Jattdogg Posted 3 October 2016 Posted 3 October 2016 22 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Thing is though, this issue probably won't have much bearing overall. The kind of people who vote for Trump are the kind of people who will congratulate him for "beating the system", regardless of what his returns show. It will however be interesting to see what he quotes as his profits and losses on such paperwork. He will release his taxes once audit/lawyers says he can and of course also if hillary releases her emails....... righhttttt trust the donald lol.
Guest MattP Posted 3 October 2016 Posted 3 October 2016 Assange releasing information about Clinton at 8am tomorrow that could "finish her" according to him. Probably more fantasy from the weirdo but sounds interesting.
SMX11 Posted 3 October 2016 Posted 3 October 2016 20 minutes ago, MattP said: Assange releasing information about Clinton at 8am tomorrow that could "finish her" according to him. Probably more fantasy from the weirdo but sounds interesting. Hopefully about the Clinton Foundation.
longman Posted 3 October 2016 Posted 3 October 2016 26 minutes ago, MattP said: Assange releasing information about Clinton at 8am tomorrow that could "finish her" according to him. Probably more fantasy from the weirdo but sounds interesting. wow, can't wait ...
Wymsey Posted 3 October 2016 Posted 3 October 2016 She needs dumbing down a bit tbh, as not sure she'll be able to cope with the presidential demands should she get it.
Jattdogg Posted 4 October 2016 Posted 4 October 2016 Im sure shes got mountains of bad crap about her etc. Can we just cancel both candidates cuz they both are garbage
Guest MattP Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 31 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Anyone watch the VP debate? Ugh, Pence. Really? Amazing how we saw different things, I was at there thinking way on earth couldn't the Republicans elect a guy like this, the contrast between him and Trump was quite incredible, he was cool, coherant and composed. The BBC did a write up on who won and like them, I thought Pence did. - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37558787 When your opponent has to keep interrupting, then making his points often based on complete misrepresentation I think they are losing the argument.
leicsmac Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 7 minutes ago, MattP said: Really? Amazing how we saw different things, I was at there thinking way on earth couldn't the Republicans elect a guy like this, the contrast between him and Trump was quite incredible, he was cool, coherant and composed. The BBC did a write up on who won and like them, I thought Pence did. - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37558787 When your opponent has to keep interrupting, then making his points often based on complete misrepresentation I think they are losing the argument. Yeah, perhaps I should have clarified there. My "ugh" was more a remark towards Pence general character, as opposed to how he performed in the debate. I agree with you, I think he did win it...but I'm not at home with fire and brimstone bible thumpers who use their beliefs and make remarks about abortion and gay marriage in the way Pence does.
Guest MattP Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 11 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Yeah, perhaps I should have clarified there. My "ugh" was more a remark towards Pence general character, as opposed to how he performed in the debate. I agree with you, I think he did win it...but I'm not at home with fire and brimstone bible thumpers who use their beliefs and make remarks about abortion and gay marriage in the way Pence does. At least he has his principles and stands by them though, which is more you can say for the two people fighting to run the country.
leicsmac Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 26 minutes ago, MattP said: At least he has his principles and stands by them though, which is more you can say for the two people fighting to run the country. I can certainly see why that would be a comfort to people given the reasonably turbulent times we're in now. People like steadfastness, after all. But, barring that steadfastness the man and his views pretty much embody everything I dislike about parts of the US.
GazzinderFox Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 34 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I can certainly see why that would be a comfort to people given the reasonably turbulent times we're in now. People like steadfastness, after all. But, barring that steadfastness the man and his views pretty much embody everything I dislike about parts of the US. I think you are confusing bullish stubbornness with steadfastness. Trump will change his mind like the wind if it suits him. Which parts of the US do you dislike? The working class parts?
leicsmac Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 4 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said: I think you are confusing bullish stubbornness with steadfastness. Trump will change his mind like the wind if it suits him. Which parts of the US do you dislike? The working class parts? Yeah, I was referring to Pence as opposed to Trump in the post above. As for the parts of the US I dislike...the parts that use the words of man as written thousands of years ago as a tool to attempt to legislate morality, to take away the right of bodily integrity for women and the right for two consenting adults to marry with all the benefit that entails. The part that Pence has worked for in the past and represents now.
GazzinderFox Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: Yeah, I was referring to Pence as opposed to Trump in the post above. As for the parts of the US I dislike...the parts that use the words of man as written thousands of years ago as a tool to attempt to legislate morality, to take away the right of bodily integrity for women and the right for two consenting adults to marry with all the benefit that entails. The part that Pence has worked for in the past and represents now. Sorry about that should have read that part of your post properly! Please forgive me, but hey, you got the chance to have another dig at Christians out of it! I thought it made no sense in you saying that the fundamentalists were going to vote for Trump. They detest him. That's one of the reasons he's going to lose.
leicsmac Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 8 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said: Sorry about that should have read that part of your post properly! Please forgive me, but hey, you got the chance to have another dig at Christians out of it! I thought it made no sense in you saying that the fundamentalists were going to vote for Trump. They detest him. That's one of the reasons he's going to lose. Well, Trump clearly brought Pence on board in order to court the fundy vote; as you say, he can't win without them, so it's a good move. Whether it works or not remains to be seen. My apologies if I appear to rag on the fundamentalist aspects of Christianity as much as I seem to. For what it's worth I dislike such fundamentalists across all the Abrahamic religions equally as much for what they say and do to women and other groups that are not "in". However it is the Christian fundamentalist bloc that has the most power of such religions in the US, so on this topic my ire will largely be directed there.
GazzinderFox Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 5 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Well, Trump clearly brought Pence on board in order to court the fundy vote; as you say, he can't win without them, so it's a good move. Whether it works or not remains to be seen. Some will hold their noses and vote for him on the basis that they dislike Clinton even more. A substantial minority won't, and I know that because I have contact with a lot of them through my work. 8 minutes ago, leicsmac said: My apologies if I appear to rag on the fundamentalist aspects of Christianity as much as I seem to. For what it's worth I dislike such fundamentalists across all the Abrahamic religions equally as much for what they say and do to women and other groups that are not "in". However it is the Christian fundamentalist bloc that has the most power of such religions in the US, so on this topic my ire will largely be directed there. You're entitled to your opinion. Clearly you're a big fan of babies having their skulls crushed until they are dead and then being chopped up into pieces small enough to be pulled out of the womb, and you need to drop that into conversation every now again, that's very understandable. I'm just glad to see that you're bigotry is even handed across the religious spectrum! Oh no wait, sorry I forgot it's only people with religious views that can be bigots, I apologise again!
Stadt Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 10 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said: Some will hold their noses and vote for him on the basis that they dislike Clinton even more. A substantial minority won't, and I know that because I have contact with a lot of them through my work. You're entitled to your opinion. Clearly you're a big fan of babies having their skulls crushed until they are dead and then being chopped up into pieces small enough to be pulled out of the womb, and you need to drop that into conversation every now again, that's very understandable. I'm just glad to see that you're bigotry is even handed across the religious spectrum! Oh no wait, sorry I forgot it's only people with religious views that can be bigots, I apologise again!
leicsmac Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 2 hours ago, GazzinderFox said: Some will hold their noses and vote for him on the basis that they dislike Clinton even more. A substantial minority won't, and I know that because I have contact with a lot of them through my work. You're entitled to your opinion. Clearly you're a big fan of babies having their skulls crushed until they are dead and then being chopped up into pieces small enough to be pulled out of the womb, and you need to drop that into conversation every now again, that's very understandable. I'm just glad to see that you're bigotry is even handed across the religious spectrum! Oh no wait, sorry I forgot it's only people with religious views that can be bigots, I apologise again! Yup, you have me right. I'm a big fan of women being allowed to make a choice about whether a human being directly reliant upon them for help survives or does not survive at the expense of their own bodily integrity, as is the case with every other decision of it's type (giving blood/organs etc) out there, and that choice not being legislated away in the name of a moral code written by men (but still considered infallible, isn't that pride?) a long time ago. Unless you want to apply the same legislation to force the violation of bodily integrity in every such situation across the board, of course. See? It's amazing how two people can view the same situation so differently. And top marks for the snark - it's something I like to employ myself so it's rather good to see some delivered back. Yes, I view fundamentalists who seek to inhibit the freedom of, control and dominate women and anyone who isn't the 'in group' of every ilk with equal contempt. No matter which deity they believe in - God, Allah, Buddha, or even themselves/The Party. Don't get me wrong - the belief in faith of a person is often a good thing, and it's their choice. But when they start using that belief to dictate to others and legislate so it affects others...that crosses a line. Though of course many would disagree.
GazzinderFox Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 6 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Yup,you have me right. I'm a big fan of women being allowed to make a choice about whether a human being directly reliant upon them for help survives or does not survive at the expense of their own bodily integrity, as is the case with every other decision of it's type (giving blood/organs etc) out there, and that choice not being legislated away in the name of a moral code written by men (but still considered infallible, isn't that pride?) a long time ago. Unless you want to apply the same legislation to force the violation of bodily integrity in every such situation across the board, of course. See? It's amazing how two people can view the same situation so differently. And top marks for the snark - it's something I like to employ myself so it's rather good to see some delivered back. Yes, I view fundamentalists who seek to inhibit the freedom of, control and dominate women and anyone who isn't the 'in group' of every ilk with equal contempt. No matter which deity they believe in - God, Allah, Buddha, or even themselves/The Party. I'm in total agreement with you on the treatment of women but I can't really respond to the rest without taking this thread wildly off topic. Is there a philosophical moral ethics thread in here somewhere?
leicsmac Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 15 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said: I'm in total agreement with you on the treatment of women but I can't really respond to the rest without taking this thread wildly off topic. Is there a philosophical moral ethics thread in here somewhere? I think someone did start one at some point but it got lost in the ether somewhere along the line, damn shame. Perhaps we could start another off - it would be interesting to talk about. That reminds me, I really should dig up the WoT thread and get writing some science news stuff again.
Buce Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 52 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I think someone did start one at some point but it got lost in the ether somewhere along the line, damn shame. Perhaps we could start another off - it would be interesting to talk about. That reminds me, I really should dig up the WoT thread and get writing some science news stuff again. Hey, Mac. On the subject of reminders, you were going to keep us up to date on that planet that possibly had something in orbit around it, that may indicate an alien construction. Any news?
leicsmac Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 9 minutes ago, Buce said: Hey, Mac. On the subject of reminders, you were going to keep us up to date on that planet that possibly had something in orbit around it, that may indicate an alien construction. Any news? It's funny you should say that, because only over the past day or two there HAS been some news about the star KIC8462852 and what's going on around it. Apparently now along with the regular dips in luminosity that people are associating with extraterrestrial activity, the star itself seems to be losing luminosity overall over the past few years, according the data that Kepler sent us. It seems to be unique in the stars we've observed so far - no other one is getting dimmer in this way over such a short period of time, stars shouldn't do that, they should actually increase in luminosity over time. So that's another bit of weirdness to add to what's going on over there. Of course, we're no closer to any answers on what's exactly responsible and it could still all be down to the equipment we're using to view it - some kind of malfunction somewhere, but it's still intriguing. I'll write a more detailed thingy and put it up on the WoT thread tomorrow!
Buce Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 27 minutes ago, leicsmac said: It's funny you should say that, because only over the past day or two there HAS been some news about the star KIC8462852 and what's going on around it. Apparently now along with the regular dips in luminosity that people are associating with extraterrestrial activity, the star itself seems to be losing luminosity overall over the past few years, according the data that Kepler sent us. It seems to be unique in the stars we've observed so far - no other one is getting dimmer in this way over such a short period of time, stars shouldn't do that, they should actually increase in luminosity over time. So that's another bit of weirdness to add to what's going on over there. Of course, we're no closer to any answers on what's exactly responsible and it could still all be down to the equipment we're using to view it - some kind of malfunction somewhere, but it's still intriguing. I'll write a more detailed thingy and put it up on the WoT thread tomorrow! Cool. I'll look forward to that.
The Doctor Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 5 hours ago, GazzinderFox said: Some will hold their noses and vote for him on the basis that they dislike Clinton even more. A substantial minority won't, and I know that because I have contact with a lot of them through my work. You're entitled to your opinion. Clearly you're a big fan of babies having their skulls crushed until they are dead and then being chopped up into pieces small enough to be pulled out of the womb, and you need to drop that into conversation every now again, that's very understandable. I'm just glad to see that you're bigotry is even handed across the religious spectrum! Oh no wait, sorry I forgot it's only people with religious views that can be bigots, I apologise again! For what it's worth that's the most ridiculous strawman I've ever seen; it'd be rejected from a low budget production of the wizard of oz for being too unrealistic. The vast majority (>90%) are performed within the first 13 weeks, which means either a pill (medical) or pushing a tube up the cervix and removing the fetus by suction. There's no crushing or slicing.
GazzinderFox Posted 5 October 2016 Posted 5 October 2016 37 minutes ago, The Doctor said: For what it's worth that's the most ridiculous strawman I've ever seen; it'd be rejected from a low budget production of the wizard of oz for being too unrealistic. The vast majority (>90%) are performed within the first 13 weeks, which means either a pill (medical) or pushing a tube up the cervix and removing the fetus by suction. There's no crushing or slicing. It's called surgical abortion mate. It happens so it isn't a straw man. At no point did I suggest that it's the only method of abortion. I'm glad you agree that at least 1 in 10 abortions is barbaric. Like I said though this is OT.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.