Umbobo

Registered bored user

cjeffblanchr wrote:
Beaverfever Obviously you don't, since you took it.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
daegog now that's a strawman.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
daegog That's not a strawman.  There are in fact some people who believe, say and think exactly that.  That doesn't mean that everyone in any group believes it, says it or thinks it, nor did layla say any such thing.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
thezigrat They CGIed George Carlin into Rogue One?  I missed that.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
All of the complaints that are made about "There should have been a commandment for..." like not raping children and other atrocities are in fact covered by Christianity, and by God.


"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Matthew 22:35-40

Everything falls under this.  It is scriptural, and is one of the reasons I am Christian rather than Jewish.  Anything that is not of love is a violation of this.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
holygod Yet everyone does, to some extent.  This makes us all bigots, by your explanation.

But that's really beside the point...  the difference between a baker not making a cake for a gay couple based on religious beliefs and someone hating black people is that one is a genuine religious objection while one is just hatred.  Now if the baker began a campaign to get all bakeries to not make cakes for gay couples, then yeah, it would be bigotry.  But by calling them bigots for simply exercising their religious convictions is as wrong as what you think they do.  You don't like religious people, you don't believe they should have the right to run their business according to their religious beliefs...  this is bigotry.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
holygod But where do you draw the line?  I mean, by that standard, everyone is a bigot--everyone disagrees with others on something.  Everyone dislikes what others do, at least from time to time.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
squrlz4ever I'd guess it is a lot of lurkers.  I think those of us who post are largely those of use who don't mind getting involved in controversy.  I lurked for many years before I ever made my first post.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
The timing is suspiciously convenient, but I think that is irrelevant.  This does nothing to prove a point that arming teachers would be a bad idea.  

So, one teacher out of a multitude goes bat-shit crazy.  Luckily it doesn't look like anyone was hurt.  But what if that teacher did decide to start shooting up the students?  Would you rather have no one else in the school with a gun to stop him?  Or a dozen others to take him down before he killed half the school?  Killers are going to find a way to kill.  There's a far greater chance of a teacher being concerned for the students than wanting to kill them. 

I'm not necessarily saying I'm for arming the teacher... I just don't think this does anything to help the disarming cause.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
squrlz4ever I'm still lurking...  I always lurk.  Been too distracted to get too involved in discussions though.  All is well enough.  Hope the same for you.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
daegog It may be in this case that the bakers are bigoted--I do not have enough information to say either way.  But expecting someone to cater to your whims if they disagree with you on any kind of religious or moral grounds is just nonsense, and that does not alone make them bigots.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
holygod If you want to play it that way, then it can be said that absolutely every single person on the planet is a bigot.  I'll talk to anyone, whether I agree with them or not.  That does not mean that if I don't agree with them I am bigoted--which is exactly what you're implying.  We were not discussing talking to someone--we were talking about catering to a lifestyle choice that is contrary to someone's religious beliefs.  
cjeffblanchr wrote:
holygod There's a difference between bigotry and one upholding their own personal values.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
Draculya There are many many alternatives to Prozac these days.  But you point is taken.  My nephew was going to join the Marines, but back when he was 13 a doctor wanted to put him on meds for ADHD, which he only took for about a month before the doctor pulled them from him and determined that he didn't need it.  That alone was enough to keep him from entering the military.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
monkwarrior Gotta disagree.  Depression is a very real and usually treatable condition.  Sometimes counseling helps, sometimes it does not.  The same medicine does not work the same for every person.  Unfortunately it is a matter of trial and error when finding what works for a particular person.  But doctors understand exactly what medicines like SSRIs do.  It is far from a pseudo science.  
cjeffblanchr wrote:
trimble SSRIs do not turn people into zombies.  
cjeffblanchr wrote:
wellsy57 What the hell does that have to do with depression?
cjeffblanchr wrote:
holygod It doesn't give me an unfair advantage, as I'm not running for president.  As you've apparently forgotten, and as I have mentioned before, I have voted both Republican and Democrat in the past.  You disagree with me, and that's fine.  I believe the EC balances cultural, political and other ideas as spread across the whole of the country.  And you can take a screenshot of this post if you want and save it for the day when the EC does benefit a winning candidate whom I did not vote for, and I'll be saying the same thing.

Also, are the populations you listed just for the cities themselves, or for the entire regions that surround them and are influenced heavily by the popular opinions of the city?

And finally, if you want to start pointing out "idiotic" statments, look at your last sentence.  Seriously, are you going to tell me that neither you nor Liberals have an "Agenda"?  You simply don't like the EC because it doesn't let the Liberal AGENDA dominate all aspects of American society.  We still use the EC because it does in fact provide balance.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
barry9a I'll answer that by asking this...  why shouldn't the president represent the stronger political view that transcends the entirety of the nation rather than a minority viewpoint?
cjeffblanchr wrote:
holygod Never worked to  Democrat's advantage?  Well, hell, holygod, no wonder they're all bitching about it.  My argument below in response to muert applies here, so I'll just refer you to that for my opinion on the matter.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
BuckeyeJoe Thanks!  Sorry about that.  I've had things come up that drew me away and distracted me.  Not sure how much I'll be back, or if I'll just peek my head in from time to time.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
muert Well, we just disagree on that then.  If not for the EC, basically no one's votes would ultimately count unless they are in the highest population density areas.  Civilizations tend to do that--have high concentrations of people in smaller areas.  The influence of ideas in those areas would overwhelm the whole of the nation.  As it is, a balance is established--not by simple vote, but a balance of opposing viewpoints.  I don't think it can be argued that there is in fact balance in place.  We've gone back and forth from liberal to conservative leadership for a long time.  Neither can become supreme with the EC.  But without it, the high population areas with more liberal ideas (in the instance of our nation) would of course multiply that much more quickly and opposing ideas would be squelched.  But of course, this is what most liberals seem to want, so I can see why they complain about the electoral college.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
It's the same every time... no matter who wins, the other side cries about how the EC is unfair.  We can all disagree on whether it is unfair or not, but the fact is that it is what's in place, and belly-aching about it after your candidate lost makes you look whiny.  If anyone is really that upset about it, go do something about it.  Has anyone tried to change the EC in recent times?  I would guess so, but the movement to do so was so small that it could get no traction.  Probably because it is ultimately incredibly fair, at least from a more universal perspective.  Individually, no, it doesn't seem reasonable that the vote of someone in Wyoming has more pull than someone in CA.  But cultural tendencies in regions that are very populated should not decide elections for the whole of the country.  That would be unreasonable and unfair.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
Okay, this is kinda stupid...  Simulated Martian soil is made of volcanic rocks from Earth and Pig Poop...  and the put the worms in it--on Earth.  So we take things that exist only on Earth, keep it in Earth's environment, and this simulates Mars?
cjeffblanchr wrote:
punko I wouldn't count on it.  As long as it's making money, they'll keep putting out SW movies.  I would expect the movie franchise to outlive us all.