20 Jul 16
Originally posted by finneganHow did we get from the doddering old fool in a robe (who has nothing to do with the question of God) to sanctimonious people (who, equally having nothing to do with God), exactly?
Of course it is not about God per se. It is about sanctimonious people.
The far more likely scenario is what I expressed previously: you would much rather appear superior to the allegedly antiquated notion of belief in, love for, and devotion to God the Father.
20 Jul 16
Originally posted by KellyJayHow thick do you have to be to not realise that you are merely repeating republican propaganda?
How thick do you have to be to think that pulling out security teams before an attack does not show some level of neglect in Hillary Clinton's leadership skills?
It is noticeable that your political posts are often stated in such a way so as to avoid actual discussion of the points you try to make.
It would be an interesting topic to discuss, but you notably refuse to read the posts of most of the people you strongly disagree with, and you probably do the same when it comes to news sources which explains your ridiculous political views.
But seriously now, if you think Trump would make a better leader than Hillary, then 'thick' doesn't even begin to describe you.
(and no, I wasn't the one who thumbed down your post).
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTake this in slowly.
How did we get from the doddering old fool in a robe (who has nothing to do with the question of God) to sanctimonious people (who, equally having nothing to do with God), exactly?
The far more likely scenario is what I expressed previously: you would much rather appear superior to the allegedly antiquated notion of belief in, love for, and devotion to God the Father.
We are delighted to have access to the internet and to shared tools such as dictionaries on the internet.
We do not enjoy these benefits through religion and do not need to thank God for them.
Instead it would be useful not only to recognise the real sources for these benefits - which include public investment in science and technology and public investment in education et al - but also to appreciate that, in the absence of continuing collective effort, these collective gains can be privatised.
People who want to appeal to "God" in such situations are typically, IMHO, distracting attention in order to confuse us. I dislike such people. Notice that does not make me superior to them. It makes me antagonistic, which is quite a different situation.
It is easy to test the sincerity of this religious drivel. It turns out to be sectarian and bigoted. Their "religion" turns out to come as part of an ideological package and I do not like the baggage train. Not a good sign and not a sign of authentic religious commitment.
I prefer to replace religious confusion and bigotry with political awareness.
On the other hand, a serious discussion about "God" could be interesting and I have at times entered into such conversations.
Originally posted by finneganTake this in slowly.
Take this in slowly.
We are delighted to have access to the internet and to shared tools such as dictionaries on the internet.
We do not enjoy these benefits through religion and do not need to thank God for them.
Instead it would be useful not only to recognise the real sources for these benefits - which include public investment in science and ...[text shortened]... discussion about "God" could be interesting and I have at times entered into such conversations.
I always figured you were ex-cleric.
We do not enjoy these benefits through religion and do not need to thank God for them.
Except for when you do, and when you should.
People who want to appeal to "God" in such situations are typically, IMHO, distracting attention in order to confuse us. I dislike such people. Notice that does not make me superior to them. It makes me antagonistic, which is quite a different situation.
Shhh...
Your smugness is a-shining through!
Their "religion" turns out to come as part of an ideological package and I do not like the baggage train.
Oooh... such pretty words!
What is a baggage train, good sir?
Is that a magical ferry of personal belongings?
Your douche baggery is only exceeded by your ass hattery.
If you could just manage to get over yourself, you might--- might--- find that there is more to life than your pathetically insipid perspective.
That's a maybe, of course.
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by finneganI see. So I take it you are okay with making a show of being superior to other people, but not if it comes across as 'moral' superiority.
Take this in slowly.
We are delighted to have access to the internet and to shared tools such as dictionaries on the internet.
We do not enjoy these benefits through religion and do not need to thank God for them.
Instead it would be useful not only to recognise the real sources for these benefits - which include public investment in science and ...[text shortened]... discussion about "God" could be interesting and I have at times entered into such conversations.
Relax, don't worry about it... I doubt if anyone here will accuse you of being morally superior.
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't think that that is the accusation (pulling out security teams). The administration had committed itself to keeping a diplomatic presence in Benghazi, but the security situation worsened. After an attack on the British Ambassador in early June the UK withdrew all consular staff from Benghazi later that month. The US arguably should have withdrawn their presence from Benghazi before the attack as the security situation worsened and to my mind that is the real criticism. Ambassador Stevens had sent a number memos requesting extra security. However, two points should be borne in mind. First, the State Department wanted to maintain a low security profile and the attack involved a company sized force, so it is not obvious that a few extra CIA or Diplomatic Security Service personnel would have produced a substantially different outcome. Second the Republican Congress had voted to reduce Diplomatic Security funding by around half a billion dollars [1]. So if you think someone would have to be "thick to think pulling out security teams before an attack not to show some level of neglect" you may want to look at the Republican party too.
How thick do you have to be to think that pulling out security teams before an attack does
not show some level of neglect in Hillary Clinton's leadership skills? Two people put a
thumbs down on the statement and I didn't see any reason why! Speak up, You don't think
seeing her choices where people who worked for her died is unmportant?
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-idUSBRE89815N20121009
21 Jul 16
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
How thick do you have to be to not realise that you are merely repeating republican propaganda?
It is noticeable that your political posts are often stated in such a way so as to avoid actual discussion of the points you try to make.
It would be an interesting topic to discuss, but you notably refuse to read the posts of most of the people you strongl ...[text shortened]... ick' doesn't even begin to describe you.
(and no, I wasn't the one who thumbed down your post).
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYes a lot of things should have been done and were not ON HER WATCH!
I don't think that that is the accusation (pulling out security teams). The administration had committed itself to keeping a diplomatic presence in Benghazi, but the security situation worsened. After an attack on the British Ambassador in early June the UK withdrew all consular staff from Benghazi later that month. The US arguably should have withdra ...[text shortened]... Republican party too.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-idUSBRE89815N20121009
When the people on the ground are asking for more help taking away more of that they
were low supply of was her State Department call.
The only obvious thing in all of this was she had no clue!
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhen you set the bar this low, maybe I am superior. I can at least aspire to be.
[b]Take this in slowly.
I always figured you were ex-cleric.
We do not enjoy these benefits through religion and do not need to thank God for them.
Except for when you do, and when you should.
People who want to appeal to "God" in such situations are typically, IMHO, distracting attention in order to confuse us. I dislike such people ...[text shortened]... at there is more to life than your pathetically insipid perspective.
That's a maybe, of course.
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by finneganThe bar is not set by me or you or anyone else, really.
When you set the bar this low, maybe I am superior. I can at least aspire to be.
The bar is set by reality, by history.
Ever the revisionist, you would paint a picture completely devoid of religion or any mention of God... except in the margins, except when either can be blamed.
What progress (social, scientific, medical, etc.) man has made up to this point of history is either directly related or in many other ways dependent upon trails blazed by religious or God-fearing men and women.
It's not smart-ass me you're contending with, dude.
It's all of human history.
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNot really. It is the way Americans seek to deploy religion as part of an ideological package.
The bar is not set by me or you or anyone else, really.
The bar is set by reality, by history.
Ever the revisionist, you would paint a picture completely devoid of religion or any mention of God... except in the margins, except when either can be blamed.
What progress (social, scientific, medical, etc.) man has made up to this point of history is either ...[text shortened]... men and women.
It's not smart-ass me you're contending with, dude.
It's all of human history.
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe bar of whether or not he is superior to you, is set by you, and its such low bar that its practically impossible to not be above it.
The bar is not set by me or you or anyone else, really.
The bar is set by reality, by history.
Given that you don't accept reality (flat earther) and reject most of history (conspiracy theorist) it seems you have drunk yourself under the bar ages ago.