Coreece

No I didn't. There were about 2000 Canadian patients admitted into Michigan hospitals between 1994 and 1998 - not many in the grand scheme of things, but it's still not a stretch to say that many of those came by way of ambulance over the Ambassador bridge. But whatever Phil, yes it was anecdotal, you got me. I know you're busy fighting the good fight against the Russians, but after the election - regardless of who wins - will you promise to at least try to find a sense of humor? We're gonna need it.

Can't really say that I'm surprised, but I was expecting better examples of "misleading" people than the quote below. Today it seems like this type of stuff is common practice, tho it's easier to fact-check. From Article: Here’s an example from one AHIP brief in the binder: “A May 2004 poll found that 87% of Canada’s business leaders would support seeking health care outside the government system if they had a pressing medical concern.” The source was a 2004 book by Sally Pipes, president of the industry-supported Pacific Research Institute, titled “Miracle Cure: How to Solve America’s Health Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn’t the Answer. . .” . . .We didn’t know, for example, who conducted that 2004 survey or anything about the sample size or methodology — or even what criteria were used to determine who qualified as a “business leader.” Anyway, who knows - perhaps Canada's healthcare system significantly improved since the last century. I lived in a high-rise condo in downtown Detroit in the late 90s that overlooked Canada and the Ambassador Bridge. It seemed everyday there were numerous ambulances crossing the bridge from Canada - and I thought to myself, "there's a testament to the quality of Canada's healthcare system - they bring their sick people to Detroit for help."

Which after the state's and the school's take their share, would effectively amount to nothing.

I agree there Jerry - and it's very difficult on some levels in this rather volatile social/political environment with so much shit-slinging going on. I think most of us could do a better job, but I don't really have a problem with tit for tat arguments, especially when humor is involved - And yes I think shit sandwiches are a rather humorous concept. More importantly for me is not so much credibility, but the substance of an argument and ones ability, or inability to counter. This is a legitimate issue. While I've delved somewhat into eschatology, I'm not interested in deliberately lighting that fuse in an expedient manner - and I believe the Prince of Peace is ok with that, along with attempts to thwart such a violent end, as futile as they may be.

I know that. So, but "what"? Are you saying "but" because you believe I am somehow claiming it is terrorism? Nah, I'm just saying. My initial response was to Mr. Blevins and just edited it to add your quote about terrorism. Didn't mean anything by it.

But at this point no terrorist org has made a claim of responsibility, not even a fake one.

Thanks Wendy. For the most part we can always count on you for honest and reasonable replies. I think some of these issues go beyond just mere imperfection, but everyone has their reasons, excuses or justifications for turning a blind eye to these troublesome attributes and voting "anyone but Hillary" or "anyone but Trump." For the most part, the reasons/excuses/justifications for Trump were because of swing states in the midwest/rustbet losing their jobs and homes under a democrat administration that they voted for - and it didn't matter if that admin was directly responsible or not. That's just how it works on such a broad level. But that still doesn't stop people from saying that they're just a bunch of racist, xenophobic misogynists - and there is a tremendous amount of resentment for that, especially after voting for Obama and then losing their asses. Traditionally they'd go back to the voting booths in November and if the republicans didn't get it done in their opinion, then they'd go back to the dems. The problem this time is that Biden played a direct role and was second inline in that administration. Will they be willing to give them a second chance this time? I don't know, things are very different now. The UAW isn't the same and they don't need the dems to protect the jobs, wages and house that they don't have anymore.

Hi Coreece, It is your continuing insults such as this is why you have no credibility with me. Grow up!!!!!! Right Jerry, because I'm the only one that talks about shit sandwiches when it comes to elections - and if you vote for these shit candidates, you're metaphorically eating that shit sandwich. And that was directed at both sides. Wake up.

Which part, the part where he compared a cognitive abilities test to a cocaine test, or the part where he we said he's willing to let the American public judge his physical and mental fitness as he flubbed his lines again, stumbling over the words physical and mental? And then you have to wonder why he even singled out cocaine in the first place. Hmmmm. . . So when you add stuff like this, to the times when Joe insulted reporters as having a lower IQ compared to himself, lying about his academic credentials and his overall creepiness along with accusations of literally grabbing a woman by her pussy, we start to see that these are all similar symptoms of whatever the hell disease is afflicting Trump. Have fun eating that shit sandwich - I hope you all get your fill of it. I mean why is it so damn hard to nominate and vote for someone that is truly fit and deserving of being POTUS?

I think you are trying to say that Biden is a moron like Trump is. If so, I question your judgement. Do you honestly believe that that 1 minute clip was a positive moment for joe? If so, then there is no question about it - you have bad judgement.

Another moron. I mean these are our choices and we wonder why the world is so fucked up. . .or is it the other way around?

Meh, move to the inner city and live among the indigents for awhile. Then I'd be impressed.

I don't know, whack-a-mole never made me laugh as hard as I just did. Lol, the thing. That one was just about as good as "you can't get fooled again."

Hi Coreece, Many times that I have voted for POTUS, I have always thought, 'Which is the lesser of the two evils?' While there is little that I care about you ( based only upon your posting history ), yes I would. Jerry Baumchen PS) It would be much nicer if you could actually ask a question that is simply not stupid. And it would've been much nicer if you just said no. Jeeze jerry - so much hate. Lighten up, would ya? How's that?

Well, judging by the huge plume of smoke that was already in the air at the beginning of the video I would say yes, there was already a good sized fire happening. And that is also likely what was being videoed at the time. (Again, just a warning that the 2 clips below are very close, so the survivability of those recording is questionable.) The :39 second mark linked below form the video that normiss posted shows when that huge plume started, then 30 seconds later was the large explosion. https://youtu.be/9uf-ehxZpGU?t=39 If you go back to the :18 second mark it seems like people are cheering. You can see the flashes and hear what almost unmistakably sounds like fireworks. https://youtu.be/9uf-ehxZpGU?t=18

I only watched up to the 1:15 mark, just enough to determine what those flashes were. Definitely sounded like fireworks. No blood/deaths shown up to that point - hopefully the people in those clips survived despite being so close. I probably won't watch any further than that.

I never flunked out of law school, would you vote for me over the other choice?

Well dark matter is omnipresent, but science couldn't recognize it as an attribute of God even if it was - unless of course they defined Him first - but how could they do that? Why would they do that? Also, the official definition of faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." And I think it'd be more accurate to say that "science tries to find out if it is false."

Funny you should mention that. I just saw this ad earlier this mourning.

And what is that series of random flashes before the explosion?

Hanlon's Razor Except when you're in the middle east.

Ok, so you support christian organizations taking up political causes as long as you agree with them. Would you also be OK if they could no longer provide assistance because they couldn't meet some burdensome tax obligation? "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Ok, so what you're saying is no more coffee and donuts. Ya, I don't think that's something I'm willing to support.

Why is it so hard for you at some point to have a normal adult conversation and make your argument without continually lying about something I've said or positions I've never held, even after having been clarified? Again, what are you talking about? Again, you only feel that way because of your continual stereotyping of religious folks and the inability to look beyond your own hateful bias. You'd pigeonhole them just the same as every other christian you judge as "not following a righteous path of God" the second they even remotely disagreed with you on some other subject, like abortion. Ok, so you support christian organizations taking up political causes as long as you agree with them. Would you also be OK if they could no longer provide assistance because they couldn't meet some burdensome tax obligation? "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Would you also be ok if they were one of the 10,000 religious organizations that you were talking about that received corona virus funds to help them continue their work or provide relief to employees? I mean do you even know which religious institutions received funds and why? And another thing, do you really think that those 10,000 religious institutions that received those funds and other institutions under the suspicion of fraud really represent the other 450,000+ religious institutions? And that's not even counting religious non-profits that have no specific church affiliation.

Fine, but I think you're diluting the issue that varying levels of hate speech and stereotyping are still bigoted whether directed at a minority population or not. A bigot spewing hate against Jews is still a bigot even if he's in Israel, same thing for hate spewed at Muslims whether here in the U.S or in Iran. And it all contributes to a hateful mindset that progressive liberals supposedly stand against, so if they're to be taken seriously, then they need to attack it in all it's forms and not just because they need to garner votes to win an election.

Why do American Christians spout this crap? I'm perfectly fine with the current level of separation, and feel it's essential for the proper functioning of both church and state. Often times my posts build upon what I said up-thread and may reference ideas put forth by others months ago in a completely different thread. A while back a poster did suggest banning members of congress for proposing religious legislation such as anti-abortion laws. When I pointed out to him that anti-abortion ideology isn't particularly a religious thing, he said something like "well, the majority of supporters are religious" so kick them out anyway. I really don't think he understood the deeper implications of what he was actually saying. And I think this might be a good place to remind everyone that tho I may have some unfavorable opinions on the subject, I'm not looking to enact restrictive laws against protected classes, and neither is Ron. Like he said, "your life, your choice" - and I think that often gets overlooked. As for the "arresting clergy" thing, I just threw that in there given that people like phil were metaphorically calling for the heads of religious leaders during this crisis for their relatively irresponsible behavior - Which I can agree with to a certain extent, and for the most feel that phil was being sincere in that regard. But again, we have to be careful, because in the past people also called for the heads of religious clergy, but due to sensitivities surrounding religious belief, they used whatever excuse they could to label them as "enemies of the state," when what they were really wanted was to silence their influence on the people and eliminate religion altogether. But a more realistic concern I have is with regard to the ever-growing/progressive idea of taxing churches. I certainly think that some church organizations should open up their books and be investigated for violations of their tax-exempt status and possible shady business dealings. But if we're going to do that, it should be very selective and with reasonable cause. My concern is that if we start taxing churches in general, it could very well have a detrimental effect on smaller churches that truly have a positive effect in their local community and various outreach programs. I just don't want the innocent to end up paying for the sins of these megachurches that will continue to thrive regardless. And another thing, do you really want to tax churches when it could very well give them even more say in the government or even more political clout than they already have? Ken, we already talked about how that is demonstrably false and you really should know better than that by now. I've partook in a number of spiritual ideologies outside of Christianity prior to my conversion and they've all left an impression on me - without those experiences it's doubtful that I would've been receptive to the faith that I've come to embrace. But ya, I believe all religions can lead to Christ in someway or another - sorry if you have a problem with that. Or maybe you're just trying to match my energy and vigor, just like I'm trying to match your energy and vigor when it comes to causes that are close to your heart, or at least the vigor you display when attacking other forms of bigotry against various protected classes. And for the most part I agree. But then I hear how some of you talk about religion or just ignore some blatantly bigoted stereotype - or even start defending it, and it's like "Oh, that's how it is? Well to hell with that, I thought we were on the same page." Same. But we're not out to get you. I can buy that for the most part, for now. I'm more concerned with allowing bigoted anti-religious sentiment and stereotyping to foster and what that may look like further down the line in future generations, especially as the level of animosity continues to grows between religion and secular humanity whether justifiable or not.