Scouts Honor Posted July 29 Posted July 29 9 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: pretty impressive for the left to rig the election when they were out of power and republicans oversaw the elections in 2/3 key states. maybe they just wanted it more? don’t the republicans have a personal responsibility to try harder? lol
billyhoyle Posted July 29 Posted July 29 19 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said: you dont trust seymour hersch? https://www.bundle.app/en/breakingNews/obama-threatened-biden-with-removal-from-office-under-25th-amendment---sy-hersh-76F985F4-B817-4C7A-8D51-DFBB70851D2C Who is that? And what is the Sputnik international? Seems no different than sourcing themat forums message board.
VakAttack Posted July 30 Posted July 30 Speaking of old men who shouldn't be president... will the Rs have the courage to put the old boy out to pasture and run a coherent candidate? Christians and gunowners, not big voters.
Offthemat Posted July 30 Posted July 30 “In his 1947 classic Family And Civilization, Harvard sociologist Carle C. Zimmerman examined the way changing family forms affected the fates of the Roman and Greek empires. His historically informed sociological analysis concluded that civilizational collapse is presaged by a dissolution of families, as well as by a loosening of sexual mores, and a rise in both androgyny and homosexuality.” https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/a-civilizational-suicide-note-on-the-seine/ 1
RockLobster Posted July 30 Posted July 30 1 hour ago, VakAttack said: Speaking of old men who shouldn't be president... will the Rs have the courage to put the old boy out to pasture and run a coherent candidate? Christians and gunowners, not big voters. She was willing to bend over backwards to make him look good... yet he wouldn't let her help him. He'd be much better at golfing in retirement than anything he's doing now.
billyhoyle Posted July 30 Posted July 30 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Offthemat said: “In his 1947 classic Family And Civilization, Harvard sociologist Carle C. Zimmerman examined the way changing family forms affected the fates of the Roman and Greek empires. His historically informed sociological analysis concluded that civilizational collapse is presaged by a dissolution of families, as well as by a loosening of sexual mores, and a rise in both androgyny and homosexuality.” https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/a-civilizational-suicide-note-on-the-seine/ It's interesting that since he wrote this, the U.S. has been extremely successful relative to the rest of the world (1950s to present). When is the collapse supposed to happen? The countries that are the most socially oppressive tend to be the ones that collapse (Soviet Union, Iraq, Lebanon, etc). Edited July 30 by billyhoyle
Offthemat Posted July 30 Posted July 30 20 minutes ago, billyhoyle said: It's interesting that since he wrote this, the U.S. has been extremely successful relative to the rest of the world (1950s to present). When is the collapse supposed to happen? The countries that are the most socially oppressive tend to be the ones that collapse (Soviet Union, Iraq, Lebanon, etc). There was a recent poll in which the majority of respondents said that if this country were invaded, similar to Ukraine, they would flee rather than fight. Especially the youngest. You, of course, notice that what Zimmerman was pointing out was that the Greek and Roman Empires were also extremely successful, until they weren’t. 1
billyhoyle Posted July 30 Posted July 30 13 minutes ago, Offthemat said: There was a recent poll in which the majority of respondents said that if this country were invaded, similar to Ukraine, they would flee rather than fight. Especially the youngest. You, of course, notice that what Zimmerman was pointing out was that the Greek and Roman Empires were also extremely successful, until they weren’t. We have nuclear weapons-we aren't going to be invaded. My point is that this guy's prediction was wrong because the premise happened and the country itself is more successful than it has ever been by almost any measure. So yeah, eventually it all may go to shit, but the reason won't be for what this guy thought it would be.
Offthemat Posted July 30 Posted July 30 32 minutes ago, billyhoyle said: We have nuclear weapons-we aren't going to be invaded. My point is that this guy's prediction was wrong because the premise happened and the country itself is more successful than it has ever been by almost any measure. So yeah, eventually it all may go to shit, but the reason won't be for what this guy thought it would be. Eventually tomorrow, eventually next month, or maybe eventually next year?
billyhoyle Posted July 30 Posted July 30 1 hour ago, Offthemat said: Eventually tomorrow, eventually next month, or maybe eventually next year? Check back in a year. He has been wrong for 80 years. Maybe this will be the one! 1
Scouts Honor Posted July 30 Posted July 30 12 hours ago, billyhoyle said: It's interesting that since he wrote this, the U.S. has been extremely successful relative to the rest of the world (1950s to present). When is the collapse supposed to happen? The countries that are the most socially oppressive tend to be the ones that collapse (Soviet Union, Iraq, Lebanon, etc). we are so oppressive people continue to stream across our borders just for a taste of the boot. 1
Scouts Honor Posted July 30 Posted July 30 11 hours ago, billyhoyle said: We have nuclear weapons-we aren't going to be invaded. My point is that this guy's prediction was wrong because the premise happened and the country itself is more successful than it has ever been by almost any measure. So yeah, eventually it all may go to shit, but the reason won't be for what this guy thought it would be. i would venture that it is being invaded.
Offthemat Posted July 30 Posted July 30 9 hours ago, billyhoyle said: Check back in a year. He has been wrong for 80 years. Maybe this will be the one! I don’t know who you are saying made a prediction. I quoted Sowell and Zimmerman, both of which are more so observations than predictions. You seem to be stuck on the Zimmerman quote and ignoring the Sowell quote, when it is equally relevant.
ThreePointTakedown Posted July 30 Posted July 30 21 hours ago, jross said: If you do not already know then you will never understand. Why do you say that? I don't think the case has been made very well or clearly. Could you offer up what convinced you that it was 'rigged'?
ThreePointTakedown Posted July 30 Posted July 30 On 7/28/2024 at 7:51 PM, Scouts Honor said: are you claiming it's not a person? Your irrational fear is represented by the person on the right. They don't really have a place in the conversation and I'm curious why you would support/post something like this as a point to your opinion unless you agreed with it. So it seems as if both of these situations are misunderstood by you and that may inspire your fear of them. On 7/28/2024 at 11:04 PM, ThreePointTakedown said: I'm not claiming that its not a human. But, THAT, it exists does not offer it special rights that the person on the right would not be allowed to have. Please, keep your irrational fears to yourself. 21 hours ago, Scouts Honor said: fears of what? my mother didn't kill me in the womb. The person on the right. Why do you offer up and bash someone you don't like to support this point? Why does the pregnant person not get a choice in the process? I think you've mentioned before, something like, 'they've made the choice to create the pregnancy and now must live with the consequences'. Is that correct. If so, how is that not support to punish someone for getting pregnant? I guess you'll say, 'no'. But seeing as I can spin it to sound just that way, why doesn't that bother you that some, many pregnant people, feel its punishment?
Bigbrog Posted July 30 Posted July 30 1 minute ago, ThreePointTakedown said: Your irrational fear is represented by the person on the right. They don't really have a place in the conversation and I'm curious why you would support/post something like this as a point to your opinion unless you agreed with it. So it seems as if both of these situations are misunderstood by you and that may inspire your fear of them. The person on the right. Why do you offer up and bash someone you don't like to support this point? Why does the pregnant person not get a choice in the process? I think you've mentioned before, something like, 'they've made the choice to create the pregnancy and now must live with the consequences'. Is that correct. If so, how is that not support to punish someone for getting pregnant? I guess you'll say, 'no'. But seeing as I can spin it to sound just that way, why doesn't that bother you that some, many pregnant people, feel its punishment? Pretty sure you are the only one calling it a punishment. Living with the consequences and taking responsibility for actions isn't punishment, but rather an important attribute to be a value add to society.
ThreePointTakedown Posted July 30 Posted July 30 21 hours ago, Scouts Honor said: just kill the baby, i dont need to tell you why doctor Of course you don't. Because I guess its a horrific opinion that if anyone knew you actually held it, would look at you quite differently. But that probably doesn't bother you either. I'm sorry you feel attacked by me for simply asking you to justify your opinion. If you had a solid justification it shouldn't be difficult to break it down to its simplest parts. I don't feel you've done an adequate job of it. Hence my follow up questions. I hope you have this conversation with someone you care about. Someone you can't run from. It might shock you how some people feel about the topic.
Scouts Honor Posted July 30 Posted July 30 Just now, ThreePointTakedown said: Your irrational fear is represented by the person on the right. They don't really have a place in the conversation and I'm curious why you would support/post something like this as a point to your opinion unless you agreed with it. So it seems as if both of these situations are misunderstood by you and that may inspire your fear of them. The person on the right. Why do you offer up and bash someone you don't like to support this point? Why does the pregnant person not get a choice in the process? I think you've mentioned before, something like, 'they've made the choice to create the pregnancy and now must live with the consequences'. Is that correct. If so, how is that not support to punish someone for getting pregnant? I guess you'll say, 'no'. But seeing as I can spin it to sound just that way, why doesn't that bother you that some, many pregnant people, feel its punishment? why must i listen to people tell me a fetus isn't a person, when they gaslight me about a man dressing up as a woman. i really dont care about the man playing dress up, i never have, until they started to try to take women's places. the pregnant person did get a choice. my parents had my brother when they were 16/17. they had me at 19/20. still together it was not easy. my mother was sent away... my gma hated her. so it wasn't like they had all this support. convenience and economics are the number one reason for abortion https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
Scouts Honor Posted July 30 Posted July 30 4 minutes ago, Bigbrog said: Pretty sure you are the only one calling it a punishment. Living with the consequences and taking responsibility for actions isn't punishment, but rather an important attribute to be a value add to society. an opportunity to do something amazing raise a child 1
Scouts Honor Posted July 30 Posted July 30 4 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said: Of course you don't. Because I guess its a horrific opinion that if anyone knew you actually held it, would look at you quite differently. But that probably doesn't bother you either. I'm sorry you feel attacked by me for simply asking you to justify your opinion. If you had a solid justification it shouldn't be difficult to break it down to its simplest parts. I don't feel you've done an adequate job of it. Hence my follow up questions. I hope you have this conversation with someone you care about. Someone you can't run from. It might shock you how some people feel about the topic. so ... should we abort every child under 5? of course not. but, they can't support themselves either. should we abort all disabled? all welfare? all homeless? all mentally ill? where does it stop Joseph?
Sam Herring Bishop McCort, Pennsylvania Class of 2026 Committed to Penn State Projected Weight: 141, 149
Luke Murray Peninsula Catholic, Virginia Class of 2025 Committed to Gardner-Webb Projected Weight: 157, 165
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now