I wonder what the motivation is behind this. Trump is a lot of things, but he's kind of a wus when it comes to things like firing people in person or being responsible for sending soldiers to war. There must be someone else behind it, because it doesn't really seem his kind of thing.
This screams of Stephen Miller's influence, the same guy behind children in cages
The Following User Says Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
One of the idiots with the intimidation mob:
"We will not stand down, we will not stop, we will continue to rise up, we will continue to take this election back for the president that actually won it by a landslide," she said. "This is not over. It is far from over – in fact, it's just beginning."
Meh, keep going guys. It's a good way to end up in a CIA black site for acting as an insurgent in your own country. So far it's just words, which is protected, but the act of intimidation is in fact a crime AFAIK, so there will be legal recourse for showing up to a government official's home. Go one step further towards committing an actual act against the democratically elected government and you'll be put away where nobody can find you.
Go on, I dare you.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
I love the irony of the dramatic waving of a patriotic flag in the background as they go further deeper in trying to destroy the democratic fabric of their country.
The Following User Says Thank You to greyshep For This Useful Post:
I love the irony of the dramatic waving of a patriotic flag in the background as they go further deeper in trying to destroy the democratic fabric of their country.
There are those who wrap themselves in flags and blow the tinny trumpet of patriotism as a means of fooling the people. -George Galloway
“I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.”- Molly Ivins
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I think as this point we understand enough about the universe to know that the earth doesn't predate the sun, the women didn't spring from the ribs of men, that substantial portions of the flood myths were taken from tales of earlier cultures, that stories about future kings floating down the river in baskets is older than writing. We know that substantial portions of the Jesus myth was constructed and modified to draw comparisons to current events of grander figures at the time they were formulated. We know that sun isn't the wheel of a burning chariot, at this point we can be confident enough about mind/body monism to dismiss the idea of reincarnation or an after life.
I think there can be a great deal of confidence that no religion has proposed a plausible solution to that which they claim to explain, and the majority of claims religions have made can be directly disproven.
Atheism on the other would be incredibly easy to disprove if wrong, and nearly impossible to prove if right, but I have yet to see and argument against it that does not start with a big presupposition. I have seldom met an atheist who would be unhappy to modify their beliefs in the face of direct evidence.
Right. Not the point I was getting at, and not a discussion I care to delve into on this board which I know is populated with a lot of non-religious folks.
There are clearly holes in a lot of religions' stories about origins of earth and people and so forth from the standpoint of science and recorded history, which is why I don't wholeheartedly buy into one specifically.
It doesn't make it acceptable to cast people that were raised into specific religions as lesser, stupid, or utterly misled. The core texts/scriptures aside, there are in many cases good principles and community values that are taught and practiced and plenty of good that comes from people of different religions. A lot of high achievers out there identify with one. There's a lot of charity work and giving back to the community, which i experienced growing up in one such religion where people were kind and no one forced beliefs on me. Not all religions are the same, not all are extreme and attempting to brainwash. Having participated in one and studied a number over the years, I've been blessed with some insightful perspectives. People get something out of gathering, helping others out and doing things for a good cause, even if its due to the alleged words of some prophet or deity, it's still a good thing and makes people feel good. There's nothing wrong with that.
It's just basic, mature, human decency to be accepting of what people may have grown up only knowing or were raised into due to culture or where they happened to be living. The point was Sliver's post was a slight on these people and lumping them together and on an open board such as this I wasn't going to just let that slide. It's not cool tbh, and coming from a point of view that appears to be very limited and generalizing.
(A good number) of atheists may be open and willing to accept new ideas if compelling evidence is presented. But are they also capable of exhibiting respect to the fellow man that grew up with a different, highly religious background, and understanding that in many cases its not their fault or choosing for the environment and accompanying beliefs with which they were raised? I would hope so. Because alleging that religious people are less intelligent on average is something that hasn't been proven, and so from that same perspective it feels like a hypocritical "leap" to make, merely based in not liking or identifying with such groups.
Last edited by djsFlames; 12-07-2020 at 01:34 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to djsFlames For This Useful Post:
I have to echo a question that was asked earlier. Why is Sydney Powell still involved in this charade? I thought she got booted from the Trump loser gang previously?
man that Loeffler/Warnock debate was frustrating. I don't think I've ever seen a more robotic and unemotional politician than Kelly Loeffler, not to mention the Trumpist rhetoric and conspiracy theories. Warnock, on the other hand, felt like a weak opponent in his own right. Not only did he barely fight back against Loeffler's bat#### allegations, but turning to Bible quotes when you can't find another way to make an argument is pretty unconvincing as well.
Perdue/Ossoff was obviously even crazier. The level of entitlement when you don't even show up to the debate, holy cow.
Perdue/Ossoff was obviously even crazier. The level of entitlement when you don't even show up to the debate, holy cow.
Why should he bother? Republicans will still show up to vote for him en masse, and unless democrats have an amazing showing he will win easily. Trump has shown republicans that they don't even have to pretend to care anymore, there's nothing they can do to lose the R vote. The entitlement comes from simply having that R beside their name
The Following User Says Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
Why should he bother? Republicans will still show up to vote for him en masse, and unless democrats have an amazing showing he will win easily. Trump has shown republicans that they don't even have to pretend to care anymore, there's nothing they can do to lose the R vote. The entitlement comes from simply having that R beside their name
Does it make any sense for anyone to vote against their own party for a senator? Maybe a very moderate, centrist voter might be swayed to the more moderate of candidates, but really you're just voting the candidate's senate vote. 95% of them will vote along party lines in every significant vote. I suppose I'd most likely vote for an anonymous, faceless Democrat candidate who's only promise is to vote along party lines.
In this particular election, people are voting for which party holds control of the senate. I think it is absolutely logical to vote for the party you want to have control, regardless of who the candidates are.
man that Loeffler/Warnock debate was frustrating. I don't think I've ever seen a more robotic and unemotional politician than Kelly Loeffler, not to mention the Trumpist rhetoric and conspiracy theories. Warnock, on the other hand, felt like a weak opponent in his own right. Not only did he barely fight back against Loeffler's bat#### allegations, but turning to Bible quotes when you can't find another way to make an argument is pretty unconvincing as well.
He's trying to win over Republicans in a Bible Belt state, so Bible quotes are just playing to the crowd.
