|
Accepting as a "good thing" the arcane ballot access laws which are designed by the two parties to keep all third parties out of the race, this article downplays the fact that if the voter fraud had been followed through with at the time, it would have resulted in Barack not being on the ballot in one county, and ignores the fact that Hillary won Indiana anyway. The end result is 0 significance to the race, and an obvious attempt to manufacture another reason to keep the base riled up. #ThanksObama #TheyCominForMaGuns! #JadeHelm
|
|
|
|
I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition. Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.  The WORD action is a noun. Things that ARE actions, are verbs. Are you really this simple? Actions: Running, breathing, sitting, talking, explaining to BADecker first-grade level grammar rules Nouns: Electrons, Electrolytes, neurons, anything else you said... When you look back at your posts, do you even realize that you've demonstrated ignorance of things they teach to 6 year-olds in order to prove your interpretation of Newton's Third Law? Does that not strike you as utterly hilarious? Okay. Since you are so good at editing out the rest of what I had to say, why don't you explain how brain activity creates free will? Remember, the brain activity action has to produce an equal and opposite reaction. I edit out all the stuff that has no relevance to a point, since you tend to drone on and on about unrelated things. (see for example: listing 24 definitions of a word you're using incorrectly). And I'm not the one pretending to know how neurons work, you are, remember? My calling your explanations out doesn't mean I'm representing myself as a neurologist. I'm just recognizing when someone else isn't. In other words you can't. There is no free will. Free will is an illusion. Play with all the nouns and verbs you want. According to Newton's Third Law, free will remains an illusion. Look at it again... ---------- electrons, electrolytes, chemicals, all working in the brain = reality = action free will = illusion = reaction For every ACTION there is an equal and opposite REACTION. Reaction opposite action. Illusion opposite reality. Free will opposite brain activity. ---------- Translation of post: 'You can't dumb down your response down to the point where I can understand it, therefore I must be right.' That's basically a synopsis of all your posts. And you can restate it as many times as you want. Until you understand what an "action" is, you have no hope of winning this fight. |
|
|
|
I rather like the analogy, but still suggest you use the commonly used term "ISIS."
And if the "worst" of the two religions is respectively Westboro and ISIS, I know which this here atheist likes better.
Yeah, I would rank ISIS a million times worse. As uncouth as they are, the W.B.C. congregation is just expressing an opinion peacefully. I use DAESH for a few reasons. Most of my experience with them has been in the middle east and they are always called DEASH there. But the main reason is that calling them ISIS is showing support for them. In the Islamic state it is forbidden to refer to them as DAESH. The punishment for this is that "your tongue will be cut from your mouth." They hate being called DAESH because it is a play on words in Arabic. It is the acronym for ISIS, but also sound like you are saying the word meaning to trample or crush under foot. Arab culture is weird about feet and this term is considered very disrespectful. As this war plays out over the next 10-20 years I think you will see this term replacing ISIS or IS or ISIL. All of which acknowledge the existence of the Caliphate. For me they are not a caliphate and are better described as the ones who trample everything. Yes. And the westboro church is absolute, unequivocal and undeniable proof that Christianity is a violent, bigoted cult and nothing more. Good point OP!
Are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell if your tone is sarcastic or not. I was being sarcastic. As pointed out above, I was referencing the logical fallacy of making a rule from one example. Yours is a fair point, I'm actually inclined to believe in it. That is to say, I do believe that people who operate under a particular label don't speak for other groups that are not affiliated with them. It is striking though that we continue to have people this day and age that are savagely murdering in the name of religion. I suppose being from the West, where we have seemingly having advanced beyond the period of holy wars, the Middle East seems particularly anachronistic. I do wonder though how violence and religion continues to mesh. Is it violent people who seek out a religion to justify their violence, or a violent religion that seeks out violent individuals to advance its political agenda? Interesting explanation on Daesh. I knew that they hated to be referred as it, but didn't know why. A fundamental characteristic of many religions is "to spread outwards,to grow." Thus in ancient times they existed in a sort of zero sum game of who gets the most land and how. There is no way to ignore the fact that Muslim sects have and are generating the most warlike and barbaric behavior overall. Remember that even in wartime Germany WWII, ten percent of the population may have been in the armed forces. Of those, no more than ten percent was on the front lines actually fighting. So one percent of the population - a tiny percentage - was "violent."  See the logical errors? Relate this to your own arguments. www.thereligionofpeace.comYes, Muslim sects are generating the most warlike and barbaric behavior now of any religious group (that I am currently aware of). I agree with that. The difference for me is I don't associate the crimes of the violent sects as being crimes of the non-violent ones. Re Germany, I also don't hold civilian Germans as being "violent" during WWII because they were born in Germany. I differentiate inside of a group between those who commit and condone violent actions, and those who don't. If all Germans were guilty of violence by association of the outwardly-defined group, they bombing of civilian centers by the Allies would have been justifiable. I don't consider them to be. The violent Germans were the violent ones, just like the My Lai massacre is attributable to those who committed the atrocity, and not all American soldiers who served in Vietnam. See the association error? Relate it to your own arguments. So the German factory employing housewives to make artillery shells is not a valid target? Or the Muslim community center with kindegardens and 1000 rockets in the basement? Both might be, that's debatable. But that's also not the issue. This issue is the inappropriateness of carpet bombing heavily residential areas and other areas of little military or industrial significance, or the fire bombing Dresden at the end of the war which was so reviled by the Allied public that it caused senior British military commanders to write: It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive. Especially because of the "wanton destruction" the Allies inflicted in WWII during their campaign of total war, we no longer believe in the concept because we recognize that the actions of the guilty do not condemn the innocent merely by group association, an underpinning of today's civilized society which you're apparently loathe to accept. Your selective employment of the concept of group guilt is evidence of your true motivation. |
|
|
|
|
It's clear they're not taking Trump seriously, as you pointed out, based on the questions they ask him. However, it's also completely warranted. He's a celebrity more than anything, and he is not a politician. To think he has political answers to problems first requires him to establish any credibility whatsoever that he's not just a superficial windbag (which he is), and since he has no political experience, we can only draw from what he's done to this point, which is run businesses into the ground. As much as you don't want it to be, that is relevant to someone who professes to have the answers on how to solve the national debt. He can't handle a business soundly, it doesn't bode well for the finances of the entire country. He has no credibility to stand up there and profess to have answers to a problem like that, and the moderators were right to force him to reconcile the the persona he wants to present with the reality of what he is.
|
|
|
|
I saw this, and I am convinced that Trump is not really interested in becoming president. I think he is just saying as many outrageous things as possible to get some free press.
To what end? He's losing business partners as he runs his mouth more and more. The press is hardly "free" or beneficial if he's not running to win. |
|
|
|
|
This will stiffle dissent in the Party. Limiting his exposure is a power play. The Party knows it can't put this guy forward as a candidate, so they need to start limiting his exposure now to save themselves from having him win the primary and being forced to support him in a general election he has zero chance of winning.
People who don't swear fealty to the Party will be diminished, and Trump failed to swear fealty at the first debate when he refused to promise to support whoever the nominee is. Maybe Trump doesn't need to because he can finance his own campaign, but no one else in this group can, and that's why no one else will dare anger the Party Bosses. Everyone else will fall in line. Trump will be made an example of, and the excuse will be "he's offensive." Most republican candidates are offensive/insensitive, Trump's real crime is he's not loyal to the Party.
|
|
|
|
There is no doubt that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ of any subgroup of humanity.
Jews guaranteed Hitlers defeat by designing and developing the atomic bomb.
Jews may have been involved in the assassination of Stalin when it became clear he was going to turn on them (google Stalin and warfarin if interested in details)
Jews have dominated the world of banking and finance because it was a vacant and valuable economic niche and they were smart enough to see that early on. If there were no Jews some other group would have risen to dominance and we would in all likelihood be in the exact same world financial situation we are in now.
Jews are not a master race but the are very powerful, very intelligent, and very organized. They are also quite sensitive to racial attacks given the periodic historical attempts to wipe them out.
Except the atomic bomb had very little, if anything, to do with Hitler's defeat, but I suppose historical accuracy isn't very useful for those who want to participate in this circle jerk... |
|
|
|
|
Obvious troll is obvious.
|
|
|
|
I have to say that I came into this article pretty skeptical that it was going to pan out, both because of the tendency to exaggerate headlines in this forum and the source of the quote. But the video let me see it in his own words, and although a bit of of context, it certainly looks like he's calling for 10,000 murderers to step forward.
I'm looking for 10,000 fearless volunteers to murder innocent people for the cause. I'm not one of them, of course, which is why I need you all to do it for me.
Martin Luther King, Jr. he is not. So much for the doctrine of non-violence.
It depends what book you are reading...  It seems he's reading a book where perpetuating the cycle of violence brings about all his desires with no adverse consequences. (Unless you're one of the victims of his army of 10,000 fearless justice administrators, that is...) |
|
|
|
|
I have to say that I came into this article pretty skeptical that it was going to pan out, both because of the tendency to exaggerate headlines in this forum and the source of the quote. But the video let me see it in his own words, and although a bit of of context, it certainly looks like he's calling for 10,000 murderers to step forward.
I'm looking for 10,000 fearless volunteers to murder innocent people for the cause. I'm not one of them, of course, which is why I need you all to do it for me.
Martin Luther King, Jr. he is not. So much for the doctrine of non-violence.
|
|
|
|
|
1) This is interesting news.
2) Posted on a politics forum though?
|
|
|
|
I have already made my position on Trump clear, he is not qualified to lead this country, but then again neither is anyone in the Democrat party who are on the ticket...
I do not think he will have enough votes. Trump does not expect he can be the president himself, he just want the publicity from running.That's where I disagree with you. I wholeheartedly believe Trump wholeheartedly believes he can win the Presidency. He's that narcissistic/delusional. |
|
|
|
"Unconventional and irregular" fighting is the definition. Conventional warfare is still considered...
I think we are mostly on the same page with this. Maybe they are a guerrilla force with limited conventional capacity? Here are a few recent examples of their more advanced capabilities and some of the uniforms that different units use. I watch a lot of these videos and it has been interesting to see how much more professional the fighting has become. Better training and watching your comrades die I guess. Last weeks attack of an Egyptian Navy ship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y_d4lVzMP8Uniforms that the better units wear:   Heavy weapons: (your totally right that these are hard to use and move undetected. But they can be disguised or you can wait till a sand storms comes) DAESH with captured armor column:  DAESH in Libya last week:  Here you can see a little of their planning and mixed use of conventional assets, like heavy rockets and drones, and new guerrilla tactics like VBIES. (suicide car bomb). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfjMYyZ7AqQInteresting to see this, thanks. (Sorry for super slow response. I've been absent from the forum for awhile and am catching back up on threads I was involved in.) I wonder if the large area they control and have held for a significant time has any role in their decision of whether or not to employ uniforms, as they may be "safer" areas for them to do so openly. It certainly seems they don't use uniforms when they are plotting new attacks in areas they don't control, as the plots of bombing mosques and civilian centers relies on not first being identified before you can detonate the bombs. |
|
|
|
Isn't low / high tide cycles convulsive evidence we don't have a flat earth but a round one? I've personally never understood who benefits by lying about the shape of our earth.
Serial attention whores. |
|
|
|
What I mean is that people should say what they mean and mean what they say, not have to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)foot around worrying about if someone may be offended because the wrong descriptor was used...
I a way I agree, people should know what sort of person the candidate really is, with Trumpy he proves he is not fit to run this Nation. Nor his businesses apparently (4th bankruptcy is a charm?). It's amusing to think that he whole-heartedly believes that with four bankruptcies under his belt, he's the person who can clean up the national debt, as he so proudly boasted last night.  Maybe someone should tell him bankruptcy isn't an option for this one? |
|
|
|
|
Sigh, another thing to control. I would point out though that there is a difference between a rating system and censorship. A rating system implies to me vesting the element of control with the kids' parents. Kids can't rent an R rated movie, so they wouldn't be able to check out certain books deemed above their maturity level without parental permission.
I'm against this initiative, just pointing out that supporting a "rating system" is not tantamount to supporting censorship.
|
|
|
|
|
Donald Trump is perceived as wealthy and successful despite a history littered with fiscally unsound decisions and bankruptcies. He is brash, self-obsessed, and doesn't care what anyone thinks of him. He is the biggest believer in his own infallibility, and refuses to apologize for any of his actions. OF COURSE this man should be President, he's the perfect microcosm of America!
|
|
|
|
|
I guess fighting eminent domain these days needs a hook. I don't see how it violates religious freedom laws and I find that argument much less convincing that the fact that it certainly violates property rights.
|
|
|
|
|
'Noise, misplaced anger, attempt at intimidation, and overconfidence in our ability to effect change.' - Just about every Anonymous press release ever.
Not to say protests aren't in order over police brutality, but there could hardly be a more eye-roll inducing group leading the charge.
|
|
|
|
ISIS is incredibly brutal. If we thought Hitler and Stalin were ogres for their cruelty, ISIS is far worse. The brutality of ISIS is almost unparalleled in our time.
The cartels in Mexico regularly abduct people for ransom, behead captives, murder civilians in towns where police stage raids, and target government officials for assassination. Perhaps "uncommon" in our time is more appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
