Total posts: 4,363
Posted in:
Okay, Biden supporters, do you want to make a valid apology for Joe Biden? Something like he really did not say, "Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly diverse attitudes about different things," https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/06/joe-biden-latino-african-american-remark-392354. like he didn't really say a few weeks ago that he would BEAT Joe Biden? Go ahead: here's you open mike. Tell me he did not say something that, if Trump said it, you'd immediately accuse him of being a racist. You do, anyway. But, this quote is by Joe BNiden, just like he said a few weeks ago, "You ain't black" if you don't vote for Joe. How many times must he hit you over the head before you realize his mouth mirrors his brain, and Biden's brain is the Dems worst disaster.
I'll predict what you're going to say, and it will begin with, "But Trump..."
Go ahead, because instead of making a valid rebuttal, the last argument of a lost cause is personal attack. You cannot, and will not apologize for Joe Biden by trashing Donald Trump. Make a valid argument FOR Joe Biden. He'll never do it himself. He needs you, but he can trash Trump himself. It's all he can do; he doesn't have another strategy. Don't be stupid like Joe.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
People die because they didn't take a vaccine
That is their choice. The vaccine is not denied to them, typically, is it? Therefore, as you say, people die because they don't take a vaccine. But people die when they do, as well. Vaccines are not 100% effective, but that is nobody's fault. Death happens. Life ends, and, sometimes, you just don't have a body to hang for and because of it. Shyte happens, yeah? Get over it.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Having a president saying that free speech should be illegal is rather disturbing though.
As an alleged history expert, so knowledgeable regarding constitutional issues, such as the freedom of speech, you do know that a freedom such as that comes with limitations of responsibility, such as libel ad slander. Your freedom ends at the limit of the truth. You cannot say whatever the hell you want without embracing the consequences. Freedom is not, never was, and never will be free of responsibility. Be disturbed. That is your right, too. Be offended. But censure is not your proper response.
Created:
-->
@Vader
You could tax the wealthy at 100%, "not just a little more," and on their tax increase, alone, the government could not be funded longer than six months per year, if that. That's at current spending. Increase spending for all the Dem hairbrained programs that amount to more entitlement, and the US goes broke, even if the middle class and the poor have taxes raised.
Created:
Then under the Debate/Argumentation policy in the Help Center, what is your interpretation of this phrase: "The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate?" To me, this says if there are x-number of rounds in a debate, determined by the instigator, there better be x-number of arguments, and not one less due to waive. This forbids waived rounds, yet they are allowed. If my interpretation is not corect, what does this policy say?
Created:
-->
@Barney
I disagree that waiving an argument round is a voting function. No, it is clearly an action taken during the debate argument phase, and the debate argument phase already says the the number of arguments [which can be presentation of argument, rebuttal, defense or conclusion] equal the number of rounds, which means to me that the number of arguments would not equal the number of rounds if there was a waived round, but a few disagree with me, so I think the concept needs to have clear definition in the argumenmt phase that waiving a round shall not be done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm such a dick because you keep insisting that using artificial sensors makes our natural sensors more effective. NO!!!. Don't you get it, yet? WE do not do the sensing of our artificial sensors. THEY do. We merely collect the data and interpret it. We have no means of natural enhancement. If we did not have the tech, there is no natural enhancement. That other animals have senses we do not share is obvious, yet, you claim infrared sensing is just touch? Not until a bat's lips make physical contact with a victim's hide is touch involved, yet they sense the blood vessel BEFORE the touch. It's an entirely different sense than touch, which touch will positively confirm, when that happens, but we do not share the pre-touch sensation, regardless. Same with magnetic field and echo location.
You cannot convince me directly of what you see. The best you can do is photograph, or draw what you see, and you present that interpretation of your sight to me. And by that artificial means, am I convinced that you see what I see directly? No. Same with your other personal senses. And yet, you can accuse that after 60 years, I cannot prove my faith? Sorry, bud, but you cannot prove the five senses you have and agree I have, either.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Since human behavior is virtually impossible to legislate and expect 100% compliance, I suggest a utopian society will not result until human behavior overcomes individual motivation to maintain and advantage their personal power, pride, or possession at the expense of others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Because I'm not really clear on what you're referring to. Can you clarify? The sense of blood vessels beneath skin, do you mean like a predator's natural predilection to grab by the neck?
Ah, so the science escapes you? No, it is not merely instinct that a predator capable of doing so goes for the neck. As it happens, the vampire bat can sense the location of blood vessels anywhere in the body of a victim. It is merely fictitious legend that a bat turned humanoid vampire always goes for the neck of a victim. Look it all up; I readily tire of doing it for you.
My point with the technology ....
Yeah, I already read your point, which still ignores that even with our tech, we do not do the sensing, which is key to making use of senses, those that we have. We merely interpret the data produced by artificial sensors, but I repeat myself. How many more times is that necessary?
Please lay out the rules
Ah, these rules escape you, too? Too bad. I've laid them out before, in this Forum, and in Debate. Go find them. I'm not, as stated, into continuous repetition. I so tire of lazy research.
A hint: start by reading the Holy Bible, Epistle to the Hebrews. The whole bloody epistle, all chapters. Reading the entire book is revealing. Yeah, the whole bloody thing.. I've done it in three languages, so don't tell me its exhaustive. Then, consult the Book of Mormon, Alma 32 - 35, and Moroni, 10, the entire chapters as noted for both books. That will give you a turn of the spade in the earth you must dig to understand what faith is, and how wrong your allegations are concerning it. Look, I've spent over 60 years in its practice. You think this is an over-night transition? Pathetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Respectfully, that's a load of crap.
You ignore that these animals have these direct senses naturally, and, no, echo location is not simply hearing. Our hearing is imprecise. We can generally sense gross directional capability. Very gross. In animals with the capability, they sense, without sight, exact location, typically of prey. That's very different from our hearing. I note you do not equate the sense of blood vessels beneath skin and animal hide. To what do you attribute that as a human sense, other than by our tech. Yes, ourt technology allows us to duplicate many of these natural senses other animals have, but it is our artificial sensors, not our natural ones, doing the sensing. We interpret the data and that's the end of it. We do not personally sense the world as other animals have extended natural senses but by our natural five. Plus faith, but one must know how faith operates to understand its sensation. You obviously have never tried. It has rules, and they must be followed. Your histrionics about delusion notwithstanding.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
History is still not your friend. Never has been.
You argue that polls ought to be avoided in singular, but rather an average of them should tell the tale. But if the polls all have flawed methodologies [the very 5 subjects I discussed as flaws in pol polls in my #13], then the averaging of those polls does not improve the stats accuracy. No silk if its a sow.
Your own referenced poll's [https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1214a22020Election.pdf ] methodology was shot to hell, as well:
1. Insufficient sample size
2. Excessive moe
3. Wrong target sampling [registered voters]
4.D to R = 30 to 24%. The skew does matter, and polling agencies can equalize the sampling. I note you did not source your claim of more Ds than Rs, and you cannot because some states do not reveal their registration rolls. But, the number of samples can still be equalized, but they usually are not. Pick a better poll to match your agenda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
In its current form, no. But I am suggesting eternity does not have a beginning. The two terms are incompatible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mediumone
There are animals endowed with senses of echo location, earth's magnetic field, other objects magnetic fields, sense of electrical current in other animals, photoreceptors sensitive to patterns to which other animals are blind, cavitation [look it up], sensation of temperature difference under skin or hide to identify blood vessels, infrared vision, sense of ground vibration through feet to triangulate origin of sound, sensation of earth's magnetic field to specifically locate north. All these different animals also share our five senses. And you think we are limited to our five? That's delusional.
Created:
What you're all ignoring about political polls are their inherent inaccuracy.
1. Until around September of any presidential election year, they are based on registered voters, of whom, historically [the last 40 years], only 58% actually vote. Likely voters is the proper target.
2. The MoE of these polls is typically in excess of ±3%, Too large a margin of error.
3. There are typically too few people polled, typically no more than 1,000 which reduces accuracy. Another half again is sufficient.
4. There are typically too many questions. Professional sampling cautions having more than 10 questions. Beyond that, people get bored.
5. Democrat/Republican respondents are generally weighted with more Ds than Rs. Skewed results.
Fix those, you make pol polls more accurate. But which agency will do that? They all have an agenda that works in their favor. They're not going to change it. So, don't depend on them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If only there were a beginning; a concept to which only finite minds adhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Having fun with premature efactulation? I've read Josephus, thank you, and have read it in Greek, his natural tongue, as it was for most scholars of the first century.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@wlowsi9
And let's face it. Believing that Jesus is alive is idiosyncratic and contradicted by reality or rational argument, to say the least.
Your definition notwithstanding, I can just as easily challenge you to demonstrate that your skepticism has merit, and that you can demonstrate by empiric evidence that Christ does not exist. Go ahead; show me.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Thanks for adding the google.doc file. I've never used it, so I'm not sure if my edits were saved properly. When I went to save it, all I was offered was share, so I shared it with you. Hope that worked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
To be fair to Democrats, historically, they've only favored pre-birth abortion, which would not, therefore, fit the description of infanticide. However, their new stripe does allow for post-birth, which does meet the definition of infanticide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
your claim of verbal diarrhea:
1. abortion is a choice primarily of democrats, of whom 91% support it. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
2. of 27 of the largest U.S. cities having protest violence chiefly over the death of George Floyd, 24 [89%] are Democrart-lead cities.https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/47752/is-there-currently-riots-looting-only-in-democrat-cities-in-the-usa
Like I said, the slaughter is happening now, and it is in the face of Black Lives Matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Not to mention that democrats are slaughtering themselves right now; they cannot wait for November. Curious how an affinity for abortion spreads like a viral infection to perform so many post-birth abortions by gun in democrat-run cities and states. Want to explain that rationale? While Black Lives Matter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Preaching to the choir again - more evidence history is not your friend.
Show me where I said I don't wear a mask. But you're getting freaking paranoid. Go out and buy your body suit.
Created:
I just cast a spell from The Book of Shadows, and now I am immune, but the rest of you should get off the internet and stay off - the virus is attracted to hard-wire and wireless
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Here's your ensured safety:
1. Wrap foil around your head
2. Wear a fully sealed body suit.
3. Stay at home in your basement.
4. Stay off the internet. The virus is attracted to wireless and hard-wire.
4. Come out when we tell you it's all clear..
The rest of us: conveniently forget we gave these instructions.
My name is Donald Trump, and I approve this message.
Created:
I propose an edit to the “Debates” section of DART Help Center to clarify vague description currently in use. First, I recommend striking the line immediately beneath the section heading: **Outdated** since there is no total replacement that is apparently forthcoming. Mods should either make the “outdated” changes, or accept the text as is, pending this proposal.
This proposal will use the MS Word method of text editing, ie:
Text = unedited text remains as
Stricken text = strikethrough proposes stricken text
Added text = underline proposes added text. [I apologize; my original document actually had strikethrough and underline of text, but it did not translate here. I suggest the actual text, if proposal is accepted by the Mods, and community, represented by italics here, be demonstrated strikethrough and underlined] I have numbered the paragraphs strictly for current purposes to assess the proposal. I do not suggest the policy have numbered paragraphs
.
Proposed text of Help Center, Debates, The argumentation [based on above text methods]:
・The argumentation
1. The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate. All rounds contain arguments consisting of any or all of the following: argumentation, rebuttals, defenses, conclusions, and, as appropriate, references to sourcing. Instigator may designate specific content in each round, such as limiting rounds in which argumentation, rebuttal, defense, and conclusions are contained.
2. Waiving any round by suggestion of either participant is not allowed. The stipulation of arguments equaling the number of rounds prevails. Instigator has the privilege, and responsibility, of having the first argument of each round and may not abdicate it by suggestion in the Description entered during the challenge phase.
3. It is recommended for ease of voting that sourcing references be contained within the body of text, at the bottom of each relevant argumentation round, However, for brevity if word/space count is limiting, it is acceptable to document sourcing references in comments within the context of the debate file, but only during the argumentation phase. It s suggested that sourcing not be in an external file by linkage as this causes even greater complication of time for voters, and may result in their negative conduct assessment.
4. When a participant’s argument round is not published by the deadline, the participant automatically forfeits that round and most likely will be punished by the voters. If the number of forfeited rounds for either participant equals or exceeds half the rounds, it is an automatic voted loss of the debate. The opposing participant may indicate “extend argument to next round” in the event an opponent forfeits a round, or, a continuation of argumentation may be entered and published.
5. In any round, either participant may concede the debate. That participant may either abandon the debate at that point [automatic forfeit of each round], or indicate “concede” in each succeeding round[s]. The opposing participant may either continue argumentation in each succeeding round, or indicate “extend argument” in each succeeding round. In any case, concession, without recourse of re-consideration, is a voted loss of the debate.
6. When all arguments have been published, the debate goes into [the previous two italic words are strikethrough] automatically enters the next stage, voting.
7. Neither debate participant may directly suggest voting tactics to voters during argumentation, or in comments. The entry of text such as, “I have proven my argument of [enter brief description] by virtue of [enter brief description]" is acceptable.
8. Neither debate participant may declare victory over the opponent in any round preceding the last round as it may invite conduct violation by voters. It is a conduct violation in forfeiture because the opponent may not assume a round forfeiture is complete debate forfeiture. In the last round, victory may be suggested, but only by commentary such as suggested in the preceding paragraph of this section. This policy will be followed in the instance of forfeiture or concession as a manner of courtesy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@swows9
I don't know where Jesus lives, which is not evidence that he does not [have a domicile, or that he lives]
I have not met Jesus [I presume you mean "in the flesh"] Neither does this demonstrate that he is not meetable in the flesh. Neither have I ever met Jack Kennedy, though I did meet his brother Bobby, who spoke of Jack in loving memory - not that either are any proof of Jesus, in case you ask]
I detect Jesus Christ by faith, an operable sense in every respect as the other five we depend upon, and similar to the senses other animals have, such as echo location and magnetic field, neither of which appear to be among the set humans demonstrate. It's just that some have no awareness of faith as a sense, much like some lack vision, or smell. Demonstrate that you have the sense of smell. By empiric proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@swows9
And nor have you or anybody else living
I might ask that you demonstrate the evidence for that statement, but I already know what the response would be. I will offer that though you see the effect of wind, you have not seen it, and have not personally interacted intelligently with it. Do you, therefore, deny the existence of wind? You feel it. But that is not always limited to just an emotional experience. Let me just suggest that you, personally, do not speak for the rest of us, collectively. You speak for you. Leave it at that.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If that were true, you could choose to lower those standards
I'll wager you're a fan of min wage. Low-ball goal, as this statement certainly supports. Why would I lower my standards for any reason? I choose to impose high standards on myself because I bear total responsibility to my customers for my production for them. Look, you probably also believe in the old quality standard that the producer defines quality, and the customer accepts it, or doesn't. NO! Bad policy. The customer defines quality. Always, always, always. Exceed their standards, always, always, always. So, if I have a customer who demands higher standards than I impose on myself, I either raise my standards, or refuse the work. Meanwhile, the gov't standard in down there somewhere under our feet.
But 1st we have to get the corrupt, right wing oligarchs out of power.
More limitations you impose on yourself. Look, I didn't care that left wing oligarchs were sometimes in my way: Carter, Clinton, Oba'a. I worked through them and over them. It's not about your oligarch's of whatever stripe. It's about YOU. Get up, shut up, and get to work.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
No, you don't get me at all. I don't work for somebody else. I am my company. Get it now? And my standards are higher than any government regulation. I AM NOT REGULATED to any degree higher than I regulate myself. I set the rules. I obey my own rules. Anybody with half a rod and half a brain with ambition, planning and execution can do it. Then there are those who complain tat the system is not fair to them. Make the system. You still don't get it, do you?
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
There's a fly in your soup: God has a Father, and so does that Father, etc, into the eternal past and into the eternal future, because we, mortal humans, are destined for eternal progression in which we, too, taking appropriate steps along the way, ultimatery are gods, ourselves, begetting children who will become gods, etc. It's a much easier concept to swallow than time, forms and beginnings and endings.
However, I do not view the form as linear, I imagine eternal lines in all coordinates of no form whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@wlws9
Yeah, yeah, Richard Dawkins. Let me tell you about Professor Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins never met Christ. What Dawkins has decided concluded as has Christopher Hitchins: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.’” This is a famously irrelevant argument since they both misunderstands the scope of evidence available. For the first clause, Dawkins is looking in a candy jar for a proper diet, and concludes that nutrition is a myth. Either nutrition is a proven necessity for sustenance of a meaningful and enduring life, or it must be acknowledged that candy is not nutritious. For the concluding clause, he is crying for evidence when laughing that evidence is immaterial if dismissal was always the intent. Either evidence, observation, and experimentation, elements my opponent suggested are revered as the proof of truth, or its dismissal without evidence, observation, or experimentation [all three must be applied, not just one, or two] is an act of ignorance.
I conclude that Dawkins is either malnourished, at best, or starving, at worst.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
of course they do. They regulate how many hours you can work.
You have entirely missed my whole point. The gov't regulates nothing in my work. I am unfettered, but then, I don't work for anybody but me, and I set my hours and days, what I produce, and when and how, because I don't work for money; it works for me. It would work for you, too, but you're tied to Oba'a who expected you never to succeed, and, voila, you don't. What a surprise. Like I said; get rid of that guy who is limiting you. The you occupying you now. You don't have to admit you are mesmerized by Oba'a; it's obvious. You keep drinking his economic principles as if they are some magic elixir, and repeating them.
The rest of your nonsense follows like a dutiful, but limited puppy.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
free market economies don't have governments picking winners and losers
Nonsense. "A free market economy is one where supply and demand regulate production and labor as opposed to the government." https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040915/what-are-some-examples-free-market-economies.asp. In the USA, the government does not regulate production and labor. Those decisions are made in the private sector. However, the "participatory budgeting" proposal of the Green New Deal would haver gov't embed itself in those decisions. Look it up. Thereforer, as of now, te US government allows a free-market system.
Does the government meddle in the economy, or is it a free market? It can't be both.
"Government highly control some economies. In planned economies, or command economies, the government controls the means of production and the distribution of wealth, dictating the prices of goods and services and the wages workers receive. In a free market economy, the law of supply and demand, rather than a central government, regulates production and labor. Companies sell goods and services at the highest price consumers are willing to pay while workers earn the highest wages companies are willing to pay for their services. A purely capitalist economy is a free market economy; the profit motive drives all commerce and forces businesses to operate as efficiently as possible to avoid losing market share to competitors." ibid.
Yes, even in a free market, there is some necessary gov't regulation. See US Constitution, Article I, section 8.
As the top 1% soak up more and more of the money, the middle and working class get slowly squeezed out.
You are mesmerized, still, by Oba'a, who effectivey tyold you the money supply is a finite commodity. He is wrong, as I explain4ed in my #111: "As long as we continue to have innovative people in both commodity/product development, you'll have growth. Argue for your limitations; they're yours, but don't impose them on anybody else."
Because the system is designed to reward those who are already wealthy and punish those who are not
According to you; a proven mudded stick believing he has limited potential when. I have offered examples that you are not limited by anyone or anything but yourself. Keep sucking on that teat. More for me, except, there is no limit, so less for you by choice. That's on you, bud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
and refused to wear one in public.
You need to figure out what constitutes Trump's "public." Anyone who will be in any proximity to Trump is tested. Daily. As he is. He lives in a cocoon.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Learned helplessness. Never heard the term, but I can easily guess what it's about. No one is naturally completely stupid; it is a learned behavior by not pushing the envelop of ignorance. Once learned, it becomes habit, and is even self-defeating by repeating the pattern - habits being that very thing. Am I close?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
america doesn't have a free market system
The hell it doesn't. It is the most successful free-market system in the world, and it is entirely open and available to anyone3 with the grit to be ambitious, plan, and execute. Period. Again, I remind you of Jeff Bezos. I don't like the guy much, don't like his politics, but he did it from nothing. He was not a silver-spoon kid. Ordinary middle class. Liker you and me. My advantage is that I do not buy that I am limited in my republic. Sorry about yours.
The government meddles in the market constantly.
What was meddling was Bush / Oba'a qualitative easement by the Fed printing funny money, and the Oba'a/Biden fiscal policy of cash for clunkers, et al. There's a term you ignore that has been a watchword of the Trump administration: De-regulation, meaning government getting out of the business of the private sector. Catch up, please, you're still mesmerized by Oba'a.
vast competition for dwindling resources.
Like I said, you're still mesmerized by Oba'a. Oba'a told you there comes a time when you have made enough money. WRONG!!!! There is no natural limit to the money supply. As long as we continue to have innovative people in both commodity/product development, you'll have growth. Argue for your limitations; they're yours, but don't impose them on anybody else.
The system is designed to reinforce the wealth of the rich, while punishing those without it.
The system doesn't need to punish anybody. The system welcomes people who are willing to be ambitious, plan and execute. It's the people who won't do those things who punish themselves, like you're punishing yourself, complaining that the rich are punishing you. So, be rich. What's stopping you? YOU, yourself, bud. I've had it telling you that. Yoiu obviously think you can't, so why should I keep telling you. If you're not willing to try, I can't help you. So, be punished. It's self-inflicted. Stop blaming everyone else. Or don't. It's entirely up to you. No one else will do it for you. Now, if that's punishing, that's too damn bad.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I understand the US is more prosperous than other countries, but that doesn't mean it's economy isn't fundamentally flawed
Once again [this is becoming habitual], history proves it is not your friend. Show me another economic system that has endured longer than America's free-market, capitalist system. Show me one. It isn't marxism/socialism.communism, because that string has never endured longer than 100 years, and typically it is far less. Average is 40 years. America? 230 years, and counting.
an economy that has been rigged to funnel as much money as possible to a tiny percentage of the population.
And I ask, again, what is stopping you from participating in that small percentage? I note your hesitation to respond to the question, because you are that stop. Get out of your own way. Break the mirror. Is that so hard you're afraid of it?
the economic problems are caused by both parties
No, they are caused by individuals who give up on themselves.
having a government run by, and for, the rich isn't freedom. It is tyranny.
No. Show me the last time you worked for somebody who was poor. SHOW ME!!!!! My God, this is not rocket science, but you get in your own way. MOVE!
Created:
-->
@thett3
Taxes need to go up. Especially on the rich
You will not be satisfied until 100% of my increase is taxed. Sorry, my efforts are not intended to be in support of the likes of people too lazy to support themselves. That is what it is: lazy. Too lazy to be educated for a more secure future than min wage. Too lazy to be ambitious enough to invest in themselves and their furture. Too lazy to expect to be self-sufficient.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Fascinating history you have. Unfortunately, the only remaining continent [other than Antarctica] to which I have never been is Africa and I regret never having been there, particularly Egypt, because I have fluency in Egyptian hieroglyphs. But Africa is a continent of such varied cultures, and culture is one thing I am in huge favor of celebrating, not denigrating. We humans have developed such diversity, it is a bloody shame we cannot ignore our minor physical differences in favor of what makes us so diverse. Our beauty is expressed in every country. I would think our creativity would be celebrated rather than trying to force our behavior into a singular style; one that robs us of our individuality. I think we are on very common ground, my friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@shadow_712
On your last point, yes, qualification as an "expert" in a field is rather loose, and I am certainly not going to claim my expertise in either history or English lit, unless one considers a sheepskin [a degree - not sure if you use that same idiom] as a badge of expertise. I do not. But, thank you for yoor kind words.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you think it stems from indoctrination and effective propaganda machinery?
Yes, but I don't just think it, I know its happening. My daughter, who is not 40, would come home from school telling me what she learned that day. Elementary school [K - 6] then middle, and high school, all in 70s and early 80s. The Marxist propagandas was in full display, then. She was telling me this slavery nonsense practiced by Washington, and Jefferson, et al. But, what she was not taught was that to abolish slavery then, prior to ratification of the Constitution, would collapse the South's economy immediately. The founders knew this would be disastrous, both abolitionists and slavers. Fortunately, they agreed to disagree, and many with reluctance, ratified the Constitution, and hoped a resolution would come. Being Canadian, do I assume correctly your ancestry is British? It took the British two full parliamentary efforts, and some 30 years to finally abolish slavery. It required of us a Civil War. It was never going to be easy, but both made the correct effort. Just so, I believe the effort of Marxism to infiltrate and control our government will take the same effort to eradicate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
But from a Christian perspective,
Is there but one perspective? Nope. Better understand that rapido-speedo
Nor is there a singular Jewish perspective. Palestinians? Let me count the ways...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@wlws9
Where is he then?
As close as you allow him to be. It's on you, not him.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Was it the "Reagan Revolution" that hyperfocused us on taxation?
Nope. Go further back. At least Kennedy, but one must consider the efforts of Andrew Mellon, Treasury Secty to Coolidge, who lobbied hard for significant tax reduction in the early 20s. After all, the 16th amendment allowing Congress to levy income taxes was passed just in the previous decade.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
All hypotheses start at 1 and conveniently avoid the issue of 0.
Not "all." The hypothesis of eternity does not start at 1, because eternity is not a ray, it is an infinite line in both directions, including +1, -1, and, +n, -n, conveniently, 0, and, perhaps, -0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
1. The Temple Mont is not the entire land of Palestine.
The Temple Mount is entirely within the area claimed by Palestinians. Their claim, notwithstanding, ignores the proper ownership of the Temple Mount, and its surrounding land which is within the entire area that is, today, East Jerusalem and was the Old City. I say that not as a Christian, though I am, but as an historian aware of property ownership and its historic rights, regardless of duration of time.
according to Christianity, God's chosen people are the Christians
That is a blanket statement that is difficult to substantiate by scholarship. You confuse a distinction that is clearly evident in biblical text, and I speak of the most ancient texts, the Torah, and the Greek Septuagint, which both specify the House of Israel as chosen people; "Israel" being, not the political entity today, but the house of the prophet, Jacob, grandson of Abraham and Sarah, re-named Israel, and his twelve sons, one of whom was Judah, father of Jews. Christians, in the first century, consisted of converted Jews AND members of the other tribes, sons of Israel, and daughters, AND converted descendants of Ishmael, son of Abraham and Hagar, Sarah's maidservant and Abraham's concubine, AND converted gentiles [Romans, Greeks, etc.] which are, today, considered spiritually adopted children of the House of Israel [Jacob, not the country] It is this House of Israel who are "chosen people."
It truly is amazing how many so called "Christians" in the west, and so called "Jews" in the east have been indoctrinated in some other understanding, such as yours.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
American dream bullshyte? It is only if you make so. If your dreams are trashed that's on you. We're done, you're a useless bore.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
will you ever tire of making excuses for yourself? STOP! You do yourself no favors. Do I care if Bezos is 1 in 1,000,000? Should you? I guess if you're convinced you'll never make it, I guess you won't. No, I'll guarantee it. Like I saId: YOU AND YOUR MIRROR. CHANGE THAT GUY. Best place to start.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
But you will never be among the top 1%
Who says? You? ha! tell me who Jeff Bezoz was when he graduated from Princeton in 1986. His dad owned a bicycle shop; his mom was 17 when he was born. Now, not just approaching 1%, he IS THE one percent. The only people who say "you will never" are the people who never will. Argue for your limitations; they yours. Sorry, I don't play there.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Worth a few, yeah. Started with almost nothing, ordinary middle class. I wanted better, started buying real estate and market investing small time, avoided buying toys. It grew, and I cultivated. Anyone with ambition, planning and execution can do it. Oba’a did you no favors telling you you didn’t build that. I did.
Created: