Favourite latest post by previous poster

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The solution to this problem is to not cut the string. These fellows ought to keep it at its full length and use it to strangle the owners who have put them into this plight. They should use the threat of this string to advocate for redistribution of wealth that they might be able to afford better toys.

Alternatively, another answer is that these poor kids would not be able to figure out this problem because, being poor, they live in a school district with inadequate funding and unmotivated teachers who wouldn't be able to properly instruct them.

Or, perhaps Al has OCD. Even though he wants to maximize his chances of getting a long piece of string the compulsion to put a mark at 50cm overrides his other thoughts. He then washes his hands for forty-five minutes. This is a serious issue in Al's life and is not funny.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It's a bit too big, and you seem to have an uncanny obsession with all things Fitzgerald.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No.  The guy gets ripped and never attacks back. Put him on iggie.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Will the mass-murdering Cambodian dictator sink the Guntaker?

Will Snowstalker stop making stupid posts?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If anyone thinks she's seriously considering a run, leave the Forum and politics now.

Since when is Roberts vulnerable? And why do they think running Sebelius will help the KS D's in any way?

Seriously, I don't think she will run.

Seriously, like I have said, I believe Roberts will win the primary. The tea party guy is so crazy, http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2014/03/the-doctors-hard-on-wolfs-x-ray-posting-jokes/
If he wins, (and that's likely), I'm sure the democrats would have an opening. But Sebelius won't probably run, but the actual democrat is relatively decent.

And PS Chairmansanchez: Missouri isn't a swing state, I didn't know you were a such dem hack .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Close_states.2Fdistricts

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Freedom Property overall, although I think the laws need to be loosened some.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

why would someone do that

jesus christ

Cheeks and noseskin are for the bourgeois Capitalist oppressors!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

ON the whole Native American thing:

I'm not going to call bullsh*t on Warren's ancestry entirely here.  It's a very cultural thing in Oklahoma for pasty white people to claim to be Native American when they are like 1/168th Cherokee or something.  To her credit, it seems that Warren merely claimed to have Native American heritage, which makes her a lot less annoying than most other "Plastic Natives".  However, was this relevant to bring up in a Massachusetts Senate Primary?  Most likely not.

With that said, it was pretty dumb for Brown to think this was some sort of deciding issue.  In reality, nobody gave a sh*t.  If anything, I think that Brown would've been much better off attacking her connections with Obama while playing up the regulatory populist theme.  Then again, that would require Scott Brown to have a brain.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

He certainly doesn't lack self-esteem.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Unfortunately for Paul, Kentucky's tradition of electing democrats has put a block on him. If he was right across the border in Tennessee (assuming a same situation in Tennessee), he could get a bill passed and signed no problem with Tennessee's super majority of republicans in the legislature. Republicans will have to win back the state house in 2014, and governor (open seat) in 2015, and then pass the bill in time for him to file for both. Can that happen? This year's deadline for Kentucky was late January, so if its the same for 2016, they would literally have to do it right away, assuming gov. Bashear will veto it if it comes up again in the meantime.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I wonder how close Obama came to losing WV-03.

Let me do the calculating for you:


           Obama    Judd
WV-01: 61.21%   38,79%
WV-02: 64.80%   35,20%
WV-03: 53.60%   46,40%

Best county for Obama:        Jefferson (77.68%)
Best county for Judd:           Mingo (60.24%)
Narrowest county for Obama: Mercer (50.26%)
Narrowest county for Judd:    Boone (51.58%)

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I think 3 sounds good.

1. Local (county, municipality)
2. State
3. Federal

Ideally, national government only deals with a few big issues. More specific issues transfer down to the state and local levels. The very idea of a international government is horrific.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This is really low of Boehner if he had anything to do with reporting the video to the school in a political sabotage against Winteregg. The ad itself was funny and lousy, but given Winteregg's low budget and little to no Tea Party help he's getting, he made a name for himself by successfully accusing Boehner of being the establishment hack he is and his utter failure to lead the House.

It would be nice if Boehner could get fired because Winteregg or Gurr would be better any day than Boehner, but unfortunately Boehner will still win probably close to if not >80% in the primary. He'll probably retire in 2016 as just a Rep because he knows it and I know it, the moment he took the govt funding bill to the floor in October, he kissed his Speakership goodbye.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Hey guys, this is just a friendly reminder that what clothes you wear and how you present yourself doesn't indicate anything about your sexuality.

Not that I don't think this man isn't a massive tool, but he can have done all of these things and then figured out it wasn't his cup of tea. That should be as okay as the opposite scenario.

Just saying.

And that when you elect someone, you're electing who you think will best represent your interests - you aren't electing someone's ..life. I understand if you think this is hypocritical or ruins his political integrity, but that's not necessarily the case.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Go Laxalt!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Here are the unofficial results of the GOP primary for Idaho's 2nd Congressional District:


Source: http://www.sos.idaho.gov/elect/results/ENR/menu.html

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

"schweitzer is traitor because he didn't run for a senate seat he didn't want"

Adam C. FitzGerald/Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald (D) of Ohio
Brian Schweitzer/Amy Klobuchar

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Adam.

Not a fan of gun nuts and traitors of their party.

How is he a traitor? Is it because he didn't run for Senate? He has every right in the world to not run or run for whatever he wants.

He did it out of spite for his party you see

All of the polls suggested Schweitzer would win the Senate seat easily, yet he declined to run even before the 2 strongest Republicans, Daines or Racicot, made their decisions. Democrats gave Schweitzer not one, but two opportunities to speak at their convention and was considered a potential Obama VP pick in 2008 and this is the thanks Obama and Reid get. He knew our party was desperate when we looking to him when Baucus had to decline a run for re-election following his controversial background check vote and what did Schweitzer do instead? He declined and then when he found out that Bullock was going to appoint his Lt. Governor to the seat, recruited his own former Lt. Governor and got him to run as a Democrat to try and primary John Walsh (who has the backing of Tester, Baucus and other members of the Montana establishment) going as far to say that Bohlinger would crush the "DC bull" by a 2-to-1 margin. In fact, Schweitzer has yet to endorse Walsh even though Walsh worked in Schweitzer's administration and had no faith in Walsh against Bohlinger and has no faith in him against Daines.

While Walsh has been busy attacking Daines for his attacks on rape victims, veterans, Medicare recipients and outsourcing of jobs to China, Schweitzer wanted to have an intra-party fight more than anything else and it was just because Walsh took DSCC money and did a few fundraisers. In fact, these lies that Schweitzer wants to "avoid politics" nowadays are utter lies because he's a TV media darling nowadays and I've seen him repeatedly on MSNBC talking about a variety of political topics (in which case I turn the channel). He lives in luxury down in Texas now as a Montana corporate chairman and still believes he's a regular Montanan nonetheless. He even supports the pipeline which will hurt jobs IN Montana and yet he still has the audacity to attack other politicians like Walsh in the state for not being real Montanans. Also, if Schweitzer is supposedly not interested in being a Washington insider, then he shouldn't even be considering running for President. He'll have to work with a party whose establishment is upset with him and another party on the other end of his ideological spectrum and we know already he can't work with Republicans from his time as Governor and can't work with Democrats either on reasonable compromises. If Schweitzer wants to run as an Independent for President then fine because he'll continue to express how much he loves to criticize and screw over national Democrats, but don't run for President of the party you screwed out of a majority 2 years earlier. Just no.

He doesn't want to run for Congress. He does not like Congress. He does not want to be in Congress. He did not run because Daines was right on his heels anyway, and any shift in the national climate would have made him the underdog. He did not want to risk his resources on a job he does not want, and he didn't, because Brian Schweitzer is not entitled to the Democratic Party. Get over it.

You do realize that Schweitzer ran for Senate in 2000, right? And that was at a time when Republicans had the majority, wouldn't have had as much power, and would have had to make the controversial Iraq vote. He only lost to Burns by a couple of points while Bush won the state easily, so it's clear he wasn't discouraged. He would have been stupid of course to attempt to primary Baucus or face off against Rehberg for his House seat or contend the primary with Montana St. Senate Pres. Jon Tester and it's good he didn't. But when our party needed him......when our party needed another strong candidate like Tester in Schweitzer to run for this seat and save our majority, he'll take one for the team led by Tom Daschle, but not for Harry Reid? Obama and the Democrats managed to bypass that Schweitzer was extremely pro-gun and has some other controversial views, but this was a test of Schweitzer's actual trust to Democrats and he failed, miserably. If he ran for this seat and beat Daines (it probably would be a tossup, at least) and we held the majority, then he could have been considered a potential candidate for President if Hillary declined, but not anymore. Democrats gave Schweitzer the chances of a lifetime and made him a national figure before, so you're dang right he's entitled to owing back the Democratic Party.

That was the year 2000, a lot of sh**t can happen in 14 years.  He was tired of DC politics.  You look like a fool calling him a traitor for not running for a seat.  Instead of doing that, how about you go and win seats in states and stop complaining. 

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The last line doubles as MASSIVE irony.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

1. Brazil
2. India
3. China
4. Russia

You'd pick a totalitarian fascist regime over Putins hijacked form of authoritarian democracy.

And YOU would pick an aggressive, expansionist imperialist power over a staid authoritarian (NOT totalitarian) state.

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

And China isn't a fascist state by any definition of the word.

How is China not aggressive, expansionist, and imperialist?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

How does being queer affect your religious outlook? Have you ever felt the need to question or subdue that part of yourself because of orthodoxy?

I'm fully willing to admit that this is one of the areas in which my views are generally more revisionist then they are otherwise, frankly more for the sake of my close friends, an entirely disproportionate number of whom are lesbians, than for myself.

Given that you, as a semi-orthodox Christian, presumably acknowledge God as an omniscient and the only source of objective morality, how do you justify positioning the emotional comfort of yourself and your lesbian friends ahead of the clear and consistent condemnations of homosexuality in Christian scripture?

Did you read the rest of that post?

(There's a real answer to this question but I'd rather not give it to a troll. I wish TJ or DC Al Fine or somebody had been the one to ask this.)

I'll bite.

In preparation for this post, I watched a few video on homosexuality and Christianity with those annoying Upworthy headlines*.

The arguments for Scripture accepting homosexual sex can be summarized as:

1) The OT passages against homosexuality were part of the judicial law which expired at Christ's resurrection.
2) Paul is condemning lust in Romans 1, so loving, committed homosexual relationships are acceptable.
3) Paul's references to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy are mistranslated.
4) The references to homosexuality in the Bible, especially in the NT are not canonical.

I accept #1, since it is quite compatible with orthodoxy. Since the judicial law has expired, the issue of homosexual acts is narrowed down to a question of whether it violates the seventh commandment.

This is where diverge from the pro-homosexual position. From what I've seen so far, arguments 2 and 3 tend to be a big exercise in hand waving, and declaring large swaths of Paul's letters non-canonical is heresy (and usually contains more hand waving)

With that in mind, how do you reconcile your position on homosexuality with orthodoxy? Do you have another argument, or do you use some of the one's I've listed. If it's the latter could you elaborate on the argument, since I'm sure you can make a better case than Upworthy

*Yes I know Upworthy is a terrible terrible place to gather arguments, but they're easy to digest and quick sources of info.

From a point of view in which certain parts of the Bible may be canonical but nevertheless incorrect (just not in a way that damages the hope for salvation of people who believe them), or a point of view of 'continuing revelation' or a Tradition of which Scripture is only a part, it's a lot easier to ignore, reread, or change these positions (which is I think part of why, adjusting for orthodoxy on other issues, Anglicans and even Catholics are a lot more willing to entertain these arguments than Presbyterians or Baptists), but that isn't a very Protestant understanding of the Bible and it's certainly not a very Reformed one, so I won't go into that for the time being.

I find the general sorts of arguments that you're summarizing in 2) and 3) mostly convincing, but I understand why they may not pass the smell test or may seem like handwaves. Honestly, I'm willing to accept for the sake of argument the idea that Paul is in fact condemning homosexuality as such in Romans 1, but even if that is the case I find it most sensible to understand him to have been condemning it for reasons that no longer obtain, namely the sociological construction of same-sex relationships, especially between men, in the ancient Mediterranean world. For more on this idea and on how it might differ from just a special case of the 'Paul is just condemning lustiness' explanation/handwave, I'd recommend James V. Brownson's book Bible, Gender, Sexuality. It's written as an argument in favor of same-sex marriage, but it dissects the objections to the more common arguments in favor of that in what I thought was a pretty fair and sincere manner. It's also written from a Reformed perspective so you may actually get more out of its style of argumentation and the points that it considers worth addressing than I did, even though you'll probably come away still disagreeing with it.

As for the role of my own psychology in all this, even recognizing that the chance that this is one of the doctrinal points I'm wrong on (surely there are at least a couple!) exists, I never claimed to be a perfect person, and I believe in pastoral economium. I'm aware that this isn't enough to support recognition of such relationships, only tolerance--for recognition I'd submit that in a proper Christian sexual ethic recognition and tolerance have to be coinherent, and that accepting a certain kind of romantic or sexual relationship as tolerable implies that one needs to think of how it might be possible to recognize, since sex acts outside a marital context can't be viewed as entirely appropriate. 'One man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens.'

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This is so creepy.

Just pointing that out. Carry on.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Definitely Oregon, with its high concentration of both tree-huggers and loggers. 

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It's Happening.gif
It's Happening.gif
It's Happening.gif
It's Happening.gif
It's Happening.gif
It's Happening.gif

I'll do you one better!





and who could forget the original?