motionscribe

Ya, sad people can't take a joke. I like the guy, but the best part of the skit was when he agreed that Martin Short was funnier. I just don't see any new cast member rivaling that of 70s-90s SNL. They have only Trump to thank. . .

How was your game on the back nine? Shitty

But no hole in one. . .

That shit can kill you. My neighbor just went to the hospital. Doctor said it was her liver. Weed might be a better option. 10 states have legalized it's recreational use. I think Florida legalized it medically, even for mental issues.

Rick must've taken you up on those beers. . .

Oh, "bible thumper," nice comeback! It's not my fault that you take jokes so personally.

Ya, I was wondering who was going to be the first poster to keep it classy. https://agnostichumor.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/39220782.jpg

Ya, I found that one doing a quick google search as well. One of my favorites is from Sam Kinison. I'll paraphrase, editing it for accuracy and foul language: . . .that's why Jesus wasn't married, because no wife would buy the resurrection story, right? He just takes off on a Thursday night to some party with 12 of his buddies. She doesn’t hear from him again ’til Sunday. He comes in the house, she’s going, "and where have you been for three days, Mister Winemaker?" Jesus is going, “No, no, I’ll tell ya. I’ll tell ya where i’ve been. First of all, not that it’s important, but I was DEAD! I'm in a damn grave outside of town, I’m fighting death, Hell, decomposure. I’m changing spiritual form about to come into the Kingdom of God and I go, ‘wait a second, I better go back because she doesn’t know where I’ve been!'"

Amazon and Walmart to the rescue! $.40 for can goods! $1.50 for 8oz. of non-government cheese! 40" TVs for $100. 20-50% less on bedroom sets and appliances, plus $35 white glove delivery and set up! Cheapest gas in town! Free 2-day shipping! Free Movies! Free TV! Free Prime Memberships! Don't want to pay a yearly fee? Fine, just pay monthly and cancel anytime after using and abusing us! What do we care, we're rich! Problem solved. . .

i struggle to see how anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus and truly believes in the soul can reconcile it with joining the military and going to war. Using wolfriverjoes's logic, it's an evolutionary benefit influenced by the mass slaughter of early Christians. Only those that fought survived. . . And you disagree with him, so what do you think? Like I said, I don't pretend to know. I think scripture can be used to justify or condemn practically anything. I see it as a mirror to expose who we really are. We see what want to see, whether a believer or not. Our interpretations of it are temporal and influenced by our understanding of preceding and subsequent verses along with external influences and thus vary widely, changing with time. I don't want to seem disingenuous, but I'd need to understand why you struggle, if in fact you really struggle at all. What do you think it means to be a true follower of Jesus, and why is having a soul significant to you as it pertains to this discussion? Do you mean that you struggle with how they can kill a possible non-believer without attempting to convert them? Also, it should be noted that there is a difference between being deliberately bloodthirsty and unintentionally finding yourself in a precarious situation.

i struggle to see how anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus and truly believes in the soul can reconcile it with joining the military and going to war. Using wolfriverjoes's logic, it's an evolutionary benefit influenced by the mass slaughter of early Christians. Only those that fought survived. . .

Well that runs counter to everything else you've been saying about party unity and whatever. Well ya, if you disregard practically everything else that I've actually said. As I've already mentioned, the republicans appeal to a broad demographic so you get a lot of "single-issue" voters. Republicans in the Rustbelt used the poor economy under Obama to push their candidate. The Reagan Democrats just happened to agree with their Rustbelt counterparts in this particular instance. They tend not to get all emotionally entangled with bleeding-heart liberalism. It's not that they necessarily have a problem with it, it's just that they don't see it as the priority right now. Ya, especially after they lost their jobs, homes and healthcare as they've known it. That shit was real, not some bullshit lie Trump put into their head. No one has lied like Trump the campaigner lied. Not just twisting or misrepresenting, but outright lies. To claim everyone else does it too is true bullshit. Again, horseshit. You think that the deliberate, intellectual twisting and misrepresentation of the truth is somehow better than outright lies coming from a man that many claim is senile and doesn't know wtf he's talking about anyway? Talk about having it both ways. . .

I just think republicans market themselves more broadly. On one end they have the white nationalists, and waaaaaay on the other end they have the "Reagan Democrats" when they need to score a political hat trick. On top of that, they have democrats similar to the Jim Web types that at worst might swing right, or at best just stay home or vote 3rd party. Often it seems like the republicans are leading the dems by the nose, dictating what issues they will address. Republicans: We want to build a wall! Democrats: Ok, we'll run against that! Republicans: We don't like gay marriage! We're against Abortion! Democrats: Ok, let's run against the idea of beating dead horses! Republicans: Obama care doesn't work! Democrats: Ok. . . I think you're underestimating the power of major news outlets and their ability to control how people think, along with the power of social media. The Rustbelt primarily votes on one issue, the economy. "Have I been happy the past 4-8 years? if yes, vote the party in power. If no, vote the other way. That's it. Regardless of their feelings of Obama or Trump, things are actually getting much better in those states. The economy is resilient, everything has been restructured and the people have adapted. Also, if I remember correctly, these states have a tendency to balance out the power. If they vote in a republican president, they typically vote for democrat representatives and vice versa. At this point, gridlock is probably best until all this divisive nonsense passes. Wow, really? The smell of your horse's shit way down here is making me gag - as if the dems don't lie? Like lil' Wayne said, either be good or be good at it. . . Being worse at lying doesn't make you righteous. Now that I think about it a bit more, there was no amount of bullshit that Hillary could've spewed to mend the "Heartbreak of America" under the Obama admin, which is why she spent more time trying to bullshit North Carolina into becoming a blue state.

I don't, but were their actions religious in nature, or were they more politically motivated? Come on, Max. Answering a question with a question-and an irrelevant one at that-is mas no bueno. What it shows, sadly, is that the core advantage Christians use to sell religion is false. After all, shouldn't their religious sensibilities and morality have kept them from committing political murders? Point of clarification: you are confusing me with motionscribe. I already answered your question JoeWeber. My apologies. Great, so now that you guys have that all sorted out, I too answered your question as it was already pointed out. Is that "core advantage" a fact, or just your opinion? Unlike you, I don't pretend to know their religious sensibilities and commitment to "morality." Do you also have a problem with Christians joining the military and/or going to war? Also, whoever said that christianity automatically prevents someone from doing something whether right or wrong, whether justified or not? None of this really matters anyway. Practically all 1+ billion christian haven't killed anyone, nor do they want to. Same goes for the 1+ billion Muslims along with all the other people of various faiths. Most religious people keep to themselves and help those within their own communities or become missionaries and help people worldwide. There is a very small fraction of humans that actually want to kill anyone, and even a smaller fraction of those that actually can, regardless of their motivation/justification. Kind of sad that that has to be pointed to you. . .

Exactly. - New user shows up 3 months before an election. - Zero information in his/her profile. - Never posts anywhere outside of SC. This reminds me of that poster during the last election that seemed to have 3 different styles of writing, then vanished after the election was over. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1QF_GuGOGo You watch too much TV, don't you? I suppose I could change my name to Keyser Söze, but as another poster already pointed out, I'm not that clever.

In the states I was talking about like Michigan she got almost 300,000 less votes than Obama. In Ohio, she got almost 450,000 less votes than Obama. Pennsylvania wasn't as bad, but still. In Wisconsin, Trump got about the same amount of votes as Romney, but Hillary had about 240,000 less votes than Obama. She said that those democrats either switched, voted 3rd party, or just stayed home. IMO, the republicans wouldn't have allowed something like that to cost them an election that should've been a blowout. Regardless of how divided the republicans were or how much they may have despised their candidate, they all showed up united on game day to claim victory. Actually, I'm talking more about the Reagan Democrat types, or those similar to likes of Jim Web. Am I in error for considering them part of the democrat base? Either way, democrats desperately need to find a way to win them back since they've demonstrated how easily they can put a republican in office when they get pissed off, especially now when the country is as divided as it is. These Democrats voted for Obama, but during his presidency they were probably hit the hardest during the automotive and housing crises. These people lost their jobs, their homes, and then on top of that found themselves paying more for what they perceived as lower quality healthcare - and the republicans capitalized on that, whereas the democrats relatively ignored it.

I don't, but were their actions religious in nature, or were they more politically motivated?

Yep, even those protestant heretics. Yet they still exist, even after the communists killed over 100 million in a much shorter time frame. And tho they didn't necessarily kill in the name of atheism, they certainly promoted it and sought the end of religion. . .

Several hundred years? When did I say that? You said that the reason there are more believers is because they killed the witches and skeptics. You even clarified in a subsequent post that you were talking about the inquisition, crusades, witch trials, holocaust, etc. If not, then what other mass killings did you have in mind when you initially made that post? So what is it? 1000 years? 20,000 years? 50,000 years? 100,000 years? Nice way weasel around the goal posts in some lame backpedaling attempt at obfuscation. Hardly, and certainly not in the way you were initially describing. But that's not what we were really talking about, was it? And yes, that has more to do with evolution than all those evil religious people killing off witches. You still keep overlooking the fact that even skeptics and witches had that same evolutionary predisposition toward faith or whatever you want to call it, it just manifested in a different way based on their environment. Even you have it. We can go from theist to atheist in one day, that doesn't mean we that we can somehow override evolution just as easily. The bottom line here is that you could've simply made your point about religion without your misguided and ignorant distortion of evolution.

Because he was being negative. So again, we're back to wondering why anger is the only emotion you can imagine being associated with that? You're right. Given the title of the thread, I should've just said "stop your whinging and cheer the fuck up." How's that?

What do you mean? If no one trusts them how the hell did Clinton manage to get 3 million votes more than Trump. Your country is nearly evenly divided. This type of division essentially gives the power to a handful of people, specifically independents and swing voters in states with tight margins. The republicans simply did a better job appealing to those people. Or, if it makes you feel better, maybe you could just blame the libertarians. The next democrat can get 10 million more votes in the same states that Hillary won, but if they can't find a way to win back the typical blue states that she lost, then it still won't make any difference.

No reasonable observer could look at the last election and claim that the Republicans were the unified party! If Trump hadn't won it looked like there was a real chance that you'd have seen the first genuine party split since the Southern Democrats defected. And yet they were able to overcome all that, weren't they? Do you think the democrats/liberals would've fared as well in a similar situation? Hell, they couldn't even get enough votes from their own base for one of their most qualified candidates ever, a candidate that would've bent over backwards and succumb to their every whim. Instead, they went for the libertarian or some other independent/write-in even if it meant Trump winning. And then we have to listen to those same people crying about him in forums like this. . . And yet in your first post you said that Democrats could win just by talking about normal working and middle class concerns like jobs and healthcare. Leaving aside the absurdity of the suggestion that they're not doing that already, isn't that an idealistic vision of how to counter the Republican propaganda machine? As I've already repeated nearly a half dozen times, I'm talking about the blue Midwest and eastern states, specifically Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. You could probably throw Ohio in there as well even though they tend to go 50/50. The democrats took these states for granted while the republicans double downed on their campaign efforts. Even in Hillary's new book she just blames Comey for the failure rather than admitting that they fucked up by failing to understand their voters and taking for granted the base that put both Obama and her husband in office. The dem's ability to win back those blue states is realistic, but if they can't, then the hope of ever having a democrat president again will merely become an idea of the past.

Yes, self reflection/criticism is a good thing. Nothing good came of Charlottesville except shock value and exploitation by the media. I think our time would be better served by putting pressure on the racists that actually have influence on those in power. We can do both, but the latter should be the priority. I didn't say anything about that guy. I just think that Democrats can learn something from the unity displayed by the republicans. Politics is a dirty job and the republicans are just better at playing the game. I know, it's sad but true on so many levels. I really wish it wasn't this way, but idealism just isn't going to cut it.

Because he was being negative. I was just using him to make a point about society in general. We all do it, and we will continue to do it regardless of how foolish it is. Then why do you assume that only for some people? Ron writes tracts on how every liberal is mentally defective, America is in a civil war, the Clintons (and possibly the US government as a whole) are evil, and you can't see any reason to think he's bent out of shape about anything. I only said that because in that thread I was the only one bitching about how conservatives were being pigeonholed, not Ron. Other than that, I agreed that Wendy's assessment of me was fair.