I’m a little late but The Steam Summer Sale has started.
I bought a Steam Link and Steam Controller bundle for $35. The Steam Link by itself is only $2.50 (95% off).
post terribly
I don’t take you seriously because I don’t believe you really want to die. People who think life isn’t worth living don’t spend their time debating topics that are largely about quality of life.
I find this post terribly irresponsible.
Agreed.
People who think life isn’t worth living don’t spend their time debating topics that are largely about quality of life.
How do you know what people with suicidal ideation do or don’t spend their time on?
I lean right on some issues and left on others. Your inability to weigh nuance is unfortunate, but it’s what I’ve come to expect from modern liberals.
And yet you use “liberal” as akin to an epithet. Not hard to see why people call bullshit, since the only people who do that are on the right (ie. also not the center).
JEDIT: For the record, I am not a liberal. But I really hate it that Rush, Hannity, Fox and whoever the hell else on the right does that.
Any inference on your part regarding “liberal” being an epithet is just that: an inference.
No…:
Your inability to weigh nuance is unfortunate, but it’s what I’ve come to expect from modern liberals.
You’re being snide. You lump “liberals” into this sort of camp of obviously stupid people who can’t weigh nuance.
So if I infer, you most definitely imply.
Jay said:
When I criticize conservatives . . .Lol.
Yeah, when was the last time that happened?
Jay, you can’t just say the reason why you seem to lean right is because most people in here lean left. That’s like when O’Reilly on Fox News told Jon Stewart that Fox’s definition of being “fair and balanced” is that they “tell the other side of the story.” Having a balanced view doesn’t work that way.
I really don’t like the disdain you’re showing here. My relationship with my Savior does not suffer because my church does not doctrinally agree wholly with Catholicism.
I don’t know why you’d be surprised. He’s decided to dedicate himself to the Catholic religion. I imagine that would be a hard decision to live with if you didn’t buy into to all the talking points 100%.
My wife’s extended family includes people who are Catholic, but they don’t go about telling those in the family who are not that their Protestant denominations of choice have no justification for doctrinal disagreements.
I lean right on some issues and left on others. Your inability to weigh nuance is unfortunate, but it’s what I’ve come to expect from modern liberals.
And yet you use “liberal” as akin to an epithet. Not hard to see why people call bullshit, since the only people who do that are on the right (ie. also not the center).
JEDIT: For the record, I am not a liberal. But I really hate it that Rush, Hannity, Fox and whoever the hell else on the right does that.
Jay said:
Find better sources.He should’ve just not cited anything, that’ve been really convincing.
Hahaha! Indeed. 😃
Lol at the idea that Trump is trying to solve anything.
As snark, fine. But what do you think he’s trying to do?
Win. That’s all he’s ever cared about his whole life.
^
If he ends up firing Sessions over this recent PR nightmare, it will be because Trump only cares about winning.
Disney purchased 21st Century Fox.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fox-disney-announce-new-deal-1529496937
Sorry, Comcast: Fox and Disney sign new merger deal, rejecting Comcast bid
Fox accepts Disney’s $71.3 billion offer, days after Comcast bid $65 billion.The Walt Disney Company and 21st Century Fox have struck a new merger agreement, with Fox’s leadership having rejected Comcast’s attempt to outbid Disney.
Under the amended acquisition agreement announced today, Disney would buy Fox for $71.3 billion in cash and stock. This comes one week after Comcast offered Fox $65 billion in cash, which topped Disney’s previous deal to buy Fox for $52.4 billion in stock.
Comcast could try to outbid Disney again, but it hasn’t yet responded to today’s announcement of a new Disney/Fox deal.
“The amended and restated Disney Merger Agreement offers a package of consideration, flexibility, and deal certainty enhancements that is superior to the proposal made by the Comcast Corporation on June 13, 2018,” Fox said.
Fox appears to be reluctant to strike a deal with Comcast because of concerns about getting regulatory approval from the federal government. Still, Fox said that the new Disney/Fox deal “contains no changes to the provisions relating to the company’s directors’ ability to evaluate a competing proposal,” giving Comcast an opening to bid again.
“Disney believes the transaction has a clear and timely path to regulatory approval,” Disney’s announcement said. “Both companies have spent the past six months working toward meeting all conditions necessary for closing. In the amended agreement, Disney has increased the scope of its commitment to take actions required to secure regulatory approval.”
Both Comcast and Disney have acknowledged that they might have to divest certain Fox properties, such as Fox’s regional sports networks, in order to get regulatory approval. In a potential Comcast/Fox deal, regulators could examine whether Comcast would gain too much negotiating leverage over rival cable and satellite TV companies that have to purchase access to Comcast-owned programming. Disney, which already owns ESPN and ABC, could also face regulatory scrutiny of its ability to charge high prices for programming.
After AT&T’s court victory allowing it to buy Time Warner last week, Comcast has reason to think that a Comcast/Fox deal would be approved.
Disney’s new offer consists of $35.7 billion in cash, with the rest in stock. The new agreement was approved by the boards of Disney and Fox but still needs approval from the companies’ shareholders.
Comcast was hoping to have its $65 billion offer accepted at shareholder meetings that were scheduled for July 10. Disney and Fox said they decided to postpone those meetings in order to “prepare updated SEC filings and proxy materials which will be sent to shareholders.” A new date for the shareholder meetings has not yet been announced.
As we’ve previously reported, the sale to either Disney or Comcast would include 21st Century Fox’s film and television studios, cable entertainment networks, the Fox Sports Regional Networks, and international properties including Star in India and Fox’s 39-percent ownership of Sky across Europe.
The sale would also include Fox’s 30-percent stake in Hulu. Comcast already owns 30 percent of Hulu, so this deal would give it majority control of the online video service. Disney also has a 30-percent stake in Hulu, while Time Warner owns 10 percent of the company.
Further ReadingThe Fox sale would not include major assets such as the Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, and Fox Broadcasting Company. Those would be spun off into a new company, and Comcast or Disney would acquire 21st Century Fox after the spinoff.
“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal NewmanSomehow I doubt that.
Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.
-.-
By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
I don’t really appreciate this attitude you seem to have about Protestant belief. As though the Body of Christ is weakened by opinion that is not the “official” view of the Catholic Church. I do not have to subscribe to the position that the elements of Communion actually literally become His body and blood. I also do not lend any weight to baptism of those who are too young to make the decision for themselves, albeit baptism itself is not a requirement for salvation. And I am not required to confess to a priest. Jesus Christ Himself is the Great High Priest (Hebrews 4), and He intercedes for me.
JEDIT: 2 Timothy 3 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” So relying heavily on Scripture does have a sound basis.
Ephesians 2 says “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” So while James 2 does say “Faith without works is dead”, those works are fruit borne from one’s relationship with Christ. They are not required for salvation, because that undermines the sacrifice Christ paid for us. There is no amount of works we can possibly achieve that makes us worthy of salvation.
As for baptism not being a requirement, the thief on the cross was not baptized, and yet he was saved.
So you see, your assertion that Protestant doctrine has no basis is highly uninformed.
/JEDIT
I really don’t like the disdain you’re showing here. My relationship with my Savior does not suffer because my church does not doctrinally agree wholly with Catholicism.
In book I’ve been reading, this guy’s work translating the bible (really he oversaw the work) is discussed. Pretty interesting the interpretations we accept as legitimate.
The problem with Thought for Thought translation is are you translating the text means or what you think the text means.
The problem with word for word translation is that not all language has the same vocabulary (eg. multiple words for “love”), and it has the potential to not read as easily as it should–like the original writings probably did.
To some degree, there is an advantage to not have to stop and say “So, in other words, what it’s saying is…”. I’m pretty sure the churches Paul wrote letters to didn’t have to do that.
https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232
It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months.
That guy’s whole tirade takes two responses from Obama: “Are you an immigration lawyer?” and “I’ll tell you what we can’t have. It’s these parents sending their kids here on a dangerous journey and putting their lives at risk.” and wraps it in a big ball of subtext that Obama didn’t actually use. Like he says Obama asks if he’s an attorney because Obama was told they’re the only ones who’d care. How does he know this? That’s certainly a leap of logic.
Ridiculous. I would actually be interested in what Obama really would have to say, not this guy’s blathering on about what he wanted Obama to say but didn’t.
“Rey is a [sexist term meaning inexplicably overpowered female badass]”
I could be wrong, but I think there some debate going on about whether or not the term is actually sexist.
There may very well be, but I think much of this community has decided that it is; and that regardless of if it isn’t, its use is not appropriate because it sparks such arguments which then become circular and detract from the purpose of the thread. Also, the argument of whether it is or not seems to have been covered ad nauseam.
Not that I’m complaining, but why was MalàStrana banned?
This is why I don’t post in the Star Wars section or talk about the new films anymore.
Because people are thread-crapping and shitposting, or because oojason is calling out people for doing it?
Complaining about the writing of a particular film/series is one thing. Being all “Disney ruined Star Wars” or “KK is a libtard SJW” or “Rey is a [sexist term meaning inexplicably overpowered female badass]” or “Rian Johnson can go f himself, even Mark Hamill agrees” is another entirely.
That being said, Kurtzman did kill the “Dark Universe,” so maybe there is a point there.
What? Do you you mean the Mirror Universe?
JEDIT: Okay, apparently not, so I have no idea what you’re talking about.
- I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like.
I’m… not sure what to make of this. I don’t recall the New Testament saying certain foods can only be eaten at certain times. At best the only related Scriptures I can think of are in Mark 7, where Jesus declares all food as clean; and in Acts 15, where the council discusses that Gentiles are not necessarily beholden to Jewish custom.
Christ on a cross. . .
Why do some people say “Jesus H. Christ” or “Christ on a crutch”?
What is the “H” supposed to stand for, and why a crutch?I never understood why people say that.
“Crutch” might be a deliberate mispronunciation of “cross,” but I’m not really sure.
My theory regarding “Jesus H. Christ” is that in Catholic churches (and on other Catholic things) you’ll often see inscriptions like “JHC” or “JHS.” These stand for Jesus’ name (or in more recent times have been interpreted as a short form of “Jesus Hominum Salvator”, which is Latin for “Jesus Saviour of Mankind”), and are a transcription of the first three letters of his name in Greek (hence the variation between C and S). My guess is that some people, seeing that and not knowing what it meant, but knowing it referred to Jesus, interpreted it as his initials.
JEDIT: Hey, Wikipedia backs me up. It says that it’s common in the Anglican/Episcopalian Church as well, which is likely where exposure to the “JHC” abbreviation would have come in.
JEDIT: Oops, that wasn’t a JEDIT…
The Wiki article you linked says J used to be a variant of I instead of its own letter
I learned this, but from watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in the trial where he has to stand on the correct tiles.
the more secular a US state, the less crime-ridden it is.
At the risk of opening a Pandora’s Box, I’m gonna ask what evidence there is of this.
I suggested he go read up on it himself. If he found something to counter what I posted, he’d be perfectly welcome to share it and refute what I said. I’m open to being proven wrong and corrected.
But you said you’re not going to post articles to back up your claims.
So not only do I have to find sources to inform myself, but also to prove you’re not blowing smoke when responding to the conversation.
If you want to give credibility to things you say in a debate, you need to cite where you get your information from.
You acted like citing sources in this thread to substantiate an argument is an infantile activity. As though such a practice is beneath you.Frink did your reading for you, see above. It editorializes in parts, but it’s not grossly unfair.
Not the point. Cite your own sources. The fact that this is an informal, non-scientific, non-academic setting is irrelevant to the importance of proving you’re not making things up in a persuasive argument.
I suggested he go read up on it himself. If he found something to counter what I posted, he’d be perfectly welcome to share it and refute what I said. I’m open to being proven wrong and corrected.
But you said you’re not going to post articles to back up your claims.
So not only do I have to find sources to inform myself, but also to prove you’re not blowing smoke when responding to the conversation.
If you want to give credibility to things you say in a debate, you need to cite where you get your information from.
You acted like citing sources in this thread to substantiate an argument is an infantile activity. As though such a practice is beneath you.
put a big Ric pic in you
Christ on a cross. . .
Why do some people say “Jesus H. Christ” or “Christ on a crutch”?
What is the “H” supposed to stand for, and why a crutch?I never understood why people say that.
I don’t know. I didn’t say either of those things so I don’t really have any insight.
I know. But it got me thinking that what you said would make more sense than what people usually say.
And it was a random thought, and I used it to change the subject.
he’s applying the same rules as previous administrations is disingenuous.
I’m going to have to say “citation needed” on this.
I’m not getting into the back-and-forth article posting that often passes for debate in this thread. You can read up on it if you care to.
So what you’re saying is you prefer to make uncited claims and have the people in the conversation go research your possible sources themselves before they validate what you said.
…How is that better than citing your source when making your argument?
Not sure I could have gotten away with that in school, with a Works Cited page that says “Go look it up yourself.”