Latest activity

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-08-12T17:06:46-0500

It’s also much less convincing coming out of a professional Fox News propagandist now employed by the administration.

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-08-12T17:05:58-0500

A few cherry picked examples and appeals to emotion don’t change the statistics or the facts.

essentialsaltes · 2025-08-12T17:05:15-0500

A couple of anecdotes is not data, even if POTUS says it.

Ophiolite · 2025-08-12T17:04:23-0500

Hvizsgyak said:
Are you still on the problem that I didn't remember the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory" from 50 years ago learning about it.

The Bayeux Tapestry is a famous piece of fabric depicting scenes relating to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. If intended to engage those with a deep knowledge of the item, especially if I intended to challenge their views, I would make it a point to familiarise myself first, with the more important, current technical and historical information about it. Something I would learn, almost immediately, is that it is not a tapestry, but an embroidery. To proceed in any other way would be a woeful combination of foolishness and discourtesy.

I see parallels with the current case.

essentialsaltes · 2025-08-12T17:01:39-0500

Valletta said:
Whether Seidule likes it or not, the president and Congress follow a Constitution process for passing laws. That process was followed to the letter.

Yes, and then the monument was removed as required by the law passed in 2021. (It also followed the Constitutional process to the letter)

Hegseth does not pass laws. Hegseth is subverting the intent of the law.

FAITH-IN-HIM · 2025-08-12T16:58:59-0500

Always in His Presence said:
It seems your mind reading machine is out of parity. Have you checked the batteries.

There are none so blind and those who will not see.

Honestly, I have no idea how to respond to this; even in kindergarten, such reasoning wouldn't be used.

FAITH-IN-HIM · 2025-08-12T16:55:40-0500

chevyontheriver said:
It clearly is.

Whatcha trying to say here? I grant you that anything Trump does is 'cited as evidence' against him, whether or not it is actual evidence against him. You have a narrative to maintain that Trump is an authoritarian and the data, such as it is, needs to be forced into that narrative.

Whose responsibility for what? Trump is playing you, and you have let yourself be played, and you are insisting he's not playing you, and he's laughing.

Do you believe it is appropriate for the President of the United States, who is constitutionally limited to two terms, to create campaign merchandise and share it with a foreign leader?

Apple Sky · 2025-08-12T16:51:45-0500

Strong in Him said:
No - but I do try,

Yes I'll give you that, you do try.

Hvizsgyak · 2025-08-12T16:50:44-0500

River Jordan said:
Then you must be okay with science since scientists don't do that.

Have you read the responses from some of these posters? Some of them are very direct in saying "this is how it is" and I'm not talking about the "hypothesis and theory" understanding.

Larniavc said:
That is simply untrue. If you can use the internet you’re clever enough to read up on what a word means.

Are you still on the problem that I didn't remember the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory" from 50 years ago learning about it. I said in my eyes and in most common peoples' eyes they are about the same meaning so we use them interchangeably. When I am talking about explaining better certain scientific theories, I mean like for example explaining in a common person's language why paleo archeologists (or whatever that scientific profession calls themselves) are not sure what genes may have been mixed with the Homo sapiens of Northern Africa or why there are large galaxy too close to when the Big Bang occurred. Alot of common people are interested in stuff like that but can only understand it when someone brings in down a notch scientifically. Many different scientists are interested in those topics too but they don't have the degree in that field or know the scientific jargon.

I would rather be a person who knows a certain amount of each scientific topic than one who is obesely absorbed in one scientific topic. One sees better when they have an overall view of any topic.

essentialsaltes · 2025-08-12T16:49:51-0500

Congressional Budget Office: How the 2025 Reconciliation Act (Public Law 119-21) Will Affect the Distribution of Resources Available to Households

A distinct difference between the have-nots, have-somes and haves.

Strong in Him · 2025-08-12T16:45:54-0500

Apple Sky said:
Unlike you I suppose

No - but I do try, and I don't dismiss all scientists and astronauts, as liars or people who are out to brainwash us.

The_Mantis · 2025-08-12T16:45:15-0500

AV1611VET said:
James 4:1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

Contemporary religious music, especially of the rock genre, appeals to the lusts that war in our members.

A good example is when Moses came down from the mountain after receiving the Ten Commandments, and they were worshiping a golden calf.

How did the music sound?

Exodus 32:17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.
18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.
19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

Hey man I love aggressive music. Life is a battle and there is nothing wrong with music that reflects life.

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-08-12T16:43:23-0500

Vambram said:
I disagree.

That doesn’t really matter to the law.

Go disagree with the Constitution:

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Ophiolite · 2025-08-12T16:42:41-0500

AV1611VET said:
Fair enough.

QV please:

View attachment 368475

See all those blue lines?

Can you give me three binominals within any one of them please?

Do you mean three named fossil species on a single ancestral branch, or three modern species that the chart connects? Anyway, I'll go with the former.

Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens.

ralliann · 2025-08-12T16:41:10-0500

Hoping2 said:
Jesus did God's will.

He laid down his life to save others. You are not promoting that. You say If god does not save you, you deserved it.

Pommer · 2025-08-12T16:40:42-0500

Clare73 said:
Why not?

“Defend support and protect”?

Vambram · 2025-08-12T16:40:02-0500

White House reacts to Dem whistleblower’s ‘bombshell’ claim Schiff leaked to hit Trump

White House press secretary calls Democratic whistleblower testimony about Adam Schiff allegedly approving classified leaks against Trump a bombshell.

www.foxnews.com

Vambram · 2025-08-12T16:39:29-0500

GoldenBoy89 said:
No, that’s not what treason is.

I disagree.

iluvatar5150 · 2025-08-12T16:39:15-0500

Pommer said:
Having delved into Wilson’s opinions a bit deeper, he’s not actually in favor of disenfranchising women, but going to a system whereby “households” would hold the franchise. The head of the household would deliberate with his family, then vote according to his conscience. Widows would have a vote. Single women would be under their father’s vote, as would wives be under their husband’s. Obviously, men over 18 would still be under “Dad’s” as well, but he never really spelled things out.

IMO, that's a distinction without much difference. Even if one takes the most charitable interpretations of his intents, the reality of an arrangement like this is that women will still be disenfranchised to at least some degree. Ironically, these guys supposedly wanting to decrease the "atomization" of society are actually putting forward an incentive to not get married.

Vambram · 2025-08-12T16:39:01-0500

essentialsaltes said:
Since Trump 1.0's FBI received them in 2017, it seems safe to say the investigation didn't turn up any corroboration.

Trump's 1.0 FBI had too many deep state people working against the POTUS.

essentialsaltes · 2025-08-12T16:37:42-0500

DaisyDay said:
Nothing more reassuring than masked men in jackboots!

At one intersection, a minor traffic accident between a car and a moped brought at least two dozen agents running, some wearing masks and one carrying a rifle. Local D.C. Metropolitan police were also on scene.

Pommer · 2025-08-12T16:35:21-0500

ozso said:
Neither Hegseth nor Wilson say anything about women voting in video footage. And there's no quote in the article from either of them about women voting. Rather someone else said that he and his wife should reach a mutual decision on who to vote for, and as head of the family he should cast the vote. Which is just one guy's way of wanting to do things in his family.

So it seems to me there's some definite straw grasping going on with this. And one man's opinion is somehow supposed to allude that the Trump administration is planning on repealing the 19th amendment.

Having delved into Wilson’s opinions a bit deeper, he’s not actually in favor of disenfranchising women, but going to a system whereby “households” would hold the franchise. The head of the household would deliberate with his family, then vote according to his conscience. Widows would have a vote. Single women would be under their father’s vote, as would wives be under their husband’s. Obviously, men over 18 would still be under “Dad’s” as well, but he never really spelled things out.

ralliann · 2025-08-12T16:35:12-0500

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Aside from yourself Hoping can you point to any Christian who you consider a fellow believer during the time of Islamic expansion? I can point out people, St John of Damascus, Maximos the Confessor and plenty of others.

Real people who existed and lived Christian lives. But you couldn't consider these men and women Christians because they worked with the political order of their time which used force to defend fellow believers.

This conversation is unproductive because we are on two radically different poles. You prefer evil to succeed. I don't.

I doubt the faith of some.......I do think they use scripture to poke...

timewerx · 2025-08-12T16:34:56-0500

The Liturgist said:
That’s not true. Current AI systems have no awareness outside of the prompt / response cycle and no independent goal-setting capabilities.

I never said that AI had independent goal-setting ability and to make myself clear, I agree with your statement. Even chatgpt told me it's incapable of doing so from scratch even with vast training data. A "seed goal" must be provided as part of its program by the developers.

The ability to give them this is actually an area I have somewhat of an interest

Yes, chatpgt told me the risks like unpredictable results, financial / control risk to its company.

The feature is ommitted by design so the AI can be managed and controlled more closely. It's not due to technological limitations. It's entirely doable, just risky and potentially dangerous.

Additionally it can lead to much higher bandwidth which can prevent profitable operation of the company.

That's not to say that no one's trying. Chatgpt hinted such indpendently-thinking AI in real time being researched by military having very strong incentives to do so.

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-08-12T16:34:27-0500

Clare73 said:
And?

If they are in accordance with the Constitution, who are you to disagree?

An American with a first amendment right.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Congressional Budget Office: How the 2025 Reconciliation Act (Public Law 119-21) Will Affect the Distribution of Resources Available to Households​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Congressional Budget Office: How the 2025 Reconciliation Act (Public Law 119-21) Will Affect the Distribution of Resources Available to Households