Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fake polls, fake news
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 509 of 710 (801028)
03-02-2017 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by Percy
03-02-2017 8:55 AM


Re: Analysis of New York Times Article
Percy writes:
quote:
The idea appeared to spring off the top of his head during a meeting with news anchors, so it's very likely true that he hasn't had time to think it through, nor vet it with his staff or the relevant agencies, which he should have done before even mentioning it. Poor impulse control.
On top of that, as soon as he said it, his aides and cohorts in the room immediately started to look nervous. He then turned to them to say, "Can we get that in the speech?" (remember...he didn't write the speech.) And sure enough, it wasn't in the speech.
Yet another example of the lack of any sort of control within the White House in general and Trump in particular. He simply blurts out whatever is in his head without thinking and leaves the mess for his underlings to clean up.
Signorile has an interesting idea: The next time Trump is going to speak, take five of his staff and put them in separate rooms. When he's done, have them all independently explain what Trump "really meant."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Percy, posted 03-02-2017 8:55 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by ooh-child, posted 03-02-2017 5:41 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 512 of 710 (801031)
03-02-2017 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 508 by Percy
03-02-2017 5:09 PM


Re: Analysis of New York Times Article
Percy responds to me:
quote:
quote:
I think you're confusing the new policy regarding deportation of immigrants with the Muslim ban.
Nope.
OK...both Faith and I had the same conclusion (me at Message 505, Faith at Message 477).
Especially because I was referring to the new orders from Trump regarding the deportation of immigrants while you suddenly piped up about the Muslim ban.
Here's my original statement (Message 473) in response to Faith (Message 460)
What on earth did Trump do except promise to deport criminals?
You mean you don't know? The order is not merely to "deport criminals." Instead, it is to deport anybody "charged."
Note, that doesn't mean convicted. All it takes is for a cop to not like the color of your skin, manufacture a charge, and suddenly you're being deported for a crime you didn't actually commit.
On top of that, you're ignoring that the current policy is already to deport criminals. It's why more people have been deported under Obama than under any other administration. So exactly why did Trump need to bother?
So when you responded with (Message 475):
It's important to note that the original order applied to everyone from those seven countries, including those with green cards.
You can understand why I would have thought that you were responding to the same point that Faith and I were talking about: The deportation of immigrants. You will note that I mention Obama in my statement and there was no Muslim ban under Obama.
But that can't be what you were talking about because the policy regarding deportation of immigrants that Faith and I were talking about applies to all immigrants from all countries, not "those seven countries, including those with green cards."
The rational person would recognize that "those seven countries" is a reference to the Muslim ban, especially when accompanied by a comment about green cards.
But here you are saying that no, you weren't talking about the Muslim ban.
So since your comments cannot rationally be connected to deportation policy and you say they aren't about the Muslim ban, one is left to wonder just what the hell you're talking about.
The word you're looking for is, "Oops," Percy. I don't doubt that you understand the difference between the Muslim ban and the deportation policy, but you entered a conversation about the latter and made a non sequitur comment about the former.
quote:
You're trying to make a single characterization fit everything Trump does.
When a person is massively incompetent, it will infect all his actions. However, that is so broad of a trait that it will manifest in many different ways.
However, that is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. It's precious how you think you can change the subject. Here's my full comment in complete context (Message 505):
You're trying to find the fleck of gold in the mountain of excrement. This is the variation on the "Doesn't Kick Puppies" syndrome...that if only we can find the one good thing, that somehow negates all the rest of it. "Well, he can't be that bad...he doesn't kick puppies." Yes, the new order is "better" than what came before, but that doesn't make what was put forward a good thing. It still has the basic underlying premise that is going to send it to court which will likely not survive.
Especially compared to the other actions he has taken.
You'll see that I was referring to the Muslim ban and how the new order is marginally better than the previous order...but that it is still horrendous.
Not because Trump is incompetent (which he is) but because he put forward a horrendous policy. The *implementation* of the policy is proof of his incompetence. The actual policy itself is indicative of the bigotry that infects his administration.
Once again, we run into the "Doesn't Kick Puppies" syndrome: That because Trump isn't actively calling for a registration of Muslims, then that means he isn't a bad person...but wait...he *did* call for a Muslim registration. OK, so the fact that he hasn't actually implemented it is a good thing. It shows he's being "presidential," right?
No, it doesn't. That he is engaging in "better" behavior doesn't excuse the behavior he's engaging in. The flaw here (the Muslim ban) isn't his incompetence. It isn't his con job. It's the bigotry that infects his administration.
Are you about to predict that I'm saying everything Trump does is bad?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by Percy, posted 03-02-2017 5:09 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 515 of 710 (801055)
03-02-2017 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by Faith
03-02-2017 9:27 PM


Re: deportations
Faith writes:
quote:
It was obviously not my ignorance of Trump's actions that left Obama as the source of the actions
Huh? That literally makes no sense. Obama is the source of your ignorance? Or your ignorance has the ability to alter time and space and negate Trump's directions to the INS and thus the ICE officers who have been repeatedly quoted as saying they are following Trump's directives were lying...they were actually following Obama's orders?
quote:
and to twist it into that is just another insult to ME that I'm rightly objecting to.
Ever notice how conservatives get so pissed off when you quote them exactly, claiming that their statements are being "twisted"?
Did you or did you not just write in Message 743 responding to JonF:
TRUMP HAS ISSUED NEW ORDERS AND THE AGENCIES HAVE ISSUED MEMOS ON HOW TO ENFORCE THOSE ORDERS.
ICE is doing what Trump, and NOT OBAMA, ordered them to do.
I guess it was on the other thread that I acknowledged your information and thanked you for it.
Did you or did you not just write in Message 217 in response to NoNukes:
"You miss a lot?" No shit. You only appreciate sources that harp on the incendiary talk of folks who don't represent "Black Community" whoever the #$@&! you think they are. If you cared about hearing what they or BLM had to say you could easily find such pronouncements from black people with next to zero effort.
Of course, your ignorance is always someone else's fault. You say you did not find enough youtube videos to convince you? Youtube is a piss poor way to do research.
No, I admit I am not motivated to do enough research and it's getting harder all the time. Right now my eyes are hurting pretty bad. I am not up to checking a lot of sources.
I should point out that in that very same post, you have the unmitigated gall to follow it up with:
I'm discouraged by things that are happening, and by such things as your poisonous attitude. Just get off the thread, you're a problem not a solution.
You admit to being ignorant of what you're talking about and unwilling to do what it takes to become knowledgeable on the topics in which you would like to participate and somehow it's everybody else who is "a problem, not a solution"?
The irony is strong in you, isn't it?
How many times do you need to be burned by your own words, your own sources, your own philosophies before it dawns on you that perhaps it isn't everybody else?
I'm reminded of the joke regarding Taylor Swift:
You know, Ms. Swift, if half of all the songs on your albums are about your lousy ex-boyfriends, perhaps the problem isn't them.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 9:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 516 of 710 (801056)
03-02-2017 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by Faith
03-02-2017 9:29 PM


Re: SOTUS use of Navy Seal ...
Faith writes:
quote:
I think the whole vets story is a species of fake news
What's fake, Faith? They aren't members of the military? They're lying?
quote:
just another case of anything we can drum up for a complaint about Trump.
Oh...I see...anybody who can find a majority of people who dislike Trump is lying.
quote:
I have no idea what's in your blinding white boxes. Should I care?
If you think you're going to have anything useful to say on the subject, yes.
You do understand that if you don't take the time and put in the effort to do your homework, you're not going to be able to speak intelligently on the subject, yes?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 9:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by xongsmith, posted 03-03-2017 12:06 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 518 by Faith, posted 03-03-2017 12:19 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 522 of 710 (801066)
03-03-2017 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 517 by xongsmith
03-03-2017 12:06 AM


Re: SOTUS use of Navy Seal ...
xongsmith responds to me:
quote:
While I may have a lot of troubles with Faith, there's one thing I'm never going to criticize her for - her failing eyesight. That's just below the belt.
How lovely, then, that I didn't criticize her eyesight.
I criticized her incurious nature and her deliberately avoiding information that contradicts her, going to the point of inventing a Grand Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C) every time she runs across anything that shows her to be wrong. She admits that she doesn't do much investigation into any of the topics she talks about.
So, in answer to her question, "Should I care," my answer remains:
If you think you're going to have anything useful to say on the subject, yes.
You will recall, after all, that she declared the information to be "fake."
That despite claiming that she didn't even look at it. She doesn't know what it is or what it says, but she is absolutely certain that it's "fake."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by xongsmith, posted 03-03-2017 12:06 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 523 of 710 (801067)
03-03-2017 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 518 by Faith
03-03-2017 12:19 AM


Re: fake news and more fake news
Faith responds to me:
quote:
Fake news as I use the term includes any news story that has no purpose other than to try to make Trump look bad.
Ah, yes. Someone takes a dump in the punchbowl and they're the aggrieved party should somebody point it out.
When we found out that he admits to sexual assault ("Grab 'em by the pussy"), HE was the victim.
When we found out that he is a pedophile (going into the dressing room of the Miss Teen USA pageant, telling a 10-year-old that he'd be dating her in ten years), HE was the victim.
When we found out that he fantasizes about having sex with his own daughter (numerous statements about how he wants to have sex with Ivanka), HE was the victim.
When he attacked a Soldier's family because they were Muslim, HE was the victim.
When he attacked and physically mocked a disabled reporter, HE was the victim.
When he advocated for torture, HE was the victim.
When he tried to claim that Trump Steaks were still around, HE was the victim.
When he said that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK, HE was the victim.
When he said that Obama wasn't a US-born citizen, HE was the victim.
When he tweeted out a picture of himself eating a taco bowl on Cinco de Mayo, saying, "I love Hispanics," HE was the victim.
When he repeatedly said that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered, HE was the victim.
When he attacked US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel simply because he was of Mexican heritage, HE was the victim.
When he repeated retweeted statements by white supremacists, HE was the victim.
Exactly when are Trump's blunders his own fault, Faith? Or are you saying that any time Trump does something stupid, even if it involves national security and puts our country at risk (such as his statements that we should abandon Japan and South Korea to defend themselves against North Korea), we shouldn't say anything? Because it might make him look bad?
Does the word "sycophant" mean anything to you? What about "lickspittle"? Or "stooge"?
quote:
Did Obama have to put up with this kind of stuff?
Yes.
Of course, Obama didn't have nearly the gaffes, fiascos, and outright stupidity in his administration that Trump has had. And remember, Trump has only been in office for a little over a month compared to Obama's 8 years.
Or have you forgotten the incident regarding Jeremiah Wright?
Have you forgotten that Trump spent five years claiming Obama wasn't born in the US? That bit of stupidity is still running around...to the point that you still believe it, Faith.
Have you forgotten about the supposed "death panels" in the Affordable Care Act?
quote:
The problem is that the kinds of contacts that were had wouldn't even have made a blip on their minds because they are so common and so standard and unrelated to anything that would involve national security that they wouldn't even think of them.
Then why did they lie about having had them? Jeff Sessions was directly asked if he had any contact with the Russians during his time on the Trump campaign and he lied, saying he had it.
Then, when it came out that he had met with them at least twice, he claimed that he didn't know what he talked about with them.
Well, as Al Franken pointed out, if you don't know what you did talk to them about, you certainly don't remember what you DIDN'T talk to them about and thus, you are compromised.
quote:
But trust the Democrats to blow them up into something they can use against Trump and his people.
Right...because we shouldn't actually look into how the Russians were involved in our elections because it might make Trump look bad.
Tell that to France and Germany who are currently working to counter Russian interference in their elections.
quote:
There was no information to release because it was all ordinary and innocuous
Says who? Trump? Why should we trust him? He is the most dishonest president we've had (51 lies in the 61 minutes of his speech to Congress, Faith.) Every time he claims that there is nothing to be had regarding his staff's connections to Russians, we find that he's lying and that there were many ties to Russia. He still won't release his tax returns so that we can verify his claim that he has no business connections to Russia...
...especially because he has repeatedly said that he has done business with Russia. They bailed him out of many bankruptcies (the Bayrock Group) and he has worked with them on many deals in other countries.
In 1986, Trump wrote the following in Art of the Deal
One thing led to another, and now I’m talking about building a large luxury hotel across the street from the Kremlin in partnership with the Soviet government.
That was about a conversation he had with Soviet ambassador Yuri Dubinin.
But since Trump didn't actually write Art of the Deal, are you going to say that it's all part of the Grand Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C)? His ghostwriter lied?
Strange that Trump had a deal with Drinks Americas Holdings to sell Trump-branded vodka in Russia.
The Miss Universe Pageant, which Trump owns, was held in Moscow in 2013. Are you honestly claiming that he had nothing to do with that? How did the partnership with Russian billionaire Aras Agalarov happen without Trump?
We know that Trump Trump is connected to Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev because Trump sold a mansion to him in Florida for $95 million. Now, Trump claims that this is the only time he's dealt with Russia (notice that that contradicts his claim that he's never done any business with the Russians), but his own son contradicts him. Donald Trump, Jr. said the following in eTurboNews:
And in terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets; say in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia. There's indeed a lot of money coming for new-builds and resale reflecting a trend in the Russian economy and, of course, the weak dollar versus the ruble.
So which is it?
Have you forgotten about Paul Manafort and his connections to Viktor Yanukovych...to the point that Manafort had to resign? He's under investigation by the CIA, NSA, FBI, ODNI and FinCEN and has been caught laundering more than $2 million for the Party of Regions.
Do you know who the Party of Regions is, Faith?
What about Carter Page? Do you even know who he is? He was one of the foreign policy advisers to Trump during the campaign...and was a consultant to Gazprom, the Russian state-controlled gas company.
And then there's Tillerson, the current Secretary of State who was the head of the Russian division of Exxon-Mobil.
quote:
Just another big fat lie.
So when Sessions told Congress that he didn't have any contacts with Russia, he was lying? Or when he admitted that he did have contacts with Russia more than once, he was lying? Which is it, Faith? Was he lying then or now?
quote:
Sessions had contacts with lots of ambassadors on a casual basis that had nothing to do with the question he was asked in his confirmation hearing.
The irony is strong in you, isn't it, Faith? You realize your claim that the fiasco that is Sessions is a "big, fat lie" is actually the big, fat lie, yes?
Here is the exact exchange between Franken and Sessions:
Franken: "CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, ‘Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.’ These documents also allegedly say quote, ‘There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.’
"Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"
Sessions: "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."
Here's video of it:
The hearing where Sessions denies contact with Russia
You will note that Franken wasn't asking about "casual contacts" but whether or not there was any contact of any kind.
To which Sessions flat out denied having any communication with the Russians.
That was a lie. He now admits to having talked to them twice. And those only because we found evidence of them.
He now claims that he doesn't remember what he talked about. Again, as Franken pointed out, if he doesn't remember what he talked about, then he certainly doesn't remember what he DIDN'T talk about.
quote:
That was a big mistake because Flynn had done nothing wrong.
Lying to Congress and to the Vice President is "nothing wrong"?
Especially because Flynn directly states that since he doesn't remember what he said when talking to the Russians, he can't deny that he DIDN'T talk about sanctions? So Flynn's own admission of his being compromised is a lie?
Remember, Flynn claimed that he never talked to the Russians at all and the only reason he changed his tune is because his conversations with the Russians were recorded (which all communications with foreign governments are) and thus there was evidence of him talking to the Russians. That's how we know that he talked to them and that he was talking about the sanctions. We have him on tape.
Remember, Trump claimed on February 10 that he didn't know anything about Flynn's conversations with Russia:
Reporter, Feb. 10: What do you think of reports that General Flynn had conversations with the Russians about the sanctions before you were sworn in?
Trump: I don’t know about it. I haven’t seen it. What report is that?
But that was a lie. Trump was told about Flynn on January 26, as Spicer confirmed.
And on top of that, Trump directly stated that even if Flynn hadn't talked about the sanctions, Trump would have told him to do so:
"Mike was doing his job. He was calling countries and his counterparts. So it certainly would've been OK with me if he did it," Trump said. "I would've directed him to do it if I thought he wasn't doing it."
That is a direct violation of the Logan Act.
And let's not forget that Flynn is currently under investigation by the US Army for violations of the Emoluments Clause for his trip to Moscow in 2015.
So once again, Faith, everything you have said about this issue is wrong. You have displayed a profound ignorance about the state of affairs due to your refusal to actually do your homework before speaking and relying on known purveyors of lies to form your opinion combined with your kneejerk reaction that anybody who says anything against something you believe in is necessarily evil and part of the Grand Conspiracy.
How many times do you need to get burned?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by Faith, posted 03-03-2017 12:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 524 of 710 (801068)
03-03-2017 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 518 by Faith
03-03-2017 12:19 AM


Re: fake news and more fake news
Here's an example of what you're talking about, Faith:
You're blaming the messenger for pointing out reality because it might make a person you like look bad.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by Faith, posted 03-03-2017 12:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(4)
Message 600 of 710 (801199)
03-04-2017 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 573 by Faith
03-03-2017 3:20 PM


Re: SOTUS use of Navy Seal
Faith writes:
quote:
Not about men I know, about media jumping on a private remark.
Because it wasn't just "a private remark."
After Trump and Bush talk about sexual harassment of women, they then proceed to sexually harass Arianne Zucker.
Did you forget that part? They harass her into touching them.
And in case you forgot, Trump was talking about his sexual harassment of Nancy O'Dell:
I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there, and she was married.
So he doesn't care about marriage vows (which we know because he has cheated on all of his wives), deliberately and aggressively pursues a married woman, and complains when he gets rebuffed.
That you think this is merely "a private remark" shows just how much of a monster you are, Faith.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 573 by Faith, posted 03-03-2017 3:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 632 of 710 (801676)
03-08-2017 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 612 by Faith
03-08-2017 9:57 AM


Re: More evidence of the horrors in Europe for you all to deny
Because we all know a Christian would *NEVER* desecrate a menorah or engage in any sort of anti-Semitic behavior during Yom Kippur.
Vandals attack menorahs in Park Slope and Prospect Heights
Vandals broke two public menorahs in Park Slope and Prospect Heights on Monday night, according to a local rabbi who believes the attacks were fueled by hate anti-Semitic or otherwise.
That's from 2016.
Sun City synagogue copes in wake of vandalism of menorah, Holocaust memorial
Congregants at a Jewish synagogue in the West Valley received an outpouring of community support this week after vandals attacked a Holocaust memorial and menorah on the first night of Hanukkah.
"It was just very shocking," said Irene Smith, president of Temple Beth Shalom in Sun City. "To think they would desecrate the Holocaust memorial. It's very hurtful We have people who are survivors, and it's very painful for them."
Again, from 2016.
Jewish brothers attacked by goons uttering ‘F--king Jews’ after attending Yom Kippur services in Brooklyn
Two Jewish brothers walking home from Yom Kippur services in Brooklyn were attacked by three men who uttered anti-Semitic slurs, police sources said.
And why do I get the feeling that Faith has nothing to say regarding the bomb threats that have been directed at Jewish centers and synagogues around the country of late?
You know...the ones Trump claims are being carried out by Jews.
But hey, there's only been more than 100 of them. It's not like it's anything to worry about, right?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 612 by Faith, posted 03-08-2017 9:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(4)
Message 633 of 710 (801679)
03-08-2017 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 631 by Faith
03-08-2017 7:14 PM


Re: More evidence of the horrors in Europe for you all to deny
Faith writes:
quote:
I'm just following the terminology on the videos.
And if someone lies to you, you'll repeat the lie if you like it?
Is lying for Jesus not a sin?
Quick question, Faith:
What's the percentage of the population of Europe (assume the European Union) that is Muslim?
quote:
Besides, hasn't the EU sort of made it all a "mega country?" Isn't that the whole point of the EU?
No and no.
Quick question, Faith:
What are the differences among:
The European Union
The Eurozone
The European Single Market
The European Union Customs Union
Another quick question, Faith:
Did the North American Free Trade Agreement turn Canada, the US, and Mexico into one "mega country"?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 631 by Faith, posted 03-08-2017 7:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 659 of 710 (801781)
03-09-2017 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 639 by Faith
03-09-2017 11:06 AM


Re: Some more evidence of Muslim problem in Europe you can all deny
Faith writes:
quote:
The Muslim Migrant Invasion and the Collapse of Europe
Jihad Watch is not a source.
For example, that story about the rape of a 15-year-old on a student cruise in Sweden? It's fake. Well, technically it isn't fake, but you neglected to tell the entire story.
Specifically, the case was dismissed. Controversially, I should add, but it was dismissed.
How many times do you need to be burned by your "sources" before you realize that they are lying to you and you should stop referring to them?
And you still haven't answered my question, Faith:
What percentage of the European population (assume the European Union) is Muslim?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 639 by Faith, posted 03-09-2017 11:06 AM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 660 of 710 (801782)
03-09-2017 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 641 by Faith
03-09-2017 11:35 AM


Re: Some more evidence of Muslim problem in Europe you can all deny
Faith writes:
quote:
I knew it would be denied. Since the MSM won't report this stuff
Incorrect. It was reported on. That's why we know that your "source" is lying to you. Jihad Watch is not a source, Faith.
To go back to that cruise/rape example:
Teenagers walk free in Swedish ferry 'rape' case
That's from a Swedish news source, Faith.
Now, we know you don't actually do any homework on anything before you open your yap, but it would behoove you to actually do some digging before blindly accepting what someone who you have been directly shown to be a liar tells you.
How many times do you need to be burned before you learn?
And you still haven't answered my question, Faith:
What percentage of the European population (assume the European Union) is Muslim?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 641 by Faith, posted 03-09-2017 11:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 675 of 710 (801886)
03-10-2017 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 674 by Faith
03-10-2017 3:06 AM


Re: Some more evidence of Muslim problem in Europe you can all deny
Faith writes:
quote:
Anything to call me a racist -- or genocidal, pure PC, that's what you're doing.
Let me see if I understand.
When *YOU* write (Message 757):
And "religion" is a term that Islam doesn't deserve anyway because it's nothing but a totalitarian political ideology that seeks to rule the world whether it has to do it by murdering all dissenters as Mohammed did all the Jews in Medina, or by immigration and growing their population, or whatever tactic comes to hand. After Medina the method of choice was slaughtering its way through most of the world at the time. The Constitution does not support national suicide.
That's just good, clean fun?
The irony is strong in you, isn't it?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Faith, posted 03-10-2017 3:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 676 by Faith, posted 03-10-2017 6:48 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 681 of 710 (801986)
03-10-2017 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 676 by Faith
03-10-2017 6:48 AM


Seventh time, Faith
Faith responds to me:
quote:
The truth about islam is not racism
So much wrong in that statement, but I'll just take two:
1) You haven't told the truth. About anything, really, but in this case, about Islam.
2) Considering that you refuse to answer the simple question, do your religious proclivities allow you to deny interracial couples; would you be "validating" "race-mixing" by doing so, then I'm going to stand by my claim of "telling the truth about your racism."
But a bigot can't be expected to understand enough logic to know that, so it has to keep being repeated as nauseum. Blech.
Seventh time, Faith. Still waiting on your answer:
How does one "validate" a marriage if you aren't the one performing the sacrament?
Do your religious proclivities allow you to deny interracial couples? Would you be "validating" "race-mixing" by doing so?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 676 by Faith, posted 03-10-2017 6:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 03-11-2017 2:45 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 699 of 710 (802066)
03-11-2017 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by Faith
03-11-2017 2:45 AM


Re: Seventh time, Faith
Faith responds to me:
quote:
You REALLY can't figure out what "validate a gay marriage" means to an individual Christian?
The only people who can "validate" a marriage are the people directly involved in the ceremony: The two people getting married and any officiant performing a ceremony over it.
People who rent furniture, make food, sell flowers, etc. are not "validating" the marriage. They have no connection to the marriage at all. They're not being asked to participate in the ceremony.
quote:
Your questions just look like an obscurantist insistence on a pedantic semantic point.
Your continued avoidance of the very simple questions just makes you look like a fool who knows that her answer doesn't actually rise to the level of being coherent.
quote:
Those Christians who have been punished for refusing to cater a gay wedding understand the Bible's definition of marriage to exclude a "gay marriage" and feel they MUST REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING THAT MAKES IT APPEAR THAT THEY CONSIDER SUCH A "MARRIAGE" TO BE LEGITIMATE.
But renting furniture, a hall, making food, selling flowers, etc., none of that "legitimizes" the marriage. You're not participating in the ceremony any more than a car salesman is involved in the driver's subsequent drunk driving or a school is involved with the student's subsequent use of the knowledge given.
quote:
Making a wedding cake is a very special custom service for a wedding
No, it isn't. You act like there's some sort of special wedding fondant that cannot be used for anything else.
I used to be a cake decorator, Faith. There is no difference between a wedding cake and a birthday cake.
Well, except for maybe price. Some unscrupulous bakers and florists will charge you more if you tell them that you're buying their products for a wedding. It's still the exact same thing as what you would be buying otherwise, but they'll charge you 30% more.
So no, a wedding cake is not a "very special custom service." It's a cake with a sweetened covering and some decorations, just like any other cake.
quote:
so they can't do that
If they can do it for a birthday, they can do it for a wedding. There is no difference.
quote:
arranging flowers for a wedding is also a specialized wedding service
Nope. There's nothing special about the arrangement of flowers that can only be done for a wedding. The flowers don't know what they've been cut for. The wire doesn't understand why it's holding the flowers together. The foam doesn't understand what the stems are being used for.
quote:
and of course so is taking photos of a wedding.
I used to do photography, too, Faith. There is no special film for weddings. The camera doesn't understand what it's taking a picture of. Light doesn't behave differently because there are two women wearing white dresses.
quote:
Some Christian owners of such businesses have decided they cannot do these things because they would be "validating" -- treating as legitimate -- something that violates God's ordinance of marriage.
Then they are free to not open their businesses to the public. They can be private contractors and thus pick and choose their clients.
It's why if you want your picture taken, Glamour Shots at the mall cannot tell you no while Anne Geddes can.
quote:
In today's paganized world that means they have to accept that they will be punished.
You don't seem to understand what the word "punished" means. Nobody is being punished for being Christian.
They are being punished for violating the law. Do you get a religious exemption from the law, Faith?
quote:
As I said, the Bible teaches that all human beings are related to each other,
Says who? Certainly not the Bible. Have you forgotten the Loving v. Virginia case? The lower courts ruled against the couple precisely because god created the races separate and did not intend for them to mix.
quote:
all having descended from one original set of parents. Racial divisions are irrelevant, so Christians have no problem validating -- treating as legitimate -- "interracial" marriages, and would freely supply the custom-made cake, the flowers and the photos for such a wedding.
But if someone's religious proclivities prohibited that, would they be justified in denying interracial couples?
Because it just happened down in Louisiana, Faith. A government official refused to sign the marriage license for an interracial couple citing their religious beliefs.
Were they justified in doing so? Does the law allow people to claim a religious exemption to the law when it comes to equal treatment on the basis of race?
If not, then why do you think you get to have one on the basis of sexual orientation?
This is how we know that this isn't about your god, Faith, and all about your political correctness. You're PC enough to despise being thought of as racist...
...and PC enough to relish being thought of as a homophobe.
quote:
abe: A friend of mine hosted a reception party for a girl in our church who had been a missionary nurse to Sudan and eventually married an Americanized Sudanese Christian -- one of the many who had fled Sudan during the Muslim persecutions of the Christians. My friend now frequently babysits the couple's two children.) /abe
Did you just pull the "some of my best friends are black" argument?
quote:
I hope that answers your questions.
Partially.
I'm looking for details, Faith. How does providing a cake "validate" anything the customer decides to use it for?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 03-11-2017 2:45 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024