with unaided eye, about 6,000 light-years from our position on earth, which is about 3% of the expanse of the Milky Way, from which center we now know is 26,000 light-years distant from us [therefore, not at it's center, either] let alone the rest of the universe. Does that mean that before Galileo, that [6,000 light-years] was the size of the universe, and we were definitively at its center? Don't be absurd.

You expect that I give away the store? Use the R-word [research]

All the languages on earth in which you are not natively fluent. Natively, as in by birth. You can only be native in a single language unless you parents of natively of two separate languages, and they both teach you their native tongue. Not even naturalization counts as contributor to a native tongue.

Mr. U is not natively of the English lexicon. However, his use of English, I'll wager, is better than your use of his native language. That is why I slapped you for playing games with his syntactic use. Don't need to belittle otehrs when their fluency in your language is not as fluent as you would prefer. You may not agree with what he says, but don't criticize how it is said.

And yes, Newton's chair is known earlier as Lucas' chair, but more recently as Newton's chair. I am aware of Henry Lucas, but Newton is the chair's more famous occupant. And isn't it more correctly called the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, anyway? 

And who says they are baseless conspiracies? You? Does a laugh track come with that?

The alternate idiot running with Hidin' Biden

Is it a conspiracy theory that 17 states have joined the Texas v GA/GA/MI/WI lawsuit, including PA? And this lawsuit is not about your so-called  conspiracy theories. It's about states changing their voting rules without the proper changes through legislation. Neither governors nor secty's of state are part of their state legislatures.

Yes,  I erred. Different results, but my argument still stands. You should have been around in January of 1610 when Galileo announced the heresy that Jupiter's moons had the audacity to orbit Jupiter instead of Earth. The Church, then the Second Estate, and, for the masses, virtually the First Estate, threw Galileo into house arrest for his audacity to belittle Earth. Oops. The Church's authority, notwithstanding, was pitifully in error. An honest, unbiased investigation will find the same in the 2020 vote. The recounts were not that.

Bottom line, you have the freedom of your beliefs. You've no proof that these so-called voting events did not happen. 

Not to mention that, when it all shakes out, Joe Biden is not your President. He's already caving to the idea that it will be Kammie Harris. He even said it during the campaign. At least twice. Oh, boy, won't that be a laugh a second

We're supposed to believe that re-counting by the same method as the original count is supposed to yield the same result? Einstein had a word to say about that: insanity.

Same chair. Semantics. What you don 't see is just have the problem. My point is you don't mock someone's use of a non-native tongue. Compare your skill in that tongue, and see how well you're received. The other guy's shoes are more difficult to fill that your own. Respect that.

So, what's wrong with the stereotype of gender. Y'all have so many of them, they can spread the wealth around, yeah? I don't buy P.C, and do not cave to it as a necessary restriction. Freedom of speech, yeah? Means what it says, PC be damned.

You, you, and you [I think that means you] brought up Kammie Harris; not me. That lays her open to discussion, doesn't it. I know her history, and it is entirely the creation of Willie Brown. Sorery; that's fact. How she got it is also history, and that's a fact. You choose to call it sexist; that's on you. 

Your opinion does not understand what treason is. Are dead people allowed to vote? Are people allowed to vote more than once? Are people allowed to vote in more than one state? How do you count more votes than there are registered voters? How do states change their election rules without the benefit of their legislators doing it?  How are votes on ballots changed? 

But, none of that happened, did it? And Punter Biden did nothing, and neither did his fawning father, did they? But, DJ Jr? He did it all, didn't he?

Still? Nope. Not miffed. And, yeah, panties. It fits. Many who complain use a common theme: lol. It means frightened little girl.

Yeah, and that does not change the fact that most you call tyrannical are only so because you oppose them. It's getting old.

Kamala? Really? She changes her stand so frequently because she's usually not standing to get ahead. I'm from California. I know Kammie Harris. Spent most of her time under Willie Brown, or she'd still be a struggling ambulance chaser.. And I do mean under, yeah?

Why Mr. U? While I have great respect for the gentleman, I tend to have greater trust in this realm in whoever occupies Newton's Chair; currently, Mr. Green, I believe, replacing Mr. Hawking in 2009.

yeah, according to MSM, who cannot seem to take him off center. What's their problem? Trump has them by the short curlies, only, it's not his hand. Simply a case of auto-premature efactulation. Pathetic.