cooled off and partially congealed
Mmm, but I’m also the guy who orders a hot chocolate at the coffee shop (I don’t drink coffee) and has to wait another 45 minutes until it’s cool enough to drink.
Doubt the boss will get you that promotion when that sock is nasty as shit. More likely you’ll get fired first because he finds out you actually stole those socks.
oh, i don’t think Frink would ever fire me…
Check his tweets.
So, opinions on Spicy Pie? This is what I want, what I really really want.
WYSHS
there’s no way one could claim, from an informed opinion, that Obama was as bad as Trump is.
Hate to jump over the fence on this one, but this really depends on what you expect from government. To some people, competence/intelligence/ethics/integrity matters. To some people, results are the only thing that matters. To the latter group, the question of “who is worse?” is just a matter of “whose policies do you like better?”. Some people like Trump’s policies better than Obama’s, and competence/intelligence/ethics/integrity are all beside the point. That’s why, for some voters, a Supreme Court nomination gets him a lot of credit, while colluding with Russian intelligence agents to hijack the election is a meh issue. That’s your core support there. Well, that plus Nazis is your core support there.
All food tastes the same.
It all tastes like pizza?
Chicken pizza.
He did win the 2016 election, he just wasn’t selected by the “American voters”. Whether the alternative is better or not is irrelevant.
Back to the original statement “Americans chose him” is even further from that - “American voters” - as only a small portion of the American population actually voted for him.
When you don’t vote, or vote third party, that in itself is a choice to let the other voters make the decision on your behalf. Plenty of eligible voters were so unhappy with both available choices in 2016, or so certain that the other voters would support their preferred candidate, that they entrusted other voters to make that decision for them. So while not all eligible voters cast a ballot, they all made a choice for either Trump or Clinton, in some manner or another, with the exception of those who were disenfranchised via some sort of voter suppression effort, or were physically unable to cast a ballot due to medical reasons, etc.
PM sent.
Never would have put you down for an Ohioan.
That place was in my rear view mirror a long time ago, but I must admit the pizza was good.
Cincinnati has a reputation for doing very bad things to otherwise delicious and commonplace foods. First off: the chili. You order chili there and the first thing you’ll be asked is if you’d like a three-way. It is safe to answer yes to this question, although you will be disappointed with the results. It is not safe to eat the chili because it’s not chili, it’s an abomination!
There’s a pizza place Cincinnati people swear by: LaRosa’s. Non-Cincinnati people get this pizza and say “What is with the sauce on this pizza? They laid it on so thick it’s gooping down my arm!” But here is where the outsider is wrong. The sauce is dellicious, the pizza is great, the critics are wrong. LaRosa’s is the very best pizza.
In today’s News of the Assholes:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/mississippi-toughest-abortion-ban/
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant, who has said his “goal is to end abortion” in his state, on Monday signed into law the earliest abortion ban in the country that’s in effect.
The law outlaws abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, and the only exceptions are in cases where the mother’s life is in danger or there is a fetal abnormality that is “incompatible with life.” Senators rejected an amendment that would have made exceptions for victims of rape or incest. Sen. Joey Fillingane (R-Sumrall) said such exceptions wouldn’t be necessary since women who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest would get an abortion right away because “you know immediately that you have been the victim of rape or incest.”
Fuck you, Mississippi.
Mississippi, which has one functioning abortion clinic in the entire state. Because nothing turns your trauma frown upside-down like a road trip.
Pizza is political. It’s the era we live in.
Pineapple is an awesome pizza topping!
Pennsylvania’s new non-gerrymandered districts will be in effect for the 2018 election.
A few more like this and I’ll reduce my silly rule-of-thumb that Democrats need to get 56% of the vote to get 50% of the House.
We do incognito very well indeed.
Looks like whoever recorded Alexander Nix saying these things did incognito even better.
I don’t know much about the Bible but it strikes me as a pretty poor citation for anything.
It’s a great citation for what Jesus Christ was credited as saying in the Bible.
“Was credited as saying.”
Indeed.
Yeah, but the Bible is the Christian holy book, so when talking about what Christians believe that Jesus said, it’s a great citation.
For those that read it, you’re probably right.
Even most Christians that haven’t read the Bible will probably tell you that they believe in the Bible
Sure, but in their mind, the Bible is a book about this guy:
so I think it’s fair to bring it up when talking about what Christians believe or claim they believe.
It’s fair, but there are limits. Christianity is ultimately whatever Christians say it is, and if what modern Christians believe directly contradicts the Bible, then it’s the Bible that’s not adequately describing modern Christianity, not the adherents.
But then you’re just picking your favorite stereotype to malign.
We were talking about Christians who claim to adhere to the Bible’s teachings without actually knowing a word of that Bible. The subject was already narrowed to such a specific subgroup that there weren’t many stereotypes left to pick from.
I think most Christians would say fidelity to the teachings of the Bible are most important. That most fall short is a normative observation but not helpful for any deeper discussion with those same people.
Falling short of the teachings is qualitatively different than “can’t be bothered to find out what those teachings are” IMO.
I’m focused on your defining Christianity as a whole along normative lines.
People think they know the basics of what they believe. But if they are based on a text, we can look at that text to address errors.
And my point was, whenever there is a discrepancy between what people believe and what the text upon which they base that belief says, it can be the text which is the outlier. This was as a counterpoint to the assertion that the text can be used as a neutral reference for the entire religion. Wherever the religion is unmoored from the text, that simply isn’t true.
Every discrepancy is not necessarily a failure of the adherent to be faithful to the tenets of the religion as defined by the text, it could be a failure of the text to be relevant to the religion as defined by its adherents.
We find the same dynamic in policy debates. Pointing out that few people who believe in X have read any literature on the topic and know nothing about the details isn’t remarkable. It certainly proves nothing about X.
IMO, it demonstrates that you can’t use the literature as a means to show what people believe.
I don’t know much about the Bible but it strikes me as a pretty poor citation for anything.
It’s a great citation for what Jesus Christ was credited as saying in the Bible.
“Was credited as saying.”
Indeed.
Yeah, but the Bible is the Christian holy book, so when talking about what Christians believe that Jesus said, it’s a great citation.
For those that read it, you’re probably right.
Even most Christians that haven’t read the Bible will probably tell you that they believe in the Bible
Sure, but in their mind, the Bible is a book about this guy:
so I think it’s fair to bring it up when talking about what Christians believe or claim they believe.
It’s fair, but there are limits. Christianity is ultimately whatever Christians say it is, and if what modern Christians believe directly contradicts the Bible, then it’s the Bible that’s not adequately describing modern Christianity, not the adherents.
But then you’re just picking your favorite stereotype to malign.
We were talking about Christians who claim to adhere to the Bible’s teachings without actually knowing a word of that Bible. The subject was already narrowed to such a specific subgroup that there weren’t many stereotypes left to pick from.
I think most Christians would say fidelity to the teachings of the Bible are most important. That most fall short is a normative observation but not helpful for any deeper discussion with those same people.
Falling short of the teachings is qualitatively different than “can’t be bothered to find out what those teachings are” IMO.
I don’t know much about the Bible but it strikes me as a pretty poor citation for anything.
It’s a great citation for what Jesus Christ was credited as saying in the Bible.
“Was credited as saying.”
Indeed.
Yeah, but the Bible is the Christian holy book, so when talking about what Christians believe that Jesus said, it’s a great citation.
For those that read it, you’re probably right.
Even most Christians that haven’t read the Bible will probably tell you that they believe in the Bible
Sure, but in their mind, the Bible is a book about this guy:
so I think it’s fair to bring it up when talking about what Christians believe or claim they believe.
It’s fair, but there are limits. Christianity is ultimately whatever Christians say it is, and if what modern Christians believe directly contradicts the Bible, then it’s the Bible that’s not adequately describing modern Christianity, not the adherents.
I don’t know much about the Bible but it strikes me as a pretty poor citation for anything.
It’s a great citation for what Jesus Christ was credited as saying in the Bible.
“Was credited as saying.”
Indeed.
Yeah, but the Bible is the Christian holy book, so when talking about what Christians believe that Jesus said, it’s a great citation.
For those that read it, you’re probably right.
Even if you don’t believe that it is literally fire, the point is obvious that Jesus Christ meant that hell is a place of unimaginable torture.
As for chyron’s point about “our perceptions” coloring things, I think it’s fair to judge God by the standards that the Bible claims he judges us. We’re supposed to love our enemies, God tortures his enemies for eternity. I’d imagine that if I personally kidnapped a nonbeliever and tortured them myself because they weren’t Christian, I’d be rightfully labelled an evil maniac. But that’s what Jesus Christ proudly proclaimed he does. Saying that a character that does such a thing is loathsome is not unfair at all.
Isn’t it a basic tenet that only God can judge? I see CatBus’a last paragraph as a plausible scenario. It’s an idea I entertain.
He doesn’t live up to his own standards based on his behavior in the Bible.
I think Jesus changed all that. As I understand it most Jews don’t believe in eternal suffering. I don’t know how Jews square their modern beliefs with the Old Testament.
If I understand my Woody Allen correctly, the eternal suffering happens in life.
The alternative was no better.
Yes she was.
It will apparently take some more revelations to convince some of that. And that’s fine, because more revelations are coming.
Even if you don’t believe that it is literally fire, the point is obvious that Jesus Christ meant that hell is a place of unimaginable torture.
As for chyron’s point about “our perceptions” coloring things, I think it’s fair to judge God by the standards that the Bible claims he judges us. We’re supposed to love our enemies, God tortures his enemies for eternity. I’d imagine that if I personally kidnapped a nonbeliever and tortured them myself because they weren’t Christian, I’d be rightfully labelled an evil maniac. But that’s what Jesus Christ proudly proclaimed he does. Saying that a character that does such a thing is loathsome is not unfair at all.
Isn’t it a basic tenet that only God can judge? I see CatBus’a last paragraph as a plausible scenario. It’s an idea I entertain.
He doesn’t live up to his own standards based on his behavior in the Bible.
That was a long time ago and I was a lot horn… oh, wait, you weren’t referring to me. Nevermind.
Hell works fine with pluralism, it just doesn’t work well with pluralism and theological rigidity at the same time.
Lemme 'splain. Back in the old days (meaning the Stone Age), pretty much every valley had their own unique belief system, and their own god or gods. Eventually people could travel further for trade, agrarian societies became large, and something needed to be done about these disparate religions that were encountered through alliances, mergers, and conquests.
The Greeks formed a pantheon, a family of gods, polytheism based roughly on their alliances and mergers, but also a pantheon of the defeated (the Titans, etc) for their conquests. Similarly, the Hindus did a “multiple aspects of the same god” pantheon, which could be polytheistic or monotheistic depending on how you looked at it. Other groups incorporated the gods of other cultures into their pantheon, but mostly as demons, not gods. So that’s how you get Satan, Beelzebub, Mephistopheles, etc. Our valley worships the real god, all the other valleys worship demons, was basically how it went, and today’s “all other religions go to Hell” belief is pretty much a straight line from there.
Theoretically, Christians could simultaneously maintain their belief in Hell and choose not condemn other religions to Hell if they followed the “multiple aspects of the same god” example, and in fact that does seem to be a feature of some more modern conglomerate religions like Sikhism, Baha’i, and Unitarian Universalism. You also see this concept in statements that refer to Christians, Muslims and Jews as “people of the Book” or some such thing. Not saying many would, but there is a path out of Gehenna that does not involve rejecting Christianity at all.
Discussion of the various legal implications of firing Mueller.
With the world’s unhappiest conclusion IMO.
But I predict it would not come to that. If the crazy scenario that got me to this point in the hypothetical decision chain materializes, Congress would rise up quickly to stop the President, and the pressure on the cabinet would be enormous as well. If I am naive in thinking this, then we are indeed in trouble.
Emphasis mine.
Wow, I haven’t seen such an elegant formal proof since I was an undergrad. DuracellEnergizer was right. QED.
I don’t think it’s on-topic. The fact that I’m one of Harmy’s sister-wives is completely beside the point.
I’m changing the text, then. I’m just happy someone actually read the README 😉