Debby:
Why it is an insurrection, the rioters were sent to Capital Hill to stop the certification of the election result...
According to Trump's speech transcript, he sent attendees to the Capitol to "peacefully assemble" to protest, just as the Constitution allows citizens to protest.
Sidewwalker:
Sure, and also whackos who still think Trump should have lost to Hillarious Balloon Girl.
Well, civil isn't criminal, and since insurrection is a felony, that makes it only a criminal indictment and conviction.
But then, it was the LA DA [Gil Garcetti] who insisted on an inner-city trial. [he did not try the case], whereas had the trial been conducted in Brentwood, where OJ lived, where the mureder occurred, and where I once lived - and, in fact, the condos where Nicole once lived on Bundy Dr was once the house I grewup in, plus three other houses that were leveled to build the condos. So I know the neighborhood intimately and can predict how that trial in Brentrwood would have concluded. Uhhh... not not guilty.
had to look up "Rick and Mrty," which isn't, but found "Rick and Morty," but it's a CNN feature [Cartoon News Network], owned by Cartoon Network.
had to look up "aight" too, and I'm college educated, but that was 50 years ago. Although one of my degrees is in linguistics, that one escaped me.
CNN isn't "aight," either, and I've never watched cartoon network. Other than that, thanks for sharing.
Debby:
He might go broke trying. Stocks of SpaceX is crashing too. [your #5]
doesn't look like a crash to me. this chart represents about a month of trading since the public offering began. The rocket hasn't crashed, contrary to your suggestion
Yes, your post was referring to SCOTUS. Is that the only government body for which discussion is had re: term limits? No. I expanded on your subject. Excuse me all to hell for expansion. I guess that's disallowed by some in an "open forum."
Who doesn't engage in misspelling on occasion?
And occasionally also slips proper punctuation and plurality, as in
"horses ears and tail."
Thanks for the notice
Debby:
Re: your #36 and my "narrow" definition of healthcare.
Q1: do you consider abortion as healthcare for all involved?
Q2: Do you agree or disagree that we are personally more responsible for our own healthcare more than any trained professional who charges for services?
Q3: Would our healthcare costs reduce if we took more responsibility for our own healthcare effort by thinking througth the consequ3ence4s of consuming everything we currently stuff into our pie hole, let alone any other means of consumption [such as via needles]
Debby:
re your #31: You do realize, don't you, that you are comparing the Christian populations of two continents [Africa and Europe], consisting of 54 nations and 44 nations, respectively, to one nation [USA].
Maybe I am.
Let's add one more example to the four I offered in post #1:
A woman and her teen daughter attended a WNBA game the other night. They both wore teeshirts boldly decorated by XX and XY symbols on the shirts. They were seen by security and advised that they should wear new teeshirts given to them by security to cover their own shirts, or be escorted from the arena. Security felt their shirts would offend trans people.
More rabid social media.
The 1A does guarantee our freedom of speech. What is unwritten, but obvious in the phrase, in order to preserve that freedom for all, is that speech cannot be the direct cause of someone else's physical injury or death. As such, while we have freedom of speech, it is not acceptable to be offended by someone else's speech and demand the offender be censured or removed from a public setting. That is the only way to guarantee continued freedom of speech for all of us. Doesn't the DSA want their platofrm planks to be accessible by all? Apparently not.
commonly understood.
common, as in a layman's opinion, or the science, which the modern layman ought to have been taught as early as 5th grade, when I was first taught the principle by Aristarchus [3rd century BCE], who taught that heliocentricity described the universe's center, and not merely the solar system. It was not a popular view because at that time, no one had the ability to confirm stellar movement that would describe a universe of orbiting stars about a center. Aristarchus may have been up in the night, but it turns out, his prediction had merit, at least at a galactic scale.
On one hand, not a bloody thing. It's called satyr.
However, in prisons, there is evidence that inmates will grind down a spoon handle [metal or plastic] to a point, and use it viciously against another inmate with whom the aggressor has an issue. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7032408_Inmate-made_weapons_in_prison_facilities_Assessing_the_injury_risk
Debby:
When did I say I eat burgers? Your assumption, only. Once again, you fail to get into my head. I wish some of y'all would learn what is typical of "assume" relative to a particular piece of anatomy.
I was not aware we had moved past heliocentricity.
The truth: the solar system's geometry is such that, being an ellipse, the Sun is not located at the center of that system, but located at one of two possible foci. Kepler realized this structure in 1609, so, no, we are not heliocentric, and have known for over 400 years it was not true.
But I was concentrating on a larger scale than just the solar system. We discovered early in the 20th century that our Sun and its system were within a larger system, the Galaxy, and that we are not heliocentric to it, either.
There are several disassociated current events to which social media is drawn by rabid attention:
The Democrat sprint to socialism in their various House, Senate, and other elections coming up this Fall.
The recently concluded Luigi Mangioni murder trial.
The ongoing trial of Lindsay Clancy, accused of murdering her three children.
The re-trial of convicted murderer, Alex Murdaugh.
All four of these events have become a media circus tent with as much, or more, of believed posits - proposed theories of what's going on - as factual evidence. These posits breech the wall of sensible conclusions to include continued belief in whacko suggestions despite evidence to the contrary.
Beliefs such as:
The Democratic Socialists of America just want the US to be a democracy, because the U.S. is currently an autocracy.
Mangioni is innocent; a victim of "the system." This, despite his own confession of guilt as a witness in the trial.
Lindsay Clancy is a victim of medical failure [this argument was heavily in favor of Mangioni, having dealt with the same medical failures]
Alex Murdaugh is a victim of a failed justice system that allows a miscreant court clerk to sway the jury in the original trial.
What is true, and what is fantasy, is a difficult choice for social media. What they believe is, by their interpretation, the truth. My prediction is that, in an SDA world, they would likely nominate social media to sit on the Supreme Court, and run the USA, AMA, APA, and just about every other A; an overarching Authority.
As I have maintained since 2016, when the term revived from its historic use. Woke is past tense and, therefore, passe at the outset, when it is used as a progressive call that people be aware. In the early 20th century, in 1936, the term was coined by blues musician, Lead Belly, as its socio-political call. Thus, my secondary commentary that being woke is driving headlong into the future looking in the rearview mirror. Very dangerous; an accident is sure to happen.
Do you reject the provisional nature of science?
Are you kidding? Science, itself rejects the provisional nature of science in the scope of its history. In the 19th century, science was still holding to the erroneous concept of heliocentricity ion spirte of evidence, by observation, of the ancient Greeks.
You are confusing gender and sex and words.
Your offered definition by the LofM is a very recent change there, as you noted, and I prefer their definition that agrees with their longer-active definition. In fact, the root of "gender" is not even related to biology or sociology, but words, nouns, as in their being male or female, or occasionally, in some languages, neuter. English is one language that does not recognize noun genders, but that's language. not people. In the case of intersex, it's not neuter, but a combination of male or female. The transition of gender to being a person's individual choice is very short-lived in comparison to its alliance with sex as defining human gender by choice.
Your confusion is understood.
the rioters were guilty of a textbook definition of it right?
In fact, no, the rioters were NOT guilty of insurrection purely based on there being no convictions for insurrection in hundreds of cases, and damn the "textbook," whatever it is, which is apparently completely unfamiliar with court proceedings and results of trials. There is that court evidence, and it is written records. See your law library.
So, how do you, whom I presume is in favor of due process, presume to call anyone guilty when their trials did not find them guilty of insurrection? Guilty of other crime[s], yes, but insurrection is, after all, its own crime, statute, indictment, and trial outcome in all of the Jan 6 cases. Sorry.
When Trump, himself, is tried and convicted for insurrection, you can hoot from the rooftop. I'll even let you use my roof.
Show me specifically where and when I've said people cannot have different opinions? I've said that some opinions are not relevant [such as with gender, or that words cannot have whatever meaning we choose], but then, those are just my opinions, aren't they, even though evidence of why I carry that opinion is given, and you rarely offer that kind of defense. So, knowing you have a differing opinion even of that just demonstrates...
"I am actually the only one here who thinks people can have different opinions. You are somehow not even aware of that." [from ypur #64]
is a bit of a sticky wicket. What you appear to be saying is that only you are allowed to have different opinions. "Me, me, me" agaIn?
Well yeah, you just did...And also admitted to doing so.
Well, I just did what? Is that a general complaint that anything I do or say is objectionable to you [which is, then, your problem, not mine], or is it something specific? That I say I don't care what color of skin someone has means their skin color is not a factor I consider in criticism of anybody, but it is a convenient accusation when one has nothing specific to raise, isn't it?
Yes, I know the "social injustice" [which is not any better defined than. is "woke," because what is called "social injustice" also assumes we still have "systemic racism," though NO ONE will offer an example of a single, current government statute or dept policy that is discriminatory by race. At one time, yes, there were, but they began to be eradicated by the demand of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and are now gone. Systemic = the system, i.e., the government. There are no current laws or policies that are racist. Period. So "systemic racism" is non-existent in the U.S.
What the social injustice whackos don't recognize is that there's also individual racism, and, yes, there are individuals, even in government, who are racist. But they act as individuals, even if a group of them so act, pretending they are in compliance with law and policy, but personally are not. How is the government responsible for individual racism? It's the same as the expectation that all citizens are law-abiding since there are criminal laws prohibiting criminal acts. People's behavior will never be successfully controlled 100% in a democracy. I don't like the alternative.
To me, healthcare is a choice and privilege, not a right. Healthcare is an activity each person is personally responsible for maintaining, at least as a recognized adult, but even children ought to be taught what nutrition is and what should and should not be consumed, and what activities ought to be engaged and avoided to maintain good health. When personal responsibility for healthcare fails to maintain good health, the responsible thing to do is seek professional healthcare by knowledgeable and properly trained people in healthcare who assume some of that responsibility to improve our health during their care, but we maintain primary responsibility to follow their advice. When we do not comply with their advice, we should not blame their minstration, because we remain the primary responsible healthcare agent. Typically, our major diseases we combat would be 60 to 80% eradicated completely if we just paid better attention to what goes in the pie hole, or any other place of consumption. If I don't try to care for my own health, who else should be blamed when it fails?
Gender choice is a "function" which only began in the 50s when shrinks decided they knew more about biology than anyone else, because gender, for 99.99999993% of us is XX or XY [according to the Library of Medicine]. The fact that shrinks further defined "gender choice" in the 60s did not help improve the situation, but complicated it both for the 99.9999993% of us who are XX and XY, and for the 0.00000007% of us who are biologically "intersex" when that condition [other than XX and XY] was discovered in 1917. The rest of the declared trans are XX or XY, but "choose to be" other. Based on what is unknown, because the psychiatric world doesn't know about it any more than medical science.
Being trained and licensed in this brave new world has now been handed over to elementary schools, so, what you mean by that is...?
So, for you, it's all about "me, me, me," and to hell with anybody else? That's logical?
Abortion is also healthcare.
Not at all for the fetus, who is, after all, not just a living organism before the procedure, but only a human organism and no other animal species, who is not responsible for its own existence. The fetus should, rather than death, expect a right to life just as it should enjoy that right throughout its existence, because, physiologically, what difference is there in its humanity both before and afterr birth? None, specifically. Breathing? Nope. The fetus goes through the physiology of the breathing exercise in its pre-natal condition, but it does not receive oxygen through it. Almost every physiological process post-birth is exercised pre-natally by the fetus.
So much for the claim "healthcare for all"
single payer/Medicare for all healthcare
You're going to have to define what you mean by "healthcare" since some on the left claim gender choice is healthcare. If gender choice is healthcare, so is hair color choice, and fingernail polish choice. Maybe even clothing choice is healthcare. That's how absurd this word-baiting is becoming. Woke 2.0
For an event that occurred 5.5 years ago on Jan 6, Democrats have been fixated ever since. It is really much older than 2021 because, without using that word, they began their campaign against DJT in 2014, upon his firing from NBC's "The Apprentice."
"Insurrection" became the qualifier of all Democrat complaints about DJT once Jan 6 was in the headlines.
What is ignored among the woke [Democrats, that is], is that after all the investigations and trials over Jan 6, not a single person, in particular not DJT, but also not one among hundreds of indicted individuals by a rabid Justice Dept, were ever convicted of
i-n-s-u-r-r-e-c-t-i-o-n.
So why do Democrats insist it is an active, accurate word to apply to their 12-year cry of "Foul!" against DJT, and anybody who happened to have voted for him as if voting incorrectly [by their assessment] is suddenly felonious treason?
You think it is no longer said? This is Sunday. Lots of opinion TV on this day, every week. Democrats still use the word, specifically, even just today. Fixated. Also woke, which is past tense.
Because you say so? Yes, you can certainly believe it, but it does not make it so. I can tell you I am a flaming communist, but that is not by any means true. And if you choose to believe words can mean anything you wish, that's fine for you, but many will not understand you when you use words that do not fit logically in a string to make yourself understood, even by highly educated people whose vocabulary is vast, and understanding of grammar is well beyond sufficient fluency. No, words must have a standard to be understood in context. Otherwise, you have transed into illiteracy.
So, how did that first guy you insist was alone in his definition [and how, then, did it become the "standard?"] define "female?" I'd say more than one guy was involved. And, more to the point, what makes you think it was a guy, or guys? Allow some credit to gals.
Sidewalker;
We know Jesus was Jewish because he lived at home with his parents until he was 33, went into his father’s business, his mother thought he was God, and he thought his mother was a virgin.
Wow, there's a lot there "we know," but how do "we" know? We have no original documents known to be written by the "authors." We have years of translation by characters whose motives are not completely understood. And the string of "We know he was Jewish..." is a string of conjecture. We do have testimony of the genealogy of Jesus to indicate he was of the House of Judah, through David, and the genealogies of Mary and Joseph, though Joseph was not Jesus' father by genetics, but by willing obligation as Mary's husband. He lived at home with Mary, but as for Joseph, depending on the record as given alone, Joseph is not mentioned again after Mary and Joseph return to Jerusalem to find Jesus in the temple with the elders when he was 12. Joseph is not mentioned again in the record after that event. That Jesus was a carpenter, like Joseph, is recorded, but that is not a uniquely Jewish profession. And other tribes of Israel, and outside that genealogy, also have children living with parents well into adulthood. Some do, today. They are not all Jewish, either. And where are we told that Jesus thought his mother remained a virgin?
No, none of these things proves Jesus was a Jew. That he was, I do not contest, but not for any of those reasons you claim. The Romans claimed he was by notice on his cross. During his lifetime, with only a couple of noted exceptions, his dealings were with Jews, only.
