Latest activity

Pommer · 2026-02-17T23:42:15-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Now that Bongino's back to podcasting, it's no surprise that he and Trump are heroes and the release of Epstein Files has answered all the questions.

View attachment 376629

Has has to be a hero. He cannot cease being a hero.
Or admit that he’s got no integrity, (but that can’t be right, right)?

Oompa Loompa · 2026-02-17T23:41:24-0600

Bradskii said:
What about the point you thought you were making?

My point, in case you have forgotten, was that communism has been worse than Nazis.

ViaCrucis · 2026-02-17T23:40:17-0600

DaisyDay said:
Do you really not know how emotions figure into your own thought process? Why do you have such disdain (an emotion!) for the concept of emotion? I've noticed some people like to use "emotional" as an insult as if they believe they are "above" that without considering how deeply mired it it they are. Without emotion, they simply would not care.

Gratitude, humor, triumph, self-satisfaction - all emotions. I doubt you've really analyzed this.

I blame the alpha male red pill movement (at least in part). While I'm not accusing anyone here of being part of it, it has become part of the modern zeitgeist of social discourse unfortunately. And part of that has been delineating a sort of non-emotive pseudo-Stoic "logic" as a masculine trait (and thus better), from the perceived feminine trait of emotionality (and thus inferior).

There is an intrinsic sexism underlaying this, even if it isn't explicit. Of course this "logic = masculine" and "emotion = feminine" is an inherently stupid dichotomy that doesn't actually comport with objective reality (anyone who thinks men are less emotional than women is living in a fantasy land). And given Conservatism (at least in the US context) having a bit of a fetish for machismo and a strict dividing line between men and women by assigning men and women to weird arbitrary stereotypes, this is going to then filter into the broader political and social discourse as well.

So pretending that emotion isn't a fundamental and integral aspect for how we interpret all sensory input and our response to all external stimuli for literally all humans everywhere is, I think, largely a product of certain reactionary viewpoints. Viewpoints rooted in a myopic and misogynistic world view that still, even unconsciously at times, wants to assert the supremacy of "masculinity", and defining that "masculinity" on entirely arbitrary stereotypes.

I.e. if a man cries he's "acting like a woman". It's an archaic, stupid, sexist, and inherently toxic perspective--but it's also deeply embedded in social politics by those who regard these sorts of things as fundamental tenets of reality (plot twist: they aren't).

Pommer · 2026-02-17T23:39:37-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Mayor Bass has called for him to step down, but she has no official influence over LA28.

Wow, top talent looking for “work”!
Is the Government hiring “freeze” over?

A2SG · 2026-02-17T23:39:32-0600

Always in His Presence said:
Not up to the job?

The Democrats said she was the most qualified of all time? What’s up with that?

“I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.”
— Barack Hussein Obama, campaign rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, July 5, 2016

Hillary was (and still is) exceptionally qualified to lead the country.

That didn't matter.

-- A2SG, apparently, committing massive fraud (on multiple occasions) doesn't disqualify Republicans from voting for ya these days.....

A2SG · 2026-02-17T23:33:43-0600

chevyontheriver said:
Maybe. Maybe not.

Hillary prompted her one time friend Donald to run for president. She saw him as an easy loser to beat. She was so bad she lost anyway.

The Democrats ran Joe Biden from his basement by running against Covid. He had a pulse and that was enough to somehow come up with the votes needed to win.

Dewey thought he had it in the bag. So did some newspapers, enough that they printed Dewey's victory. Of course Truman won.

AOC could pull it off.

Personally, I would very much welcome that.

-- A2SG, though, let's be honest, anyone would be an improvement over Trump.....

Apple Sky · 2026-02-17T23:32:29-0600

Travelling Abroad

Pommer · 2026-02-17T23:31:44-0600

Bradskii said:
This is what he said: Trump pledges sweeping tariffs, says they will keep jobs in US

"We're putting America first," Trump said. "This new American industrialism will create millions and millions of jobs."

That wasn't the truth. We know that because it didn't happen, isn't happening right now and will not happen. For umpteen reasons that I can't be bothered to repeat (I'm certain that you've heard them all) because you'd just hand wave them away. And not only has he not created them, you are going backwards: NEW DATA: During Trump’s First Year, the Manufacturing Industry Lost 108,000 Jobs - NEW DATA: During Trump’s First Year, the Manufacturing Industry Lost 108,000 Jobs - United States Joint Economic Committee

'...the manufacturing industry lost 108,000 jobs during the first year of President Trump’s second term. This new estimate shows that the manufacturing sector has lost even more than the 68,000 jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics previously estimated.'

When are you guys going to wake up and see what's happening? How long can you keep denying the undeniable? Nobody admits admitting that they were wrong. But one gets to a point where not doing so seems almost perverse.

Coming down on “meh” on this one.
When you “‘change things’ for the better”, there’s going to be a lag-time while the markets figure out how to react. Two years is about the right amount of time to see the effects of this sized sea-change. (Things like employment might take a hit “at first”, this should be expected and is “normal”).

Whether or not Trump’s changes are wise is largely left-to-be-seen.
He might end up doing a profound amount of “good” overall, testing the resolve of the Institutions of our Democratic Republic and helping us see where legislative and ethical standards need to be tightened.

Oh I’m just an old softee, but should the NIH (under RFK Jr) actually “cure cancer”, I’ll gladly brag “but at least he ‘cured cancer’!”

A2SG · 2026-02-17T23:30:59-0600

Always in His Presence said:
I support that 100% - it will guarantee a Republican win!

Ah, but remember, that's what a lot of people said about Trump when he first decided to run.

-- A2SG, after all, Hillary was vastly better qualified....but I guess that no longer matters....

Apple Sky · 2026-02-17T23:29:30-0600

NxNW said:
Such as a flat earth.

You mean the globe & walking on the moon.

Apple Sky · 2026-02-17T23:27:53-0600

prodromos said:
d taylor the deceiver!

I think your mixing up @d taylor with NASA.

pasifika · 2026-02-17T23:27:40-0600

Vambram said:
What are you talking about? Please be specific.

Prophecy is not as specific as black or white.

pasifika · 2026-02-17T23:25:01-0600

Pommer said:
Meh.
“Don’t look backward, look forwards!” is a perennial favorite across the globe.
7/10

Sure, the speech is refreshing!. The creation of the last empire before the end is about to begin.

A2SG · 2026-02-17T23:24:15-0600

chevyontheriver said:
It devolved.

Matter of opinion, and you are certainly entitled to that.

chevyontheriver said:
I say this as a cradle Democrat who became very unliked by my party in the 1980's and left for more tolerant pastures on the other side.

Enjoy the leopards, I guess.

chevyontheriver said:
Absent any evidence, of course.

You need evidence that people sometimes change their minds about things, given enough time? Besides, I was speculating about what a man who died almost 40 years ago might think today, what kind of evidence would I even try to bring to that?

chevyontheriver said:
I don't doubt he would have been excluded and shut out like former Rep. Dan Lipinski. Whether he would have gone to the GOP or started his own new party is speculative.

It's all speculative. Humphry ain't done much since 1978.

chevyontheriver said:
The GOP if this decade considers those convictions to be merely political. And thus ignorable. I didn't vote for the man.

Point for you, I guess. Still, because of those who did, we're all stuck with him. January 20, 2029 can't come fast enough for me.

chevyontheriver said:
Maybe you once knew that being authoritarian was not necessarily a 'right wing' phenomenon. Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot come to mind as authoritarian and leftist at the same time. There are MANY more examples.

I'm not entirely sure if those would all have been described as "leftist," but I suppose a lot would depend on how one defines what is left vs. right. Still, an authoritarian leader is far more a right-wing thing, moreso than left-wing, and Trump has certainly espoused right-wing ideals, straight from the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025. Regardless, at this point in history, in the US, it is the right that has embraced an authoritarian standard-bearer, not the left.

chevyontheriver said:
Your dislike of Trump is apparent.

Not exactly trying to hide it.

chevyontheriver said:
Fine. As I've said, I didn't vote for the man, never did in fact, and never watched his TV shows either. But Trump is a populist and not a conservative. The Republicans are flirting with populism more than conservatism. The Democrats are alienating what is left of the middle ground Democrats, and the only play the party has left is to keep calling Trump Hitler and hoping more long term members don't desert to the party of Hitler.

One thing that has always been true about the Democratic party is we don't agree about everything. There has always been a wide variety of views within the party, and we often fight with ourselves just as much as we fight with the opposition party. I contend that the leadership of the party has moved marginally to the right in many ways; adopting a Heritage Foundation plan as a health care solution is just one example, but there does exist within the party a faction that has espoused more left-leaning ideas. However, that branch of the party has proven ineffective in just about every way, so any fears mongered about regarding a far-left takeover seem baseless and completely imaginary. Good for fundraising though, I guess.

For those middle-ground Democrats (by that, I suppose you mean more conservative minded Democrats), I somehow doubt many of those would be fleeing toward Trump in sufficient numbers to make a major difference in the party. I suspect we'll still be just as contentious and disorganized as we've been since at least the days of Will Rogers.

-- A2SG, boy did he call it like it still is.....

ViaCrucis · 2026-02-17T23:21:30-0600

NewLifeInChristJesus said:
You are right that Jesus rose from the dead bodily. His body did not experience decay. When He appeared to people after His resurrection, He was the same age as He was when He was crucified, He had nail holes in His hands and feet, a spear hole in his side, and presumably thorn holes around His head and bruises on His back. Since we will follow His example, can we expect that our resurrected body will be in the same shape it was when we passed?

But wait. His body did not see decay. But ours do (I have seen many examples on crime shows on TV). Is the body you get in the resurrection in the same shape as it was when you died, or is it in the same shape it was when you were resurrected? For Jesus, both of these were pretty much the same. What Scriptures do we use to determine which one applies to us?

And what Scriptures support the idea that our resurrection bodies are reconstituted from various molecules into a version of our physical bodies that may never have existed in real life? I can guess as to why this is postulated. Is it because nobody wants to live for eternity in a body that dies of old age and can barely function or in a baby's body that can barely crawl? But creating doctrine for this out of whole cloth with no Biblical support and which if not accepted makes void all of Christianity goes a bit far.

Another thing is clear about Christ's resurrection. Nobody saw Him in all His glory (the glory which He had with the Father before He came to earth and the glory which was restored to Him after His ascension). Otherwise they would have died. Nobody can look on Him and live. But that restriction will be lifted after our resurrection. We do not know exactly what bodies we will have, but we know that we will be like Him and see Him as He is. This sure hope is not built on questionable doctrines.

2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. (1 Jn 3:2–3).

Early Pagan critics of Christianity often mocked both Jews and Christians for the belief in the resurrection of the body. This is why St. Paul was mocked when he preached the Gospel at the Areopagus in Athens. And it's also the reason why a century later St. Justin wrote his treatise On the Resurrection, which I quoted a small portion from already.

I would encourage you to take a look at St. Justin's apologetical arguments in defense of Christian teaching:

On the Resurrection by St. Justin Martyr

Pommer · 2026-02-17T23:19:44-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Tit for Tat Tariffs - The US versus the World
The world strikes back

Carney constructs a mega anti-Trump trade alliance
The Canadian prime minister is spearheading discussions between the EU and a major Indo-Pacific trade bloc after calling on middle powers to join forces.

Two of the world’s biggest trading blocs are cautiously eyeing closer ties to short-circuit Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The European Union and a 12-nation Indo-Pacific bloc are opening talks to explore proposals to form one of the largest global economic alliances, multiple people with knowledge of the talks told POLITICO.

Canada is spearheading the discussions after Prime Minister Mark Carney called on middle powers to buck trade war coercion last month, days after Trump threatened to raise tariffs on Denmark’s European allies if it didn’t cede Greenland.

Oh goodie, a trade-war!
Hold on tight!

ViaCrucis · 2026-02-17T23:17:58-0600

RDKirk said:
I don't know. Another speculation is that God makes sure across the generations that the atoms of believers never cross.

Hentenza said:
Possible. I’ve thought it as if God knows every hair in everyone’s head then He is powerful enough to keep up with everyone’s atoms.

I'm reminded of St. Justin's On The Resurrection, where he addresses several objections to resurrection.

Well, they say, if then the flesh rise, it must rise the same as it falls; so that if it die with one eye, it must rise one-eyed; if lame, lame; if defective in any part of the body, in this part the man must rise deficient. How truly blinded are they in the eyes of their hearts! For they have not seen on the earth blind men seeing again, and the lame walking by His word. All things which the Saviour did, He did in the first place in order that what was spoken concerning Him in the prophets might be fulfilled, that the blind should receive sight, and the deaf hear, and so on; but also to induce the belief that in the resurrection the flesh shall rise entire. For if on earth He healed the sicknesses of the flesh, and made the body whole, much more will He do this in the resurrection, so that the flesh shall rise perfect and entire. In this manner, then, shall those dreaded difficulties of theirs be healed. (St. Justin Martyr, On the Resurrection, 4)

While Justin refers explicitly to those who say the resurrection is nonsense since if the body rises then a person with only one eye would rise with one eye, or someone who lost a limb would rise without that limb--Justin argues instead that there is a full restoration of the body. The body is raised in perfection.

While this doesn't relate directly to the matter of atoms in the ground, I think we can apply Justin's thinking here all the same. Just because when the body dies and decays, with atoms becoming food of worms and beetles, or feeding grass and trees, etc--none of that actually matters when it comes to the resurrection.

In our modern knowledge of science we know that even over the course of our lives the atoms which made up our bodies at our birth have been completely replaced within a manner of years--so that even the body while alive now recycles atoms and yet the body still remains the body. Why should it, therefore, be any difficulty for the Creator of time and space to raise the body up even though the constituent matter had long been recycled throughout the earth? The same God who gave sight to the blind, made the lame to walk, and commanded the dead to wake up is the God who will cause our own bodies to rise.

Even though our bodies have become dust, spread across the face of the planet--even still these bodies shall rise according to the will of the God who raised up Jesus from the dead.

It's simply no difficulty for the Maker of Heaven and Earth.

Bradskii · 2026-02-17T23:13:42-0600

Aldebaran said:
What nonsense? I'm simply attempting to engage you in the conversation regarding something that you said. Shall I not address the content of your own post?

This is what he said: Trump pledges sweeping tariffs, says they will keep jobs in US

"We're putting America first," Trump said. "This new American industrialism will create millions and millions of jobs."

That wasn't the truth. We know that because it didn't happen, isn't happening right now and will not happen. For umpteen reasons that I can't be bothered to repeat (I'm certain that you've heard them all) because you'd just hand wave them away. And not only has he not created them, you are going backwards: NEW DATA: During Trump’s First Year, the Manufacturing Industry Lost 108,000 Jobs - NEW DATA: During Trump’s First Year, the Manufacturing Industry Lost 108,000 Jobs - United States Joint Economic Committee

'...the manufacturing industry lost 108,000 jobs during the first year of President Trump’s second term. This new estimate shows that the manufacturing sector has lost even more than the 68,000 jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics previously estimated.'

When are you guys going to wake up and see what's happening? How long can you keep denying the undeniable? Nobody admits admitting that they were wrong. But one gets to a point where not doing so seems almost perverse.

bbbbbbb · 2026-02-17T23:05:05-0600

lot more genuine Christians.

Without Christians . . .

The Liturgist · 2026-02-17T23:04:39-0600

jas3 said:
Bringing the Roman rite liturgy back in line with tradition would be a significant step, but the current handling of the SSPX situation seems to indicate Pope Leo isn't going to be the one to do that.

Amen to that, and yes, sadly Pope Leo has given no indication of wanting to undo any of the suffering caused to traditional Catholics who were not even a part of the SSPX by Traditiones Custodes.

Bradskii · 2026-02-17T23:04:30-0600

Vambram said:
Or we can know that you appear to be seeing everything through a progressive left wing liberal belief system.

See what I meant about more examples of gross ineptitude?

bbbbbbb · 2026-02-17T23:03:53-0600

Exhaled breath condenses quite quickly.

The Liturgist · 2026-02-17T23:03:26-0600

Bro.T said:
So this meeting, and Paul’s preaching, took place during the time that we now call Saturday night.

Even if that were true, which it is not, its also a red herring, since the preaching in question still happened on the First Day according to how days were reckoned.

So that proves nothing, since what we now regard ad Saturday Night, they regarded as the eve of the First Day, and thus, the first day is the first day.

However, we know that the descent of the Holy Spirit occurred in the morning of Sunday, because, well, Scripture:

Let’s take a look at Acts chapter 2:

5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans?8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[b] 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”

13 Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.” 14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:….

In some Bible translations, this is rendered as the third hour, which in antiquity in the Greek language, in which Acts was written, referred to the third hour from sunrise. The third hour is usually around 9 AM, hence the translation in question rendering it as such.

But let us say instead it was the third hour after sunset. Well, it would (a) still be Sunday, but (b) St. Peter’s remark would make no sense at all, since by the third hour after sunset, many people are quite drunk indeed, especially in mid May, when the Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost happened.

Bradskii · 2026-02-17T23:02:59-0600

Vambram said:
The people who most often attempt to defend the indefensible are, in my opinion, undoubtedly progressive left wing liberals.

Well, don't join that group by trying to do the same.

Bradskii · 2026-02-17T23:02:02-0600

MrMoe said:
That still wouldn’t make her statement correct. You’re only making her stupidity more evident.

From here: Is Venezuela Below the Equator or Just Close Enough to Cause Confusion?

'Contrary to popular belief, Venezuela is still completely above the equator and is distinctly located in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit very near to that invisible midpoint that circles the Earth.'

It's about the same distance as say Colorado is from Mexico. But hey, at least AOC would know that. So calling her stupid in this case would mean that anyone who thought Colorado actually bordered Mexico would be even more stupid. Especially if they were American. So...do you want to go with that argument?

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Latest activity

Latest activity

Tit for Tat Tariffs - The US versus the World​

Carney constructs a mega anti-Trump trade alliance​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Tit for Tat Tariffs - The US versus the World

Carney constructs a mega anti-Trump trade alliance