Guy Chamberlin

7 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Everyone is still an a$$h@!e over there. Hamas sucks, the IDF sucks, and normal people are caught in the middle of the war machines.

True. It's the normal people who always get blown up. 

On 4/2/2024 at 7:20 AM, TGHusker said:

 

 

All this begs the Question:

Why oh why can't this great country full of highly qualified people not provide a better slate of candidates? 

 

 

If you're smart and bring a keen understanding of both politics and media, why would you want the job?

I'm a huge believer in logic and reason and the ultimate power of truth, but I honestly believe half of this country is under a spell right now.

And it didn't used to be that way. 

I'd like to point out that opposition to Israel's prosecution of Gaza has quickly moved from the Wacky Left to the mainstream position, with a lot of people brushing up on their Mideast history.  

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

The support continues to dwindle not grow.  It was never anecdotal evidence it was just evidence.  

 

My 2024 lines:

 

JB:  Over 308 Electoral Votes

JB: Over 76 Million votes

DT:  Under 225 Electoral Votes

DT:  Under 61 Million votes

Non-anecdotal evidence also tracks the dwindling support for Biden. It will be a race to the bottom.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/02/biden-support-black-hispanic-young-voters-poll/72086014007/

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Tell me how you imagine my answer then I will.  

Read it again. I said "You make it sound like your answer would be worse than we already imagined" because you literally declined to post it for public consumption. 

I'm saying I can't imagine it would be worse than the thousands of posts you didn't prefer to take to DMs.

Prove me wrong!

25 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

A reminder to not post drunk.

 

Can you repost this word salad tomorrow, preferably when you're sober?

In fairness, I have occasionally accused Teach of stretching anecdotes into facts, and possibly making them up entirely.  But I'm gonna stick by it. 

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Yes.   It’s a story of yours from decades ago that may or may not be true.  I believe you but others may not.  
 

Back to the question though.   You mentioned your pals have changed thought processes as they got older and quit the young casual sex scene.   Did the abortions take place within the timefram that they currently support?  Maybe their views haven’t changed on abortion, but other views have become more conservative and you just don’t like which politicians they support.  

You believe me. But other's may not. Thanks for your alleged concern. Jesus. 

I haven't talked to my friends about the old abortion days. Honestly don't know what time frame they currently support. Some might identify as conservative and Christian, but maintain a pro-choice stance that recalls their own past and own choices. So maybe some of their views on abortion haven't changed. Maybe I just don't like the politicians they support. 

But that's the point. Whether they have changed their views on abortion or not, they continue to vote for politicians who are reshaping the Supreme Court and advancing stricter state abortion laws than we once thought possible. It's easier to support these new abortion restrictions -- or shrug them off as the price of owning the libs -- if you no longer face the consequences themselves.

It's a pretty simple observation, admittedly anecdotal, and there are plenty examples of aging libs forgetting where they came from, too. 

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

Nope, but excellent try and twisting things around.  It is on you,  for doing that.  
 

How do already imagine my answer?  

All this would be easily answered if you answered the f#&%ing question. Straight up. No twist. 

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

That would a question for your friends and it would depend on when the alleged abortions they paid for took place.  

Did you really just say "alleged abortions?"

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I’m fine explaining in public, but certain posters here will take words out of context in order to twist them into something it’s not in hopes a mod finds that innocent discussion possibly skirts board rules.  

That's the very opposite of being fine explaining it in public.

How exactly would your Easter response be any different than the dozens of politically heated posts you make every week without Mod intervention?

You make it sound like your answer would be worse than we already imagined. And yet, totally innocent.

That's on you, Arch. Not me.  

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Wait till the poster understands how many innocents Obama blew to pieces with drones. 

Neither Republicans nor Democrats quite knew what to do with that fact. 

19 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I won’t be trying to answer it either in this forum because of the risk of others taking words out of context, trying to get me banned which often has happened.  Maybe though a private DM we could discuss, but otherwise I will pass.  

So you are afraid of explaining why Trans Visibility conflicts with Easter in public. 

Boy, if that doesn't tell the story. 

9 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Knapp and @Guy Chamberlin

I think the below quote applies to both of your posts.   The older I get, the more loving and accepting I see God the Father.  For Jesus said he was a reflection of who God really is - "He who has seen me has seen the Father".   A great book along those lines is Brad Jersak's "A More Christ-like God- A More Beautiful Gospel" - gets rid of the false image of the revengeful, angry, retributive god of bad theology which affects too much of western theology but not all of Christianity  (A theology which led to the Dark Ages and was a form of political control when Rome and the church at the time were tied at the hip).   Jersak's other book "Her Gates will Never Shut" also gives a more hopeful picture of 'end things'  - a more hopeful viewpoint that most of the church in the first 3-4 centuries  held before Govt and Religion united to control people.  (Thus the reason I'm so opposed to Trump's Cult)

 

 

Luke 14 The Parable of the Great Banquet

vs 10-26

But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests.  For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid.  But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,  and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Then one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, “Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.” Jesus replied: “A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests.  At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’

 “But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’

 “Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’

 “Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can’t come.’

 “The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame. (TG: Taking editorial liberty: bring in those consider outcast by the self righteous - The LGBTQ.., the illegal or legal immigrant, _)

 “‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’

 “Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full. I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’”

I appreciate the parable, although there's still a lot of anger and I dare say revenge. I don't see why you shouldn't invite some neighbors and outcasts to the same meal and treat them equally. That would be a nice lesson. Maybe the guy trying to sell his oxen could make a different date. The banquet-giver is pretty thin-skinned in this parable. 

But I do share your bigger picture TGH. The Old Testament used a lot of fear, which the Church was happy to exert in the name of control.  Jesus' gospel of love and forgiveness often seems at odds with God's earlier word, but as the fount of Christianity it is a wonderful blueprint for how we should all live. You certainly don't have to be Christian to appreciate Jesus' teachings.  

46 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Which pro life politics are they supporting?  No access to abortion? Limited access to abortion after a certain timeframe?  If so what is the timeframe these peers are supporting? 
 

In general, what was the timeframe of when these procedures took place in relation to conception?  Does it coincide with their current timeframe policies these peers support? Or have thought processes changed? 
 

Is the child happy he/she was born? 

Many if not most are all-in on right wing candidates (basically just Republicans) lobbying for conditions and timeframes they did not face back when they were fertile. But to your point -- if abortion is represented as a state voter referendum, a lot of these people would support more leniency than their elected officials, and perhaps the Supreme Court itself. 

Have their thought processes changed? Or is it just easier to ban abortion when you're long out of bar crawling and child-bearing years? As a Christian do you prefer a return to a pre-Roe world where abortion was nearly as common, but illegal and less safe, especially for the underclass?

I don't know if the kid who didn't get aborted is happy he was born. I guess he could turn into Mozart or Hitler any day now. 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

………As President I said so.  We can give you even more Visibility on one the other upcoming 35 LGBTQIA days if you feel slighted” 

 

No reason to try and get bonus points because I already aced the quiz and I never claimed Jesus would. 
 

Well, I wouldn’t feel the need to explain anything to them as there are already many, many, many days on the calendar that carve them out for recognition.  I would also maybe laugh at them for thinking it was because I was “afraid of Christians”.  Then I would go call their attempt at  mocking as “rage farming” 

 

It’s a shame those days didn’t get their due as they only get 1 a year 

You never answered why Trans Visibility conflicts with Easter, a holiday the President also honored in a much larger way. 

Ironically, this outrage has spurred the most visible Trans Visibility Day March 31 has ever seen!

But squeezing it into "one of the other upcoming 35 LGBTQIA days" sounds like you're not interested in giving it visibility at all, and are indeed mocking it. Which we knew all along. So A) was clearly not your choice, and you should have gone with B) don't write any proclamation at all. 

BTW, did you know that Robert Bunsen, inventor of the Bunsen Burner was a eugenicist and pedophile? 

I have watched a lot of my peers grow up, grow conservative, prominently identify themselves as Christian and support anti-abortion politics.

Because we grew up together, I knew the girls who got the abortions and the guys who knocked them up. Most were decent if not religious guys, who drove the girl to the clinic and paid the $240 for the abortion. Most of the girls didn't blame them, and I'm not sure if they even consulted them on the decision. We're mostly talking about 18 - 22 year olds. One guy married the girl, became a dad at 19 and had a very unhappy marriage for a few years. Otherwise I don't recall any discussion about getting married and having a kid, and zero of the couples involved remained together for long. I don't know the psychological effect on either the women or the men, but life quickly went on. 

Perhaps there was a lesson on fertility, shared responsibility, and love that could have been learned if the couples had been forced to raise a child. But I do wonder if my 65 year old Republican friends can recall the situation their 19 year old selves faced, and if they would accept that life-changing decision being made for them. Or anyone else. 

18 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

for #1) this kinda is how I view it too.

 

He coulda also said “hey, in honor of the upcoming Easter Holiday, we are gonna proclaim this day on Saturday this year while also remembering the 25 other days of remembrance coming up later in the year. 
 

For #3) if we are gonna make a funny, then It’s not very inclusive of him to deny a press release about all the other days of remembrance if we are going for inclusiveness. 
 

Care to write that proclamation up? "We are moving Trans Visibility Day up a day because......."

Bonus points for figuring out why Jesus Christ of all people would find greater acceptance of marginalized people offensive. And while you have your spin doctor hat on, how would you explain to LGBT advocates that you were afraid of Christians in a way that wouldn't also have you mocked. 

Obviously National Bunsen Burner Day deserves no proclamation. But had Biden signed off on Ceasar Chavez/National Farm Workers Day, there would have been a s#!tstorm, too. At this point the conservative outrage machine requires no special day to get its panties in a bunch. 

Just to be clear: March 31 has been Trans Visibility Day for the past 15 years. 

Mike Johnson and others are saying it's outrageous that it occurred on Easter, and blames Biden for making it so. When offered that accusation during an Easter Egg Roll, Biden claims he didn't schedule TVD during Easter. Which is basically true as he inherited the day --- but he did sign the proclamation. Now we're supposed to clutch our pearls that this is either totally disingenuous, or classic Biden forgetfulness.

So let's look at the choices:

1) Biden or a staff member notices that the 2024 TVD falls on Easter, and breaks the 15 year precedent by having the organization schedule it for another day. Because obviously............Christians would be offended? Because......trans visibility is anti-Christian? Because you don't want to alienate the people who already hate you in an election year?  Hey, thanks for the support, Joe.

2) Biden refuses to sign any trans proclamation. 

3) Biden just rolls with it as he did, thinking the Trans community deserves the recognition, and nobody would notice that in addition to it being Easter this year, March 31 was also:

• Anesthesia Tech Day 
• Cesar Chavez Day - March 31, 2024 (Usually on March 31st)
• Dance Marathon Day 
• Easter Sunday - March 31, 2024
• Eiffel Tower Day 
• International Hug a Medievalist Day 
• International Transgender Day of Visibility 
• National Baked Ham with Pineapple Day - March 31, 2024 (Same Day as Easter)
• National Bunsen Burner Day 
• National Clams on the Half Shell Day 
• National Crayon Day 
• National Farm Workers Day 
• National Prom Day 
• National She's Funny That Way 
• Tater Day 
• Transfer Day - (U.S. Virgin Islands)
• World Backup Day

13 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The whole thing is just weird.  Jenner becomes transgender and does quite a bit to try to educate people on the issues and the process.

 

MAGA shows that they are extreme anti trans.

 

Jenner then sides with them on the issue.  It's like she's caught in this weird black hole of MAGA and is totally sold on Trump so she has to go against everything she's worked for since coming out.  Then, you have MAGA and right wing media that love her.....even though they detest trans people...because she saying all the things they want her to say.

 

They always have that token black guy standing behind Trump and rallies.  Well, this is very similar.  She's their token transexual so they can be at parties and say...."I have a friend that's tran".

If Caitlynn has inspired others to be their true selves, that's great. If your true self happens to be a Republican on everything but trans acceptance......I can get that, too. But to my eye, Caitlynn Jenner has more in common with the vapid attention-craving Kardashian-spawning LA reality show world than she does with civil rights pioneers. 

Is that too catty of me? 

3 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

An expected response, but from an unexpected source ... but thanks for your pov.

 

You evidently didn't read the thousands of replies to any X user that posted an Easter vs TDV 

 

 

No, I get the vitriol aimed at Jenner and aggrieved defenders of Easter.  I'm just saying that it all started with trumped up Easter vs TDV outrage against Biden, spread by Jenner among others. Doesn't seem fair to stick one side with the vitriol label. 

Is this hilarious and hypocritical because you think liberals would be so conflicted over Caitlyn Jenner's trans status that they would abandon their position on the actual issue?  

1 hour ago, commando said:

if anyone is holding any stock in truth central.....dump it ASAP while you can still get something for it

Still a good chance some friends of Trump as well as international influence brokers will be able to funnel a billion or two to Trump that he will likely spend with zero concern for the common stock holder. 

28 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Pete can and did run circles around Biden (and the rest) but establishment Ds wanted no part of that so they squashed him.

 

Any sources for the quoted above?

 

The establishment Dems asked both Pete and Amy Klobuchar to drop out prior to Super Tuesday so the party could coalesce around Joe Biden and defeat frontrunner Bernie Sanders. They didn't learn on Elizabeth Warren figuring she would take votes from Sanders. Biden only became viable after he won the South Carolina primary. I think if Buttegieg had broken out of that pack, the Dems might have run with him. But Pete wasn't running circles around anyone, otherwise he would have polled better. He did surprisingly well given his liabilities -- probably less around being gay than his resume as a small city mayor.  The establishment Ds most definitely wanted to squash Bernie Sanders. 

The source of my RFK Jr. observation? Well just click on the Tweets and memes and links of the folks advocating for his candidacy, and within seconds you'll find their true leanings. It shouldn't be surprising that Republicans want Democrats to vote for RFK Jr. 

3 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

I dunno man...but it's hilarious they dog Jenner, on Trans Visibility Day, cuz Caitlin is conservative. Those same folks were spewing vitriol in the Easter vs Visibility day...lol

Not sure you have the irony in the right place. If the issue is trans representation, and one of the most prominent trans spokespeople reverses their position to pump a debunked partisan meme, it's entirely reasonable to ask Jenner why she's carrying water for a party that would prefer she remain invisible. 

Just want to be clear who you think was spewing the vitriol in this hilarious situation.  

And among an Easter Morning vomit of 41 unhinged Truth Social posts, billionaire con man and Roman Emperor admirer Donald Trump compared his plight to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.