Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Hilary dead

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    You can also used the cross-eyed technique to see 3D photographs:

    485067429_866c71dd6c_z.jpg

    You can find a ton of those old 3D stereo photos online. Here is one of a woman using one of the stereo viewers:

    interesting_picture-gmsr.jpg
    I have a friend with one of those along with hundreds of slides (he bought some on eBay cheap).

    Essentially that's what the old View-Master you likely had as a kid would do.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

      My only point is that my brother needs to base his speculations on evidence, and not on "truthiness". When I was a fund developer for a food bank, I saw that many charities were begun by billionaires. Perhaps they are just tax shelters for them, I don't know, but the evidence is that billionaires do care about other people to some degree. The evidence isn't that they wring their hands in shadowy corners, plotting to steal and murder children. That theory really sounds like it was started by someone envious of wealthy people.
      If you actually believe 1 Timothy 6:10 (I know I do, literally), that view wouldn't be at all consistent. You can't possibly be a billionaire and not love money. Apparently that's not just evil, but is the root of all love. That's a pretty strong indictment against loving wealth I think I've ever seen in the bible. Does that mean that all billionaires are sado masochists and act like Charles Manson outwardly, no because billionaires are also very smart and shrewd folks and know that isn't a pragmatic way to successfully function in a civil society. As I mentioned before, there are numerous accounts of pedophile rings involving government institutions and wealthy elites with participants no one would ever expected that partook in such activity. Yet if you believe 1 Timothy 6:10, then that shouldn't come as a surprise.

      But I always underscore the RCC in this regard because it's probably the institution you would LEAST suspect something like this to happen... yet it did. And it would have been a totally unreasonable conspiracy theory on the level of the flat earth conspiracy theory had it not been publicly exposed and thoroughly investigated. In many cases, priests worldwide were passing children around like sex objects to each other, forced children to engage in pornography, and in some cases actually had children act out religious roles as they were being sexually abused (and quite possibly or probably this was connected to certain orphanages). I mean, we're talking stuff that goes beyond reason here, and the religious aspect of it makes it exceptionally evil. I point that out because if things like that can happen with a supposedly trusted religious institution (in addition to the attempted cover-up by the higher-ups, including the pope himself), imagine things that have happened (or are happening now) outside of religious institutions. Then put that in the theological context of 1 Timothy 6:10 by folks with large sums of wealth and power and who love that wealth and power. IOW, if what the RCC did is unbelievably evil (and we'd all agree it is), imagine what similar situations influenced by "the root of all evil" outside the church could potentially look like. Does that mean all billionaires engage in this activity? Of course not, but in a general sense, when all is said and done, and even though it may be a bit hyperbolic, believing that billionaires are molesting, torturing and killing children for fun ain't that much of a stretch here. Certainly not anywhere near the level of unreason believing Hillary was executed at gitmo.
      "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

        I have a friend with one of those along with hundreds of slides (he bought some on eBay cheap).

        Essentially that's what the old View-Master you likely had as a kid would do.
        yup. but if you can look at them cross-eyed, you don't need the viewer. My last boss had a box of those old stereo photos cards too and I used to like to look at them because it was kind of neat being able to see pictures from the past in 3D. Kinda like being there.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

          yup. but if you can look at them cross-eyed, you don't need the viewer. My last boss had a box of those old stereo photos cards too and I used to like to look at them because it was kind of neat being able to see pictures from the past in 3D. Kinda like being there.
          I used to do that with Coke cans, holding two of them side by side and crossing my eyes until there were three, with the one in the middle in sharp focus.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

            I'm pretty sure most of us see that as a swimming pool.
            It has seats in the corners - it's a big hot tub!
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • Watch somebody come along and try to derail this thread to something about Hillary!

              Oh --- and BACON!!!!
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                I used to do that with Coke cans, holding two of them side by side and crossing my eyes until there were three, with the one in the middle in sharp focus.
                Ah, there was an old trick where you did that with index fingers pointing at each other, and as they got closer to each other, you'd see a hot dog in the middle!
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                  Ah, there was an old trick where you did that with index fingers pointing at each other, and as they got closer to each other, you'd see a hot dog in the middle!
                  I had forgotten about that one!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                    yup. but if you can look at them cross-eyed, you don't need the viewer. My last boss had a box of those old stereo photos cards too and I used to like to look at them because it was kind of neat being able to see pictures from the past in 3D. Kinda like being there.
                    Did you watch any of those redone and colorized movies from 1911 that are on YouTube and posted earlier in this thread?



                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                      I used to do that with Coke cans, holding two of them side by side and crossing my eyes until there were three, with the one in the middle in sharp focus.
                      Did you get a free coke that way?


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Did you watch any of those redone and colorized movies from 1911 that are on YouTube and posted earlier in this thread?

                        yeah.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seanD View Post

                          If you actually believe 1 Timothy 6:10 (I know I do, literally), that view wouldn't be at all consistent.
                          1) You are interpreting that as a blanket condemnation. 2) My interpretations of scripture tend not to match that of most Christians.

                          You can't possibly be a billionaire and not love money. Apparently that's not just evil, but is the root of all love. That's a pretty strong indictment against loving wealth I think I've ever seen in the bible. Does that mean that all billionaires are sado masochists and act like Charles Manson outwardly, no because billionaires are also very smart and shrewd folks and know that isn't a pragmatic way to successfully function in a civil society. As I mentioned before, there are numerous accounts of pedophile rings involving government institutions and wealthy elites with participants no one would ever expected that partook in such activity. Yet if you believe 1 Timothy 6:10, then that shouldn't come as a surprise.
                          You really seem to be making a lot of assumptions, based on your interpretations of scripture. I base my beliefs on what I experience.

                          But in any case, again, my complaint about my brother is he is convinced of his beliefs based on sermons by unknown people, and not on evidence.

                          But I always underscore the RCC in this regard because it's probably the institution you would LEAST suspect something like this to happen... yet it did. And it would have been a totally unreasonable conspiracy theory on the level of the flat earth conspiracy theory had it not been publicly exposed and thoroughly investigated. In many cases, priests worldwide were passing children around like sex objects to each other, forced children to engage in pornography, and in some cases actually had children act out religious roles as they were being sexually abused (and quite possibly or probably this was connected to certain orphanages). I mean, we're talking stuff that goes beyond reason here, and the religious aspect of it makes it exceptionally evil. I point that out because if things like that can happen with a supposedly trusted religious institution (in addition to the attempted cover-up by the higher-ups, including the pope himself), imagine things that have happened (or are happening now) outside of religious institutions.
                          Again, you are asking me to "imagine" things? Without evidence, it would be easy for me to be suspicious of the RCC without actually believing something. I became a Christian not because of sermons or truthiness, but because of revelation. If not for that, I would still be an atheist. I can't make myself believe in things simply because they sound correct.

                          Then put that in the theological context of 1 Timothy 6:10 by folks with large sums of wealth and power and who love that wealth and power. IOW, if what the RCC did is unbelievably evil (and we'd all agree it is), imagine what similar situations influenced by "the root of all evil" outside the church could potentially look like. Does that mean all billionaires engage in this activity? Of course not, but in a general sense, when all is said and done, and even though it may be a bit hyperbolic, believing that billionaires are molesting, torturing and killing children for fun ain't that much of a stretch here. Certainly not anywhere near the level of unreason believing Hillary was executed at gitmo.
                          I think we are derailing this thread. If you wish to continue this discussion, which is mostly theological, we should take it to another board.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                            morallyright-factuallycorrect.jpg


                            Just a reminder that it isn't just old Joe who isn't worried about factual accuracy.
                            Indeed Rogue, it's you who doesn't seem worried about factual accuracy with your misquote of AOC here. Here is her actual quote:

                            “I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right. And whenever I make a mistake, I say, ‘OK, this was clumsy.’ and then I restate what my point was.”

                            She was expressing annoyance with nitpickers, not saying the truth didn't matter.

                            However from all the falsehoods you peddle in this forum it's clear that the truth doesn't matter to you on almost any topic.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              The fact-checkers have been unable to find an article about him in American sources at that time, and so assume Hillary's mother probably didn't see a article about him, but there certainly were articles about him at that time in New Zealand so it's not impossible that Hillary's mother somehow saw such an article.
                              You start off well enough with fact, then veer into total fantasy. From those right wing radicals at Snopes...

                              However, how likely was Dorothy Rodham, a Chicago housewife, to have seen an article about a New Zealand mountain climber? We performed a comprehensive search of several major American newspapers (including the Chicago Tribune) and found that none of them made any mention of Edmund Hillary whatsoever prior to June 1953, so it’s fair to say that the American media paid him little note prior to his successful assault on Mt. Everest that year.


                              But you are to be congratulated on your Olympic class conclusion jumping!
                              You give a quote which agrees with what I said, but then claim I'm an Olympic class conclusion jumper? What is wrong with you?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                You're right it was in Nepal where Hillary met Sir Edmund Hilary and told him she was named after him
                                Okay, good start, you acknowledge being completely wrong about a key point in your claims.

                                But then you go back to making a bunch of what appear to be false claims:
                                but even after getting schooled she continued with the lie. And even after a Clinton spokesperson, Jennifer Hanley, was forced to walk the story back in 2006 she continued.

                                It resurfaced in a speech in 2008 but her made up claims about being under direct fire in Bosnia

                                Moreover, it was a "favorite story" back prior to her meeting with Edmund Hilary. One that got told several times when her husband ran for president in '92 and one she would regale folks with back in Little Rock, Arkansas when Bill was still governor. But even after it was exposed and walked back it still would surface from time to time.
                                No source I have checked agrees with any of this. Ever single sentence of yours here appears to be false as far as I can determine. You appear to be making it all up, like you were the main claim that it happened in New Zealand and upset the New Zealand populace.

                                And Snopes looked into the angle that her mother might have heard about Edmund prior to that since he had made the news, but could find no indication such stories ever appeared in papers that she would have had access to.
                                Snopes checked a few US papers and couldn't find anything. But people read magazines, get letters, and have plenty of sources of information other than a the newspapers Snopes happens to have checked. It's pretty much impossible for them to prove that negative.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 02:29 AM
                                15 responses
                                26 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 08:48 PM
                                2 responses
                                26 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 08:16 PM
                                5 responses
                                34 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 02:45 PM
                                18 responses
                                108 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 01:59 PM
                                6 responses
                                38 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Working...
                                X