• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Bondi Attorney General

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
30,051
17,860
Here
✟1,583,336.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So it seems that it's her womanish qualities that bug you, not the lying and lawlessness?
There's plenty of women who don't behave the way she did, so I wouldn't attribute those negative qualities to women as a whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,989
7,791
71
Midwest
✟405,369.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So it seems that it's her womanish qualities that bug you, not the lying and lawlessness?
That comment is offensive to women.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
31,042
13,997
78
✟466,691.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
1771186159862.png
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,989
7,791
71
Midwest
✟405,369.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
shrill, overly-defensive, whiney, combative, and unprofessional ...and unable to internalize and process criticism in a constructive way.”

In your world those are “womanish qualities “?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
43,254
20,856
Finger Lakes
✟352,938.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
shrill, overly-defensive, whiney, combative, and unprofessional ...and unable to internalize and process criticism in a constructive way.”

In your world those are “womanish qualities “?
No, those are qualities he seems to ascribe to us, not all sugar and spice.
 
Upvote 0

askesis

Active Member
Dec 17, 2025
156
121
East Coast
✟7,474.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No, those are qualities he seems to ascribe to us, not all sugar and spice.
Thankfully, the qualities we ascribe or do not ascribe to women are not relevant when the DOW is over 50,000.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
30,051
17,860
Here
✟1,583,336.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No, those are qualities he seems to ascribe to us, not all sugar and spice.
I associated those negative qualities to Pam Bondi and my ex... at no point did a link those qualities to women as a whole.

In fact, in my reply, I made that pretty clear.

1771209710640.png
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
43,254
20,856
Finger Lakes
✟352,938.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
43,233
24,046
US
✟1,835,561.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Someone needs to explain to me how taking any number of billionaires out of the system will destroy it. They're money isn't going anywhere...it's just going to wind up with some other billionaire.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
31,042
13,997
78
✟466,691.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Someone needs to explain to me how taking any number of billionaires out of the system will destroy it. They're money isn't going anywhere...it's just going to wind up with some other billionaire.
Sounds very much like some terrified rich people are trying to convince us that we can't hold them accountable because something awful will happen to us.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
30,051
17,860
Here
✟1,583,336.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Someone needs to explain to me how taking any number of billionaires out of the system will destroy it. They're money isn't going anywhere...it's just going to wind up with some other billionaire.
If you're referring to the uber rich people in the Epstein files and the comments about how "if we prosecuted everyone in there, it would cripple the system" then I'd agree...we can do without Bill Gates, and the CEO of Victoria's Secret, etc...

However, if it really were a case where every billionaire in the country was implicated, and we had to lock them all up, then that would be a major dispruption.

I'm not saying that's a good reason not to lock them up, if they did the crime, they should do the time...but there are potential externalities.

If it turns out the 10 smartest rocket scientists in our country were kid diddlers, we should definitely lock them up (or just toss them in the wood chipper, I'm fine either way), but the country's rocket science programs would undoubtedly suffer as a result.

That's where we we need to weigh principle vs. prosperity/power, and agree on a balance.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
30,051
17,860
Here
✟1,583,336.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Sounds very much like some terrified rich people are trying to convince us that we can't hold them accountable because something awful will happen to us.
I mean, to a degree, they're not wrong.

But we have to draw red lines somewhere. (I'd say engaging in pedo activities is well past that red line)

But the lines can be blurry in some cases.

If we were in a cyber war with China, and our top 5 technical assets in the country all got popped for DUI and collectively said "If you bust us for this and take our licenses away, then screw you guys, you're on your own, we'll stop doing IT stuff tomorrow", if I were in a position of presidential authority, I'd be inclined to weigh the pros/cons and perhaps let it slide.

But stuff involving the sexual abuse of minors is a bridge too far, and I'd rather let the country burn (and take them down in the process) before I'd let people like that off the hook.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
43,233
24,046
US
✟1,835,561.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
However, if it really were a case where every billionaire in the country was implicated, and we had to lock them all up, then that would be a major dispruption.

I'm not saying that's a good reason not to lock them up, if they did the crime, they should do the time...but there are potential externalities.

If it turns out the 10 smartest rocket scientists in our country were kid diddlers, we should definitely lock them up (or just toss them in the wood chipper, I'm fine either way), but the country's rocket science programs would undoubtedly suffer as a result.

That's where we we need to weigh principle vs. prosperity/power, and agree on a balance.
Which billionaires who had time to spend on Epstein's island can't be replaced? They aren't rocket scientists.

Explain the "suffering mechanism" to me.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
30,051
17,860
Here
✟1,583,336.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Which billionaires who had time to spend on Epstein's island can't be replaced? They aren't rocket scientists.

Explain the "suffering mechanism" to me.
In the case of the billionaires that were involved with Epstein, none should be left off the hook, and none were irreplaceable (and even if they were irreplaceable, the particular crimes are past the red line per my previous post).

By your earlier statement of
"Someone needs to explain to me how taking any number of billionaires out of the system will destroy it."

I assumed you were just speaking about the concept in the realm of generalities with regards to the government "looking the other way" if a person is providing a rare skillset or service that can't be easily found anywhere else.

There are examples of this happening in our past.


...and the government made that type of calculation. On paper, those former Nazi scientists (many of whom were SS) should have been up against a wall with the rest of them for their involvement in the Holocaust. However, the government made the decision to give them jobs here and overlook past transgressions (some particularly egregious ones at that) in the interest of expediting our rocket programs in anticipation of the cold war.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
43,233
24,046
US
✟1,835,561.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In the case of the billionaires that were involved with Epstein, none should be left off the hook, and none were irreplaceable (and even if they were irreplaceable, the particular crimes are past the red line per my previous post).

By your earlier statement of
"Someone needs to explain to me how taking any number of billionaires out of the system will destroy it."

I assumed you were just speaking about the concept in the realm of generalities with regards to the government "looking the other way" if a person is providing a rare skillset or service that can't be easily found anywhere else.

There are examples of this happening in our past.


...and the government made that type of calculation. On paper, those former Nazi scientists (many of whom were SS) should have been up against a wall with the rest of them for their involvement in the Holocaust. However, the government made the decision to give them jobs here and overlook past transgressions (some particularly egregious ones at that) in the interest of expediting our rocket programs in anticipation of the cold war.
You're still talking about rocket scientists, not billionaires.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
30,051
17,860
Here
✟1,583,336.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You're still talking about rocket scientists, not billionaires.
If you're referring strictly to billionaires, then I'd suggest that our Tech billionaires are pretty integral.

If they were all removed (for some criminal infraction) tomorrow, it would drastically destabilize markets and give foreign companies a more competitive edge.

Still noting: The kinds of crimes involving the Epstein stuff is way past the red line for any of those countervailing interest calculations to be made.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Call Me Al
Mar 11, 2017
24,511
17,998
56
USA
✟464,240.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
If you're referring to the uber rich people in the Epstein files and the comments about how "if we prosecuted everyone in there, it would cripple the system" then I'd agree...we can do without Bill Gates, and the CEO of Victoria's Secret, etc...

However, if it really were a case where every billionaire in the country was implicated, and we had to lock them all up, then that would be a major dispruption.
They aren't billionaires because only they know the secret frozen banana recipe. They have that kind of money because the own/created/run large companies. Those companies have C-suite executives, etc. Would there be some short term disruption to the company? Of course, but I can't think of a single billionaire whose existence is worth anything like $1B.
I'm not saying that's a good reason not to lock them up, if they did the crime, they should do the time...but there are potential externalities.

If it turns out the 10 smartest rocket scientists in our country were kid diddlers, we should definitely lock them up (or just toss them in the wood chipper, I'm fine either way), but the country's rocket science programs would undoubtedly suffer as a result.

That's where we we need to weigh principle vs. prosperity/power, and agree on a balance.
I find your amorality disturbing.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
30,051
17,860
Here
✟1,583,336.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I find your amorality disturbing.
I said we should lock them up (or the wood chipper), so it's not me who makes those kinds of decisions.

I simply noted that the government has already made those types of morally questionable trade-off calculations in the past.

Our rocket programs were developed by Nazi scientists who were given a pass on their past crimes against humanity in order for the US to expedite it's rocket programs in the lead up to the cold war era.

In the case of the former SS scientists and engineers, not only did they get a pass on their previous crimes, they got high paying government jobs from the US.

They aren't billionaires because only they know the secret frozen banana recipe. They have that kind of money because the own/created/run large companies. Those companies have C-suite executives, etc. Would there be some short term disruption to the company? Of course, but I can't think of a single billionaire whose existence is worth anything like $1B.

Apple would be good example (though they made a comeback)

When Steve Jobs got pushed out in the 80's, the company spent a decade in virtual irrelevance and decline and almost went out of business. When they brought him (and his vision) back to the company in the 90's, it rose back to the status of being one of the most influential companies on the planet.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0