Sunday, June 21, 2020

Trump's disrespect for the disabled

Trump not only mocked a disabled reporter, he got his brother, who suffered from cerebral palsy and died at the age of 42, disinherited, and tried to get take away his grand-nephew's health insurance, who also suffers from cerebral palsy.

My friend Joe Sheffer had cerebral palsy and passed away in 1989, at the age of 36, so this infuriates me even more than most things Trump has done.

And then there's taking braille off the elevators at Trump Tower.

This is about his niece's forthcoming book.

Her antipathy towards her uncle long predates his foray into populist rightwing politics. When Trump’s father, Fred Trump Sr, died, his will distributed his estate among his children and their offspring with the exception of his son Fred Trump Jr. The children of Fred Jr objected that they had been included an earlier will, written before Fred Sr was diagnosed with dementia, and took legal action.
Mary told the New York Daily News that her aunt and uncles “should be ashamed of themselves”. And soon after the lawsuit was filed, Trump changed a health insurance policy so that Fred Jr’s grandson, who had cerebral palsy, lost coverage. Eventually the lawsuit was settled and the child regained health insurance.


229 comments:

1 – 200 of 229   Newer›   Newest»
JBsptfn said...

Not surprising. It's sad that the Conservatives worship him like they do. I know another Christian who thinks that Trump will give America back to the people. What a joke!! This is why I don't vote, and why I don't support partisan politics. When you vote, you are saying that you support evil.

StardustyPsyche said...

"This is why I don't vote, and why I don't support partisan politics. When you vote, you are saying that you support evil."
How repulsive. People literally die to acquire the right to vote, you throw it away with cavalier indignation, only to then complain about how bad things are.

What, do you suppose you ought to be able to have a candidate who fits all your parameters? Gee, how does that work in a country of over 300 million people?

When you vote you get a fair chance to have your say in a national consensus, when you abdicate that right you lose your moral standing to complain about our leaders at all.

JBsptfn said...

Stardusty Psyche, I have this to say to you:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

2. You need an education: https://www.obstruct-the-vote.org/

Hal said...

The Trump administration's budget has continually tried to make cuts for disability programs

My step daughter is a special needs adult. She has downs syndrome and still lives with us. Fortunately there are a lot of good programs out here in California to provide help for families with special needs children. We are fortunate enough to have pretty good incomes but many of the families with special needs children receiving aid from those programs would be devastated without that help.

Starhopper said...

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and so I 100% agree with Stardusty's above comment.

If you vote, you have a right to complain about what our elected officials are doing. If you fail to vote, SHUT UP!

JBsptfn said...

Starhopper, our rights are not granted by laws or kings. We can complain all we want whether we vote or not. Comments like Stardusty's show how ignorant a lot of Americans are. We can't get change through this system.

Starhopper said...

OK, you can go ahead and complain after not voting, but I for one will not listen to you. (What would be the point in doing so?) Anyone who does not vote may not have lost the "right" to complain, but he's lost any and all credibility. He's just a noise.

JBsptfn said...

What has voting done for the American people? Nothing. You just elect politicians that don't do anything for you. They can't do anything for you. Partisan politics has to go.

Starhopper said...

OK, so you don't like democracy. What alternative are you proposing? Monarchy? Feudalism? Totalitarianism?

bmiller said...

bmiller-ism

SteveK said...

Now do a post about certain Catholics on this blog disrespecting the unborn.

Hal said...

Victor,

Since we're on the topic of disabled persons.
Philosopher Eva Kittay has written what looks to be an excellent book: "Learning from My Daughter: The Value and Care of Disabled Minds"

From her Wikipedia Article


Kittay's research has focused on feminist philosophy, ethics, social and political theory, the philosophy of disability, metaphor, and the application of these disciplines to disability studies.[1] Her viewpoints on the ethics of care are quite similar to those of Virginia Held and Sara Ruddick - namely that human interactions occur between people who are unequal yet interdependent, and that practical ethics should be fitted to life as most people experience it.[4] Kittay has also extended the work of John Rawls to address the concerns of women and the cognitively disabled.[5] In developing the ethics of care, her most significant contribution has been the emphasis on the inevitable fact of human dependency and the need to incorporate such dependency and dependency work into ethical and political theories. She has been one of the major voices in the emergent field of philosophy of disability, focusing in particular on cognitive disability.

There is a kindle version I linked to above. So far have only read a couple of chapters, but looks to be a worthwhile read.

bmiller said...

SteveK,

Hope you've been well.

Victor Reppert said...

Biden holds that he knows by faith that the unborn are persons, but that the evidence that the unborn are persons is not available to those outside the Catholic faith, and therefore the right of the unborn to life, which is not known to the American public in general, cannot outweigh a woman's right to privacy in her medical decisions, which is something that everyone can know. He may be mistaken in this. However, in my opinion, he has more ethical concern for the unborn than his opponent has. Pro-choice Democrats are, at worst, ethically myopic. Trump is an ethical nihilist who offers pro-lifers political results they want in order to maintain political power. He has probably paid for his share of abortions in his lifetime. So I say, vote for the most pro-life candidate, which is Biden!!

bmiller said...

Ha ha ha!

Good to know that you have a sense of humor Victor!

bmiller said...

Biden thinks abortion is murder, but he is willing to allow murder in order to get votes and stay in office. So millions will die.

Even if it is true that "Trump is an ethical nihilist who offers pro-lifers political results they want in order to maintain political power." The result is that millions will not die.

It takes a screwed up university education to arrive at the conclusion that killing millions is better than saving millions.

Victor Reppert said...

I do not believe that anti-abortion laws, even if they are ideally desirable, are a practicable solution to the problem of abortion. Electing Trump will not save millions of fetuses. He can't outlaw abortion, even if he wants to. Vacating Roe will just throw it back to the states, and most states will not pass anti-abortion laws.

Abortion is a spiritual and moral issue that has been hijacked by politics.

StardustyPsyche said...

Victor,
"Abortion is a spiritual and moral issue that has been hijacked by politics"
If the aborted fetus was indeed a human being with an intrinsic right to life then abortion is rightly a criminal issue.

Suppose a woman is pregnant with a 9 month aged term healthy fetus, nearly ready to give birth, in which case one ordinarily expects a normal healthy live birth of a living human being who will, after being born, surely have an intrinsic right to life, a human life, the elective intentional taking of which is and should be a capital crime of the worst sort.

Now, supposing that same woman, instead of driving to the hospital to have a normal live birth, instead drives to an abortion clinic, where the unborn term fetus is injected in the heart in utero, and when his or her heart stops the abortionist proceeds to extract the fetus from the uterus piece by piece.

Was that a murder of a human being with an intrinsic right to life? If not, why not? Is there something about traveling through a vagina that confers human life to a term fetus over the space of a few hours?

What intrinsically changes about a fetus of significance to his or her humanity in the hours between the onset of labor and birth? Does a fetus become a human being when the head is first visible? When the head is first out? When the whole body is out? When the cord is cut? At the first breath of air?

If any of these events has a transformative effect what is that effect that causes the term pre-birth fetus to transition from a non-human collection of cells to a living human being with an intrinsic right to life?

Well, perhaps you say its not about killing term babies in utero, its about xyz. Ok, but when does xyz happen exactly? On what day? There are only about 266 days from conception to birth, not a big number, it would be pretty easy to list all 266 days on a few pages of paper. Can you mark the day when a human being becomes a human being?

What possible reason could there be to justify the intentional elective killing of a human being with an intrinsic right to life? Various excuses have been offered, no such excuses stand up to rational evaluation.

The only justification for an abortion that takes a human life is self defense. Pregnancy can be dangerous to the mother, not often life threatening, but still often enough that a self defense exception is justified and necessary.

A parent may well be scared, unable to care for his or her child, poor, inconvenienced, hampered, and frustrated with the burden of providing life sustaining sustenance to his or her child.

Irrespective of the burden on the parent, the intentional withholding of sustenance with forethought and knowledge that such withholding will result in the death of the child, and does result in the death of the child, is, and should be, a capital crime of first degree murder by depraved neglect.

Why would we treat the criminality of taking a human life differently by virtue of that individual's physical location?

StardustyPsyche said...

JBsptfn said...
"Comments like Stardusty's show how ignorant a lot of Americans are. We can't get change through this system. "
Black suffrage.
Women's suffrage.
The voting rights act.
Cleaning up the smog that used to choke LA and is virtually gone now.
Our increasing number of national parks.
More and better roads for me to drive on. I like driving on our roads.
Locking up criminals. Crime is down a lot. Incarceration is up a lot. That works for me.
Legalization of marijuana. Illinois is even vacating prior convictions and letting people out of prison if marijuana was their only offense.
Increased health care. We get better coverage when a Democratic president has a Democratic legislature, happens every time.
Vehicle safety laws. Cars are vastly safer now due to laws passed requiring safety equipment and design.
Social security.
Medicare.
Medicaid.
Public education.
Military defeat of fascistic expansionist attackers. I like that, hats off to our fine military personnel.

Ok, I have lots more things to write about the vast return on investment we all enjoy by paying our taxes and continuing to vote for those who do in fact enact positive changes over time.
But my fingers are getting tired and the list of benefits of voting and paying taxes is so long it would take hours and hours and I still could not finish.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
Biden thinks abortion is murder, but he is willing to allow murder in order to get votes and stay in office. So millions will die.

We all allow murder for self-defense.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche,
Why would we treat the criminality of taking a human life differently by virtue of that individual's physical location?

You mean, why is it different to shoot a threat in your house instead of shooting them in their house?

Answer: you are expected to try to leave someone else's house, if you can.

Mothers can turn babies over to the state, if need be. Pregnant women don't have that option.

StardustyPsyche said...

"You mean, why is it different to shoot a threat in your house instead of shooting them in their house?"
It isn't, one needs to be in immediate danger of losing one's life in either case. That may or may not be the case in either location.

Just because somebody comes into your house does not mean you can legally blow them away, nor is self defense ruled out is the shooter is in the victim's house.

"Mothers can turn babies over to the state, if need be. Pregnant women don't have that option."
So what, so if a parent is forced by circumstances to have sole responsibility for the sustenance of a child that makes elective murder OK?

Have you ever been alone with a baby for an extended number of days? Did it cross your mind that it would be OK to kill the child by depraved neglect because you no longer wished to care for that child? If so you are a very sick person indeed.

bmiller said...

Victor,

I do not believe that anti-abortion laws, even if they are ideally desirable, are a practicable solution to the problem of abortion. Electing Trump will not save millions of fetuses. He can't outlaw abortion, even if he wants to. Vacating Roe will just throw it back to the states, and most states will not pass anti-abortion laws.

Abortion is a spiritual and moral issue that has been hijacked by politics.


In your last post, you argued that Biden was somehow morally superior by betraying his core convictions (he has none) and allowing abortion/murder. When I pointed out the folly of your position you now tell me we shouldn't even he talking about abortion....the subject you just brought up.

But I'm pleased to see that you, an abortion advocate, oppose legislation. It means that pro-lifers are on the right track. I'd start to worry if you agreed.

Victor Reppert said...

I'm hardly an abortion advocate. I think there should be as few abortions as possible. I think trying to use the law against abortion is to achieve that goal in the worst possible way. People are used to thinking of others in the abortion debate as for abortion or against it. This is not true. Some people are pro-choice but anti-abortion. In fact you can hold this position.

1) Abortion is wrong.
2) Ideally, abortion should be illegal.
3) The constitution affirms a right to privacy which precludes abortion legislation in the absence of a clear Constitutional assertion that fetuses have the right to life that must be protected.
4) Abortion can and should be outlawed if and only if a Constitutional Amendment can be passed to that effect.
5) Attempts to tilt the Supreme Court against Roe v. Wade through putting originalist judges on the Supreme Court is a misguided enterprise.

Such a person would be technically pro-life, though totally opposed to the presently constituted pro-life political enterprise.

Hal said...

Victor,

Nice post. I happen to be a supporter of reproductive rights, but I think your post lays out good reasons for even a pro-life advocate to support Biden for president.

bmiller said...

Victor,

I'm hardly an abortion advocate. I think there should be as few abortions as possible. I think trying to use the law against abortion is to achieve that goal in the worst possible way.
Yes, I know. You demand the government fund your leftist positions because people will suffer otherwise, but it is the worst possible thing to stop people from being killed by passing laws against killing people. That may make sense to someone.

You're welcome to your opinion, but you shouldn't characterize it as "technically pro-life".

The pro-life position is that a human life/personhood begins at conception and you don't hold that position. If a court rules differently then the court is wrong just as the Dred Scott decision was wrong. If the law allows the murder of the innocent, then the law is wrong just as the laws allowing slavery were wrong.


3) The constitution affirms a right to privacy which precludes abortion legislation in the absence of a clear Constitutional assertion that fetuses have the right to life that must be protected.


The constitution is a piece of paper and affirms nothing. The SC made up that interpretation.

4) Abortion can and should be outlawed if and only if a Constitutional Amendment can be passed to that effect.


The SC prohibited laws against abortion without a Constitutional Amendment so reversing RvW will restore right order.


5) Attempts to tilt the Supreme Court against Roe v. Wade through putting originalist judges on the Supreme Court is a misguided enterprise.


Good. We're on the right track.

bmiller said...

Hal,

Nice post. I happen to be a supporter of reproductive rights, but I think your post lays out good reasons for even a pro-life advocate to support Biden for president.

How so?

StardustyPsyche said...

bmiller
"The pro-life position is that a human life/personhood begins at conception"

Hijacker.

The pro-life position is to protect actual human life.

You think life begins at conception because you believe in ghosts, and that a spook pops into a cell sometime or other (I very much doubt you have thought about your own position enough to specify exactly when your hallucinated ectoplasm takes up residence in a fertilized egg).

StardustyPsyche said...

One Brow
You are so stupid you do not even know what simple words mean.

"We all allow murder for self-defense."

noun
noun: murder; plural noun: murders

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

verb
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

If it is allowed and in self defense it isn't murder, you moron.

Starhopper said...

The true "pro-life" position is the "seamless garment" position.

Abortion is evil, but so is capital punishment, imperialism, endless war, systemic racism, police violence, gang violence, exploitation of the poor, xenophobia, opposition to universal health care, and indifference to environmental destruction and climate change.

You cannot call yourself "pro-life" without fighting for systemic change in the totality of our current governmental and societal "culture of death".

bmiller said...

You cannot call yourself "pro-life" without fighting for systemic change in the totality of our current governmental and societal "culture of death".

We need to thank Starhopper for giving us an excellent example of the "all or nothing fallacy".

bmiller said...

You know, it used to kind of annoy me when Stardusty would post.
But now I kind of enjoy it. As long as it's not a wall of words.

StardustyPsyche said...

Starhopper
"police violence, gang violence"
Equating police violence with gang violence is particularly stupid.

Police violence is virtually always a good thing for us all, except the criminals who they use violence against to thwart their further crimes. Criminals don't like police violence against themselves, it inhibits their criminality.

Gang violence is just the opposite of police violence. Gang violence is extremely destructive for honest people, monstrously criminal, and often must be met with violence by the good guys, the police.

Yet you equate the two, you moron.

Police violence is like the allies violently attacking in Normandy. Gang violence is like Nazi violence. Learn the difference you idiot.

StardustyPsyche said...

bmiller said...

"You know, it used to kind of annoy me when Stardusty would post.
But now I kind of enjoy it"

This is like Sam Harris and Donald Trump agreeing about Islam.

Yes, SJWs are idiots, I am with you on that, after that, you and I go our separate ways.

Hal said...

bmiller,

How so?

How so what?

bmiller said...

Hal,

How so what?

You made a statement that I quoted above. It's in reference to that statement.

bmiller said...

Yes, SJWs are idiots, I am with you on that, after that, you and I go our separate ways.

I was actually referring to your ignorant ectoplasm statement, Mr "Grandfather is Causing Me to Move" :-)

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche,
If it is allowed and in self defense it isn't murder, you moron.

That was a more subtle point, so I'm not surprised it escaped you. Abortion is not legally murder because it is not illegal.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
It isn't, one needs to be in immediate danger of losing one's life in either case. That may or may not be the case in either location.

Legally, you are under no obligation to try to flee your house if you are capable, rather than defend it. Legally, you are under the obligation to leave someone else's house. Since we agree that murder is a term referring to what is legally impermissible, there is an obvious difference between a shooting in your home or someone else's.

So what, so if a parent is forced by circumstances to have sole responsibility for the sustenance of a child that makes elective murder OK?

Since abortion is not murder, the question is moot.

Have you ever been alone with a baby for an extended number of days?

I raised 5 of them, and have sat for others.

Did it cross your mind that it would be OK to kill the child by depraved neglect because you no longer wished to care for that child?

In what way is surrendering a baby to the state "depraved neglect"?

One Brow said...

bmiller,
The pro-life position is that a human life/personhood begins at conception ...

I am pro-life to bmiller. How about that!

Hal said...

bmiller,

You made a statement that I quoted above. It's in reference to that statement.

Sorry, I don't see any need to elaborate on what I stated above. Seems pretty clear to me.

bmiller said...

Hal,

OK. It doesn't make sense to me but you're not obligated to explain your reasoning.

bmiller said...

Anyone see Parasite?
Subtitles involved.

Starhopper said...

I've heard of it, but have not seen it.

I mainly watching "classic" cinema nowadays, and very rarely anything current.

Plus, I've been re-living my childhood of late by binge watching my favorite shows from long, long ago. "Adventures in Paradise", "The twilight Zone", "The Wild Wild West", McHale's Navy", "Gilligan's Island", "Rocky and Bullwinkle", "Lost in Space" "Star Trek" (the original series), plus some shows from British TV.

bmiller said...

"Rocky and Bullwinkle" is subversive.
"Lost in Space"....really? Barf.

Starhopper said...

Hey, it beats Doctor Who.

bmiller said...

But not Benny Hill.

bmiller said...

Been reading John Humphrey Noyes book regarding his take on the history of socialism in America and why it failed.

Here are some passages from THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN SOCIALISMS starting at page 23.

Owenism and Fourierism, has touched and modified both of the party-sections and all departments of the national life. We must not think of the two great socialistic revivals as altogether heterogeneous and separate. Their partisans maintained theoretical opposition to each other; but after all the main idea of both was the enlargement of home-the extension of family union beyond the little man-and-wife circle to large corporations. In this idea the two movements were one; and this was the charm-

AMERICAN

SOCIALISMS.

ing idea that caught the attention and stirred the enthusiasm of the American people....


As a man who has passed through a series of passional excitements, is never the same being afterward, so we insist that these socialistic paroxysms have changed the heart of the nation ; and that a yearling toward social reconstruction has become a part of the continuous, permanent, inner experience of the American people....

Nettleton and Finney were to Revivals, what Owen and Fourier were to Socialism...

Opposed as they were to each other theologically~one being a movement of Bible men, and
the other of infidels and liberals-they could not be expected to hold public attention simultaneously. But looking at the whole period from the end of the war in 1815 to the end of Fourierism after 1846, and allowing Revivals a little precedence over Socialism we find the two lines of excitement parallel, and their phenomena wonderfully similar....


On the one hand the Revivalists needed daily meetings and continuous criticism to save and perfect their converts; and these things they could not have without a thorough reconstruction of domestic life. They tried the expedient of "protracted meetings," which was really a half-way attack on the fashion of the world; but society was too strong for them, and their half-measures broke down, as all half-measures must. What they needed was to convert their churches into unitary famlies, and put them into unitary home·s, where daily meetings and continuous criticism are possible ;-and behold, this is Socialism!
On the other hand the Socialists, as often as they came together in actual attempts to realize their ideals, found that they were too selfish for close organization. The moan of Macdonald was, that after seeing the stern reality of the experiments, he lost hope, and was obliged to confess that he had "imagined mankind better than

28

AMERICAN SOCIALISMS.

they are." This was the .final confession of the leaders in the Associative experiments generally, from Owen to the last of the Fourierites; and this confession means, that Socialism needed for its complement, regeneration of the heart ;-and behold, this is Revivalism!

bmiller said...

I didn't realize that the Great Awakening happened around the same time as all these socialist experiments. I find an interesting parallel between these movements in the 19th century in America and the similar types of movements in America in the 1960s-1970s involving the "New Left" and the "Jesus Movement".

Starhopper said...

The main reason why the USA is not a European style socialist nation today is FDR and the New Deal. Roosevelt saved American capitalism, which was collapsing in the early 1930s all over the world. Russia's answer to the world wide economic collapse was the Five Year Plan and Stalinism. Germany's answer was Hitler. Italy's answer was fascism. (The same for Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Spain, and (eventually) Argentina.) Japan's answer was militarism and the invasion of China. The USA's answer was... the New Deal.

bmiller said...

New Harmony was started by Owens in 1825. Chapter 4 page 30
Before the year was out it was pretty chaotic, so Owens appointed an "Executive Council" that was to follow the orders of the commumnity but almost immediately they decided that Owens should call the shots. And all was well...for a while. But it was a short "while".

Owens gave this 4th of July message in 1826:

On the 4th of July Mr. Owen delivered his celebrated Declaration of Mental Independence, from which we give
the following specimen:
" I now declare. to you and. to the world, that Man, up to this hour, has been in all parts of the earth a slave to a Trinity of the most monstrous evils that could be combined to inflict. mental and physical evil upon his whole race. I refer to Private or Individual Property,
Absurd and Irrational systems of Religion, and Marriage founded on Individual Property, combined with some of these Irrational systems of Religion."


About a year later, Owen gave up and walked away but not after a mess of chaos.

The chapter is a short read. It's instructive.

bmiller said...

Quick Quiz: Agree or Disagree:

1) Rebalance the history taught in schools until its voices and subjects reflect the demographics of the population and heritage of Native people and citizens of color
2) Move, after public consultation, to a new American anthem that better reflects our diversity as a people
3) Rename our cities and towns until they match the demographics of the population
4) Rebalance the art shown in museums across the country until an analysis of content shows that it reflects the demography of the population and perspective of Native people and citizens of color
5) Move, after an open public process, to a new name for our country that better reflects the contributions of Native Americans and our diversity as a people
6) Rename our states until they better reflect the heritage of Native people and citizens of color
7) Gradually replace many older public buildings with new structures that don’t perpetuate a Eurocentric order, until a more representative public space is achieved
8) Respectfully remove the monument to four white male presidents at Mount Rushmore, as they presided over the conquest of Native people and repression of women and minorities
9) Allow our public parks to return to their natural state, before a European sense of order was imposed upon them
10) Move, after public consultation, to a new American flag that better reflects our diversity as a people
11) Consider adopting a new national language, that will be forged from the immigrant and Native linguistic diversity of this country’s past
12) Remove existing statues of white men from public spaces until the stock of statues matches the demographics of the population
13) Gently remodel the statue of liberty to make it better reflect the diversity of America
14) Rename our streets and neighbourhoods until they match the demographics of the population
15) Move, after public consultation, to a new American constitution that better reflects our diversity as a people
16) Begin changing the layout of our cities, towns, and highways, moving away from the grid system to follow the more natural trails originally used by Native people

Hal said...

Someone is fixated on race. I’ll pass.

Starhopper said...

1) Agree
2) Make THIS our national anthem (I'm serious)
3) Disagree
4) Disagree
5) Disagree
6) They already do. 25 states (fully half!) have Native American names, 7 have Spanish names, 2 have French names, 4 are named after places in Europe, 11 are named after people, and 1 (Idaho) is totally made up.
7) Disagree
8) I hate Mount Rushmore. Not because they're of "dead white men", but because the whole thing reminds me of Stalinism and the Cult of Personality.
9) We definitely need more wilderness, but it doesn't have to be the parks. They're for recreation.
10) We're going to need less stars, if we're ever going to add new states. (We started out adding stripes as well as stars, but quickly realized it would eventually look stupid, and went back to just 13.)
11) We don't have an "official" language now. Let's keep it that way.
12) Remove ALL statues. (Well, most of them.) What good are they?
13) Disagree
14) Some streets, yes. Neighborhoods, no.
15) I can think of 3 or 4 amendments that we desperately need without breathing hard. But an entirely new constitution? No.
16) Disagree

bmiller said...

Sounds like you're mostly lazy Starhopper, like me.
If they start changing all those names I'll never find my way home.

bmiller said...

It seems that Owen's communism was all the rage around the time of Monroe and John Quincy Adams:

From Chapter V

He came to this country with the prestige of a reformer who had the confidence and patronage of Lords, Dukes and Sovereigns in the old world. His lectures were received with attention by large assemblies in our principal cities. At Washington he was accomodated by the Speaker and President with the Hall of Representatives, in which he delivered several lectures before the President, the President elect, all the judges of the Supreme Court, and a great number of members of Congress. He afterwards presented to the Government an expensive and elaborate model, with interior and working drawings, elevations, &c., of one of the magnificent communal edifices which he had projected. He had a large private fortune, and drew into his schemes other capitalists, so that his experiment had the advantage of unlimited wealth. That wealth, as we have seen, placed at his command unlimited land and a ready made village. These attractions brought him· men in unlimited numbers....

From his speech about the Declaration of Mental Independence

" And here we now are, as near perhaps as we can be in the" center of the United States, even, as it were, like the little grain of mustard seed! But with these Great
Truths before us, with the practice of the social system, as soon as it shall be well understood among us, our principles will, I trust, spread from Community to Community, from State to State, from Continent to Continent, until this system and these truths shall overshadow the whole earth, shedding fragrance and abundance, intelligence and happiness, upon all the sons of men!"

Such were the antecedents and promises of the New Harmony experiment. The Professor appeared on the stage with a splendid reputation for previous thaumaturgy, with all the crucibles and chemicals around him that money could buy, with an audience before him that was gaping to see the last wonder of science: but on applying the flame that was to set all ablaze with happiness and glory, behold! the material -prepared would not burn, but only sputtered and smoked; and the curtain had to come down upon a scene of confusion and disappointment !

Starhopper said...

So, bmiller, what was the purpose of your quiz?

bmiller said...

To see the reactions. Looks like you're the only one who has an opinion and it appears to be racist.

Hal said...

Interesting comments from Anti Mask Trump Supporters


They really make great Christian witnesses.

Starhopper said...

Hal,

As I said, over on another conversation here, Trumpistas are driving away thousands upon thousands of souls from Christ every day. His supporters will have much to answer for on the Day of Judgement.

Here is what I wrote on this subject previously. It's truer now than when I first posted it.

Oh, my fellow Christians! How have allowed yourself to have been so bewitched that you forget the very foundations of your faith? Your ancestors in the faith were willing to die rather than worship the Roman emperors, who fancied themselves to be divine. Yet you yourselves trample the very Cross in your eagerness to offer sacrifice to the (fake) golden idol who is the very antithesis of every last teaching and action of the Lord Jesus.

That is not incense that wafts around his infernal throne, but tear gas and chemical agents. How appropriate that his praetorian guard is styled the S.S.!

The man you have traded the Lord God Himself for is known to you (so you have no excuse) as a habitual blasphemer, a defiler of all that is holy, a man with neither respect for nor even understanding of the Truth, a serial adulterer and sexual predator, a man utterly lacking in empathy or compassion, who thinks first and only of himself, who insults, mocks, and denigrates war heroes, the families of the fallen, the disabled, women, minorities, refugees, and the poor, a man who has never opened the Scriptures, let alone ever read them (and if he did, he would not comprehend them).

Yes, damn this administration to hell. But fear for your own souls as well. Remember what Our Lord had to say to the hypocrites of His own time ("You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?"), and don't forget that He was also speaking to us (as He does to all times and places with every word He speaks.)

Flee from the wrath to come, before it is too late!

bmiller said...

Well it's unanimous. Atheists and cursing cultists agree on what proper Christian behavior should be.

Starhopper said...

bmiller,

Where am I wrong in anything I wrote in my last posting? Do you honestly believe that Donald Trump is a worthy exemplar of the Christian Faith?

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

Hal the atheist linked to a stupid propaganda youtube video in order to mock Christian behavior. Then you make a mockery of Christian behavior by cursing.

Go to confession already.

Starhopper said...

"you make a mockery of Christian behavior"

That is precisely what I am NOT doing. I am calling out UN-Christian behavior for what it is - damnable. The ones truly making a mockery of Christian behavior is anyone who supports Trump, despite his spitting all over Christianity and everything it holds hear.

His stunt with the Bible in front of St. John's after violently dispersing peaceful demonstrators for a photo op was the greatest propaganda tool for Satan since the Catholic sexual abuse scandals, and ought to be condemned by Christians with the same fervor.

Hal said...

Starhopper,

Glad to see that you can actually recognize behavior that is not consistent with Christianity. Apparently bmiller actually thinks the people in that video are displaying Christian behavior.

I've criticized atheists on this blog site and other forums. I've even mentioned in one of the discussions here that Christianity helped form my moral outlook. So I'm not sure why bmiller thinks I'm disqualified from criticizing such outrages behavior because I'm an atheist. And I'm mystified as to why he would think the people in the video are examples of Christian behavior. Though I'm sure that Trump thinks they are.

bmiller said...

That is precisely what I am NOT doing. I am calling out UN-Christian behavior for what it is - damnable.

You cannot damn anything, and to presume you can is a sin. You are a disgrace as a Christian.

bmiller said...

Hal,

You posted your stupid video to mock Christianity. Typical thing to do for an atheist. I'm not surprised.

Starhopper said...

"Apparently bmiller actually thinks the people in that video are displaying Christian behavior."

He says as much. When he accuses me of mocking Christian behavior, he's referring to those persons on the video and how they are behaving.

Now I do not doubt that they are Christians. (I do not doubt that bmiller is a Christian.) Which is precisely why I condemn their anti-Christian witness so strongly.

When I was in the service, we all judged each others' behavior to a higher standard than for civilians. Most professions think that way. Most families do. ("No son of mine would ever...")

Support for Trump by self-proffesed Christians is as great a scandal to the Faith as the sexual abuse of little boys by Catholic Priests. Both behaviors reflect badly on the entire community to the great shame of all. It is the duty of Christians who by Grace see through this evil charlatan to denounce in the strongest possible language (a.k.a., "cursing") any and all support for him.

Hal said...

bmiller,

No I did not intend to mock Christianity. I'm criticizing the very un-Christian behavior displayed in that video.

Were the people in that video displaying Christian behavior?

It is obvious to Starhopper that they aren't. Why don't you agree with him?

Starhopper said...

It is indeed a sin to damn persons. But it is our duty to condemn (i.e., to "damn") evil and evil behavior.

bmiller said...

I just did condemn (not damn) your evil behavior.

bmiller said...

Hal,

No I did not intend to mock Christianity. I'm criticizing the very un-Christian behavior displayed in that video.

You linked to a stupid video that showed people saying stupid things and implied that Christianity made them say those stupid things. If not, why mention Christianity? Why not post videos of Muslims shouting "Allahu Akbar". Are you a bigot?

Hal said...

bmiller,

Were the people in that video displaying Christian behavior?

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

You voted for a philandering rapist twice and you're going to vote for a demented one this time. By your own standards you stand condemned.

bmiller said...

Bigot Hal,

The people in your video were saying stupid things. I generally associate people saying stupid things with them being atheists.

Hal said...

bmiller,

It is a simple question:

Were the people in that video displaying Christian behavior?

SteveK said...

Leftist Logic: I support abortion because technically that position is pro-life - and therefore Biden is pro-life - but Orange Man Bad because reasons.

bmiller said...

Hal,

It is a simple question:

Were the people in that video displaying Christian behavior?


And I gave you a simple answer:

You linked to a stupid video that showed people saying stupid things and implied that Christianity made them say those stupid things. If not, why mention Christianity? Why not post videos of Muslims shouting "Allahu Akbar". Are you a bigot?

I expect the answer to my simple question now.

bmiller said...

BTW, if you get your news from random bigoted youtube videos I can understand why you're so uninformed.

StardustyPsyche said...

What's wrong with random bigoted youtube videos?-)

bmiller said...

George Washington was a Catholic?

Hal said...

bmiller,
And I gave you a simple answer

No. You evaded the question.

Earlier you claimed: "Hal the atheist linked to a stupid propaganda youtube video in order to mock Christian behavior."

So you obviously thought there was some Christian behavior I was mocking.

Were the people in that video displaying Christian behavior?

StardustyPsyche said...

Blogger SteveK
"Leftist Logic: I support abortion because technically that position is pro-life"
Well, that is really more like William Lane Craig logic. It was good for the Jews to kill all those babies because that means they will all go to heaven, whereas if they had been left alive they would have grown up to be pagans and ended up in hell for all eternity.

Thus, infanticide is the most loving thing one can do, dontchya know?

Starhopper said...

Hal,

bmiller cannot answer your question with a yes or a no because:

- if he says the video does display Christian behavior, then he is defending the undefendable, and identifying with stupidity

- if he says it does not, then he must admit that I was not mocking Christian behavior.

Now I have repeatedly said that I was condemning (not "mocking") the
UN-Christian behavior showcased on that video. I would never criticize a person for acting like a Christian. But it is a damned shame that so many Christians are, through their support for this most un-Christian of presidents, acting in such an anti-Christian manner.

You've probably heard the slogan "Silence is Consent." Well, if I were to sit by silently while the Faith was being dragged through the filth by my fellow Christians, then I would be consenting to such. So my moral compass compels me to speak out.

Hal said...

Starhopper,

bmiller cannot answer your question with a yes or a no because:

- if he says the video does display Christian behavior, then he is defending the undefendable, and identifying with stupidity

- if he says it does not, then he must admit that I was not mocking Christian behavior.


That is pretty much how I see it.
He is stuck on the horns of a dilemma. If he denies that the people were displaying Christian behavior then he needs to show what Christian behavior I was mocking. But he can't do that.

I was never mocking any Christian behavior. Never intended to mock Christian behavior. Not sure why he can't just admit that he was wrong to accuse me of doing that.

StardustyPsyche said...

Hal
"They really make great Christian witnesses"
That video was pretty hilarious to watch, but sobering to consider more carefully.

Actually, there are similar videos out there showing SJWs saying equally idiotic things.

Stupidity is not the sole province of one party or one section of a political spectrum diagram.

But, the mask issue has been politicized by Trump, with Trump holding a rally where most people did not wear a mask, and Trump moved his convention acceptance speech to a location that would not hold him to social distancing rules.

So, just because you are a Trump voter does not mean you are a covid spitting Christian wingnut, but he does have that demographic solidly in his base.

A wise man said "your right to exhale water droplets during a pandemic ends at my inhaling nostrils and the surfaces I touch".

Starhopper said...

bmiller's problem is that he is fundamentally a Trump cultist, and believes that supporting Trump is more important than being a Christian. He dare not admit that to you (or me), but most especially to himself. He cannot honestly answer your question with either a yes or a no without showing disloyalty to Trump.

Starhopper said...

"Actually, there are similar videos out there showing SJWs saying equally idiotic things."

No political philosophy has a monopoly on stupidity, and no movement is immune to it.

bmiller said...

Hal,

So you obviously thought there was some Christian behavior I was mocking.

I absolutely did not obviously think there was some Christian behavior you were mocking. You were mocking Christianity precisely because you were attempting to tie people saying stupid things to Christianity. The propaganda video showed snippets of people saying stupid things about wearing masks. Only a bigot would come to the conclusion Christians need to condem or defend peoply saying stupid things.

Also, you're asking about their behavior. They were exercising free speech without cursing or sinning as far as I can tell, so what *behavior* should a Christian condemn in that? Those people were saying stupid things, not sinning. That's why don't accuse you or Starhopper of being sinners (except for those occasions where Starhopper curses and/or supports murder). Both of you say stupid things all the time and I don't wonder for a second if that constitutes un-Christian behavior.

bmiller said...

bmiller's problem is that he is fundamentally a Trump cultist, and believes that supporting Trump is more important than being a Christian. He dare not admit that to you (or me), but most especially to himself. He cannot honestly answer your question with either a yes or a no without showing disloyalty to Trump.

See. I still don't think this to be a sin on Starhopper's part. He's just saying stupid things.

Starhopper said...

Here is a man exemplifying true Christian behavior.

Starhopper said...

Oh, and take the time to read the comments to that video.

Hal said...

bmiller,
I absolutely did not obviously think there was some Christian behavior you were mocking.

This is what you said in your first reply to my posting of link to the youtube video:

Hal the atheist linked to a stupid propaganda youtube video in order to mock Christian behavior.

bmiller said...

Hal,

Do you honestly not understand my point? In America we all agree that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of sex, race or religion. You may as well have said sarcastically "They really make women look great." Or to single out the little girl of color and say "She really makes her race look great."

StardustyPsyche said...

Race is an accident of birth and genetics.

Religion is belief system.

That's why it is OK to criticize a person's religious beliefs but not so for race.

Employment or education or other forms of settings for discrimination are different, in that in most cases discrimination based on race, sex, or religion is unjust.

So yes, some of the things those Christians said does reflect on Christianity more broadly, in particular the way I have heard so many Christians express the idea that Jesus will somehow protect them from Covid-19 while in church or elsewhere so they don't need to wear a mask. Those kinds of beliefs are a public health hazard.

bmiller said...

Guess it's bigot Sunday here at old Dangerous Idea.

bmiller said...

Who's Drinking All the Kool Aid?

I've only recently been reading about the utopian communes of America's past and seeing some of the similarities to the what was going on in the 60's and 70's. Cult City makes that connection to the early communes and The People's Temple.

Utopian communities pop up in several of my books. None became so dystopian as Jonestown. But they generally become unbearable to inhabit. In "A Conservative History of the American Left", I wrote about several. For instance New Harmony, Brook Farm, the Oneida Community, and other attempts at creating heaven on earth.

Jonestown, minus its last day, fits neatly into this tradition.


I didn't realize however, how connected Jim Jones was tied into San Francisco politics and the left of his day:

Before the poor drank the Kool Aid in South America, the powerful did in San Francisco. That’s the overarching message of Cult City.

San Francisco Mayor George Moscone appointed Jim Jones to the city’s housing commission. Jones soon became chairman. In other words, the mayor of one of America’s greatest cities essentially made Jones the largest landlord in the city. Just two years later, he would murder almost all of his tenants in a commune bearing his name.

When Rosalynn Carter campaigned for her husband in San Francisco in 1976, Jim Jones introduced her to speak. Walter Mondale, campaigning for vice president, held a private meeting with Jim Jones immediately upon landing in San Francisco. The Burton Brothers, Harvey Milk, Willie Brown, and other power players in the city essentially made Jim Jones bulletproof in San Francisco. Many of the same people protected him in Guyana. As people warned of what Jones was doing, prominent Democrats wrote letters to Guyanese officials. They defended Jones against “politicized smear campaigns.”

In August 1977, Harvey Milk wrote to Guyanese Prime Minister Forbes Burnham:

Such greatness I have found at Jim Jones’ Peoples’ Temple. … If other church[es] believed in Christianity like People’s Temple does — if other people’s [sic] believed in democracy like People’s Temple does th[e]n mankind in this nation would not be in the everlasting struggle it finds itself engaged in. But we do struggle. People’s Temple eases that struggle.

Mervyn Dymally, the lieutenant governor of California, wrote Burnham to defend him against mounting criticism:

This attack is no different from attempts recently by the United States media to discredit Guyana and Jamaica. We are no[w] experiencing the same phenomena here with Peoples Temple. The reasons are obvious.

Willie Brown, then an assemblyman, explained to Burnham:

Rev. Jones is that person who can be helpful when all appears lost and hope is just about gone. Having him as a resident in your country can only be a plus no matter how short or long his stay.

The Western half of the Bay Bridge now bears Brown’s name. In fact, many monuments around San Francisco now honor Jim Jones’s lackeys — George Moscone, Harvey Milk, Herb Caen, etc. The Taliban’s Bay Area auxiliary somehow overlooked them when toppling the statues of St. Junipero Serra, Ulysses Grant, and Francis Scott Key.

Hal said...

bmiller,

Do you honestly not understand my point?

I understand that you are refusing to answer my question. I already mentioned above why I think you are dodging that question.

Again, you are the one who claimed I was "mocking Christian behavior."

Once you point out what specific Christian behavior you thought I was mocking then we can go on and discuss some of your other concerns.

What Christian behavior was I mocking?

bmiller said...

Hal,

I understand that you are refusing to answer my question. I already mentioned above why I think you are dodging that question.

Again, you are the one who claimed I was "mocking Christian behavior."

Once you point out what specific Christian behavior you thought I was mocking then we can go on and discuss some of your other concerns.

What Christian behavior was I mocking?


I didn't dodge your question, I thought I was pretty obvious. Let me go step by step:
You pointed at some people saying stupid things and said "They really make great Christian witnesses.".
So you told us they were Christians giving their witness. Christians giving their witness is something Christians sometimes do (aka a Christian behavior).

You mocked the *Christian behavior* of *giving witness* by telling us that that is what these people were doing when they weren't.

You're a liberal. I supposed liberals weren't supposed to mock people for their sex, race or religion. Guess I was wrong. As for myself, I don't think any topic is necessarily out of bounds. Are there differences between the sexes? Are there differences among the races? What are the differences among religions? Are some cultures better than others? Can liberals even be allowed to discuss these things today?

bmiller said...

give witness to

Definition of (give) witness to
: to declare belief in (a god or religion)
They gave witness to their faith.

Starhopper said...

Hal,

For future reference, HERE is an example of true Christian witness.

bmiller said...

Christian are witnesses for their faith in Jesus Christ, not politics.

HERE is what happens when people start actually listening to what both sides of the political debate are saying.

Hal said...

bmiller,
I didn't dodge your question, I thought I was pretty obvious. Let me go step by step:
You pointed at some people saying stupid things and said "They really make great Christian witnesses.".
So you told us they were Christians giving their witness. Christians giving their witness is something Christians sometimes do (aka a Christian behavior).


One can give witness to many different things. One can be a witness to atheism just as much as one can be a witness to Christianity. For example, one can be a witness to atheism by refusing to engage in prayer to a deity. And a Christian can be a witness by engaging in Christian behavior such as showing mercy to others.

The only way I can be accused of mocking Christian behavior is if I mocked someone who is behaving according to their faith. As I mentioned above (in agreement with Starhopper), I thought those Christians were engaged in very un-Christian behavior. I think they were bearing false witness to their faith by their un-Christian behavior.

You've made a false accusation against me. You claimed I was mocking Christian behavior. I clearly did no such thing. So unless you can show me the Christian behavior in that video that is witnessing the Christian faith, it would be good if you retract your false claim.

Starhopper said...

"Christians are witnesses for their faith in Jesus Christ, not politics."

The man in the video was not giving a political witness. In fact, what he said had nothing to do with politics. Note his continued Conservatism.

What he was doing was emulating the Early Church martyrs, who went to their deaths rather than submit to worshiping the Roman emperors. Paul Haney (sp?) was refusing to bow to the false and blasphemous idol that is Donald Trump. That is the truest witness to his faith in Jesus Christ possible. It is the idol worshiping "religious right" that is putting politics ahead of their faith.

Starhopper said...

Allow me to put this as bluntly as possible. You CANNOT be a faithful Christian and support Donald Trump. It's either one or the other.

"And what concord hath Christ with Belial?" (2 Corinthians 6:15)

bmiller said...

The only way I can be accused of mocking Christian behavior is if I mocked someone who is behaving according to their faith.

Nonsense. Your response is the same as a blind bigot would give.

You could have just said "Look these people saying stupid things". You sarcastically called them Christians in order to smear Christians. That is called mocking.
If I substituted *woman* for *Christian* it would have been just as wrong for a liberal to do even though all but one of those clips were clearly of women and there is not as much evidence any of them were Christian (although some likely were).

If you want to mock Christians, I consider that your right. But I'm not a liberal who supposedly is against bigotry.

bmiller said...

Allow me to put this as bluntly as possible. You CANNOT be a faithful Christian and support Donald Trump. It's either one or the other.

I'm going to vote for Trump because he will do the least harm to the country and is improving it in ways Hillary wouldn't have and Biden won't. That is what is best for the common good which all faithful Christians should be in favor of.

Hal said...

bmiller,

The people in the video were quoting the Christian bible to support their statements. They were claiming to be speaking for God.

I would call that un-Christian behavior. Pointing out that they would make terrible witnesses for Christianity is actually what I would expect any good Christian to do. The people in that video are bearing false witness to their faith.

You have yet back up your false accusation that I was attempting to mock Christian behavior. You do owe me an apology.

Hal said...

Starhopper,

For future reference, HERE is an example of true Christian witness.

Thanks. As I've mentioned before, I was in the Christian faith for at least 30 years. Raised as a Lutheran. Then spent a number of years attending Evangelical churches after I left home. Finally converted to Catholicism in my early 30's. My son is married to a Muslim and she is one of the kindest and most loving persons I've ever met. Although I no longer find myself able to believe in God I can still see that there is a lot of good done by Christians and people of other faiths.

I think I have a pretty good idea of what it is for a Christian to be a false witness to their faith. Certainly those people in the video trying to use the Bible and God to condemn those requiring the wearing of masks in order to save lives strikes me as a very un-Christian thing to do.

Starhopper said...

Hal,

You still do not understand. bmiller cannot give you an apology, because doing so would, in his mind, be disloyal to Trump. You might as well move along, because to members of the Trump cult "Truth isn't truth" (Giuliani) and they have their own "alternate facts" (Conway).

As my Polish grandmother would say, "You can't squeeze beet juice out of a turnip!"

Starhopper said...

Sorry, the Conway quote is "alternative facts".

Starhopper said...

Hal,

If you don't mind answering... what caused you to lose your faith? Was it a life experience, or something more "cerebral"?

bmiller said...

Hal,

YOU LINKED TO A VIDEO IN ORDER TO MOCK CHRISTIANS.

You purposely selected and linked to a propaganda video of people saying stupid things about masks. It was made to mock people from the start and was edited to select the dumbest statements. Your entire purpose was to mock. But it was not just to mock the idea of protesting against laws requiring masks in public, it was specifically to mock Christians "Look!, here's some Christians behaving badly!". My mind isn't twisted enough to get from that to "My goal as an atheist is to proclaim TRUE Christianity".

I'm done discussing the video.

bmiller said...

You still do not understand. bmiller cannot give you an apology, because doing so would, in his mind, be disloyal to Trump.

Dude. Trump lives rent free in your head.

I agreed that people said stupid things while protesting against wearing masks. It was just wrong to bring up Christianity. Nobody was discussing Trump. I hope TDS frenzy doesn't finally kill you.

Starhopper said...

Here is an even better example of courageous Christian witness. And before bmiller dismisses this as "political", listen closely as to why Scott Singer is speaking out. It's not at all political.

Starhopper said...

The definition of TDS is still supporting him after 4 years of unmitigated horror. Such support can be explained only by:

- pure malevolent evil, or
- delusion.

Which of the two (there is no third) is your reason for supporting him?

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

Thinking Trump is hiding behind every door, behind every bush and hides under your bed when you turn off the lights is not healthy. Oh well sorry to hear you're hastening your own demise by obsessing about things God is in control of.

FYI. Not going be clicking on ignorant links proposing to proclaim TRUE Christian witness. I'll let you all revel in your hate. I'm all about love.

Starhopper said...

Well, if you love me, then you'll want to educate me. How would a Biden presidency be worse than 4 more years of Trump?

bmiller said...

I love you but that doesn't make me a miracle worker. I do pray for you.

bmiller said...

Jim Jones has an extensive entry in Wikipedia

It's interesting in that he seemed to have some sort of strange plan from the start and experimented with a variety of things to advance while hiding his madness (or did his madness develop as he advanced?). It seems he spent a lot of time trying to become charismatic leader after being a wierd child and succeeded bigly (basically studying Hitler's and Father Divine's strategies).

Interesting and relatively short read for the old guys (you know who you are) who know about Jonestown, but not about Jim Jones' life.

Starhopper said...

The good news is that you'll no longer feel the need to pray for me after Biden absolutely destroys Trump this November.

bmiller said...

Don't worry. I'll still pray for you. I doubt that will stop your hate.

Starhopper said...

I only hate evil. As should you.

bmiller said...

I see a bitter cursing man who apparently doesn't trust God. That looks like someone consumed with hate to me.

I'm all about love.

Hal said...

bmiller,

YOU LINKED TO A VIDEO IN ORDER TO MOCK CHRISTIANS.

No. Actually I linked to it to show the corrupting influence of Trumpism on those conservative Christians in his camp. It looks like it has infected you too, unfortunately.

Starhopper understands what is going on. He knows those Christians were engaged in un-Christian behavior. They were hate-filled. They were encouraging others to harm people by refusing to wear masks. If others follow their advice more people are going to die in this pandemic.

And I do't consider myself a defender of Christianity. But I do see there is a lot of good in it. But there are many branches of Christianity. Some of those branches could do great harm to our country. I would include those conservative Christians to be in one of the harmful branches.

Also, I think you should take Starhopper's advice regarding labels. You hate 'leftists' and 'atheistis' so much that you fail to see the large diversity of opinion among those the terms refer to. Because I'm an atheist you simply assume I must be evil and out to destroy Christianity.

Hal said...

bmiller,

I agreed that people said stupid things while protesting against wearing masks. It was just wrong to bring up Christianity. Nobody was discussing Trump.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even watched that whole video. They were quoting from the Bible they were calling down God's wrath on those trying to protect our citizens. I recall at least one of them wearing a Trump shirt.

Hal said...

Starhopper,

Here is an even better example of courageous Christian witness. And before bmiller dismisses this as "political", listen closely as to why Scott Singer is speaking out. It's not at all political.

Wow. That was a great video. Thanks for linking to it.

bmiller said...

Hal,

Because I'm an atheist you simply assume I must be evil and out to destroy Christianity.

I'm not worried about you or anyone else destroying Christianity. You've demonstrated that you're quite comfortable with double standards so I feel I accomplished what I set out to show.

Hal said...

bmiller,

The only thing you've demonstrated to me is your inability to admit a mistake: your false accusation against me.

Personally, since we were never even able to come to an agreement on what this disagreement was about, I think this discussion was a failure.

bmiller said...

Hal,

The only thing you've demonstrated to me is your inability to admit a mistake: your false accusation against me.

You should have left those people's religion out of your mocking, just like you should leave out their sex and race if you want to be a consistent liberal.

Hal said...

Starhopper,
If you don't mind answering... what caused you to lose your faith? Was it a life experience, or something more "cerebral"?

It has been so long since I believed there is a God that I'm not sure I can answer that question accurately. Memory isn't what it used to be.

Currently it is only my encounters with nature and the arts that provide me with experiences of the 'sacred'.

My wife is a devout Catholic. For the first 6 or 7 years of our marriage I did accompany her to Mass. But now only go with her on Easter or Christmas or when we are with her family.

Hal said...

bmiller,

You should have left those people's religion out of your mocking, just like you should leave out their sex and race if you want to be a consistent liberal.

They were using their faith to justify their actions. They were condemning people in the name of God.

By my sarcastic remark in the post linking to the video I meant to indicate they were distorting the Christian message. They are lousy witnesses to the Christian faith.

Looking back I should not have restricted myself to that sarcastic remark. I do apologize for that. I should have elaborated on why I was linking to that video.

If we had been sitting down and discussing this face to face you would have been able to see in my actions and facial expressions and the tone of my voice that I did not mean to throw dirt on Christianity or the Christian faith. I was disgusted by people passing themselves as speaking in behalf of that faith while advocating for something that is clearly going to cost a greater loss of life in this pandemic.

bmiller said...

Hal,

OK. Thanks for admitting you were mocking and thanks for the apology that you did not elaborate.

As you can see, ridicule is not a conversation stopper for me, but it is also not conducive to polite discussion. Aside from that, I still think your approach was ill-conceived.

Hal said...

bmiller,

OK. Thanks for admitting you were mocking and thanks for the apology that you did not elaborate.
As you can see, ridicule is not a conversation stopper for me, but it is also not conducive to polite discussion.


I was using sarcasm to critique them for their un-Christian behavior. I never mocked them for their Christian behavior as you have falsely claimed I did. And continued to claim even though I repeatedly told you what my intent was.

If you wish for polite conversation, then I would recommend you use a little charity in interpreting what others have said. A simple question asking me if I really meant to mock Christian behavior would have been a polite response to my post.

Hal said...

bmiller,
HERE is what happens when people start actually listening to what both sides of the political debate are saying.

In fairness, I checked out this video. If you really want to get people to take seriously both sides of the political debate I would not recommend using anything from Brandon Straka. He is another of those crazy anti-maskers who recently got removed from a plane for refusing to wear a mask.

I could only make it about half way through the video as it did not present any real arguements for taking the Trumpian positions seriously. Just a parade of commenters engaged in name-calling.

Near the beginning of the video there was a mention of some videos providing evidence supporting Trump's claim he didn't mock a disable reporter, but I didn't see any clips from those in this video you linked so I did do some googling. There are videos in which Trump does do some arm and hand waving. Only one that I saw looked like it was close to the video showing his mockery of the reporter but that was a video recorded after he mocked the reporter!!!

Starhopper said...

Hal,

THANK YOU for bringing up bmiller's link again. I didn't watch it the first time he posted it, but now I figured, "What the heck?" I'll take a look.

What an absolute pile of #@&**!$&#!!. If this is what bmiller considers to be reasoned discourse, then no wonder he is so $#&**@@!! up. Sheer and utter insanity. Words fail me, which is why I find it necessary to resort to symbols. I knew that bmiller and I disagreed with each other, but until now I never realized that he was batshit crazy. There is no reasoning with someone so far gone from reality. I am no longer even going to try. It would be wasted effort.

Hal said...

Starhopper,

Glad to see your post. Was starting to worry you weren't feeling well since you usually post earlier in the day.

I think this thread is evidence that maybe all of us are starting to feel grumpier than usual due to pandemic we are going through. Anyways, I admit to being grumpier than usual.

There's a youtube video I watch at least once a day to try and cheer me up:

Higher and Higher

bmiller said...

Hal,

I was using sarcasm to critique them for their un-Christian behavior. I never mocked them for their Christian behavior as you have falsely claimed I did. And continued to claim even though I repeatedly told you what my intent was.

The people you were mocking were Christians. You were mocking their behavior. Therefore you were mocking Christian behavior which is what I claimed from the start.

Now let's examine your argument. You're claiming they deserve to be mocked because they are Christians but are behaving in an un-Christian manner. In other words, they are hypocrites. But if they really believe those things, in their own mind they are behaving in a Christian manner and therefore are not hypocrites. You, the atheist, are fallaciously judging them to be hypocrites by your own idea of Christianity, not theirs own. You seem to leave unsaid, by focusing on their claims to be Christian, that all other Christians should somehow be shamed for I don't know what. Should they be excommunicated? How would that work?

That's why I said I thought your approach was ill-conceived. You should have left those people's religion out of it.

bmiller said...

Hal,

Only one that I saw looked like it was close to the video showing his mockery of the reporter but that was a video recorded after he mocked the reporter!!!

Fair and Balanced

BTW. I can understand why you couldn't find this story. When you google "did trump mock a disabled reporter?" this fox link is buried on the second page. It's the second link on DuckDuckGo.

Hal said...

bmiller,

The people you were mocking were Christians. You were mocking their behavior. Therefore you were mocking Christian behavior which is what I claimed from the start.

So when a Christian takes a shat and I complain about it stinking I am mocking Christian behavior?

Sorry, but I find your claim to be rather silly.

If a Christian engages in an adulterous relationship then they are engaging in un-Christian behavior.

As I've mentioned, they were advocating a practice that is going to lead to more deaths: the refusal to wear a mask in public. They were using scripture and God to support their position. Not only were they refusing but they were using God to condemn those who disagreed with them.

I don't understand why you don't see that as wrong and worthy of criticism. I don't understand why you wouldn't want to distance yourself from them and point out that despite the fact that they are Christians they are engaging in activity that is clearly un-Christian. And that they shouldn't use the Bible to justify their un-Christian behavior.

By the way, I never claimed they were hypocrites. Can you show where I claimed that?

I'm sure they think they are acting in accordance with their faith. So they aren't being hypocritical. But they are mistaken. Or maybe it is better to say they are deluded.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

What an absolute pile of #@&**!$&#!!. If this is what bmiller considers to be reasoned discourse, then no wonder he is so $#&**@@!! up.

HaHaHa! You're getting better! Only pounding the keyboard rather than outright cursing. See, I have a calming effect on you.

Here was my quote:
HERE is what happens when people start actually listening to what both sides of the political debate are saying.

I didn't mean to suggest that the link was going to provide any arguments per se. It was meant to show how people react when they are open to hearing both sides of the debate and use critical thinking.

I never thought you were a candidate to be persuaded by *reasoned discourse*. You actually told me so:

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.
Reminds me of Mark 5:9 :-)

Hal said...

bmiller,

I saw those videos. In fact I mentioned that I looked at the videos in the post you responded to. And as I mentioned, only one looked close to the one mocking the disabled reporter: that was the one where he was mocking Cruz. And again, as I mentioned in the post you responded to, that actually occurred after the one where he mocked the reporter.

But even if they were exactly the same down to every detail that still wouldn't exculpate him of the claim he was mocking a disable person. You can't ignore the context in which this body language takes place.

Surprised you would consider Fox news a reliable source for this anyways. I would suggest this

In a speech at a November 24, 2015, rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, presidential candidate Donald Trump claimed that "thousands and thousands of people were cheering" in Jersey City, New Jersey, as the World Trade Center collapsed.[10]

After this claim was questioned,[11] the Trump campaign referred to a September 18, 2001, Washington Post article that Kovaleski had co-authored with Fredrick Kunkle, as substantiation of the claim. According to the article, "law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation."[12]

Kovaleski issued the following written statement in response to the Trump campaign's adoption of his report as an independent verification of New Jersey-based celebrations following the destruction of the World Trade Center:[10]

"I certainly do not remember anyone saying that thousands or even hundreds of people were celebrating. That was not the case, as best as I can remember."[13]

In apparent response to this written statement, Trump said in a November 25, 2015, speech in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: "You've got to see this guy: 'Uhh, I don't know what I said. Uhh, I don't remember,' he's going like 'I don't remember. Maybe that's what I said.'"[14] Trump bent his wrist and flailed his arms repeatedly as he spoke, drawing laughter from the audience.[15][16][17] The incident drew widespread domestic and international criticism.

Trump was severely criticized worldwide for mocking Kovaleski's disability. Kovaleski has arthrogryposis, a condition causing joint contracture in his right arm and hand.[18] Following domestic and international condemnation, Trump said that he was not mocking Kovaleski's disability because he did not know what Kovaleski looked like.[19] Kovaleski has said that while reporting on Trump for the New York Daily News, the two had been on a first-name basis and had met face-to-face on a dozen occasions, including interviews and press conferences in the late 1980s.[19] That the two knew each other was corroborated by multiple other witnesses.[20][21]


The full article can be found Here

bmiller said...

Hal,

By the way, I never claimed they were hypocrites. Can you show where I claimed that?

I'm sure they think they are acting in accordance with their faith. So they aren't being hypocritical. But they are mistaken. Or maybe it is better to say they are deluded.


To be quite honest Hal, I don't know what you're claiming today.

If you think they are deluded people and they are acting in an un-Christian way but are being faithful to what they believe, then they are deluded, faithful un-Christians.

If a Christian engages in an adulterous relationship then they are engaging in un-Christian behavior.
Yes, they are sinning if their faith tells them adultery is wrong. Were those people behaving in a way that their faith told them was wrong?

Hal said...

bmiller,

"You've got to see this guy: 'Uhh, I don't know what I said. Uhh, I don't remember,' he's going like 'I don't remember. Maybe that's what I said.'"

I hadn't noticed until now the bolded part of Trump's claim when mocking the disabled reporter. It is even more damning evidence that he meant to mock the disabled person.

This is very much in line with Trump's behavior. He is constantly mocking people.

bmiller said...

Hal,

I saw those videos. In fact I mentioned that I looked at the videos in the post you responded to. And as I mentioned, only one looked close to the one mocking the disabled reporter: that was the one where he was mocking Cruz. And again, as I mentioned in the post you responded to, that actually occurred after the one where he mocked the reporter.

The fist video was from 2005 and he was mocking himself, so this is apparently something he does all the time. If you want to consider yourself an expert in the fine variations of the way Trump mocks people including himself, I'm sure you could write volumes on your findings. I'll be sure to read it.

Use DuckDuckGo and type "did trump mock a disabled reporter?" into the search bar. The Fox News story was just the first I found that attempted to address that question. But you just illustrated that you are unwilling to listen to all sides of the political debate, which was kind of my point in the first place.

bmiller said...

This is very much in line with Trump's behavior. He is constantly mocking people.

Finally something we can agree on!

Hal said...

bmiller,
If you think they are deluded people and they are acting in an un-Christian way but are being faithful to what they believe, then they are deluded, faithful un-Christians.

No. Even if it turns out they are simply deluded, they are engaging in un-Christian behavior. They are lousy witnesses for their faith.
I don't see why that should make them un-Christians. Christians are still capable of being deluded and in error as are non-Christians.

Not sure why you are confused about my claims.

Maybe you should just go back to where I first posted that link. Look at your initial response and then see how I responded to it. I think I've been very consistent from the
start.

Hal said...

bmiller,

Finally something we can agree on!

That's a relief!:-)

Maybe it is time for a chill out.

I would again recommend this youtube musical video I linked to earlier:
Higher and Higher

bmiller said...

Hal,

No. Even if it turns out they are simply deluded, they are engaging in un-Christian behavior. They are lousy witnesses for their faith.

I don't see why that should make them un-Christians. Christians are still capable of being deluded and in error as are non-Christians.


Here is what you just stated:
I'm sure they think they are acting in accordance with their faith.
If they are acting in accordance with their faith then they are by definition giving a good witness for their faith. If they think they are acting in accordance with their faith, but are deluded about what their faith actually teaches, then they are in error according to their faith and their pastors should correct them.

Do you think they are not following what their pastors teach them? Do you think their pastors are then teaching them a false Christianity? Who ultimately gets to determine what is TRUE and FALSE in Christianity?

This is why I told you your project was ill-advised.

bmiller said...

That's a relief!:-)

Hey. I'll even give you a "He's also extremely vindictive against people that cross him." to go along with it at no charge;-)

bmiller said...

Regarding your video.

I'm not sure I want to get caught enjoying 2 white people dancing to a Jackie Wilson song. I'm sure someone is going to find something dreadfully wrong with that. 🤭

Starhopper said...

Hal, Great video! I'm a huge fan of both Fred Astaire and Rita Hayworth, and here they are together. It just doesn't get any better than that!

Except for maybe THIS.

Hal said...

bmiller,

If they are acting in accordance with their faith then they are by definition giving a good witness for their faith. If they think they are acting in accordance with their faith, but are deluded about what their faith actually teaches, then they are in error according to their faith and their pastors should correct them.

You seem to assume that pastors are incapable of engaging in un-Christian behavior.

By the way I threw the possibility of 'being deluded' out there as one possible explanation for their un-Christian behavior. Being fallible as all humans are there are a number of reasons that could explain their un-Christian behavior.

Let me summarize my point:
People in the video quoted scripture and invoked the name of God to attack those advocating for protecting the lives of people in their community.
By quoting scripture they were acting as witness of the Christian faith.

I consider their behavior to be un-Christian and as a result they make lousy witnesses for Christianity.

You claimed that I was mocking Christian behavior. That implies that you think they were engaged in Christian behavior.
I've asked you repeatedly to show me what Christian behavior they were engaged in that I was mocking.
You did claim that witnessing is a Christian behavior.
But witnessing for something consists of words and deed. There is no such thing as a witness without words or deeds. And a Christian witness can only be a Christian witness if it consists of words and deed consistent with Christianity. In other words, a true Christian witness consists of Christian behavior.

So where in that video is Christian behavior? You've charged me with mocking Christian behavior, but you have yet to show what Christian behavior I've mocked.

Both Starhopper and I have repeatedly tried to tell you that our criticism is directed toward un-Christian behavior. Have repeatedly told you they are lousy or false Christian witnesses.

If you wish to give a good explanation for why you think they make great Christian witnesses please do so. Otherwise, please quit accusing me of mocking Christian behavior.

Hal said...

bmiller,
I'm not sure I want to get caught enjoying 2 white people dancing to a Jackie Wilson song.


Many of the greatest R&B hits from the 60's to the 80's were recorded with this all-white band:
The Swampers


Here is a good article about them:
ARTICLE

Hal said...

Starhopper,

Thanks for that video link. Yes, that is a fantastic dance routine. I have a copy of that film.

bmiller said...

Hal,

OK Hal. Got it. You think you're the pope.

Starhopper said...

Hal,

Thanks for your (very brief) faith history.

I myself was raised in a Polish-American Catholic family, where one's faith identity was as much ethnic as it was anything else. Even as an adult, I've had trouble understanding how anyone could possibly be Polish and not Catholic. Surely Jesus Himself dined on Polish sausage and Pierogi!

I've never disbelieved in God for even a nanosecond my entire life, so that's never been an issue for me. But I did leave the Catholic Church for a brief period in college (my sophomore year). I was attracted to a Campus Evangelical Christian group and for almost a year self-identified as a Protestant evangelical. But it wasn't long before I found too many points of disagreement with Protestantism in general, and returned to Catholicism before the year was out. You might find this amusing, but the biggest obstacle in the way of my accepting Protestantism was their attitude toward the Deuterocanonical books of the OT. I never gave up my Jerusalem Bible translation during that time (which includes all 73 books).

One of my very favorite passages in the entire Bible is the 24th Chapter of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). I must have read it ten thousand times over the years. It's practically part of my daily prayer routine.

Starhopper said...

MY daughter's (white) viola instructor was a member of Diana Ross's back up band "back in the day".

Hal said...

The Covid19 pandemic is dramatically worsening in the US.

But if one goes to FOX online news site there is barely a mention of it on the front page.

Republican leaders are coming around to the need to wear masks. Trump is mocking those who do.

I've read that the hospitals in Arizona are at capacity. Hope all is well with Mr. Reppert.

SteveK said...

Hal
“There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.”

The science and tons of citations are in the link below.

https://technocracy.news/censored-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covid-19-social-policy-and-why-face-masks-dont-work/

bmiller said...

From the article:

The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.

In particular, Shaman’s work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic’s basic reproduction number (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.


Victor better start running his humidifier on high since he's in dry, dry AZ.

Hina Bajwa said...

ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk

SteveK said...

I didn’t know humidity played such a huge role in spreading the virus. I may have to buy some humidifiers for our home.

bmiller said...

Couldn't hurt.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
The science and tons of citations are in the link below.

Thank you for the laugh. Anyone who links to a Del Bigtree interview unironically offers up a real knee-slapper, especially when they are getting medical advice from a physicist.

There are hundreds of studies on face masks, and your article cherry-picked 7. Here's one in the Lancet that used 172 studies in it's analysis:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext



One Brow said...

bmiller,
The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point.

No, it's a massive confusion of correlation with causation. Summer months, when kids are out of school and people engage in more outdoor activities, are the high humidity months

SteveK said...

One Brow,
Did you even read the articles? The author cites RCTs but the Lancet does not and instead defers to them for more accurate results. LOL

Author:
“There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles”

Lancet:
“Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies”

“Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance”

bmiller said...

Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States (2010)

Abstract
Much of the observed wintertime increase of mortality in temperate regions is attributed to seasonal influenza. A recent reanalysis of laboratory experiments indicates that absolute humidity strongly modulates the airborne survival and transmission of the influenza virus. Here, we extend these findings to the human population level, showing that the onset of increased wintertime influenza-related mortality in the United States is associated with anomalously low absolute humidity levels during the prior weeks. We then use an epidemiological model, in which observed absolute humidity conditions temper influenza transmission rates, to successfully simulate the seasonal cycle of observed influenza-related mortality. The model results indicate that direct modulation of influenza transmissibility by absolute humidity alone is sufficient to produce this observed seasonality. These findings provide epidemiological support for the hypothesis that absolute humidity drives seasonal variations of influenza transmission in temperate regions.


This study was done during the H1N1 pandemic and that virus continued to infect people during the summer months. So although higher humdity can attenuate virus transmission, novel viruses can still infect a population with low immunity. Seems reasonable to assume raising humidity where possible would help even with this virus.

Starhopper said...

I'm leaving the science to the experts, and trust their opinion.

Both my eldest daughter and my son-in-law are doctors, and I listen to them concerning the coronavirus. So when they stole my car keys a couple of months ago and confined me to the house, I didn't complain. Despite my severely compromised immune system (I've been hospitalized 3 times in the last 2 years for potentially lethal infections in my legs), I am still COVID-19 free.

bmiller said...

So when they stole my car keys a couple of months ago and confined me to the house, I didn't complain.

Next they need to take away your internet access and get you more DVDs. I'm afraid you're going to blow a gasket. :-)

bmiller said...

I've been watching all those governors and mayors addressing what they are doing about Covid and it reminds me of 3:27 on this video:
SNL

Bonus points if you can correctly identify everything else that is not allowed today.

Starhopper said...

The bit with Boris Yeltsin reminded me of the time I met him (the most famous person I ever actually had a conversation with). It was 1989, and I asked him about what he thought what was happening in East Germany. His answer to me: "Vostochnaya Germaniya na plavu." It was obvious to me that Yeltsin was completely plastered, but diplomat that I was, I let it pass.

Starhopper said...

THIS is absolute perfection, (And yes, I understand every word of it.)

One Brow said...

SteveK,
Did you even read the articles? The author cites RCTs but the Lancet does not and instead defers to them for more accurate results. LOL

Did you read the articles Del Bigtee linked to? Did you know 6 of the 7 supports the wearing of masks, and the other one had 32 subjects? 3 of them are comparing the use of N95 masks with surgical masks, not going without masks. LOL, indeed.

Article #1: Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. ... A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

Article #3: The effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely linked to early, consistent, and correct usage.

Article #4: Conflicting recommendations exist related to which facial protection should be used by health care workers to prevent transmission of acute respiratory infections, including pandemic influenza. We performed a systematic review of both clinical and surrogate exposure data comparing N95 respirators and surgical masks for the prevention of transmissible acute respiratory infections.

Article #5: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicated a protective effect of masks and respirators against clinical respiratory illness (CRI) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.46–0.77) and influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR = 0.34; 95% CI:0.14–0.82).

Article #6: Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Article #7: Previous meta-analyses concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of N95 respirators. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks for prevention of influenza by collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

You can always count on Bigtree to lie to you.

bmiller said...

It is truly a sign that God is protecting America this 4th of July.
America let Starhopper be a diplomat and we weren't nuked to Kingdom Come! :-)

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States (2010)

What about that study safeguards it from the confusion of correlation with causation that I referred to earlier? Lower humidity is associated wwith lower temperatures, with is associated with staying inside.

bmiller said...

I'm interested in the science of it all, but I'm not personally opposed to wearing a mask as long as I have a choice of which one I can wear.

I favor Amazon's Choice

bmiller said...

Christian Behavior Experts,

Is this another instance of Christians behaving badly?

Hal said...

Starhopper,


You are wise to do so. Did you look at who runs that site SteveK linked to?

They are truly wacko, conspiracy theorists.

Hal said...

Sorry, left out Starhopper's comment in above post:

I'm leaving the science to the experts, and trust their opinion.

Hal said...

Del BigTree an anti-vaccination activist who is also an anti-mask advocate.

Not surprising that SteveK can be a Trump supporter when he relies on kooks like BigTree for information.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
I favor Amazon's Choice

Intriguing, but I will not give up the 18xx mask my daughter made for me.

Hal said...

Starhopper,
Did you see this Washington Post special report:

It is about the war criminal Trump pardoned

SteveK said...

I’m relying on the scientific studies not whoever this bigtree person is. I’m reading the studies and it’s clear that we don’t have a clear answer as to what benefit masks provide. Some studies say no benefit others say some benefit. There are too many variables in everyday real life so I can see why the results are mixed. Leftists in government claim that masks make a *big* difference so they force you to wear one. There’s no evidence for that.

SteveK said...

A chain linked fence will reduce the number of water droplets that make it through to the grass on the other side. The grass still gets wet though. A mask will similarly reduce the transmission of a tiny virus via droplets but the virus is still getting out and other people are still coming in contact with it.

bmiller said...

About time.

Hope they don't put her in that NYC jail.

bmiller said...

I’m relying on the scientific studies not whoever this bigtree person is.

SteveK. Don't you know that you shouldn't read scientific studies unless the proper authorities say you should? You may end up thinking for yourself :-(

SteveK said...

Can’t think for yourself. Must. Follow. Leftist. Orders. (or they will cancel you and your family)

Hal said...

Have to wonder how great Trump's ignorance of American history is. He is willing to veto the defense bill because he doesn't want names of Confederate officers removed from military bases. Doesn't he realize those Confederate officers were traitors?

Starhopper said...

Hal,

They were white nationalists. That's all that matters to Trump.

And considering his own many acts of treason, why should he care about those of others?

bmiller said...

I actually think Trump is all in for punishing traitors. Just not the dead ones.

Hal said...

Starhopper,

One of the veterans who has been recommended for renaming Ft. Rucker where my son works is Hugh_Thompson_Jr


From the linked article:
"Hugh Clowers Thompson Jr. (April 15, 1943 – January 6, 2006) was a United States Army Major, and a former warrant officer in the 123rd Aviation Battalion of the 23rd Infantry Division. He helped end the My Lai Massacre of the South Vietnamese village known as Sơn Mỹ on March 16, 1968.

Starhopper said...

"I actually think Trump is all in for punishing traitors. Just not the dead ones."

No, just the imaginary traitors living in his head.

And the link is to a really old list. Since then, he's accused several retired generals (including my old boss, Gen. Hayden), everyone who testified against him during the impeachment process, President Obama, Vice President Biden, and the Black Lives Matter protesters of treason. Probably other people as well.

Starhopper said...

Hal,

A good friend (and skiing buddy) of mine was erroneously arrested for war crimes at My Lai, but all charges were dropped after a thorough investigation before it ever came to trial. He had some hair raising stories to tell about his 2 years in Vietnam. I was lucky to have missed that show. Being fluent in Russian, they sent me instead to Augsburg, Germany, to keep an eye on the Soviets in East Germany. Let me tell you, the Cold War was hell! (as in, "Noch ein helles Bier, bitte!")

Hal said...

Good to see that the Republican governor of Texas has now mandated mask wearing in that state for counties with 20 or more Covid 19 case.

Hal said...

SteveK,
Can’t think for yourself. Must. Follow. Leftist. Orders. (or they will cancel you and your family)

Kinda pitiful really. You and bmiller have drunk too much of the Trump kool-aid.

Even Fox New is now posting articles saying all should be wearing masks in public. And Governor Abbot is mandating masks be worn in Texas.

Given that you are willing to trust an anti-vaxxer I seriously doubt you are competent to decide whether or not it is helpful to wear masks in public.

bmiller said...

Want to bet who the Dem VP candidate is going to be?

StardustyPsyche said...

A tough on crime prosecutor, it doesn't get much better than that!!!

Anybody but Warren. I might have to become a Christian just so I can pray to Jesus, dear lord, anybody but Warren.

Of course, the announcement by Biden that he was going to pick a woman was the most blatantly sexist and bigoted thing any candidate has done recently.

Imagine the screams of sexism if a candidate were to announce he would be picking a man!!!

But, if we get a lockem up prosecutor all will be forgiven.

Starhopper said...

There are numerous statistical studies that show the running mate rarely has a significant impact on a presidential race. Of course, there are glaring exceptions (usually negative) such as Sarah Palin and Thomas Eagleton.

But look at the disaster that Dan Quayle was, and yet he did not prevent George Bush from winning in 1988. And in that same year, the brilliant choice of Lloyd Bentsen was in the end no help to Michael Dukakis.

This will be a race between Trump and Biden. Their running mates will be relegated to footnotes.

But don't rule out Trump pulling a surprise name out of the hat at the Republican convention, just to "shake things up". Trump has no qualms about throwing people under the bus, and he wouldn't hesitate to throw Pence to the wolves if he saw something in it for himself.

Hal said...

Starhopper,

Agree with you that the VP choice is not going to make much difference. The election is going to be a judgement on the Trump presidency. Am feeling pretty good right now that he is headed for a pretty big defeat.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 229   Newer› Newest»