Hans Blaster said:

I'm not interested in your "truth" assertions. They have nothing to do with this thread.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps you shouldn't have made your flippant remarks about so-called "evidence"?

Hans Blaster said:

To be clear, in the 20+ years the number of people who know my name and my non-belief is quite small. I do not disclose it readily and certainly not in a classroom.

Click to expand...

That's neither here nor there, but good for you I suppose.

Valletta said:

Democrats just didn't understand how beneficial tariffs could be to our country. It will be nice for everyone to get $2000 to put back into the economy.

Click to expand...

Over 1,500 Economists Agree: Trump's Tariffs Are Terrible​

N. Gregory Mankiw, professor of economics at Harvard University, tells Reason the most important takeaway from the declaration is that "economists are really united in opposition to the Trump international economic policy, [which] seems to be founded on a variety of very fundamental misconceptions about economics and economic history."

Sixteen Nobel Economists Sign Letter About Risks to the U.S. Economy of a Second Trump Presidency​

The outcome of this election will have economic repercussions for years, and possibly decades, to come. We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.

Signed, George A. Akerlof (2001) Sir Angus Deaton (2015) Claudia Goldin (2023) Sir Oliver Hart (2016) Eric S. Maskin (2007) Daniel L. McFadden (2000) Paul R. Milgrom (2020) Roger B. Myerson (2007) Edmund S. Phelps (2006) Paul M. Romer (2018) Alvin E. Roth (2012)​

*******************************************************************************************************************************

What does Trump know about tariffs that virtually every prominent economist in America, including 16 Nobel Economists, have failed to comprehend?

​

Over 1,500 economists agree: Trump's tariffs are terrible

Reason interviewed five signatories of the Anti-Tariff Declaration to learn why they oppose tariffs and support free trade.

reason.com

​

​

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rh1YcFoC_lH8/v0

​

SabbathBlessings said:

It still doesn’t say the commandments of God are the promises to Issac. God’s owns His commandments, He defines them, He wrote them, He claimed them as His Deut4:13 Exo20:6 Exo31:18 They are under His mercy seat. It’s not something defined by man, because we are not God. We are just to be His servant, like His faithful prophets and apostles. Like Abraham He obeyed by faith, what righteousness by faith is all about. Doing what is right, obeying God, because we have faith that what He asks is because its for our own good, even if we don’t understand it.

Click to expand...

Gen 26:1–6 describe a decisive point in Isaac’s life. There's famine, he receives divine instruction. Don't go down to Egypt, stay in the land (Gerar) God will show him. God reiterates the promises made to Abraham. And how Abraham obeyed (as stated post #7, after Gen 6 where the Lord God had already declared Abram, BY FAITH, righteous). The context here is Isaac's test of obedience.

rjs330 said:

When did liberals become fiscal conservatives?

Click to expand...

When were fiscal conservatives fiscal conservatives?

ThatRobGuy said:

I'm the same person that says that elected officials at a federal level should be prohibited from stock trading lol.

It's clearly an advantage of some short when congressional stock portfolios are seeing 10-20% gains on a bad year, and 30-40% on a good year (outperforming most private sector investors)

The Trump family being more brazen about it shouldn't be conflated with being "worse" than the others who've clearly done it.

Click to expand...

I disagree 100%
Personal enrichment is already bad.
Attempting to influence foreign policy by accepting brides and enriching your family is more messed up and worse to me than someone profitting on a stock market..which I ALSO think should be prohibited.

ThatRobGuy said:

That'd like saying that the guy who openly says "I sleep with other women besides my wife" (even though she's not cool with it) is somehow worse than the guy who's sleeping around behind his wife's back.

The infraction's similar, so why is trying to hide it considered morally superior than just being open with it? lol

Click to expand...

And what if the guy says 'I rape other women besides my wife"? Trump family accepting brides or inappropriate (guided) enrichment from foreign sources could VERY likely be more destructive to America than cheating on a stock market.

Speaking as an Anglican, but in no way speaking for Anglicans or Anglicanism:

Servus said:

Do you believe we should pray to Mary?

Click to expand...

Should? I don't see any necessity to ask the BVM to pray for me, but why would I not want the Mother of God to pray for me? "Oh, but she can't hear you." OK, then I wasted my time.

Servus said:

That we need Mary to intercede to Jesus for us?

Click to expand...

Need? Not that I can see, but it couldn't hurt, could it?

Servus said:

Do you believe we should kneel to statues of Mary?

Click to expand...

I'd kneel to ruling monarch (and have actually bowed to the then-queen of Denmark), but they're physically present. Kneeling before a statue? Not sure about that.

Servus said:

Do you believe Mary is the Queen of Heaven?

Click to expand...

Not sure what that actually means.

Servus said:

Do you believe Mary was without sin like Jesus?

Click to expand...

I tend to go with my Orthodox friends on that point,, so yeah,

Servus said:

Do you believe Mary was a perpetual virgin?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Servus said:

Do you believe Mary is the Ark of the Covenant?

Click to expand...

As the God Bearer, ye

Servus said:

Also have you read the Anathemas of the Roman Catholic Church for not subscribing to all of

Click to expand...

I'm not a Romn Cathoic.

BCP1928 said:

I should think you would regard him as a bit of a hero for testing the limits like that.

Click to expand...

That something so benign 'tests the limits" is a testament to the problem.

BCP1928 said:

You have asked for a unique form of religious observance--yours--to be allowed.

Click to expand...

That's quite the twist, and that you would engage in such tactics makes me question whether you are engaging in bad faith.

BCP1928 said:

Forbidding all is certainly even handed. Allowing all in would waste a lot of time and would be biased against those groups who don't think it is an appropriate thing to do.

Click to expand...

How would choosing not to participate be biased? You sure have some twisted logic, and forbidding all isn't "even handed' because it privileges a particular form of religious expression...which at this point I can only presume is yours, despite your self-declaration.

Fervent said:

I wasn't aware, though even in winning the case the act still has a chilling effect.

Click to expand...

I should think you would regard him as a bit of a hero for testing the limits like that.

Fervent said:

There you go jumping at shadows again. Where have I asked for a privileged status for any particular religious expression?

Click to expand...

You have asked for a unique form of religious observance--yours--to be allowed.

Fervent said:

I'm all for it being open to all, what I am opposed to is the "secular" privilege that is actually nothing more than hostility to religion rather than even handed pluralistic sentiment. I'm even of the opinion that fake religions like Satanism should enjoy the same access.

Click to expand...

Forbidding all is certainly even handed. Allowing all in would waste a lot of time and would be biased against those groups who don't think it is an appropriate thing to do.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

You are oversimplifying a complex issue. If Democrats created a single-payer health system that excluded transgender surgery or treatment, would conservatives then support it? I do think they would.

Click to expand...

What makes you think that? The Republican Party has been vocally opposed to single-payer healthcare since long before transgender treatment was a turned into a wedge issue, and for plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with gender or sexuality.

Robot Chicken

Valletta said:

It's logic. Just like if you put repeat criminals in jail there will be less crimes committed than if they were out on the streets. Many illegals go to emergency rooms, and many emergency rooms do not inquire as to legal status. So there are no good numbers. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act prevents hospitals that participate in the Medicare program from denying care to patients that have an unstable condition. They are not there to check a person's legal status.

Click to expand...

So you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim other than 'Gee, it's common sense, isn't it?'

No, it actually isn't. What is common sense is that if a tiny number of people who need emergency help were refused such help because they might be illegal (what do you intend to do when someone is bleeding out? Leave her in the carpark?) then it would improve the worst healthcare system in the developed world.

And as someone recently said: 'many emergency rooms do not inquire as to legal status' so you have absolutely no idea how small the number actually is. So you're actually admitting that you're basing a nonsensical claim on information that isn't even available. Well, some estimates are available and it's less than 1% of total admissions. I'm not going to post a link to that info because you patently haven't bothered to do even the most cursory of investigations, so go find it yourself.

What a joke.

Always in His Presence said:

Good that the tribe sticks together, but I did not ask either of you. And the silence from the one I did ask is deafening

Click to expand...

They probably have other things to do with their time than to be replying to a 9 year old zombie thread you chose to revive for goodness knows what reason.

There’s also a PM or ignore function if you don’t want to reply to others but don’t you cop an attitude with me just because your thread has backfired.

Quick Draw McGraw

Valletta said:

.

The more illegals that are gone the less the strain on our healthcare system.

Click to expand...

Why not simply deport all our poor (and those lame, sick) or simply refuse them medical service. Reducing the number of immigrants is NOT the answer to providing better service for our poor. The answer is for the society being willing to pay for medical services.

I am interested in providing better health care to more people. We are not the most unskilled and poorest of the world's democracies. We CAN do much better. Yes, we should be more efficient in our delivery of services. The PRIMARY issue is that the US is that the well-to-do are not willing to pay higher taxes. They prefer very low taxes for themselves and for Trump's millionaire friends.

Yes, having charities provide the help the poor is an option. We have a choice for the poor: pay for health care, have the government provide MORE help, count on charities to provide the help, or simply look the other way while the poor don't have access to healthcare.

dms1972 said:

No fundamentalism exists outside the US too. I think a lot of the churches here (N. Ireland) tend toward fundamentalist, or evangelical. We have many denominations, there is at least four Presbyterian denominations, and many of the others Anglican, Methodist, Baptist etc, but I don't think there are very many Lutheran churches here.

Click to expand...

If you were in the US, I'd suggest visiting an Episcopal church, as we're mostly free from the no-drinking-no-dancing prohibitions. But I don't know enough about the Anglican congregations in Northern Ireland to know how culturally similar they are to our Episcopal parishes.

Sportsballfan said:

So are we just allowed to make little adjustments and that’s allowed?

If I claimed Trump was “grabbing them in their purse”, would that be fine.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what this post means...

BCP1928 said:

He won that case, remember?

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware, though even in winning the case the act still has a chilling effect.

BCP1928 said:

It just makes too much of a nuisance. And it's always Evangelicals, nobody else makes a fuss about it and some don't think it's an appropriate place to play.. Why should your religion be privileged in that way?

Click to expand...

There you go jumping at shadows again. Where have I asked for a privileged status for any particular religious expression? I'm all for it being open to all, what I am opposed to is the "secular" privilege that is actually nothing more than hostility to religion rather than even handed pluralistic sentiment. I'm even of the opinion that fake religions like Satanism should enjoy the same access.

Fervent said:

You're making this sound far more nefarious than what I'm proposing, because even the coach/teacher going to a separate location and allowing students to join them is not allowed. In fact, I am relatively certain there was even a recent case where a coach was fired for praying by the flag pole with no student involvement before football games.

Click to expand...

He won that case, remember?

Fervent said:

And when such violations occur, there are the structures in place to deal with them. But that's no reason to relegate the practice.

Click to expand...

It just makes too much of a nuisance. And it's always Evangelicals, nobody else makes a fuss about it and some don't even think it's an appropriate place to pray.. Why should your religion be privileged in that way?

Anything but Shakespeare.

Q. What's for dinner?
A. Whatever is on sale.

I've gone though my whole life this way and spend very little on food. And avoid process food, since it is always more expensive than putting some effort into cooking.

Observation only

The silence from the one I did ask, imho is very telling.

Trophonius said:

The Name of the Rose.


I am watching the 2016 lectures (I liked them more than the high-budget recording after he got famous). I don't know about the book, but I think they're brilliant. Also, I wish I had his speaking skills


I like the author. I read Borne and The Strange Bird in 2021. Annihilation has a movie adaptation too. Some were readings for a class on Ecogothic horror.

Click to expand...

I have only seen the film Name of the Rose, starring Sean Connery, Christian Slater, and F. Murray Abraham.

The film Annihilation I discovered, after reading the books, has almost nothing to do with the books except the name and a few plot points.

I have begun Fiasco by Stanislaw Lem. He has some interesting descriptions of the surface of Titan. I know eventually it goes into a misconception during First Contact situation. It would likely not make for a good film as it is more of an exploration of the difficulties Human would encounter in dealing with an alien intelligence.

Hans Blaster said:

There weren't.

The US Constitution was not written during or after a war. It was written (1787) in a nation at peace with an ineffectual government (the Articles of Confederation). There wasn't a war in 1789 when the First Congress under the new Constitution sent the Bill of Rights to the states for ratification. In fact the only amendments directly tied to a war were the 13th amendment (outlawing slavery) sent by Congress for ratification before Johnston surrendered to Sherman and the 26th amendment (18 year voting age) rapidly drafted by Congress and ratified by the states in 1971 during the Vietnam War under the theory "old enough to be drafted, old enough to vote".

Click to expand...

Seems rather arbitrary to start with the Constitution, as if it didn't take the Revolutionary war to start the whole process that led to it.

BCP1928 said:

You are not required to conceal your faith from your students.

Click to expand...

It's a grey area, with most school districts at least in my area being quick to suppress any such disclosure. There is an allowance for "discrete" displays of faith, but what that means is not well defined.

BCP1928 said:

And if they have the courage of their convictions they can go stand in the hall until you're done, right?

Click to expand...

You're making this sound far more nefarious than what I'm proposing, because even the coach/teacher going to a separate location and allowing students to join them is not allowed. In fact, I am relatively certain there was even a recent case where a coach was fired for praying by the flag pole with no student involvement before football games.

BCP1928 said:

Because it's what can happen when sectarian religious observances take place in schools.

Click to expand...

And when such violations occur, there are the structures in place to deal with them. But that's no reason to relegate the practice.