Okay, and I understand where you are coming from. But if I was to say, for example, "Manifestly obvious that persons claiming Trump's shit are heavily flawed non-patriots."

It says nothing about my OPINION at all.

Pretty much that's the way it is. I mean this empirically. Any questions?

I'm puzzled by not really seeing the problem in your excerpts. Something seems clear to you when you read them but not to me.

On climate change of course you are on the defensive. You really are repeating beliefs and correlation, not causation. That's not necessarily bad but let's just be clear about it, rather than calling it "scientific proof."

Nothing to see here?

She is beautiful.

Hey, but Hillary went there, like right into those COMBAT ZONES, man, and like, she got shot at and all that, and I heard all this so it's true, like whoa, because CNN told me.

Actually, this current push toward "open borders" wasn't part of (yes, what I call) the "left" even ten years ago, was it?

It's recent and there are specific reasons why. Ten years ago, it was part of a group of concepts being pushed pretty much only by one Soros funded organization.

And why exactly do you think today you have to believe in that idea? I didn't use the phrase "goose stepping" without some reasons, you see.

Hard to trust or be allied with anyone named Munchkin

(or close enough to it for gov work....)

1. Bitcoin and associated technologies have evoked many changes in finance and this spills over into traditional areas of politics.

2. Some issues which have been thought of as fodder for political views become a moot point with the existence of crypto currency.

Well, it's party time.

Enjoy.

It's a serious issue, but it's clear they are appointed by life. Constitution. Back then, though, life was short and brutal. Now, it is long, and the last few years are an issue. Looks like a matter there could be a reasonable fix to that all sides could agree to.

And as of today, in spite of some wacky comments, we are not at that point with Ginsburg.

Somewhat related. Google "fit to serve Supreme Court" and you don't get Ginsburg. You get 9-1 Kavanaugh, "not fit to serve."

Google is a lying cunt.

The important part of my reasoning is to call "Bullshit!" when I see it, and I, along with others, did.

That's a "nuclear option."

Not a good idea, although some future Dem admin would do it if it benefited them without blinking or thinking about tradition or future consequences.

I'm good with that, but you ain't gonna do away with the Knights Templar, are you? Or Johnny Cash's lyrics? Like, all that rich myth and lore is part of the non-God-universe....

And what would we do without the stupid Wiccans? Darn, or the Club of Satan? It can only exist in opposition.

I kind of like the theme of 2001, although the last part falls short a bit. Get to Jupiter, and KAZAMM! You get the universe, baby!

But regardless, the fundamentals of today to be concerned with are the Islamics. Christianity, if you think about it, created the very culture which permits and encourages the discussion of atheism we are having. Those Islamic whackjobs'll just kill you.

Some time ago, walking through some wild country, I came across the remains of a house and outbuildings perhaps two hundred years old. This was rather interesting, there were a total of perhaps ten buildings. Many had functions that were discernible, such as the shed where animals were slaughtered for meat.

The main house was small by our standards, of course. Some plants still grew where the vegetable gardens had been, onions seem to never die. The gardens were next to the house, and there was a rock wall surrounding them.

Now exactly how would they have done without that wall? There were wild pigs, and deer, rabbits, everything out there. And they're all hungry. Those in the home had dogs, too, who had a job to do both day and night. They had guns, and no doubt ate some of the varmints that crept in.

But without that wall, the garden would have never survived.

That statement has been guarded against in the various creeds by making the JC "the son of god" with a bunch of mumbo jumbo about trinity, and various other beliefs such as "personal relationship with God," eg, not a low level representative of him.

But there is no question, the universe is far wider and richer than we can ever know, and we have only seen a small amount of what is likely out there.

Starting with your first entry...

You got a problem with us helping the Chinese people against the Japanese invaders?

Might want to think about that long and carefully before answering.

REVISED. I see you posted in response to this exchange. I objected to that guy saying US people out to keep out of voicing opinions about Brexit, also. All we see all the time is foreign people opining as to how we should act, lol. We ain't keeping out of some spectacle where elected British are flaunting their disregard of the people.


Really? Are you serious? Are you getting paid to say this?

You got some nuts with the whole globe sticking their nose into American life top to bottom to criticize Americans for having an opinion on Brexit. Sorry, the world doesn't get to have opinions about us while we all stay quiet any more. Also unfortunately Brexit effects us too.

You sure your view about the USA being silent to the world is not upside down?

Wow....

I'll have to think about that. I have studied inflationary cycles and economic corrections, but paralleling that series of events with USA today had never occurred to me.

Of course such an event would occur with some quirky American features, such as stocks go down, liquor stocks go up. And maybe crypto.

In the real world, there is neither the straw man argument or any need for the rebuttal to it.

You know damn well the solutions has dozens of parts and policies and one essential part is that fucking wall!

FYI, although you may well know this, someone who is 100% certain that God exists is NOT a believer, or a person who has faith.

At least the Christian theology I am familiar with, and the writings of JC, are very clear about these matters. Look at the way JC slammed people that wanted to see miracles or "proof."

etc, etc. So you have it correct, and the religious should be agreeing with you instead of arguing.

Atheist teaches, and the religious listens not.

There is the possibility that she (at her advanced age, and I am not advocating this or gloating about it, it's just reality) could go comatose or otherwise completely incapable of functioning on the court, but not resign.

She has to actually die or resign.

Maybe this, maybe that.

It's clear, I believe, that Hillary would not qualify.  Oh, wait, you conjectured a scenario where the senate was Dem. I agree with you then, her criminal activities would not be a factor, given the levels of corruption with those guys. And the payoffs her Foundation would make to Dem senators would get her in.

Then you'd just have to rewrite history to make it all look nice.