jakee
-
Content
24,932 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74 -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by jakee
-
Explanation being?
-
How has it run its course if you're still here defending your contemptuous insults? Come on dude, your whole MO is to cry wolf about bigotry every time any aspect of religion is remotely criticised, just take it on the chin and admit to what is by your own standard a highly bigoted statement. I wasn't fooled by that article, you were. So now we've got two examples of you jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. What's ironic about you staying true to form?
-
Which, as demonstrated above, shows the opposite.
-
So why deliberately choose such an offensive term to describe it? Why go out of your way to appear bigoted if that is not really you belief? This whole line of questioning comes from one article you read years ago? Seems a bit thin to be drawing conclusions about the whole population from that doesn't it? Along with defining awe at nature as a religious experience. Comes off a bit desperate, to be honest. Do you think of yourself as suppressing your own humanity every time a thought pops through your head that you then dismiss? Be honest, now.
-
The impeachment is both a more important national/international news story and something that is actually happening right now, as in being the definition of 'news'. Plus at this point it's almost funny that the President happily hired to defend him in that impeachment two men who were instrumental in denying justice to those children through illegal deals with the prosecutors. Yep, that is an embarrassment to your country.
-
What gives either of you the idea that no-one is looking into any wrongdoing?
-
He’s popped up in the news I’m seeing several times in the last week at least. And as pointed out, he’s dead. That means there’s not as much happening with him that could be classed as news anymore. It does tend to be the case with dead people that they stop doing new things. But ok, what do you think we should be hearing about Epstein right now? State the cover up you’re hinting at.
-
He only needs to sway 3, and apparently 2 are already wavering.
-
Ok, so you think I simply lack humanity altogether. Gee thanks, that’s way less bigoted. “I have no reason not to take you at your word - so given that, ya, I can see how my comment could be offensive and even bigoted if I strongly maintained that ALL atheists are just repressing inherent human emotions. Overall I think it's great that some atheists are starting to explore that side of their humanity, so I should probably ease up a bit and be more encouraging, even accommodating if necessary.” So you’re just doubling down on the bigotry, then. Aren’t you embarrassed at the hypocrisy right now?
-
So why is it part of the reason to not want universal healthcare? How would the situation be any better without universal healthcare?
-
The rest of it isn't particularly interesting. The bit I quoted to you is. Aren't you going to get onto your own case about the bigotry you just displayed?
-
I think you need to give yourself a bigotry time out.
-
That makes no sense. Palin is a larger than life caricature of a far right buffoon. Man or woman her politics are diametrically opposed to those that would have encouraged a left leaner to vote for McCain (and don't forget that McCains own stated politics swung drastically right during that campaign as they chased their own base at the expense of centreist votes). Now, people who didn't vote for McCain because of Palin and then went on to vote for Trump... those people could well be mysoginists. But they're Trump supporters, so no great shock
-
It could have, sure. But as evidenced by the result of the following election, Obama was a brilliant candidate. Who could have beaten him?
-
??? Lots of democrats and swing voters are religious. Religious is not synonymous with republican. I know it's only 3 weeks into the year but you've definitely won the 2020 irony award.
-
It's ok though, he can't be profiting from the office because he's giving his salary to charity...
-
And again, you're positing nothing more than a god of the gaps. You are begging the question by demanding that an atheist reponse has to be framed in the context of a human being a meat robot. It doesn't. There is no contradiction between having rational atheist beliefs and a moral code. They are sperate things.
-
Your point being?
-
This is just willful disregard for reality. Trump is generally bad at following a script but he does have them, and he lies so much you have no idea where he's coming from. Take 'drain the swamp' as a prime example.
-
Well, I am confused about why you brought the Scottish into it.
-
What are you talking about?
-
And you have no idea how much. That's new. What does the temper tantrum look like?
-
I know. Do you want to try answering it? And how do you demonstrate that outside of attempting to use it?
-
You've just hit the nail on the head. You're happy to say you'd kill someone to save 5 people on the tracks because it's a contrived situation. It's not realistic and you know you'll never have to do it. You can suspend your disbelief, say whatever you want and it doesn't matter. You say you absolutely shouldn't kill the guy in the hospital to save people on the organ donor list because it's real. You know that you both can't and shouldn't murder people for organs because otherwise it's something that really could happen every day if we let it. This response is what your morality is really telling you.
-
Why is it at all about the souvenir pens? See, this is where she just has no chance of winning with hardcore anti democrats like you. She gives out pens, she's accused of not taking it seriously. She points out how serious the situation is, she's accused of gloating. Make up your mind. Trump. Obviously Trump. No contest, by a country mile Trump. Even if you only look at statements directly related to impeachment, let alone everything else. But again, this is just a distraction. Why don't you take your own thread seriously and address the real issue. If the Senate shouldn't hold an impeachment trial because it's not impartial, what should happen? If the House shouldn't bother trying to hold a criminal president to account because the Senate will acquit, who should?
