• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • Embarrassed
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Grumpy
  • Happy
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Poorly
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
    Results 11 to 20 of 28
    1. #11
      tango's Avatar
      tango is offline Bronze Member
      Valued Contributor
      Married
      ... and you shall live ...
       
      Mood:
      Bemused
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Location
      Elsewhere
      Posts
      6,472
      CH Cash
      3,663
      CH Challenge
      32
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (6,044,117 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      29,307
      Level
      46
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      43.21%
      Rep Power
      728
      Quote Originally Posted by psalms 91 View Post
      Cencoring words? Wow shades of a dictator? It is a shame that he is so infantile and insecure
      Sadly so much political movement over the years has been about censoring speech, whether it be the "loony left" wing of the UK Labour Party seeking to ban nursery rhymes such as "Baa Baa Black Sheep" (apparently it's racist, although the black parents who teach it to their children obviously didn't get that memo) and "The Farmer Wants A Wife" (because, you know, the farmer might be female or - gasp - gay), the endless fussing over whether we should call our fellow human beings with darker pigmentation "African Americans" (even if they are not American), "Negro", "Black", "Persons of Color" etc, or the fussing over whether people who are not fully able-bodied should be called "disabled", "special needs", "handicapped", "handicapable" etc.

      As a side note, what's often sadly ironic is that the politically correct terms of choice typically provide less information for those seeking to meet the special needs of those with, well, special needs. For example, if you're catering to someone who is blind in one eye you know they won't have depth perception, but someone who is "partially sighted" might have severe cataracts, they might be blind in one eye, they might be color-blind, they might be totally blind, so the term provides a politically correct descriptor that doesn't offer useful information as to what accommodations they may need.

      It's sad when politicians of any persuasion try and manage discussion through the requirement or prohibition of specific terms but it's not as if this is a new thing with Trump.
      "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law" - Aleister Crowley

      "If you love me, obey my commandments" - Jesus Christ

      The Bible comes as a complete package. If we want to pluck verses out of context so make them mean what we want them to mean, if we want to ignore the passages that are inconvenient to our outlook, we should be intellectually honest enough to throw our Bibles in the trash and admit we are following Crowley and not Christ.

    2. #12
      psalms 91's Avatar
      psalms 91 is online now Silver Member
      Moderator
      Supporting Member
      69
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Location
      Pa
      Posts
      12,972
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      2,752
      CH Challenge
      89
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (4,065,543 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      57,052
      Level
      60
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      7.54%
      Rep Power
      593
      Quote Originally Posted by tango View Post
      Sadly so much political movement over the years has been about censoring speech, whether it be the "loony left" wing of the UK Labour Party seeking to ban nursery rhymes such as "Baa Baa Black Sheep" (apparently it's racist, although the black parents who teach it to their children obviously didn't get that memo) and "The Farmer Wants A Wife" (because, you know, the farmer might be female or - gasp - gay), the endless fussing over whether we should call our fellow human beings with darker pigmentation "African Americans" (even if they are not American), "Negro", "Black", "Persons of Color" etc, or the fussing over whether people who are not fully able-bodied should be called "disabled", "special needs", "handicapped", "handicapable" etc.

      As a side note, what's often sadly ironic is that the politically correct terms of choice typically provide less information for those seeking to meet the special needs of those with, well, special needs. For example, if you're catering to someone who is blind in one eye you know they won't have depth perception, but someone who is "partially sighted" might have severe cataracts, they might be blind in one eye, they might be color-blind, they might be totally blind, so the term provides a politically correct descriptor that doesn't offer useful information as to what accommodations they may need.

      It's sad when politicians of any persuasion try and manage discussion through the requirement or prohibition of specific terms but it's not as if this is a new thing with Trump.
      Sadly yes, it is not new, he is a bully, and nut job and dangerous for this country but we knew what he was before he got elected, I dont know if people thought he would suddenly magically change
      Isaiah 40:31

    3. #13
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is online now Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      2,750
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      13,990
      CH Challenge
      298
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      18,957
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      94.3%
      Rep Power
      570
      If you want to be allowed to practice your religion in the future, you'd better hope like anything that that "bully" doesn't stop fighting against the totalitarians who will take that right away from you if given the chance.

    4. #14
      Stravinsk is offline Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
      45
      Widow/Widower
      Mood:
      Cool
       
      Join Date
      Jan 2016
      Posts
      3,126
      Country
      Australia
      CH Cash
      4,289
      CH Challenge
      0
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (14,625 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      12,689
      Level
      32
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      97.46%
      Rep Power
      0
      Quote Originally Posted by Lämmchen View Post
      http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...215-story.html

      "Trump administration officials are forbidding officials at the nation's top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases - including "fetus" and "transgender" - in any official documents being prepared for next year's budget.

      Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are: "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based."
      "


      I'm not sure I understand why this has happened. Is it because the words are controversial?
      I can understand why general terms like "evidence-based" and "science-based" are excluded. They are very general phrases used as opinion winners. "I make my claims based on science/evidence". Great. Details please. That may be enough for the already swayed but not for me.

      "Entitlement","diversity","transgender" - now THIS is curious - why specifically target these terms in publications related to the stated purpose of the agency? Ie: The Center for Disease Control.

      This is a budget related ban. I wonder if the Trump Admin is simply trying to weed out some rhetoric the CDC may be using to avoid coming under scrutiny by minority groups.

    5. #15
      tango's Avatar
      tango is offline Bronze Member
      Valued Contributor
      Married
      ... and you shall live ...
       
      Mood:
      Bemused
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Location
      Elsewhere
      Posts
      6,472
      CH Cash
      3,663
      CH Challenge
      32
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (6,044,117 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      29,307
      Level
      46
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      43.21%
      Rep Power
      728
      Quote Originally Posted by psalms 91 View Post
      Sadly yes, it is not new, he is a bully, and nut job and dangerous for this country but we knew what he was before he got elected, I dont know if people thought he would suddenly magically change
      I'm not sure why you feel the need to turn so many things into Trump bashing.
      "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law" - Aleister Crowley

      "If you love me, obey my commandments" - Jesus Christ

      The Bible comes as a complete package. If we want to pluck verses out of context so make them mean what we want them to mean, if we want to ignore the passages that are inconvenient to our outlook, we should be intellectually honest enough to throw our Bibles in the trash and admit we are following Crowley and not Christ.

    6. #16
      Lämmchen's Avatar
      Lämmchen is offline God's Lil Lamb
      Administrator
      Supporting Member
      Community Team
      52
      Married
      Gloria In Excelsis Deo
       
      Mood:
      Cool
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      16,330
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      201,699
      CH Challenge
      83
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (176,231 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      194,789
      Level
      92
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      24.17%
      Rep Power
      841
      The director of the HHS says there is no ban although the words will be avoided in the budget. At least that's how I read it. You don't hear much about it now in the news which to me means it was just hype to turn our direction elsewhere while something else was happening. And people fell for it!
      "Christianity does not require more work but more trust." Pr. Jonathan Fisk
      "Bearing fruit does not make you a branch. A branch is a branch because it grows from the vine." Pr. Jonathan Fisk
      "A Christian's life is not defined by what the Christian does. It is defined by Christ and what He has done for us." Pr. Rolf David Preus

    7. Likes Confessional Lutheran liked this post
    8. #17
      Confessional Lutheran's Avatar
      Confessional Lutheran is offline Prodigy Member
      45
      Divorced
      John 15:5
       
      Mood:
      Innocent
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Location
      Northern Virginia
      Posts
      765
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      3,541
      CH Challenge
      11
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      11,643
      Level
      31
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      80.22%
      Rep Power
      254
      Quote Originally Posted by Albion View Post
      If you want to be allowed to practice your religion in the future, you'd better hope like anything that that "bully" doesn't stop fighting against the totalitarians who will take that right away from you if given the chance.
      Hence the reason he got elected. Let's face it.. Hillary Clinton would have been more than happy to curtail Christians' rights while giving more and more concessions to our enemies. We had two dreadful choices last November. We simply chose the less toxic option ( after Benghazi, I wouldn't have elected her to walk my dog, much less lead the United States of America).

    9. #18
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is online now Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      2,750
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      13,990
      CH Challenge
      298
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      18,957
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      94.3%
      Rep Power
      570
      Quote Originally Posted by Confessional Lutheran View Post
      Hence the reason he got elected. Let's face it.. Hillary Clinton would have been more than happy to curtail Christians' rights while giving more and more concessions to our enemies. We had two dreadful choices last November. We simply chose the less toxic option ( after Benghazi, I wouldn't have elected her to walk my dog, much less lead the United States of America).
      Yes, that point is often ignored. Just this AM I was watching a show on TV featuring an author who didn't like Trump and couldn't sympathize with Evangelicals who supported and continue to support him. Trump is a blowhard and said dirty things about women and, what's more, was divorced before entering politics, according to the explanation he gave viewers. .

      BUT all that is said as if the evangelicals or anyone else heading to the polls could vote for a saint! In elections, you get choices.

      Is that guy not aware that the opponents of the president, the Dems and NeverTrumpers, the Hollywood crowd, et al are the worst kind of gutter dwellers, have no morals, call for assassinating the president, encourage and finance violence, ridicule anyone who is religious, etc. etc.?? Does he not know that Hillary Clinton was the other choice? THAT is what he is saying the American people should have embraced instead!

      And even if none of this were the case, find me, please, ANY president or nominee in the past fifty years who meets all the standards that this writer was trying to say are to be expected.

    10. Likes Confessional Lutheran liked this post
    11. #19
      tango's Avatar
      tango is offline Bronze Member
      Valued Contributor
      Married
      ... and you shall live ...
       
      Mood:
      Bemused
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Location
      Elsewhere
      Posts
      6,472
      CH Cash
      3,663
      CH Challenge
      32
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (6,044,117 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      29,307
      Level
      46
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      43.21%
      Rep Power
      728
      Sadly it seems pretty common that people will highlight every single thing that The Other Guy has done wrong while conveniently ignoring the failures that Their Guy has.

      As you say it's a choice between two candidates (I know there are third party choices and you can write in a name, but realistically speaking either the Republican or the Democrat nominee is going to be the winner). From what I could see it seems like just about any candidate could have beaten Hillary Clinton, and just about any candidate except Hillary Clinton could have beaten Donald Trump.

      When lifelong Democrats vote Clinton just to keep Trump out and feel contaminated for doing it, while lifelong Republicans vote Trump just to keep Clinton out and feel contaminated for doing it, you know the choice is as lame as it gets. It's no surprise that the Democrats dislike the Republican candidate and the Republicans dislike the Democrat candidate but when people dislike their own candidate you know it can only get better next time around. At least we can hope so.
      "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law" - Aleister Crowley

      "If you love me, obey my commandments" - Jesus Christ

      The Bible comes as a complete package. If we want to pluck verses out of context so make them mean what we want them to mean, if we want to ignore the passages that are inconvenient to our outlook, we should be intellectually honest enough to throw our Bibles in the trash and admit we are following Crowley and not Christ.

    12. #20
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is online now Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      2,750
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      13,990
      CH Challenge
      298
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      18,957
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      94.3%
      Rep Power
      570
      Quote Originally Posted by tango View Post
      Sadly it seems pretty common that people will highlight every single thing that The Other Guy has done wrong while conveniently ignoring the failures that Their Guy has.

      As you say it's a choice between two candidates (I know there are third party choices and you can write in a name, but realistically speaking either the Republican or the Democrat nominee is going to be the winner). From what I could see it seems like just about any candidate could have beaten Hillary Clinton, and just about any candidate except Hillary Clinton could have beaten Donald Trump.
      There's been an increase in people saying that since the election of Donald Trump, but I am sure that no other Republican could have beaten Hillary Clinton, despite everything that should have made her unelectable.

      When lifelong Democrats vote Clinton just to keep Trump out and feel contaminated for doing it, while lifelong Republicans vote Trump just to keep Clinton out and feel contaminated for doing it, you know the choice is as lame as it gets. It's no surprise that the Democrats dislike the Republican candidate and the Republicans dislike the Democrat candidate but when people dislike their own candidate you know it can only get better next time around. At least we can hope so.
      I wouldn't count on it. When politics heads down some slope, it usually gets worse before it gets better. But that's not the biggest obstacle to what you are hoping for. The biggest obstacle is that the Democratic Party has become a radical, hate-driven party. At the top, at least.

      Not every Democrat voter is that way, of course, but the party is very unlikely to put up a moderate-left candidate in 2020. The pressure is too great for that. Instead, a real firebreather like Elizabeth Warren will probably emerge, and we can see the language of some of the contenders already becoming extreme. If they don't do that, they'll seem "soft on Trump."

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •