Coreece

Normiss, you know I respect your opinions but this is just too much. Of course he can be more wrong. Ya, and Normiss with his 140 character limit is never wrong!

Yes, and because I'm elitist and out of touch, and ignorant, and ivory tower something something, and . . . and . . what other insults of the day do you have in your arsenal? A socialist? Towelhead? Gay? Not that I'd have expected you to noticed, but the only ones throwing insults here have been Jerry and Normiss. I mean, you guys seem angry - you can't even collect yourselves to offer a reasonable response like others in this thread.

It could have, sure. But as evidenced by the result of the following election, Obama was a brilliant candidate. Who could have beaten him? McCain minus Palin perhaps? I know some democrats/left-leaners (some even in this forum IIRC) that talked about voting for him if it wasn't for her. Perhaps more misogyny? I guess we'll never know.

Hi Coreece, Once again you show your true colors. Where have I ever posted anything about D's being blameless? Jerry Baumchen Jerry, it's very simple. Either you think that misogyny could have or couldn't have played a role in Hillary losing the 2008 primary. Either way, you're out of line for accusing me of being clueless of the real world simply for suggesting that it did.

Hi Coreece, This where you show me that you have not a clue about the real world. I did NOT 'vote for a black man over a woman'; I voted for the better candidate. Well good for YOU Jerry! But if Nigel and Normiss want to question the possibility of misogyny being the reason for Hillary never becoming president, then I think the 2008 primaries are a good place to start. . . .and if you think that democrats are so blameless so as not to have a misogynistic bone in their body, then you really have no business calling others out for being clueless of the real world.

Nor is misogyny, apparently. But yeah I see your point and noted as much in my previous reply. I know it's only 3 weeks into the year but you've definitely won the 2020 irony award. Yeah, I really did didn't I. My bad.

Nice. Thanks for the honest and thoughtful reply. Your posting style here seems to have mellowed out a bit. Have you been drinking that Kava stuff I recommended? ; )

Jesus Joe, what was it that pushed you over? Was it the comparison to the "blame Bush" conspiracy theorists? Or maybe it was the part about being compared to cognitively dissonant nanothermite nutters, because that's the same thing you know. Or maybe you were just convicted of your own greediness with the whole 401K reference? You gotta love those Billvonian analogies, eh? Nanothermite conspiracy nuts are to terrorists as Deniers are to Greta! Chances are none of that crap crossed your mind when criticizing/describing this shit show. Hell, you're not even a denier. Personally I think a better comparison would be to that of the whole Nick Sandmann thing. People on the left and the right just see two kids that hold opposing views to their own. They basically represent the future and the continuation of this divisive clusterfuck that we've created for ourselves, and automatically the perception is that this all just reeks of parental "indoctrination." And it doesn't really matter whether it's true or not, it's just the perception, so both sides just blame the parents/media and all the shit flinging starts.

Ok let's say we go with that - Nigel and Normiss are still questioning if the excuse is really just because of misogynistic religious men - and if they're right, then it's more likely due to misogynistic religious men that voted for Obama given the numbers from midwest states during the last 3 elections. I remember lefties here talking years ago about how Hillary's not very likable and how they didn't feel comfortable with having dynasties of the same families in office for decades. Then the dems didn't give her the nod in 2008 - apparently they were more comfortable with a black man over a woman - and then they failed to come out and support her in 2016. If there is any misogyny as NIgel and Normiss are suggesting, then it's more obvious to see that it's coming from the left than it is the right - just saying. Funny, given that the GOP has become the party of "not responsible for my sexual assault," "the buck always stops somewhere else" and "run up the debt to make me $$$ and let someone else deal with it later." Any moral compass they had has been completely lost. Dead kids in freezing cold cages, anyone? Not my responsibility! It was their fault. Nice whataboutism, but back to what we were talking about. Do you have anything to say about the hundreds of thousands of misogynistic democrats throughout the Midwest that cost Hillary the last election? Why didn't you vote for Hillary? Nigel and Normiss want to know if it's because you're a misogynistic Christian.

Well, he does have a home in Cleveland:

Key word's there, "don't worry."

It won't matter much. We never really had a favorable opinion of them since Mighty Ducks 2: "Iceland wasn’t chosen as the villain randomly in D2: The Mighty Ducks. According to writer Steve Brill, Russia was “too obvious,” and after the fall of the Soviet Union a few years earlier, they just didn’t seem as worthy a villain anymore. The eastern European thing felt “too dire or political.” Brill told TIME, “I was like, ‘Iceland, oh my god. People don’t quite know much about it. It’s got that Nordic mystique. I can make them essentially these blond-haired, blue-eyed menacing villains with funny accents and a weird culture.’ It’s a complete fabrication but it worked. I loved it. Iceland was a great stock country.”

My apologies. I didn't notice them as they were all invisible wearing inner city camouflage. You mean the black guy wearing the cowboy hat?

What about black men? Didn't you know that Joe is racially color blind? I suppose he thinks all the "black guns matter" shirts were literally talking about black guns, as apposed to chrome 45's.

Exactly! Oh, so you were just joking, eh? What did your dad tell you about that?

the patheos link is to a satirical section of the website. The news story is not true. Tell that to Nigel and Ryoder. (Tho, I'm not too fond of Televangelists either)

Someone has been triggered today! "Frigid bigots from Iceland" is not only spot on, it's funny. Your problem is that you apparently agree with these bigots but don't want to be associated with the bigotry - well, too bad. From my perspective they are attempting to protect themselves from the poisonous and corrupt effects of power in the hands of priests, imams, rabbis, and evangelist preacher types. Are you sure you are not angry and perhaps hateful over this? I was talking about Nigel wanting to move to Iceland. You guys always give Ron shit for merely withdrawing from city life, but you won't call out Nigel for wanting to withdraw and desiring to be with like-minded haters? And there is nothing wrong with hating bigotry - if there is any anger, it's no more inappropriate than the anger spewed here about other forms of bigotry that you're not as eager to embrace. And another thing, the whole "hey look, coreece is angry" thing is getting a bit old and rather lame, and only highlights your inability to address the rest of my post in context.

Worked for me. Same with smoking - you just stop. I'm talking about drinkers that suffer from DTs during withdrawal which are potentially fatal. https://www.evergreendrugrehab.com/blog/potential-delirium-tremens-dt-someone-goes-alcohol-withdrawal/ The last person I heard of dying from this was Nelsan Ellis. (Lafayette from True Blood) Apparently he was ashamed of his addiction and tried going through withdrawal on his own without proper treatment. Obviously I wouldn't expect the same thing when changing to a strictly plant based diet, just wondering if there are any potential downsides to making a sudden and drastic change like that. As I said, I'd prefer a more gradual or balanced transition.

1. I'd imagine that the vast majority of people don't really care what a bunch of frigid bigots from Iceland have to say. What does science have to say? Are you going to present evidence of neurological abnormalities that may predispose specific populations to a faith based mindset? Or is faith simply an inherent characteristic of our humanity that manifests itself in a variety of ways? Science seems to agree with the latter moreso that the former. Even more and more atheists are finding it harder to suppress their humaity as evidenced by the growing number of atheist churches and studies showing how some atheists even pray regularly or at least in times of distress. Some atheists have caught themselves automatically thinking about the supernatural after a loved one died, while other atheists have reported a sense of awe, peace and numinous feelings brought about by nature. Do you think they are mentally ill as well? 2. I'm not surprised that like-minded haters would want to band together and isolate themselves from the rest of the world. I don't know, perhaps such Iceolation would be beneficial for us all. But what's really interesting is that the same people seeking segregation from the religious are many times the same people going on about the benefits of diversity. Also, didn't you say something about how life is to be treasured and valued, regardless of race, creed or culture? Maybe this belongs this in the inconsistent atheist thread!

Maybe it is that a large number of American men are afraid of a powerful woman? Maybe they just aren’t ready to accept a female president? I wonder how much of the religious view is tied in with this that only a man must hold a position of power? Probably not much as you religious haters would like to think. For the most part, (especially in the rustbelt swing states that got Trump elected) the number of republican votes remained relatively constant. The difference was in the hundreds of thousands of democrats in each of those states that didn't come out to vote for Hillary like they did for Obama. You guys have only yourselves to blame - but as with everything, it's always the christian/conservative/republicans' fault. Democrats have effectively become the party of no personal responsibility, whatsoever.

I like what Dekker, Trigirl and Wendy had to say here. I favor a more gradual approach to change wrt my eating habits, go figure eh? Kind of similar to what Alex Honnold did in Free Solo. (the guy me and weber were talking about in the crazy religion thread) Just wondering, is there any info on the possibility of adverse effects of drastically changing your diet after years of eating the same shit, especially when you may already be genetically predisposed to handling enormous levels of fatty shit food from eastern Europe? Edit: I think I remember seeing something like that on House. . .where eating "healthier" posed a serious risk to the bum's health. It's kind of like with alcohol - it's not like you can just stop after drinking that shit everyday for years, that could kill you.

https://soylent.com/ I figured this is the perfect place to use that giant bastardized emoji - I hate it. The whole winking eye tongue thing is supposed to exude a cool, cheeky sense of style and humor, but now it just looks like a crazy drunk uncle emoji. . . .It's frightening.

Hi mbohu, And I think you should quit insulting people. Jerry Baumchen Hi Jerry, mbohu is probably one of the most thoughtful and respectful intellectuals on this site. He is an inspiration, even if I don't always agree with him. I'm just glad he even bothered to come back here after your unwarranted and jaded judgement against him. Perhaps you need a break from this place to get your perspective straight. You should be ashamed of yourself, lol. Anyway, wrt atheistic inconsistencies, here's an article I posted awhile back: "just because you believe in evidence-based, scientific research – which is subject to strict checks and procedures – doesn't mean that your mind works in the same way." "The problem that any rational thinker needs to tackle, though, is that the science increasingly shows that atheists are no more rational than theists. Indeed, atheists are just as susceptible as the next person to "group-think" and other non-rational forms of cognition. For example, religious and nonreligious people alike can end up following charismatic individuals without questioning them." " Clearly, the idea that being atheist is down to rationality alone is starting to look distinctly irrational. But the good news for all concerned is that rationality is overrated. Human ingenuity rests on a lot more than rational thinking. . . The truth is that humans are not like science – none of us get by without irrational action, nor without sources of existential meaning and comfort. Fortunately, though, nobody has to." https://phys.org/news/2018-09-atheists-rational.html

So then you are willing to concede that much about out individual perceptions, and consequently what we believe, are decided at the level of the brain? How on God's green earth would that be a concedence? I mean, you said "much." What else is there? Why would you say that?

Yes, it's only logical that God's good grace be extended to even the simplest of us all, even you. Remarkable. I shit you not, I was hoping to use that as my next example of possible "mental illness." - along with base jumping. Some of us just need a bit more to get off on life. Again, God's good grace is extended to us all, not just the intelligent.