Jesus says: "Leave the woman alone, you misogynistic fuckers!!!"
By that "quote," I know for a fact you have not read the Bible, as I know I have, in four separate languages, cover to cover, and I know, therefore, that, though you "quote" him, Jesus never said that in any language. So, don't try to sell that you have read the Bible, and, without doing so, can neither believe or disbelieve. Period.
I know a thing or three about statistical sampling [being, once, a certified Six Sigma Black Belt], and the first thing learned is that just asking a question does not certify the effort as a proper polling technique.
Yeah. A scheme to offer an open forum to exchange ideas in pursuit of truth. Not a conspiracy unless you make it such, but, your 'making" is of little consequence since conspiracy always has a negative motivation, and negation is not progress toward the light of of truth.
Signing executive orders that blatantly violate the constitution,
Rex, I suggest you re-read the Constitution. You may have the opinion that by signing EO's, the President [whoever he is] may violate the Constitution, but until a court determines that outcome, it remains personal opinion only, and until a court has a case before it to adjudicate, it cannot declare such, even the Supreme Court. Name the case before the Supreme Court, or any court, that alleged either example of a president in your photo/accusations. No court, even the Supremes, can summarily pronounce a ruling without a case before it. By the way, the President having that accusation against him began with George Washington when a few people had a burr up their arse that he was beyond constitutional power in making an executive order, not called such then, so this has been an argument of longer duration than Bush 43 or Oba'a.
federalizing troops and sending them into US cities over the objections of those states governors and mayors,
Before you accuse a president of that "violation," re-read Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of our Constitution. "Commander-in-Chief" is not a whimsical, suggested title of some government functionary. It is an explicit function of one man [so far] at any given time during a presiency. State and municipal functionaries do not have power exceeding a President.
Stop believing what you hear in the media [any media, including "social"], and read the Document for yourself with some degree of comprehension. I made a commitment over 40 years ago to read it front to back on a monthly basis, minimum, and I feel like I am still just scratching the surface of its content. You?
Nope. Fail. Race is declared non-extant by the Human Genome Project in 2003; a full generation ago. Did you miss that one, boyo? Ask mommy.
Not all Trump voters are MAGA. I'm one of the non's. Even Dems voted for him. I also voted for Billy Clinton in his 2nd term. You and R two little peas in a pod. Envious green that I am Indie. Political parties ought to be extinct, as well.
I am neither, so I cannot be that dumb. In fact, one of those is non-extant. You figure it out.
Yeah, I get that your race/ethnicity is irrelevant.
Don't know what dictionary you use - if you use one - but none of them define politics by ethnicity unless ethnicity is your limited politics. And that isn't politics anyway, let alone culture, because by human genome, there is no race, and that's been scientifically documented by the Human Genome Project since 2003. Where have you been? What reading have you missed? Time to catch up.
I'm not MAGA, and MAGA is not a party
You're right; verbosity is dumb.
Everything I've ever seen you post aligns with MAGA
Then you don't read everything, do you? You mean, like working in the Bobby Kennedy campaign for president? Both, as it happens. I voted for Clinton in '96 rather than Dole. Those are supposed to be MAGA? I am Indie. Get it? Yet? As I've posted a few times; you don't know me, Jack, and never have. And I have always voted the man, not the party. I do not believe in political parties, and never have. They ruin politics. All of them.
Democrats have not thought this protest through. What are you waiting for? Capitulation that we elected a king? Absurd.
A casual side note: Democrats in Congress complain that the President will not sit down with them to negotiate legislation. By the way, the Constitution says Congress legislates, not the President. A king might do it, but we son't have one, do we, unless it's Shoofly with a wish-balloon-inflated ego.
By the way, that's not a typo in the title; it's all the current Dimocrats argue for: givernment, and all that implies.
You ignore that I am not the political right; you just accuse. Sorry, invalid accusation here; I'm an indie, my friend.
Typical disclaimer response that rings hollow. Admit it; You are unable to ignore Trump.
No change; no need to change, and I fear nothing. My bucket list is fulfilled. I'm a happy guy, living for others, now.
If it's an hour left, I'm delighted. I pity Stephen Hawking's pessimism.
Trump is so deep in your head, you take on his mannerisms if not his name. Almost the same. Why can't you ignore him? I was able to totally ignore Biden during much of his admin. very forgettable guy. Why not Trump?
Don't know about DDO; I was never on that site, but DART had specific rules regarding forfeitures and most of your opinions disagreed with them. There is no dishonor in providing argument in a debate in which the opponent forfeits according to those rules and deserves the win. If both forefeit, no one should win, but that depends on voters, some of whom [certainly not the majority as you claim] should notify a mod to review a vote for a debater who did not argue, but did not forfeit, either, to review the vote. It is not automatic by a mod; they depend on our review of debates as members who vote. But why are you so concerned about a feature of the site in which you do not participate?
No, I just disagree with the tech nomenclature and it's association with off-body mechanics likes pedals and gears, not to mention artificial wings, and such. To me, human-powered flight means the properties associated with man, himself, to have the ability of flight without a mechanism. But then, I have a general dislike of naming of technology, such as a computer mouse. Cute, but wired mice had the cable [tail] coming out of the head of the mouse. Once it became wireless, it was less offensive. Same with calling abortion a 'reproductive right" since ii has naught to do with procreation, but rather with the defeat of it. Same with "planned parenthood" since that has naught to to with parenthood, either, not as begun by Margaret Sanger, whose first "service" was provision of birth control to prevent parenthood, and only later included abortion because contraceptives are not 100% effective, other than abstinence. Convenient, but backward naming to sound proper and natural when it is not. Pregnancy is natural. So is personal responsibility.
Wiki has said of itself that it is not inherently accurate because it allows anyone to edit content, scholastically qualified, tor not.
However, such does not allow for the potential for evolutionary, or, if you will, positive natural selective mutation, for us to develop stronger pectorals, and feathers, or even levitation.
We humans, currently, have no ability to fly by our own body's mechanism; we must create flight by invented mechanical means. I'm not saying that ability is not ahead of us, somehow, but it has been impossible and still is impossible, today.
Whether or not I have a loss of critical thinking, there is no thinking required in the truth that no woman Xx can produce a man Xy by procreation unless a man, Xy, can contribute the y chromosome to the mix at conception, and even a human woman Xx, whom I credit as the ultimate creation [she arrives only late in the sixth day of the creative process [organizing], more to the point, because ex nihilo is a myth] activity occupying the previous counted days, well after the morning of man's creation on that sixth day, of however many hours those counted creation days were, because the Hebrew י֔וֹם [yo-wm] can be interpretted as a period of several different durations depending on context. And procreation in humans does not occur but by procreation, whether gametes are joined by coitus or by artificial insemination, and the result cannot be accomplished by parthenogenesis, because mammals cannot reproduce by that means whereas a few other species can, but parthenogenesis only produces females Xx, and once a human is conceived as either Xx or Xy, it cannot change its gender by any means, including hormone treatment, by surgery, or by thinking it is so, day-to-day.
As for the big wow!, that may be myth, as well, since that wish balloon can be ruptured by merely a small needle and you really do have a big, destructive, bang. Saying the universe is eternal goes backward in regression of time infinitely, just as progressively forward, infinitely. That's what eternity is; mathematically; a line, not a ray.
Yeah, but now that the CA gubernatorial candidate who, before this incident, was leading the several Democrat candidates, but this week decided to diss a TV interview over "follow-on questions," she has tanked her campaign. That was just too roaring for just about any woman, including the interviewer, a capable female journalist by appearances, The lady doth protest too much, and it couldn't have happened to a nicer [??] candidate.
The problem with KKK is that it doesn't realize, period.
Chucky Shoofly, today, is more a reflection of KKK than than he has ever been.
Once upon a time, he realized a lot, but wokeness is a disease, and he has it. Terminal.
The man is me. I do not work full-time for anybody but me, and have not for the last 40 years. My ego is calm, I am content, and happy. This is age-related, only, and dementia is not age-related. I've known demented people all my life [growing up in So. CA effectively Hollowood, what else would I find?] Do not try to read anything else into this drawing. Age is perplexing only because I am resigned to its effects [physical effects] but that has no bearing on my attitude about life.
Dictionaries are merely word lists, but do not teach culture for beans. Lacking culture, dictionaries lack the ability to conceive of content or context. Therefore, lacking culture, content, and context, their language skills do not actually string separate words together for form thought. Lacking thought... need I continue?
Our problem is that we use dictionaries to translate from one language to another, when no language successfully shares syntax with another language because our languages do not always have word-to-word exact similarities, nor the exact same number of words in the syntax, so, without understanding a language's culture, we fail at proper translation. So does A.I., because we seldom make our A.I.s multilingual by programming. Programmers are the extent of intelligence of A.I.
Because A.I. lacks consciousness it is not self centred and it’s options can be unbiased.
Don't you mean, rather than "unbiased," that A.I. is not even self-conscious, and, therefore, bias is not, period.
Can you not ignore Trump for even one day?
I m very content and happy with regard to just about everything else but age. I am happy for the experience I have gained in all these years, but not so much what it does to me and everyone else.
Much has been claimed of the intellect of A.I., but I ran across the following quote when researching a matter involving the recent change by Google to add “✦ AI Overview” rather than the older version, which offered the matching “hits” based directly on the search string words offered by the user and offering direct URL's fort citation. What's curious about this change is that most of the AI suggestions do not offer a source by URL, which is typically an important matter for proper citation. I personally refuse to offer a source as "https://A.I." Here is the reference quote referred to above;
“No matter how you slice it, the expert consensus is that artificial intelligence does not possess consciousness. AI has no sense of time, it doesn’t experience hunger, it has no need to rest or reproduce. While it can generate words that suggest it is experiencing feelings like sadness or joy, it doesn’t actually feel anything. And any preferences or personality traits it appears to have were intentionally trained into it by its human developers“
https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-consciousness#:~:text=For now, though, most researchers,ReadingWhat Is AI Sentience?
Google has failed to satisfy proper sourcing, as if A.I. is always error-free when I know, personally, it is not.
Here's a new self-portrait just completed, experimenting with hard-edge shading.
