It makes no sense to characterize my low regard for both of them into the “you’re defending Trump” category.
If you think they’re equally terrible, then yes you are defending him.
Silly, that’s not how it works.
If that’s the sort of people they elect, better they don’t have national representation.
If Donald J. Trump is the sort of people Americans elect, better if they didn’t have international representation.
Hey, keep in mind that he lost our popular vote by about 3 million. Americans didn’t choose this man. Presumably the dumbass pile of crap in question was elected popularly.
Americans chose him. The alternative was no better. yhwx has a point and maybe we don’t deserve representation at all.
I get that your Trump apologia won’t be broken any time during this administration so I won’t bother with that, but how can you just disregard that he got significantly less votes than the other candidate in the election that Americans had to choose a president? Americans didn’t choose him. Our electoral college did. Americans did not choose him, you’re objectively wrong there. Americans chose Hillary Clinton to be President, but enough of the right states went to Trump, so that’s why he won.
My only apologia is for federalism and the Constitution. Given the party nominating processes you might argue Americans only had the illusion of choice anyway. My low regard for Clinton is no defense of Trump.
It is a defense of Trump. You’re shrugging off his awfulness by talking about how someone who isn’t President would be just as bad, even though everyone has forgotten about her and her career is dead and irrelevant now. I knew Trump people would never be able to stop bringing up Clinton even long after the election. You aren’t being apologetic for federalism and the Constitution, because then you’d be up in arms about Trump and his cronies. The new plan for the war on drugs (which in and of itself is unconstitutional) is yet another example of his disdain for federalism. He’s only interested in state’s rights when it comes to denying people civil liberties. Everything else is big government, just right-wing big government.
Incorrect. After you questioned the legitimacy of the election because popular vote, I mentioned in passing that the alternative was no better. If you want to relitigate the 2016 election, it’s a relevant point.
It makes no sense to characterize my low regard for both of them into the “you’re defending Trump” category. If I want to defend Trump I will but you’ve not been paying attention if you think I have been doing so. I often see the kneejerk response when Clinton is mentioned that she is being used to excuse Trump. It’s not what I was doing and it’s a lazy retort.
As for the legitimacy of our electoral system, it was my view well before Trump that the Electoral College serves a good purpose.
I’ve said at least a couple times that I’m disillusioned about our politics in the US. I’ve expressed the view that liberals actually benefited by Trump’s win because people are motivated to take action. I compared it to the Tea Party which has sadly jumped into the harbor never to be seen again.
If you want to discuss drug policy and really want to know what Mrebo thinks, maybe I’ll say something on the matter. If you want to know what agreements and disagreements I have with the administration, I might tell you that too. Your rant is trying to foist all kinds of things on me that I haven’t said.
I don’t think me ranting in this forum is going to change anything Trump is doing (crazy thought, that). If you raised the issue of federal drug policy, as opposed to hey guys did you know Trump didn’t really win the 2016 election? then I may have responded to that if the spirit moved me.
Great! I do need a haircut.
Never heard of Papa Murphy’s, but there’s a chain called Papa Gino’s around where I grew up that’s pretty solid.
I have fond memories of Papa Gino’s.
When I was in high school, this was my go to place with my buddies. I’d always order the large cheese breadsticks because they cost less than a small pizza. Was always a challenge to see if I could finish the whole thing.
Damn, now I’m hungry and sad there’s no Gino’s near me.
My family would go there when I was very young. I see pizza in my near future.
Never heard of Papa Murphy’s, but there’s a chain called Papa Gino’s around where I grew up that’s pretty solid.
I have fond memories of Papa Gino’s.
More like this, please.
East coast now, no Casey’s. Next time I’m out that way I will have to try.
The Facebook thing is rotten. Good opportunity to crack down on sites giving/selling our personal data.
Still haven’t found a really good pizza place here. Best pizza I ever had was at Old Orchard mall food court in Skokie. Years ago and may be gone now. Pizaaah I think it was spelled.
The big issues with Hillary that I heard during the campaign were:
- She would be hawkish on foreign policy, leading to escalating tensions with our enemies.
- She was potentially corrupt based on potential pay-for-play activities in her organization.
- She would show preferential treatment to family members, based on her daughter’s position.
- She would play fast and loose with state secrets based on her handling of her email account.
Just a few examples of what Trump has done in office with regards to these issues:
- Threatened war with a nuclear power.
- Is actually corrupt based on hundreds of past and ongoing real-estate transactions with foreign governments.
- Displays breathtaking nepotism, with only one example being how Jared Kushner was somehow able to operate on temporary security clearance for over a year before it was revoked due to being a dangerous security risk.
- Actually gave Russian officials top secret intelligence that compromised Israeli operations, leading to our allies withholding similar intelligence from the United States for fear of leaks.
So yeah, I think Trump is a whole lot worse.
You forgot that she is a literal spawn of satan who may or may not run a kiddie porn ring.
Great, now I want pizza. You in dahmage?
Serious question, is DiGiorno any good? They were on sale for like $5 each, so I bought three. Never had before, though.
Yes.
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.
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.
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. 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.
If that’s the sort of people they elect, better they don’t have national representation.
If Donald J. Trump is the sort of people Americans elect, better if they didn’t have international representation.
Hey, keep in mind that he lost our popular vote by about 3 million. Americans didn’t choose this man. Presumably the dumbass pile of crap in question was elected popularly.
Americans chose him. The alternative was no better. yhwx has a point and maybe we don’t deserve representation at all.
I get that your Trump apologia won’t be broken any time during this administration so I won’t bother with that, but how can you just disregard that he got significantly less votes than the other candidate in the election that Americans had to choose a president? Americans didn’t choose him. Our electoral college did. Americans did not choose him, you’re objectively wrong there. Americans chose Hillary Clinton to be President, but enough of the right states went to Trump, so that’s why he won.
My only apologia is for federalism and the Constitution. Given the party nominating processes you might argue Americans only had the illusion of choice anyway. My low regard for Clinton is no defense of Trump.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html
Was only a matter of time but I didn’t think it would be so soon.
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.
The Old Testament makes no mention of Heaven or Hell in terms of everlasting paradise and everlasting damnation.
Maybe not but God was awfully vengeful in those days.
Yeah he could get real jelly sometimes.
Well the people put him in a jam.
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.
The Old Testament makes no mention of Heaven or Hell in terms of everlasting paradise and everlasting damnation.
Maybe not but God was awfully vengeful in those days.
The alternative was no better.
You don’t honestly believe that Clinton would have been as bad as Trump has been, do you?
Would have been different but not better. 2016 was the worst Would You Rather game and I opted for neither.
If that’s the sort of people they elect, better they don’t have national representation.
If Donald J. Trump is the sort of people Americans elect, better if they didn’t have international representation.
Hey, keep in mind that he lost our popular vote by about 3 million. Americans didn’t choose this man. Presumably the dumbass pile of crap in question was elected popularly.
Americans chose him. The alternative was no better.
Simply amazing.
I really am.
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.
The alternative was no better.
Yes she was.
Nah.
If that’s the sort of people they elect, better they don’t have national representation.
If Donald J. Trump is the sort of people Americans elect, better if they didn’t have international representation.
Hey, keep in mind that he lost our popular vote by about 3 million. Americans didn’t choose this man. Presumably the dumbass pile of crap in question was elected popularly.
Americans chose him. The alternative was no better. yhwx has a point and maybe we don’t deserve representation at all.
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.
If that’s the sort of people they elect, better they don’t have national representation.
You’ve undermined your thesis that people are merely conditioned to like lower frame rates. People readily accepted talkies and color.
Not even slightly. Both colour and talkies were fiercely resisted at first. Chromophobia was the popular position among artists of the time. Of course, all three advances make the films appear closer to real life and therefore further diminish the illusion of stepping away from reality for two hours. Amusingly the same happened to a lesser extent with the migration of television to HD - people complained how sharp and fake it looked.
But I’ve probably derailed this thread long enough. Do you think we’re likely to see more weaponized hyperdrives in canon now?
They will only do more hyperspace attacks with ships if the frame rate goes higher.
But I can imagine JJ making a hyperdrive missile because it’s powerful and cool.
I’m not a churchgoer nor otherwise part of a formal religion. But I believe there is a separation from God, as it is often described.
The Bible certainly doesn’t describe it as that. That’s a very sanitized version of Hell. Jesus Christ himself is constantly yelling at people about how they’ll burn eternally and be eaten by worms in hell.
Biblical literalism doesn’t fit with what little I know about the Bible and with reality I’ve experienced. I imagine permanent separation from God entails much that would make it torturous, even if not the kind of tortures found in the Greek conception of the underworld echoed in the Bible.
And again, I’m not a part of a formal religion.
To mfm’s point, I think the traditional Christian view has become shamed into near oblivion since it is seen as intolerant of others’s beliefs. And that also goes to an idea that religion defining a certain path to salvation is incompatible with a modern pluralistic society.
I think it is a pretty intolerant belief to preach that everyone who disagrees with you on theology will burn eternally.
Logically, it’s about disagreeing with God and with the order He has laid out. Necessarily, this creates exclusion. Some would like to reduce religion to something anodyne like “be a good person” but just because that feels nice doesn’t make it true.
It’s similar to chyron’s point that I agree with:
But I don’t like the idea of putting God into a box as though He isn’t a certain way just because people don’t want Him to be since it makes them uncomfortable to accept it.
To reemphasize, I’m coming from my own perspective. I don’t understand how it all works and though I’m told the Bible provides many definitive answers I’ve not been convinced in many respects.
I’m not a churchgoer nor otherwise part of a formal religion. But I believe there is a separation from God, as it is often described.
To mfm’s point, I think the traditional Christian view has become shamed into near oblivion since it is seen as intolerant of others’s beliefs. And that also goes to an idea that religion defining a certain path to salvation is incompatible with a modern pluralistic society.
