Attorney General Warns of 'Militant Secular Effort' to Drive Out Religion

Observer-Effect comments on Feb 4, 2020:

Poor Christians, always being picked on.

Paul4747 replies on Feb 4, 2020:

Bloody peasants!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2c-X8HiBng

Trump's defenders in the impeachment trial argued that we are too close to an election to remove a ...

Trajan61 comments on Feb 3, 2020:

The founding fathers created the electoral college to prevent cities with large populations from dominating the government. Don’t count on the looney democraps winning another popular vote majority especially since they seem to have drifted sharply to the left.

Paul4747 replies on Feb 4, 2020:

@Trajan61 The candidate who has told over 16,000 documented lies since taking office is "by far the better candidate" in your book... and you seem to think Hillary Clinton is corrupt. Somehow. Probably (judging by your use of the same nickname) because Trump said so. The same guy who, as aforementioned, has told over 16,000 documented lies since taking office. I suppose, if a slim majority of Americans have the same cognitive dissonance as you, or if the same freak of electoral college math works again, he just might win- but it won't be any landslide. Of course, he'll claim it was, despite the facts, but that's just Trump. Your boy is a liar. It's proven. He lies more than anyone. He lies about his lies. He's unrepentant about his lies. It's proven by multiple sources, thousands of times, ever since he became a public figure, long before he started running for president. If you're okay with that, then I question whether you yourself recognize truth.

In this world we are hearing of the evil of terrorism.

AnneWimsey comments on Feb 3, 2020:

Think: a lone Early Man had pretty much zero chance of survival and/or reproducing. In a group, chances were 100% better. We are hard-wired to "belong" IMO

Paul4747 replies on Feb 4, 2020:

@Gwendolyn2018 It's true they've managed to drive out many other, better stores. Sorry it's happened in your town.

In this world we are hearing of the evil of terrorism.

AnneWimsey comments on Feb 3, 2020:

Think: a lone Early Man had pretty much zero chance of survival and/or reproducing. In a group, chances were 100% better. We are hard-wired to "belong" IMO

Paul4747 replies on Feb 4, 2020:

@Gwendolyn2018 Please don't go to Walmart; they're union busters. :( Or, go there. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to live.

In this world we are hearing of the evil of terrorism.

Pompey comments on Feb 3, 2020:

Can someone please define terrorism? It's used fast and loose in media, so I just want to be clear as to what I'm discussing. Here's what I think is a workable definition and is what I'm going to use as my basis" "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the...

Paul4747 replies on Feb 4, 2020:

I prefer this description: "Terrorism is the use of intentional violence for political or religious purposes. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in context of war against non-combatants." Note that violence against non-combatants is inherently unlawful (for instance, see the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions), as is violence in peacetime against anyone, including military forces (example: the attack on the USS Cole). Interestingly, this makes the strikes on Iraq's presidential palaces in 2003 (without a declaration of hostilities) by the United States a terrorist act, specifically, an assassination attempt. Hmm. Of course, I said that at the time, and nobody gave a crap.

In this world we are hearing of the evil of terrorism.

beenthere comments on Feb 3, 2020:

It gets kind of lonely when one is not a part of a tribe or a group of people.

Paul4747 replies on Feb 4, 2020:

*Au contraire, mon ami*, I find I've realized how all tribes are functionally identical and equal. Each claims to be the best, yet from their behavior it's hard to see how one is much different from the others. Being a loner has distinct advantages.

Trump's defenders in the impeachment trial argued that we are too close to an election to remove a ...

Trajan61 comments on Feb 3, 2020:

The founding fathers created the electoral college to prevent cities with large populations from dominating the government. Don’t count on the looney democraps winning another popular vote majority especially since they seem to have drifted sharply to the left.

Paul4747 replies on Feb 4, 2020:

"Democrats". It's spelled "Democrats". And thank you for providing an example of the utter lack of civility on your side, in that you can't even show enough respect to spell the opposing party's name. Even Reagan, as horrible an example as he was, as terrible the trend his administration set for the next 40 years of trickle-down economics, didn't belittle his opponents that way. Also, according to the popular vote, Hillary is President as well. More people voted for her, in spite of Trump's continued denial and insistence that it was all voter fraud- allegations that have been disproved time and again. It's a fluke of the Electoral College that put Trump in office, and it's doubtful that it will be repeated in our lifetimes.

A Nashville Art School Will Purge All Non-Christian Faculty Now That It Has Been Taken Over by a ...

linxminx comments on Feb 2, 2020:

I was educated to understand that the first explorers (which is debatable) to America came to start a new civilization that was meant for freedom of religion. Which meant that a ruling body could not dictate what religion (or lack thereof) one would have. I feel, at that point in history, ...

Paul4747 replies on Feb 2, 2020:

That's what they *want you* to think.... ;)

A Nashville Art School Will Purge All Non-Christian Faculty Now That It Has Been Taken Over by a ...

ArthurK comments on Feb 2, 2020:

Now now they don't want any non-of-their-kind-of-Christians doing art. And the law, (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) allows discrimination on the basis of religion if the organizations purpose and character are primarily religious. I once thought I would apply for an adjunct teaching ...

Paul4747 replies on Feb 2, 2020:

@Imatheistically "Right to work" is, of course, a scam. It was a brilliant catch phrase thought up by anti-Union forces. It's the "right to work" without joining a union; except that the union is what protects you from arbitrary firing and gets you better wages- 3% higher in non-RTW states. It's gotten even better recently- the laws in several states have fixed it so that the unions have to represent you, even if you decline to pay dues. And the courts have upheld this. Just one more step in trying to dismantle the unions.

I can't say I'm very shocked by these comments, but it does make me wonder how these people could ...

Gwendolyn2018 comments on Feb 2, 2020:

As horrible as this is, I would almost guarantee that there are hardcore, hateful atheists that would advocate for the extermination of fundie Xtians.

Paul4747 replies on Feb 2, 2020:

Extermination? I'm dubious on that score. I've never encountered an atheist or agnostic who wanted to kill anyone over religion. Re-education... that's another story. If it were up to me, I would subject fundamentalists of all stripes to a course of science, mythology, and comparative religious studies until they realize that their beliefs are stuck in the Middle Ages.

Coronavirus is a punishment from God: Conservative Christian TV Host Rick Wiles claims that the ...

xenoview comments on Jan 29, 2020:

Coronavirus is a mutated virus, that could be natures way of controlling the human population.

Paul4747 replies on Feb 2, 2020:

@xenoview Which brings us back to my original comment... there is no intentionality in nature, merely the appearance which we perceive there.

I'm very curious why some men want to cum on a woman's face?

wrrider100 comments on Jan 31, 2020:

By the way...it is not deviant behavior...

Paul4747 replies on Feb 2, 2020:

@Cabsmom Probably right about that.

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

Paul4747 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

It doesn't really matter to me who Trump wants. The point is, *I*'m against a lot of Sanders' (and Warren's) proposals. Let's take "Medicare For All". How do you pay for it? What will it cover? Why *must* I give up my employer-paid health care, if the government plan isn't better? My union went ...

Paul4747 replies on Feb 1, 2020:

@RoboGraham I'm just about done with this, but for the last time: *Trump did not "win people"* in the last election. Trump **lost** *the popular vote*. Come on!! *He lost the popular vote*. He also won by a smaller margin in the electoral college in my lifetime than anyone except Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, and (surprise) G. W. Bush. How has the Democratic Party been "failing people for years"? Bill Clinton: the longest sustained economic expansion in world history. A balanced budget and a surplus, for crying out loud. (Which the Republicans gave away with tax cuts to the rich.) Barack Obama: lead us out of the worst recession since the 1930s, nearly a depression. Gets no credit for it. Trump may have promised to bring jobs back, but the first 2 years were still Obama's recovery. The economy has been on autopilot. It was Trump's to ride out. And in fact, he didn't keep his promises. He promised 4% growth every year and it hasn't even been close. The new NAFTA won't bring a single job back; it's an illusion. Ask an economist. Just as the trade war with China isn't going to make a dime for us. The problem is, as I quoted before, that people believe the lies of the Republicans repeated loud and long on their pet network Faux News, and don't research it for themselves. The other problem is that it takes longer to build than to destroy. 8 years of Democratic administrations (with Republicans fighting tooth and nail against us) can't build up as fast as the Reagan, Bush (twice) and now Trump administrations tear down. It's easy to concentrate money and power at the top. It's hard to build up the middle class again after 50 years of decline. We need to have patience and faith and support our party.

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

Paul4747 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

It doesn't really matter to me who Trump wants. The point is, *I*'m against a lot of Sanders' (and Warren's) proposals. Let's take "Medicare For All". How do you pay for it? What will it cover? Why *must* I give up my employer-paid health care, if the government plan isn't better? My union went ...

Paul4747 replies on Feb 1, 2020:

@RoboGraham But centrists outside the Democratic party will be alienated by someone who seems too far out of the mainstream. And depend upon it; the Republican party will make it their business to point out everything that Sanders has ever said, done, or voted for that paints him in any way as a "Far Left Socialist". Turning out the Democrat vote is only half the battle. We have to win the independents and mobilize the uninterested, without giving the the other side something to demonize us with at the same time. Democrats will vote against Trump this cycle. We need to be sure not to give independents someone to fear and vote against.

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

Paul4747 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

It doesn't really matter to me who Trump wants. The point is, *I*'m against a lot of Sanders' (and Warren's) proposals. Let's take "Medicare For All". How do you pay for it? What will it cover? Why *must* I give up my employer-paid health care, if the government plan isn't better? My union went ...

Paul4747 replies on Feb 1, 2020:

@RoboGraham I think what Varn meant was, Clinton 2016 won more votes than any other candidate in that election. She won the popular vote. It was a fluke of the Electoral College that gave us Trump. "Perhaps if, for once, the democrats would get behind a populist progressive lock step, we can win. If we try the same failed strategy of running a corporatist centrist again, we will have the same result, more Trump." Or, here's another thought, if those whose candidate doesn't win the primaries just *suck it up and vote Democrat*. Centrists will vote for Sanders, *if* he gets the nod, because the goal here is to get a Democrat in the White House. But will progressives do the same for Biden, or will they let their "consciences" stand in the way of reality again? I've lost count of how many liberals (as they claim) have said they voted for a third party, or stayed home, because they despised Hilary. I still can't work out how they're not kicking themselves. And yet they seem to feel justified in this... that it's the party's fault for not nominating someone more cuddly and progressive (whatever the hell that even *means*) rather than their own fault for not seeing that a vote for anyone other than Clinton was effectively a vote *for Trump*. Electoral politics is a zero-sum game. Votes don't magically appear from nowhere. If Democrats don't vote Democrat, we get a Republican. That's it. That's the lesson of history. We didn't learn it from Florida 2000 when 97,000 people decided to vote Nader and we lost the state by 537 votes; you would have thought we'd learn from 8 years of G. W. Bush never to do anything like that again. Apparently not. Progressive Democrats are so damn principled that they'd rather lose an election than vote for a Democrat they "despise", and win. Republicans have no such qualms. They're unprincipled bastards, apparently. So let's take a page from their book and *win an election*. The problem with progressive politics is that the best becomes the enemy of the good. Yes, a single payer system is ideal. But taking baby steps toward that system is good, and much better than nothing. Especially, it's better than the chimp we have now trying to repeal what we do have, which is the ACA.

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

Paul4747 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

It doesn't really matter to me who Trump wants. The point is, *I*'m against a lot of Sanders' (and Warren's) proposals. Let's take "Medicare For All". How do you pay for it? What will it cover? Why *must* I give up my employer-paid health care, if the government plan isn't better? My union went ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 31, 2020:

@RoboGraham The link was just to the fact checking source. What's wrong with the Post, now? Cost per capita would obviously be different than total cost, since we have a much larger population. That's not to say that cost per capita might not be lower, it very well may; and as I said, we might get a much better system. But these studies suggest we would pay for it. Now, the money going to actual health care rather than profits, is something I would be okay with- but it's one more reason the enemies of M4all would fight that much harder against it. And that money has to come from somewhere. "Taxing the rich" is a simplistic suggestion. There's moneys to be had there, yes: but not enough to fully fund the health care system. Will premiums be fixed, on an income-based system, a new payroll tax, what? I would support expanding the cap on payroll taxes (I've supported it for decades, actually)- in fact, we could remove it altogether. It could be graduated so that after a certain income level it goes back down, but there's always a minimum going to the social security/ medicare system (1.5%, let's say). That could solve a lot of the funding problems for both Social Security and Medicaid. Starting big and negotiating down is one strategy; but it also makes it much easier for your foes to portray you as an extremist and hang that label on you for the rest of the debate. "The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." We can see by Trump's career that this is as true today as it was in 1925. I want my party, for once, to *clearly* be the moderates and carry the day, and show up the Republicans as the reactionaries who are against any reform whatsoever.

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

Paul4747 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

It doesn't really matter to me who Trump wants. The point is, *I*'m against a lot of Sanders' (and Warren's) proposals. Let's take "Medicare For All". How do you pay for it? What will it cover? Why *must* I give up my employer-paid health care, if the government plan isn't better? My union went ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 31, 2020:

@RoboGraham Another issue is that Sanders' numbers are dubious. He likes the studies that say M4all will cost many trillions less. The Post fact-checker, though, says "It turned out that all but one of five major studies, from the left to the right, predict the Sanders plan would increase health spending, not reduce it. The author of the fifth predicts a decline but said Sanders’s statement is exaggerated." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/14/fact-checking-seventh-democratic-primary-debate/ Paying more to get more is one thing. But unless Sanders has long, long coattails, I foresee a difficult road for his plan getting through the legislature.

Coronavirus is a punishment from God: Conservative Christian TV Host Rick Wiles claims that the ...

xenoview comments on Jan 29, 2020:

Coronavirus is a mutated virus, that could be natures way of controlling the human population.

Paul4747 replies on Jan 31, 2020:

@Joanne The virus is only concerned with propagating its DNA, like any organism. All life engages in "arms races" with other species; predators evolve more efficient hunting tools, prey evolve to hide or evade or fight the predators. Animals evolve (or invent) resistance to disease; the virus organisms evolve to overcome those. If any one gets too far advanced beyond the other, it will radically deplete the opposed population, maybe even destroy it. So far as we know, however, humans are the only organisms who consciously control other populations.

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

Paul4747 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

It doesn't really matter to me who Trump wants. The point is, *I*'m against a lot of Sanders' (and Warren's) proposals. Let's take "Medicare For All". How do you pay for it? What will it cover? Why *must* I give up my employer-paid health care, if the government plan isn't better? My union went ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 31, 2020:

@RoboGraham The ACA was never touted as a path to single payer health care, because its opponents were so opposed to the government being *in any way* involved in health care. As a matter of their philosophy, the Republicans want to repeal Medicare for *anybody*, much less see it expand to Medicare for all. (They also want to do away with Social Security, but that's another discussion.) But even the most conservative voters tended to like the constituent pieces of the ACA (coverage for kids and young adult children, coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc.) until they heard it called "Obamacare". It's the name *Obama* they despised. And that still holds true. The majority of those who say they're against Obamacare *don't actually realize what they're against*. But as much as they're against Obamacare, it would be an enormous blunder to set up the straw man of "Socialized Medicine" for the Republicans to shoot at. Progressives aren't afraid of democratic socialism. Many liberals aren't afraid of democratic socialism. But the large mass of Middle America, out here where I live- including the Rust Belt and the Farm Belt (in other words, the part of the nation that has mainly voted Republican since Reagan)- is still terrified of anything with the word "socialism" in it. Outside the big cities, where the universities are, a large majority still associate "Socialism" with the letter "S" in "USSR". It's simply smart politics to sell single-payer health care as just one option on the market. And if it's really the most effective and cheapest for the consumer, it will eat up the rest of the market until private health care is obsolete. Why would I give up my private insurance for a government program? I already answered this- if it provided the same benefits, and yet was less expensive, due to all the savings Bernie talks about (because of less paperwork, less overhead, cheaper prescription drugs, no co-pays, no deductibles, no hidden costs, no networks...) and if it were guaranteed that it covered everything my current insurance does. Ideally even more. (Example- come October, my plan is going to cover massage therapy through a chiropracter's office treatment plan. What does Bernie's plan say? I don't know- I can't find the details of his proposed coverage ideas.) I would even pay the same premiums, if I had no copays, no deductibles, and no limit on coverage. Think what I could have saved on dental work alone. (Root canals aren't cheap, you know.) My friend has twins. They were premature. They're older now, but still have plenty of doctor's visits. I'm sure he would take that kind of coverage. It's not just old and sick folks who would sign up for the government option. It's all working folks- at least, those who can add 2+2. As long as it has ...

Coronavirus is a punishment from God: Conservative Christian TV Host Rick Wiles claims that the ...

xenoview comments on Jan 29, 2020:

Coronavirus is a mutated virus, that could be natures way of controlling the human population.

Paul4747 replies on Jan 30, 2020:

Too bad nature doesn't work like that.

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

David1955 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

Yes. A nice safe, moderate, corporate loving, status quo believing, rich liking, steady as she goes, candidate would be much much better. .. like Hillary Clinton in 2016. ... Oh, wait a minute......

Paul4747 replies on Jan 30, 2020:

@Aurora62 I didn't really mean to sidetrack this to the gun debate. but... I'm a veteran and a collector. I don't want to go deer hunting. I might, one day, want an AR-15 or an M-4 clone just to remember my old days in the infantry, and because it was a pleasure to shoot. To me, "common sense" means that, since I have no felony record and no record of violence, there's no reason I shouldn't collect anything I like, provided I pass a background check, which I will.

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

Paul4747 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

It doesn't really matter to me who Trump wants. The point is, *I*'m against a lot of Sanders' (and Warren's) proposals. Let's take "Medicare For All". How do you pay for it? What will it cover? Why *must* I give up my employer-paid health care, if the government plan isn't better? My union went ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 29, 2020:

@Aurora62 Good point... but I'm still bitter that in 2016 (and 2000) people didn't think strategically. It's US against THEM, and THEY are never going to vote for a third party. Why divide ourselves this way when the crunch comes? It's true, "I don't belong to an organized political party... I'm a Democrat." And we're agreed that the system needs repair. Please don't think that I'm in a place where I'm saying "I've got mine, screw everyone else".... I'm asking, "Why must I (and everyone who likes their health care) have it taken away?" That's why I favor expanding the ACA with a full public option, and if that's good enough, I might choose to take it- choice being the operative word. I like Biden's approach. I also very much doubt that Sanders or Warren could get Medicare For All passed in any case. Look how hard it was to get Obamacare done, and they're still trying to repeal it. Do we really want another generational fight about health care, or do we want to rationally expand the good thing we've got?

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

Paul4747 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

It doesn't really matter to me who Trump wants. The point is, *I*'m against a lot of Sanders' (and Warren's) proposals. Let's take "Medicare For All". How do you pay for it? What will it cover? Why *must* I give up my employer-paid health care, if the government plan isn't better? My union went ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 29, 2020:

@Varn My man. Biden is, to my knowledge, the only one to take this approach on health care. Makes sense, since he's still riding Obama's coattails. I think he's got my vote in the primary, unless he screws up between now and then.

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

Paul4747 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

It doesn't really matter to me who Trump wants. The point is, *I*'m against a lot of Sanders' (and Warren's) proposals. Let's take "Medicare For All". How do you pay for it? What will it cover? Why *must* I give up my employer-paid health care, if the government plan isn't better? My union went ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 29, 2020:

@RoboGraham "If it's choice you want, a single payer system is best" is a contradiction in terms. Although I see what you're trying to say. A single-payer system is the ideal. But I'm not an idealist any more. I'm a cynic. Why not offer a Medicare option, and let it compete in the free market? After all, we're capitalists!! Except for Bernie. Oh, yeah. That's why not. If the Medicare option is really better and cheaper, let it compete in the wild and it will win. If the only way for it to win is to mandate all others out of existence, then it's not really the best.

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

David1955 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

Yes. A nice safe, moderate, corporate loving, status quo believing, rich liking, steady as she goes, candidate would be much much better. .. like Hillary Clinton in 2016. ... Oh, wait a minute......

Paul4747 replies on Jan 29, 2020:

@Aurora62 Do those folks despise Donald Trump *less*? Do they think she would have been a *worse* president? That's how I expect them to have voted for her. Hilary was *the only candidate* who had a chance to beat Trump. What possible rational sense did it make to vote for anyone else, if your goal was to keep Trump out of office? I may very well despise whoever the nominee ends up being. I'm a gun owner. I'm a moderate-liberal in the middle of the country. I frankly think some of those people are crazy. They are the stereotype of what the NRA wants me to fear as "gun-grabbing Democrats." But *I will vote for whoever the nominee of the party is.* Because the very worst Democrat is still better than the best of the current crop of Republicans. Is it too much to ask for people to swallow their freaking pride and show some unity?

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

Paul4747 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

It doesn't really matter to me who Trump wants. The point is, *I*'m against a lot of Sanders' (and Warren's) proposals. Let's take "Medicare For All". How do you pay for it? What will it cover? Why *must* I give up my employer-paid health care, if the government plan isn't better? My union went ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 29, 2020:

@Aurora62 Wow, it's Archer. I'm convinced. I only heard *one* point that could conceivably be about *paying for* Medicare For All, and that was taxing the wealthy (which I support anyway). Everything else was about cutting costs by reducing paperwork and cutting drug costs, which I also support because those would save me money in a private health plan too. So- taxing the wealthy is going to fully fund Medicare For All? Or the hidden message is that I'm going to be better able to afford the Medicare tax because I won't have all these other costs? In that case, I could better afford my private insurance, too. Here's my thing. I have nothing against a Medicare option. If I could sign up for a plan that provides everything Blue Cross does, but costs, say, 30% less, because it's the Medicare option, I'd take it! (That's provided the eventual program does what Bernie and Liz are promising.) And if it were mandatory for all employers to offer it, I dare say everyone would take it (if their employers previously offered nothing at all). But I think a lot of people have a rooted opposition to being told it's mandatory to be in a government-run program. And I think that after a few years where, for example, my friends saw me paying 30% less for the Medicare program and driving a new car as a consequence of having all this extra money, they'd want to get them some of that. And that would spread, and eventually private programs would wither on the vine; which is why private industry is afraid of the option to begin with. **BUT** - *please don't* cram it down people's throats. People are stubborn. If they already want something, that's fine... the way a lot of progressives want Medicare For All. But if they aren't convinced, you can't convince them. They have to persuade themselves.

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

Paul4747 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

It doesn't really matter to me who Trump wants. The point is, *I*'m against a lot of Sanders' (and Warren's) proposals. Let's take "Medicare For All". How do you pay for it? What will it cover? Why *must* I give up my employer-paid health care, if the government plan isn't better? My union went ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 29, 2020:

@RoboGraham Of course I asked how we would pay for the military budget, and the tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy. And the answer was, "Tax cuts will pay for themselves!" Which was complete bullshit, of course. "Why would you want to keep your employer paid healthcare when you could have universal healthcare that cost you nothing but a slight tax increase?" Because I want the choice. I don't have faith that a Medicare program would cover everything my BCBS does; or that it would cover it to the same level. I've read his website, but I don't see any *numbers*. I don't see *details*. I see a sweeping vision that will stumble over details when it comes to the actual law. Sanders is a Senator: he should know the devil's in the details. Someone's answers shouldn't depend on what forum they're on. NPR is about as friendly a format as you can get for Bernie Sanders, and I listened to him give about 8 minutes of Q&A one morning without actually Aing a single Q.

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

David1955 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

Yes. A nice safe, moderate, corporate loving, status quo believing, rich liking, steady as she goes, candidate would be much much better. .. like Hillary Clinton in 2016. ... Oh, wait a minute......

Paul4747 replies on Jan 29, 2020:

@RoboGraham You mean, don't mention history? I can't help it, I'm an historian. I also can't help mentioning how bitter Sanders partisans still seem about Hilary winning the nomination, and how she gets the exclusive blame for losing the election- when it was in fact a combination of all those factors you yourself mention, including the Democrats who abandoned the party over their "principled" stand. And *she still won the popular vote*, despite all those things. What I'm getting from you is, "Progressives would rather have four more years of Trump than vote for a Democrat that we don't like. We refuse to vote strategically." Which is *exactly how we got here in the first place*, if you remember. If Sanders somehow gets the nomination, I'll still vote Democrat in November- no matter that I'll do it reluctantly. Can you say the same, no matter who gets the nomination? Or are you going to allow "principle" to get in the way of reality and let Trump win again? That's what he's counting on.

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

David1955 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

Yes. A nice safe, moderate, corporate loving, status quo believing, rich liking, steady as she goes, candidate would be much much better. .. like Hillary Clinton in 2016. ... Oh, wait a minute......

Paul4747 replies on Jan 29, 2020:

@DavidLaDeau No, it was an accurate assessment.

Bernie is the opponent Trump wants.

David1955 comments on Jan 29, 2020:

Yes. A nice safe, moderate, corporate loving, status quo believing, rich liking, steady as she goes, candidate would be much much better. .. like Hillary Clinton in 2016. ... Oh, wait a minute......

Paul4747 replies on Jan 29, 2020:

You mean, the candidate that **won the popular vote**?? I think it bears repeating, since so many who hate her seem to forget that ***Hilary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016***... Just reminding you once again that Clinton *won the popular vote*. Who lost the election to Trump? The 4.5% who were too "pure" to vote strategically, just swallow their pride, and vote for Hilary. Instead, they threw their votes away on candidates who stood no chance in hell of winning. (I'm looking at you, Libertarians and Greens.) In our current electoral climate, a vote for a third party is just another vote for the Republicans.

So much for those who claimed Judaism was the least mysogynistic religion. [bbc.com]

Paul4747 comments on Jan 14, 2020:

I think there's a difference between the Jewish culture that many people are familiar with through popular stereotypes, and then Orthodox Judaism and the Torah. Orthodox Judaism and the Torah are about as misogynistic as you can get.

Paul4747 replies on Jan 29, 2020:

@Rosemary .... I was tired.

‪Religious-schools case heads to a Supreme Court skeptical of stark lines between church and state...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jan 21, 2020:

*‘The No-Aid Clause does not prohibit any religious practice,’’ Montana said in its brief. ‘‘Nor does it authorize any discriminatory benefits program. It simply says that Montana will not financially aid religious schools.’’* Isn't this a contradictory position for Montana to ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 21, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay Again, there is such a mandate, as it forces (for example) me through my tax dollars to support religious education. The First Amendment is clear that this is a violation of the establishment clause. (The Establishment Clause, colloquially known as "Separation of Church and State", since you seem not to know what I meant by that.) Funding private schools with public money is one thing (although I'm against it, I prefer money to go to improving public schools). But using public money for religious schools is unconstitutional. See *Lemon v Kurtzman* (1971), when the Burger Court unanimously decided that financial aid to parochial schools violated the Establishment Clause and delineated the governing precedent for Establishment Clause cases known as the Lemon test. Under Lemon, statutes (1) must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) must have primary effects that neither inhibit nor advance religion; and (3) cannot foster an “excessive government entanglement with religion.” Funding to religious schools violates the third prong of the Lemon test.

‪Religious-schools case heads to a Supreme Court skeptical of stark lines between church and state...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jan 21, 2020:

*‘The No-Aid Clause does not prohibit any religious practice,’’ Montana said in its brief. ‘‘Nor does it authorize any discriminatory benefits program. It simply says that Montana will not financially aid religious schools.’’* Isn't this a contradictory position for Montana to ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 21, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay "A secular government just means that religion is not a part of the daily operation of that government and that the government doesn't recognize any religion as the state religion. It doesn't mean that religion is completely exempt from who the government benefits or that the government can't benefit religious institutions (as is the case with tax right offs) or that personal beliefs can't be used as a reason why a government worker does or doesn't do something..." Yes. Yes it does! That's exactly what it means! The separation of church and state means that the State does not support the Church and the Church does not tell the State what to do. (Tax exemption originated only under the dubious principle that "the power to tax is the power to destroy", in other words, the fear that the government would levy such taxes that the poor churches wouldn't be able to pay and would go out of business- they never imagined mega-churches worth billions of dollars funding political action committees.) Any civil servant who can't disregard their personal beliefs and do the job they're supposed to do, *because it's their job*, needs to go become a clergyman or something more congenial to them. Atheism is not a belief system, it's the default point before religions indoctrinate you; "A-Theist" meaning "without god". It's impossible to be secular without also being without religion, in other words, atheist. A secular government is by definition an atheist government.

National Archives exhibit blurs images critical of President Trump - The Washington Post

t1nick comments on Jan 18, 2020:

The blurred photo has been replaced with the original with apologies by the National Archives board.

Paul4747 replies on Jan 18, 2020:

Thanks! This is obviously moving fast.

National Archives exhibit blurs images critical of President Trump - The Washington Post

bingst comments on Jan 18, 2020:

Update: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/national-archives-says-it-was-wrong-to-alter-images/2020/01/18/44465522-3a2d-11ea-9541-9107303481a4_story.html

Paul4747 replies on Jan 18, 2020:

Thanks for the link, I've updated the post with the latest! Good to see integrity triumph in the end!

National Archives exhibit blurs images critical of President Trump - The Washington Post

Paracosm comments on Jan 18, 2020:

“Our mission is to safeguard and provide access to the nation’s most important federal records, and our exhibits are one way in which we connect the American people to those records." They realize they're not safeguarding records if they're altering them and they're presenting false ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 18, 2020:

I guess she was trying to say, "These are just exhibit posters, not the real records." But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth all the same, even if they have gigabytes of unaltered photographs preserved in the Archives. Completely off topic- I suddenly find myself wondering if the copies of *Star Wars* in the National Archives are the original theatrical release, or the messed up "Special Edition" that George Lucas came up with in 1996? *Han shot first.* That's all there is to it.

Mississippi Bill Would Force Teachers to Say the Ten Commandments Every Day | Hemant Mehta | ...

gsiamne comments on Jan 18, 2020:

I would like to know exactly which set of the ten they want to use. In one of the 3 different sets that are in the bible the tenth commandment is: . Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk. I would really like to see that one used.

Paul4747 replies on Jan 18, 2020:

I can personally assure everyone that I have never boiled a kid in its mother's milk (KJV). For one thing, I think that would fall under the heading infanticide.

National Archives exhibit blurs images critical of President Trump - The Washington Post

bingst comments on Jan 18, 2020:

"A Getty spokeswoman, Anne Flanagan, confirmed that the image was licensed by the National Archives Foundation but said in an email Friday evening that Getty was still determining whether it approved alterations to the image." This is what I wondered about. Usually, such a license *prohibits* ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 18, 2020:

Indeed. Suppose they get hold of Trump's office recordings (you know he has them). Are they going to be full of [expletive deleted] because they don't want to offend people who might read them?

What do you do when expected to participate in public religious ceremonies such as prayer?

MattHardy comments on Jan 18, 2020:

Since I live in a largely secular society I've not really be expected to participate in prayer since I left school. There's irony for you I describe Britain as largely secular but state schools expect pupils to take part in an act of collective worship of a broadly Christian nature. I heard people ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 18, 2020:

As Hitchens wrote, when the Church is secure in its officially sponsored place, it doesn't need to aggressively proselytize, whereas the "free market" of somewhere like the USA forces various religions to compete for worshipers and their contributions. Hence British society has much less overt religious display than American, and yet there is an established church... although I understand evangelicals are making greater efforts in Britain now as well.

How do people feel about pulling good guy (or good person) deeds as an atheist?

Paul4747 comments on Jan 18, 2020:

If someone is walking up just as I've pulled a shopping cart out at the grocery store, I offer it to them. That kind of thing. I don't do organized volunteering because I'm not a joiner. I work with and around too many religious people to believe that religion has anything to do with how many ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 18, 2020:

@becire Morality is very, very simple as far as I'm concerned. Do no harm. Prevent harm to others. Help another person when you can. Mind your own business, unless doing so conflicts with rules 1 through 3.

Major evangelical nonprofits are trying a new strategy with the IRS - The Washington Post

JackPedigo comments on Jan 17, 2020:

Can't get it as I don't allow ads. This is only happening under tRump because the religious nuts feel empowered. The basic rule is that non-exempts are not allowed to take sides on individuals or issues and is the Johnson amendment (and a very reasonable one at that). Despite tRumps proclamation ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 18, 2020:

@JackPedigo Samoa was a paradise before those damn missionaries. 8) Have a good day.

Major evangelical nonprofits are trying a new strategy with the IRS - The Washington Post

JackPedigo comments on Jan 17, 2020:

Can't get it as I don't allow ads. This is only happening under tRump because the religious nuts feel empowered. The basic rule is that non-exempts are not allowed to take sides on individuals or issues and is the Johnson amendment (and a very reasonable one at that). Despite tRumps proclamation ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 18, 2020:

@JackPedigo The IRS has been ordered, at this time, not to examine churches too closely (or at all), in contrast to the Obama administration's instructions that they enforce the rules across the board. This is not only a payoff for evangelicals' supporting Trump, but because Trump does the opposite of what President Obama did, as a reflex action. Ironically, one of the main traditional readings of the phrase "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is that it commands people to respect state authority and to pay the taxes it demands of them. Paul the Apostle also states in Romans 13 that Christians are obliged to obey all earthly authorities, stating that as they were introduced by God, disobedience to them equates to disobedience to God. In this interpretation, Jesus asked his interrogators to produce a coin in order to demonstrate to them that by using his coinage they had already admitted the de facto rule of the emperor, and that therefore they should submit to that rule. Therefore, Xians who want to be tax exempt are actually disobeying Jesus. Naughty Xians.

Major evangelical nonprofits are trying a new strategy with the IRS - The Washington Post

JackPedigo comments on Jan 17, 2020:

Can't get it as I don't allow ads. This is only happening under tRump because the religious nuts feel empowered. The basic rule is that non-exempts are not allowed to take sides on individuals or issues and is the Johnson amendment (and a very reasonable one at that). Despite tRumps proclamation ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 18, 2020:

@JackPedigo A true non-profit wouldn't be taxed, if my understanding of corporate law is correct (and it might not be)- since companies are taxed only on their profits, correct? If churches, on the other hand, are using donations for political activities but calling themselves non-profits, they should be paying taxes. The First Amendment cuts both ways.

Texas is first state to reject new refugees under Trump order - The Washington Post

Storm1752 comments on Jan 17, 2020:

It's hard to pick a WORST president....I used to think W. would never be topped, for the Iraq War and other outrages. Now this.

Paul4747 replies on Jan 17, 2020:

Have you considered James Buchanan? He supported the Dred Scott decision and joined with Southern leaders in attempting to admit Kansas to the Union as a slave state under the Lecompton Constitution. In the process, he angered Republicans and alienated many Northern Democrats, bringing the Civil War closer. After Lincoln's election and Southern secession, he failed to defend Union military possessions as it would "anger the South" (as if they weren't already getting on a war footing) and allowed tons of Union ordnance to be outright stolen and delivered into Southern hands. It's hard to think of a more egregious violation of the oath to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, whichever you conceive the Confederacy to have been. Buchanan's sympathies for the South led him to exacerbate the sectional conflicts when instead he could have taken a leadership role in trying to resolve them. Trump, at least thus far, hasn't brought on a civil war. But the day is young.

Major evangelical nonprofits are trying a new strategy with the IRS - The Washington Post

Word comments on Jan 17, 2020:

United States of America and its tax code is of European invadors and the secret religion of the Masonic lodge secret religion racist devil worshippers. Why should any one be forced or required to worship the devil and the beast-666 by paying taxes?

Paul4747 replies on Jan 17, 2020:

@Storm1752 Were you tagging me or "Word"? (who used to go by another ID but I think he might have been banned once for trolling....)

Major evangelical nonprofits are trying a new strategy with the IRS - The Washington Post

Word comments on Jan 17, 2020:

United States of America and its tax code is of European invadors and the secret religion of the Masonic lodge secret religion racist devil worshippers. Why should any one be forced or required to worship the devil and the beast-666 by paying taxes?

Paul4747 replies on Jan 17, 2020:

Glad to see you're still around, let us know how those meds are working.

Major evangelical nonprofits are trying a new strategy with the IRS - The Washington Post

JackPedigo comments on Jan 17, 2020:

Can't get it as I don't allow ads. This is only happening under tRump because the religious nuts feel empowered. The basic rule is that non-exempts are not allowed to take sides on individuals or issues and is the Johnson amendment (and a very reasonable one at that). Despite tRumps proclamation ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 17, 2020:

The main point is that they're reclassifying themselves as churches rather than nonprofits so they don't have to file disclosures on what they pay their CEOs and other employees, or many details about their other expenditures. This also makes it next to impossible for the public to discover anything about their activities. It's also happening because, among other things, they're looking to shield their donor lists, so that well-known individuals can keep contributing to anti-LGBTQ groups without being outed as bigots.

Why does life exist?

WilliamFleming comments on Jan 14, 2020:

“...according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.” There is nothing unsurprising about rocks rolling downhill. There are some very complex and ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 16, 2020:

@WilliamFleming Once again, you ask the wrong questions (in my opinion). There's no point asking "why gravity" because there IS NO "why". "An illusory sense-world"? It's the ONLY world. Once we can observe, for instance, sub-atomic particles, we have sensed them, and they're real to us. They are in our world. Knowing that the only reason I can't walk through the wall is because of the atomic bonds does not render those all an illusion and let me walk through the wall. Call it an illusion, but the illusion is real. "Why evolution" makes sense because organic life evolves by a mechanical process of adaptation and selection with the understandable goal of the gene's survival; and insofar as this is a "deep question of existence", we *do* know the underlying principles and reasons. But a question like "Why are things made of subatomic particles?" admits of no better answer than, "Because things are made of things." Call it a superficial answer all you want, and in return I'll say you're wasting time asking unanswerable questions; questions in the realm of religion, not science. Science answers how things are and, as best we can determine, how they came to be, and science is very very good at those answers. But science can't answer "why does anything exist at all". At that point, just shut up and compute.

Why does life exist?

WilliamFleming comments on Jan 14, 2020:

“...according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.” There is nothing unsurprising about rocks rolling downhill. There are some very complex and ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 16, 2020:

@WilliamFleming Then I don't understand what you mean when you say you want to know what my explanation for gravity is. Humans are unlimited in our ability to understand the universe. Every day we learn more. Our instruments become more advanced, our understanding becomes more sophisticated, our knowledge of the fundamental forces of the universe is expanding dare I say by the minute. That doesn't mean it's not a wondrous place. But it's a natural place. And Einstein's humility was very typically Jewish and very misplaced: he was one of the greatest minds of any age and his theories are anything but superficial. They're key to our understanding of the universe.

The Proof: That God Exists There is a hierarchy in Animalia, not only as quantified by the DNA ...

Paul4747 comments on Jan 15, 2020:

How very Orwellian. Too bad you don't seem to know much about either evolution or the law. The supposed "hierarchy" of animal forms is an antiquated concept. All animals share common ancestors, none "higher" than another. To pick an example, chimpanzees and hominids diverged several million ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 16, 2020:

@GlyndonD sure, fine, whatever Your illogic is your sword and shield. Bye now

Why does life exist?

Paul4747 comments on Jan 15, 2020:

No, no, there is no why!! Clear your mind of questions. No more will I teach you today.

Paul4747 replies on Jan 15, 2020:

@yvilletom Their commas typically place, where those types of languages do? About such minor matters as punctuation wonder, I do.

The Proof: That God Exists There is a hierarchy in Animalia, not only as quantified by the DNA ...

Paul4747 comments on Jan 15, 2020:

How very Orwellian. Too bad you don't seem to know much about either evolution or the law. The supposed "hierarchy" of animal forms is an antiquated concept. All animals share common ancestors, none "higher" than another. To pick an example, chimpanzees and hominids diverged several million ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 15, 2020:

@GlyndonD I'm not sure about you, but my species is h. sapiens. And unless the government can maketh it to rain upon the just and the unjust alike- in other words, unless that weather control project really did get off the ground- I don't know of any "godlike" powers the government possesses. You may feel the government wields *dictatorial* power, in which case, vote early and often for the candidates of your choice. That's *your* power. But if government were as all-powerful as you describe, then there would be no dissent, and you would have been silenced long ago. Your very existence as a protesting voice is proof that your argument is flawed. "Can you find one human that agrees with all the laws and programs and actions of the government?" This is a straw man. It hasn't been true of any government above the town hall level, in world history.

Why does life exist?

WilliamFleming comments on Jan 14, 2020:

“...according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.” There is nothing unsurprising about rocks rolling downhill. There are some very complex and ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 15, 2020:

@WilliamFleming " I know that gravity is the attraction between massive bodies. I’m waiting for your explanation for that attraction." That *is* the explanation. Gravity **IS**. It is self-explanatory. Now here's the long version: Gravity exists because mass exists. Mass exerts stress on space-time. These stresses create complicated wells in space-time that tend to draw these bodies toward one another to a greater or lesser extent based on the mass of each. The more bodies are proximate to one another, and the more massive they are, the more complicated the relationships become, until one sees a very complex interplay of gravity effects indeed, as in, for example, our star system, or our universe. If you're asking "why is the universe the way it is?", you're asking the wrong person, and, I believe, the wrong question. The universe **IS**. The laws of physics **ARE**. The universe had to be this way for us to be asking the question, at least in the kind of bodies we inhabit. The existence of life at the base of boiling underwater volcanic vents and in the frozen tundra, and the discovery (if I remember correctly) of fossilized microbes on Mars, makes me at least consider that life is a phenomenon that will arise anywhere it can, and under conditions we find unimaginable. So the idea that ours is an "ideal" universe, and if a single constant of physics were off by a hair, life couldn't exist, is something I view skeptically. Then again, I'm just a science enthusiast, and people who are much smarter than me insist the above is the case; they insist the universe behaves as though it were designed for life to exist. But we *would* say that, wouldn't we?

Why does life exist?

WilliamFleming comments on Jan 14, 2020:

“...according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.” There is nothing unsurprising about rocks rolling downhill. There are some very complex and ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 15, 2020:

@WilliamFleming You have to have something to revere. Enjoy nature, fine. But "reverence" implies religion.

Why does life exist?

WilliamFleming comments on Jan 14, 2020:

“...according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.” There is nothing unsurprising about rocks rolling downhill. There are some very complex and ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 15, 2020:

@WilliamFleming Oddly enough, yes. Gravity is the attraction between massive bodies in space-time. And a rock is particles held together by magnetic fields in such a way that they appear solid to our perception. And on that level, Galileo's physics are sufficient to explain why the rock rolls down the hill. Quit trying to obfuscate things. A rock is just a rock, a hill is just a hill. Space may be "nothing like what we envision" on a sub-atomic level, but on a mechanical level it let us put men on the moon. And time may not "exist" but that doesn't mean I don't have a doctor's appointment this "morning". The existence of the universe is the only answer you will ever have for its existence. It's a circular argument, but since there is no prime mover, no first cause, there will never be a better, since we can't go back and witness what brought it into existence. We can only make scientific guesses. Imagining that something "caused" the universe just creates an infinite regress, since something had to cause that, ad infinitum, and then indeed, you might as well say "god did it". "Wake up"? To what?

Why does life exist?

WilliamFleming comments on Jan 14, 2020:

“...according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.” There is nothing unsurprising about rocks rolling downhill. There are some very complex and ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 15, 2020:

Dude. Rocks roll downhill because of gravity. Objects accelerate towards earth because of their mass (Galileo). If their mass is sufficient to overcome the friction of the surface and the air resistance around them, they will roll downhill. This is not that complicated. Yes, we can take it as a trivial thing that already has a trivial explanation. There is no "from whence" for the fundamental laws of nature to come; they just **are**. Nature exists because nature exists.

The Proof: That God Exists There is a hierarchy in Animalia, not only as quantified by the DNA ...

Paul4747 comments on Jan 15, 2020:

How very Orwellian. Too bad you don't seem to know much about either evolution or the law. The supposed "hierarchy" of animal forms is an antiquated concept. All animals share common ancestors, none "higher" than another. To pick an example, chimpanzees and hominids diverged several million ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 15, 2020:

@t1nick Well... I'm a libertarian (small "l") in that I believe in the freedom of all to choose for ourselves, and also our responsibility to take the consequences of those choices. Although not a Libertarian in the sense of wishing to do away with all functions of government, which, in our complex modern world, I consider just crazy talk.

Why are atheist so obsessed by religion?

Paul4747 comments on Jan 14, 2020:

I ask the counter-question: Why are religionists so obsessed with atheists? (And, for that matter, with adherents of other religions?) Because, while it's good enough for most atheists to let the believers live and believe whatever they want, it's not good enough for the believers to extend the ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 15, 2020:

@DavidLaDeau Considering how many religious figures have been caught up in sex scandals, how many self-appointed "moral guardians" are on their fourth or fifth marriage, how many public homophobes have turned out to be in the closet all their lives... quite definitely this saying applies in their cases. I wanted to make this point in my original reply but it just didn't flow well.

In need for advice and/or support.

ReadyforaChange comments on Jan 14, 2020:

Little advice: Men, in general, SUCK. I may go ahead and switch teams if I ever have any extra time for a relationship.

Paul4747 replies on Jan 15, 2020:

I'm one of the awesome ones, just in case anyone asks about me. ;)

So much for those who claimed Judaism was the least mysogynistic religion. [bbc.com]

Paul4747 comments on Jan 14, 2020:

I think there's a difference between the Jewish culture that many people are familiar with through popular stereotypes, and then Orthodox Judaism and the Torah. Orthodox Judaism and the Torah are about as misogynistic as you can get.

Paul4747 replies on Jan 14, 2020:

@Mofo1953 In the same sense that both the Unitarians and the Westboro Baptist Church are Christian. One can point to very liberal and egalitarian sects of any religion, and then point to very conservative branches; but the existence of the liberal denominations doesn't negate the fact that they're all based on the same book, and the conservative branches emphasize those parts they choose.

Have you ever had a micro-dream?

RavenCT comments on Jan 11, 2020:

Or a hypnagogic state? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia A lot of folks experience them but never know what they are. And they are normal.

Paul4747 replies on Jan 12, 2020:

I've had those, quite often when I was a teenager. Also known as "sleep paralysis" if I'm not mistaken, and it's a very apt nickname for the phenomenon. (I just clicked your link, and I was not mistaken :D) I imagined flashes of light outside my window which I would have sworn were UFOs, hovering forms in my bedroom, and more. I also had episodes in my 30s when I dreamed very convincingly that there were snakes there with me, and woke to find myself strangling the blankets. Times of very high stress and/or sleep deprivation seemed to be the trigger (the snake thing happened during grad school, with papers or exam stress).

Nice booty....

Paul4747 comments on Jan 10, 2020:

Is it only me who thinks she looks a lot like Morena Baccarin?

Paul4747 replies on Jan 11, 2020:

@HankSherman Mainly her hair and the shape of her face, methinks.

International Olympic Committee prohibits kneeling, hand gestures

Paul4747 comments on Jan 11, 2020:

While I don't want to start an argument, there's a couple of points here: Number one, "free speech" is about *government* regulation of speech and expression. From the IOC website: "The IOC is a not-for-profit independent international organisation made up of volunteers." Basically, they get to ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 11, 2020:

@SeaGreenEyez Okay, I'll be sure not to state any facts contrary to your opinions from now on. Prior to this, I wasn't looking for an argument, just stating my point of view. Now, maybe a little, since you're reading my mind and telling me what I really mean. And I don't like that. At all.

International Olympic Committee prohibits kneeling, hand gestures

TomMcGiverin comments on Jan 11, 2020:

Fascists...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 11, 2020:

Bureaucrats. Also, I call Godwin's Law on you. :D

Have you ever had a micro-dream?

VictoriaNotes comments on Jan 11, 2020:

Yes. You were in a very relaxed brainwave state, bordering on alpha/theta.

Paul4747 replies on Jan 11, 2020:

Thank you. It's nice to know my brain can relax without professional intervention.

My first post, everyone give her a warm welcome please!

mischl comments on Jan 11, 2020:

Oh dear, I hate to get sand in my mouth.

Paul4747 replies on Jan 11, 2020:

A towel is the most massively useful thing an intergalactic hitchiker can carry, for reasons just like this.

Twenty years ago there was only one country in the Middle East that had no religious extremist ...

Paul4747 comments on Jan 11, 2020:

When you say "Iraq under Saddam" had no religious extremism, that's a very disingenuous view. Saddam and his Baath Party suppressed religious dissent and the Shiaa minority. He also used religion as a tool when he wanted: for example, commisioning the Umm al-Ma'arik ("Mother of All Battles") Mosque ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 11, 2020:

@Petter You forgot to mention that, prior to 1990 and his invasion of Kuwait, the USA supported and supplied Saddam himself, as a regional counterweight to Iran (who we covertly supplied with TOW missiles to use against Iraq, but nobody was supposed to learn about that- oops). The Reagan administration (we have every reason to believe, if this is not openly acknowledged) covertly supplied Saddam with precursor chemicals that his scientists weaponized for use against the Iranians. Saddam was the "good, secular, pro-Western" dictator, opposed to the "bad, religious fanatic, anti-Western" dictators, so we supported his regime as the lesser evil. It was only after the Kuwait invasion, which he believed on good authority we would not oppose, that he became "another Hitler", and his chemical weapons were suddenly monstrous- because he also used them against the rebellious Kurds. (Let's not forget that it was the 1st Bush administration that encouraged the Kurds in the first place, then realized that a dismembered Iraq wouldn't be sufficient to oppose Iran's goals in the region, and we had better leave Iraq intact- so the Kurds were left to twist in the wind as Iraqi Hinds gunned them down and doused them with chemicals with impunity, until we imposed the no-fly zones... too late for thousands of Kurds, whose mass graves would be used as retroactive justification for our invasion in 2003. Yes, American policy in the Middle East has been fully as cynical as I'm portraying it, if not more so- only because I don't know all the details surrounding those decisions, many of which I believe are *still* classified.)

My first post, everyone give her a warm welcome please!

Merseyman1 comments on Jan 10, 2020:

Welcome Cutie, I hope Paul took the photo!

Paul4747 replies on Jan 10, 2020:

I should be so lucky

My first post, everyone give her a warm welcome please!

Cutiebeauty comments on Jan 10, 2020:

🔥🔥🔥 warm enough? 😊😋

Paul4747 replies on Jan 10, 2020:

Your welcomes are the warmest, Beauty!! ;)

My atheist family was appalled when I converted to Catholicism – but it’s given me great peace |...

Paul4747 comments on Jan 9, 2020:

We are (neurologically) predisposed to socialization, and the church is one of the oldest institutions. As long as you conform, you'll be welcomed and part of the family. As for "having a sense of god"- I suspect the author had a sense of being smaller than the world around him and needed something ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 9, 2020:

@David1955 Amazing, isn't it...

My atheist family was appalled when I converted to Catholicism – but it’s given me great peace |...

Paul4747 comments on Jan 9, 2020:

We are (neurologically) predisposed to socialization, and the church is one of the oldest institutions. As long as you conform, you'll be welcomed and part of the family. As for "having a sense of god"- I suspect the author had a sense of being smaller than the world around him and needed something ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 9, 2020:

@David1955 The way I see it, there seem to be two main reactions when someone comprehends how vast the Universe and the history of our evolution truly are. One reaction is to marvel at the wonders of it all and the sheer luck that led to us being here to contemplate anything at all. The other is to cower from and deny it, and pretend humans are on a pedestal above everything else, here on our tiny blue dot in this corner of the Galaxy, in the corner of the Universe... and blind oneself to the absurdity of such a viewpoint.

Do you find Youtube videos more helpful than instruction manuals?

Paul4747 comments on Jan 7, 2020:

That seems to me to be a fault in the manual. I almost infinitely prefer a diagram that I can read step by step, versus a video that goes by relentlessly as I try to manipulate tiny parts and springs (I only look online for how to do my own handgun upgrades, parts exchanges and so on, so I don't ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 7, 2020:

@LiterateHiker Yes, I absolutely unload a firearm before any type of maintenance, just to put your mind at rest on that point.

Do you find Youtube videos more helpful than instruction manuals?

Paul4747 comments on Jan 7, 2020:

That seems to me to be a fault in the manual. I almost infinitely prefer a diagram that I can read step by step, versus a video that goes by relentlessly as I try to manipulate tiny parts and springs (I only look online for how to do my own handgun upgrades, parts exchanges and so on, so I don't ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 7, 2020:

@LiterateHiker Uhhhh... I used the word "shoot" in a different sense than that. "Fly"? might have been better? I was referring to the tiny spring disappearing into the corner never to be seen again.

Can I get you anything else?

Merseyman1 comments on Jan 5, 2020:

Some milk?

Paul4747 replies on Jan 5, 2020:

Beat me to the punch

Live near Philly enjoy searching for answers in spiritual realms including existential and non ...

DenoPenno comments on Jan 4, 2020:

What is non dimensional contact?

Paul4747 replies on Jan 4, 2020:

Online dating, which I guess is where this thread should have gone....

Love that this happened.

kiramea comments on Jan 2, 2020:

This article is ancient (2013)

Paul4747 replies on Jan 4, 2020:

@kiramea 7 years is "ancient"? It's news to me too, and I enjoyed it. Thanks, @MissKathleen.

Conservative Christians Claim Democrats Impeached ‘God-Fearing Americans’ | Michael Stone

Flyingsaucesir comments on Jan 2, 2020:

The latest ploy by Trump supporters to conflate impeachment of Trump with impeachment of all Christians is intellectually bankrupt. It is just a lot of hot air, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It is true that Trump has a lot of support among evangelical Christians. Over 80% of ...

Paul4747 replies on Jan 3, 2020:

One particular editor among his base has left. The majority of them will brand him a traitor and continue down their current road, if the history of Republican and other conservatives who have criticized Trump is any indicator.

Better dancer: Elvis or Jesus

Paul4747 comments on Dec 29, 2019:

My money's on Jesus in a fistfight vs. Gandhi

Paul4747 replies on Jan 2, 2020:

@Beamdump2020 Exactly Also, MLK could take both of them.

Better dancer: Elvis or Jesus

Paul4747 comments on Dec 29, 2019:

My money's on Jesus in a fistfight vs. Gandhi

Paul4747 replies on Jan 1, 2020:

@Beamdump2020 Equally hypothetical, though.

A gift by way of "The adventures of Tom Bombadil" by J.

davknight comments on Dec 26, 2019:

Tom Bombadil, and his wife, were a pair of old hippies that Frodo and his friends stayed with for a short while, in the first book of the LOTR trilogy. I too was disappointed that they were left out of the movie.

Paul4747 replies on Dec 29, 2019:

@Geoffrey51 Reading LOTR without the Bombadil chapter (and the following one) is exactly the same. I just skip from the Old Forest to Bree, and pretend that the intervening was a dream brought on by too much pipe-weed. Tolkien himself, I seem to have read somewhere, once wrote that Bombadil should have been edited out and didn't make much sense once the whole series was put together. Since the novels were originally written to his son a chapter at a time, and assembled much later for publication, I can see his point.

Satan and I in Florida .

Paul4747 comments on Dec 28, 2019:

.....huh. I have a visceral reaction to those mammals, since my previous house had an invasion of them one year with little critters somehow making their way down from the attic in the middle of the night and scaring the living shit out of my women (truth be told, I wasn't fond of them either). I...

Paul4747 replies on Dec 28, 2019:

@BryanLV (Ex, now) wife & daughter. Not really.

What's a funny saying your parents said?

Paul4747 comments on Dec 24, 2019:

Not sure how funny it was, but the old man would always greet people with "'Morning" no matter what time of day it was... because, "It's morning somewhere." A habit I've taken up myself. (Probably unfortunately, but I remember him this way best.) And if you recall the series *In The Heat of the ...

Paul4747 replies on Dec 28, 2019:

@blzjz And you don't have to watch for a year to get to the payoff where the chief respects his new detective, Mr. Tibbs.

I hear from my brother frequently about how concerned he is I'm going to hell.

Paul4747 comments on Dec 27, 2019:

Hell wouldn't be so bad, from all accounts. For one thing, the Devil's supposedly got all the best musicians.

Paul4747 replies on Dec 28, 2019:

@273kelvin No worries

I hear from my brother frequently about how concerned he is I'm going to hell.

Paul4747 comments on Dec 27, 2019:

Hell wouldn't be so bad, from all accounts. For one thing, the Devil's supposedly got all the best musicians.

Paul4747 replies on Dec 28, 2019:

@273kelvin O-kay.... I think you meant to reply to someone else with this, since I didn't mention him at all?

Married to a JW

Paul4747 comments on Dec 24, 2019:

It's no easy choice, Gerard. My ex-wife gradually became more and more involved in her church as our marriage went on (and as I became less and less involved, in fact as I realized I was an atheist). That wasn't *the* catalyst for our divorce, but it doubtless played some part. I can't say ...

Paul4747 replies on Dec 27, 2019:

@Gerard103 We have a daughter, who was 13 at the time. It helped immensely that I made clear my main interest was in making sure she still had a good home, I had no interest in selling the house and splitting the cash, etc., in fact I still basically make the mortgage payments plus a little on the side. It's a very informal child support agreement. She visits every weekend and I drive her to school every other week, my work schedule makes evenings hard to do. But she understands now, even though I'm not sure she was completely on board at the time. But I had waited 3 years already trying to save the marriage on account of her youth, so I felt I had to do something to save my own sanity and morale.

Happy Solstice.

Paul4747 comments on Dec 24, 2019:

In case we missed naming any holidays.... Krusty has our back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bASvwP2U_m8

Paul4747 replies on Dec 25, 2019:

@Gwendolyn2018 Clowns- not just for Halloween any more

The main lesson of the Star Wars series (one possible reading) is how badly people screw things up ...

bleurowz comments on Dec 24, 2019:

Haven't seen the final one yet, but the scene in *The Last Jedi* that got to me was when Yoda burned down the tree holding the "sacred" Jedi texts that Luke was holding on to; basically saying, Luke put too much stock in the "legacy" he felt he had to hold up, and that that's why he felt he was a ...

Paul4747 replies on Dec 25, 2019:

Trouble is (and I still don't get how this came about), the end of the film shows the same books on the shelf in the Falcon. However they got there, that's what I can't work out. It's a mixed message- she doesn't need the books, and yet she has the books to start a new- New Order. I'm stumped.

Have you ever thought about why religions think they need to sacrifice a goat, a lamb, a virgin or a...

Triphid comments on Dec 23, 2019:

Hey, don't even those totally Invisible and Imaginary God, etc, need to eat from time to time? And what better to 'feast' upon ( IF you get my 'drift' and excuse the crudity that is) than a nice, fresh, young Virgin?

Paul4747 replies on Dec 24, 2019:

I prefer a lady who's been around the block once or twice, myself. I guess that's why I'd make a crummy Deity.

What's a funny saying your parents said?

Paul4747 comments on Dec 24, 2019:

Not sure how funny it was, but the old man would always greet people with "'Morning" no matter what time of day it was... because, "It's morning somewhere." A habit I've taken up myself. (Probably unfortunately, but I remember him this way best.) And if you recall the series *In The Heat of the ...

Paul4747 replies on Dec 24, 2019:

@LiterateHiker The relevant bit is in the intro I included. It's the first 10 seconds, with the police car and the train. The series was decent too, for its time.

Man in Walmart: Wow! You have long hair.

Paul4747 comments on Dec 21, 2019:

I salute Nature's God (in the sense that Jefferson and the other founders understood that phrase; the natural processes resulting in our world and everything around us) for giving us beautiful ladies with long hair. (L) Seriously, though- was this guy talking out his ass? Women keep their hair ...

Paul4747 replies on Dec 21, 2019:

@Gwendolyn2018 Wow. At a very drunk tarot reading, it was foretold that my death would come either at the hands of a jealous husband, or being run over by a truck full of Coors Light. Or by a jealous husband driving a truck full of Coors Light.

Jeff Flake: The president is on trial. So are my Senate Republican colleagues. - The Washington Post

LucyLoohoo comments on Dec 21, 2019:

I've wondered...did they think they could get away with this horrible behavior forever? Certainly, tyrants have popped up throughout history, but they've always been deposed. Are these people too stupid to realize that? Or did they think they had their god on their side and it would go on ...

Paul4747 replies on Dec 21, 2019:

@bingst That much is certain. Voting Guilty will bring out the conservative PACs and "interest groups" who are supposed to be independent (and who believes that fiction, regarding either side?) to punish them next fall if they're up for reelection. I've already seen pressure groups advertising against representatives here in Michigan in Republican districts who were planning to vote their conscience and vote for impeachment. At the same time, voting Not Guilty will be forgotten by Trump, who has all the loyalty of a rabid Rottweiler- so what's the payoff there? I'm hoping there are enough senators who aren't running next year that count on voters' short memories and will do the right thing, but the realist in me says, "Don't count on it."

Man in Walmart: Wow! You have long hair.

Paul4747 comments on Dec 21, 2019:

I salute Nature's God (in the sense that Jefferson and the other founders understood that phrase; the natural processes resulting in our world and everything around us) for giving us beautiful ladies with long hair. (L) Seriously, though- was this guy talking out his ass? Women keep their hair ...

Paul4747 replies on Dec 21, 2019:

@Gwendolyn2018 Sounds about right. I forget whether there was laying-on of hands or not, it was one service 22 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised...

Jeff Flake: The president is on trial. So are my Senate Republican colleagues. - The Washington Post

LucyLoohoo comments on Dec 21, 2019:

I've wondered...did they think they could get away with this horrible behavior forever? Certainly, tyrants have popped up throughout history, but they've always been deposed. Are these people too stupid to realize that? Or did they think they had their god on their side and it would go on ...

Paul4747 replies on Dec 21, 2019:

I think they honestly believe that having the power justifies whatever was done to get the power, and keeping power justifies whatever has to be done in defense of the indefensible. If doing their Constitutional and, moreover, their moral duty, means they risk losing their grip on power in DC, then their duty be damned. Power is all that matters now. Trump defeated Hillary (so they think, forgetting who won the popular vote: it was a fluke of the Electoral College that gave Trump his office); so they need him as their figurehead to keep their hold on all the disaffected conservative white males that he brought out in 2016 (and, sad to say, a large number of disaffected conservative white women too).

Man in Walmart: Wow! You have long hair.

Paul4747 comments on Dec 21, 2019:

I salute Nature's God (in the sense that Jefferson and the other founders understood that phrase; the natural processes resulting in our world and everything around us) for giving us beautiful ladies with long hair. (L) Seriously, though- was this guy talking out his ass? Women keep their hair ...

Paul4747 replies on Dec 21, 2019:

@Gwendolyn2018 No coffee? Sorry- cancel my subscription. I had an acquaintance when I lived in Scotland who took me to a Pentecostal service (I believe I'm right in saying they were Pentecostals) where they had a faith healing segment- that is to say, they prayed for everyone's ailments to be healed. This acquaintance had some serious problems, if I recall he had muscular sclerosis, and had been praying for years that he would be healed. I was personally disgusted with the whole idea. He seemed to be under the impression that there was something lacking in his prayers, and if only he had *perfect* faith, his reward would be a healing. At that time I was a mystic/agnostic, looking for evidence of something to believe in and dipping my toes in the water of many different religious experiences, but I knew damn well that "God" didn't heal people who believe and punish people for suffering the merest iota of doubt by witholding their cure.

Man in Walmart: Wow! You have long hair.

Paul4747 comments on Dec 21, 2019:

I salute Nature's God (in the sense that Jefferson and the other founders understood that phrase; the natural processes resulting in our world and everything around us) for giving us beautiful ladies with long hair. (L) Seriously, though- was this guy talking out his ass? Women keep their hair ...

Paul4747 replies on Dec 21, 2019:

@FrostyJim You've mistaken my meaning, Jim... I'm referring to the phrase in the Declaration of Independence where "Nature's God" is invoked, in the phrase "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." This means no specific deity at all, but the processes of the universe. "Nature's God" was not understood to be the God of the Bible intervening in wordly affairs, rather, if anything, it was a clockmaker figure who set everything in motion... the personification of the forces of nature. This was as close as the Founders could come to being openly atheist, and it's pretty much agreed that if they were around today, they would be outright atheist.

Man in Walmart: Wow! You have long hair.

Paul4747 comments on Dec 21, 2019:

I salute Nature's God (in the sense that Jefferson and the other founders understood that phrase; the natural processes resulting in our world and everything around us) for giving us beautiful ladies with long hair. (L) Seriously, though- was this guy talking out his ass? Women keep their hair ...

Paul4747 replies on Dec 21, 2019:

@Gwendolyn2018 I was not aware of that. Thanks for the education! I guess if I ever join a cult, it will be the Pentecostals...

Bernie Sanders is Losing Steam.

Paul4747 comments on Dec 20, 2019:

Somebody (Warren?) replied to Bernie's health care rant by telling him, "Nobody has a monopoly on good ideas." I like the idea of a public option while maintaining the market choice for those who want it (Obamacare +), it's a more libertarian option. More choice for everyone. I'm not persuaded ...

Paul4747 replies on Dec 20, 2019:

@AnneWimsey As Buttigieg (spelling?) said, any candidate on the stage is better than the current occupant. They will do infinitely better for the people, considering Trump has done nothing. Is the economy running well and adding jobs? Yes, but it was already doing that anyway, and wages aren't going up for the vast majority- besides, deficits are going to crush us in the future because of what Trump's doing now. Every Democrat candidate, I'm pretty sure, stands for fiscal responsibilty and growing the middle class.

Bernie Sanders is Losing Steam.

TyrionLannister comments on Dec 20, 2019:

Is this a statement? A question? I'm not sure what this post is for, other than regurgitating the same old establishment bs.

Paul4747 replies on Dec 20, 2019:

@AnneWimsey I don't consider center-left an "anchor" position. I think for the pendulum to move, a candidate has to appeal to the broadest possible spectrum, traditional liberals as well as independents and the disaffected. In a nutshell, our side has to win.

Bernie Sanders is Losing Steam.

TyrionLannister comments on Dec 20, 2019:

Is this a statement? A question? I'm not sure what this post is for, other than regurgitating the same old establishment bs.

Paul4747 replies on Dec 20, 2019:

I'm not with the Establishment, but I don't really want to face a choice between Trump (insane Republican) and Sanders (somewhat less insane Democrat). Both have no real party loyalty and chose their labels for the purpose of getting nominated, for one thing, and for another, I find Bernie so far left that he plays straight into the stereotypes of "what's worst about the Democrats". I'm a liberal, but man, that's crazy talk.

"Your next post should be People Who Over Post."

ADKSparky comments on Dec 20, 2019:

I just blocked an older man who was sealioning me. He is a member of every group on this site. He’s over/grouping. 🤪

Paul4747 replies on Dec 20, 2019:

@Allamanda Thanks. Now, though, I'm having trouble picturing what this would be like... I guess I'll have to see it in action.