Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[playwrite]

(07-20-2016, 10:50 AM)radind Wrote:

(07-20-2016, 09:54 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Feminists have been savaging Melania, who is one of the most
accomplished women in the world, who gave a fantastic speech to a
worldwide audience, even though English is her fifth language.  Right
after the speech, I heard one of the BBC's typical left-wing
pro-feminist reporters say something like: "Melania was a supermodel
who traveled around the world without knowing anything but fashion.
The news this evening was that she was able to utter coherent
sentences."

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton has been credibly charged with raping at least
seven women, and is treated as a god by feminists.  Julian Assange is
charged with raping two women and is treated as a victim.

A girl today who is raped by a Democrat knows that she'd better
keep her mouth shut, or feminists like Hillary will savage her
brutally the way she savaged the women her husband raped.

Feminists have no ethics or morals, and spread hatred with no
regard for anyone but themselves.  They are the most destructive
force in America today.

No wonder that feminists are savaging Melania.  No matter what you
might think of Trump, she's all that feminists are not, but wish they
could be.

I think that the most destructive force is the de facto state religion of Secular Humanism that tolerates no dissent.

DId you get thrown in jail, stoned, or had your clitorIs cut off??  If not, just exactly was the intolerance you experi; did some woman get uppity about you wanting to control her vaginia???

[Eric the Green]

(07-20-2016, 07:08 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(07-20-2016, 01:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: > I suppose if you focus on some radical, extreme and doctrinaire
> feminists, or other particular such groups, you can find people
> who "tolerate no dissent" from their views, but that is not a
> "state religion" and most "secular humanists" are more open-minded
> than religious right people.

> Male and female equality is fair and necessary, just as is racial
> equality. These subjects should be no-brainers, and we should be
> long past controversy over them.

So, since you're not one of those radical, extreme and doctrinaire
feminists, then you must agree that a man like Bill Clinton who's been
credibly charged with rape by seven women, should face criminal
charges for rape in court?

I assume that's what you meant by your last comment.

Only one woman I know has charged Bill with rape. Even that one has never been brought into court. Just repeating lies, as Republicans do day and night, 24/7, does not make them true.

Quote:The 1990s started with feminists leading the charge at trashing
Clarence Thomas because he was a successful black man who married a
white women, which is something that I learned really infuriated women
in general, and feminists in particular. Then you had the whole thing
with Bill Clinton.

Another baldfaced lie. Clarence Thomas was charged by Anita Hill of sexual harassment. It was the central event of the 3T "culture wars." Did you miss something there, John? Thomas has also been "trashed" because he is the most empty-headed, reactionary fool ever to occupy the Supreme Court bench.

[John J. Xenakis]

(07-20-2016, 10:08 PM)playwrite Wrote: > Why is it that guys who can't get laid always blame feminists, get
> angry at guys that can, and make shixt up???

playwrite - June 2007 Wrote:> Don't worry, John, I understand if you put some aluminum foil on
> your head that should keep the aliens from melting your brain.
> Can't speak for any damage already done, however.

You're just as much a pathetic moron today as you were nine years ago.

[playwrite]

(07-20-2016, 11:53 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(07-20-2016, 10:08 PM)playwrite Wrote: >   Why is it that guys who can't get laid always blame feminists, get
>   angry at guys that can, and make shixt up???  

playwrite - June 2007 Wrote:>   Don't worry, John, I understand if you put some aluminum foil on
>   your head that should keep the aliens from melting your brain.
>   Can't speak for any damage already done, however.

You're just as much a pathetic moron today as you were nine years ago.

And you're still making shXt up and still haven't gotten any. 

 Maybe stop and think that the two might just be related?

[John J. Xenakis]

(07-21-2016, 06:19 AM)playwrite Wrote: > And you're still making shXt up and still haven't gotten any.
> Maybe stop and think that the two might just be related?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...users.html

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-20-2016, 10:50 AM)radind Wrote: I think that the most destructive force is the de facto state religion of Secular Humanism that tolerates no dissent.

There are some who either cannot distinguish between a secular philosophy and a religion, or wish to confuse the two.  I for one think the distinction still important.

Secular humanism can be an important part of one’s world view.  In informs how one sees the world and evaluates people.  I does come with a set of values.  I says a good deal about what is right, what is wrong, and what things should be striven for to lead a moral life.  Religions do all of those things.  Some caught in religious world views think only religions can or should do these things.  I disagree.

Religions tend to favor the supernatural.  There are often text books held to be in great authority.  There are often gods, personifications of the world views and values supported by the religion.  Secular humanism, just by the definition of the word ‘secular’, strives to avoid these things.  I see this as significant.  Glorifying a text or a persona anchors a system of thought but anchoring implies rigidity, an inability to move.  As a progressive, one who thinks history ought to record a series of improvements, showing how problems were solved, I am dubious about anchors.

This doesn’t imply a secular system of thought is always true.  I’m just trouble by supposedly sacred systems of thought anchored in Agricultural Age authoritarian torture based systems of morality.  If Agricultural Age texts supporting Agricultural Aged values are held sacred, how can a culture move on?  Staying secular implies the basic premises of a system can be questioned.

In the West, the basic premises doesn’t fall far from the golden rule, from equality.  The comparatively recent neo-wiccan movement has proposed as holy “do as you will, but harm none.”  This meshes at an abstract level with the Enlightenment concept of rights.  There are certain freedoms that should not be taken away, there should be no restrictions on what one is allowed to do, but at the same time one cannot harm another or take away the other guy’s freedoms.  There is an inherent tension or conflict in this.  How does one set up a system of rules and coercions that protect freedom?

Women were not and still are not entirely equal.  Blacks were not and still are not entirely equal.  Some Christians do not see themselves as being free to practice their religion as they would practice it.  Name your group and there will often be an impression among the group they they are not being allowed to be themselves, that they are not being allowed to reach their full potential.  Is the Golden Rule being disregarded?  Are people being blocked from doing as they will?  Are their rights being denied?

As a secular humanist, I have sympathy with all of the above.  Females, blacks and Christians are all humans after all.  Let them be…  let us be.  And yet, if you start setting up rigid rules that coerce and enforce equality and freedom, the victims of such rules and coercion aren’t going to feel free.  Coercing freedom seems inherently problematic, almost as problematic as not coercing freedom.  How to do it well might always be a matter of values and personal preference.  As such we have an inherently unsolvable problem.

Me, I have a problem when white male Christians present themselves as victims of oppression.  Too often it sounds like they believe that their inherent absolute right to oppress people is being taken away.  At the same time, the rules and atmosphere of political correctness can drift quite far from the golden rule and ‘do as thy will’.  Is there an inherent conflict in a militant aggressive pursuit of freedom?  Is there a balance to be struck, with no possible agreement on where that balance ought to be?

Anyway, as usual in a values driven partisan disagreement, I don’t see either extreme as being clearly correct, or either extreme as being entirely without merit.  Still, if a group is accurately described as secular, are they practicing a religion?

Color me dubious.

[playwrite]

(07-21-2016, 06:37 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 06:19 AM)playwrite Wrote: >   And you're still making shXt up and still haven't gotten any.
>   Maybe stop and think that the two might just be related?  

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...users.html

Let me see if I can explain this article to you -

The women who failed in their accusations a decade or more ago are being trotted out again by the Right wingnuts again because of the false accusations at UVA.

You are aware that the UVA accusations were also found false and people moved on - with the usual exceptions, for the usual reasons.

[radind]

(07-21-2016, 06:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-20-2016, 10:50 AM)radind Wrote: I think that the most destructive force is the de facto state religion of Secular Humanism that tolerates no dissent.

Quote:There are some who either cannot distinguish between a secular philosophy and a religion, or wish to confuse the two.  I for one think the distinction still important.

That is why I posted the article about Karl Popper( who was a secular humanist) on the Karl Popper on Religion thread.

Quote:the idea that we are all motivated by some kind of faith (which he chose to call our religion) he hoped to get over the dispute between the militant atheists (who he regarded as proponents of the religion of atheism) and people of orthodox religious beliefs. He wanted to get past the issue “Have you a religion or not” to address the question “What are the principles of your religion?” – “Is it a good religion or a bad religion?”

He was in favour of “good” religions, including the faiths of secular humanists, which promote the core values of the great religions 

The standard definition of 'secular humanism' is as a philosophy.  I am trying to use the term "Secular Humanism" in the  faith (or religion) sense that Popper described and as currently practiced in the USA. In my opinion , Secular Humanism  has replaced Christianity as the dominant faith in the US.

[John J. Xenakis]

(07-21-2016, 06:55 AM)playwrite Wrote: > Let me see if I can explain this article to you - The women who
> failed in their accusations a decade or more ago are being trotted
> out again by the Right wingnuts again because of the false
> accusations at UVA. You are aware that the UVA accusations were
> also found false and people moved on - with the usual exceptions,
> for the usual reasons.

Yeah, I knew you'd say exactly that. No, the accusations were never
found false, and based on the volume of accusations are almost
certainly true. What happened is that Hillary and NOW and other
feminists, who normally claim that women never lie about rape, savaged
the accusers, and made sure that Bill Clinton would never be
prosecuted.

You're exactly the same as all the other feminists. It's apparently
ok with you for a Democrat to rape any women they want, because you
and other feminists will savage the rape victims, victimizing the
women over and over and over again, and make sure that the Democratic
rapist is never prosecuted. Like other feminists, you have no morals
or ethics.

[Anthony '58]

Quote:Secular humanism can be an important part of one’s world view.

But secular humanism - at least the brand of it being pushed by the American far left, assuming that "American far left" is not itself an oxymoron - is inherently hypocritical, since it is not equally dismissive of all religions: Muslims get a free pass for their misogyny and homophobia, and get outrightly applauded for their anti-Semitism, while Christians not only get tarred and feathered for both, but in both cases, their particular brand of each is far milder.

[playwrite]

(07-21-2016, 07:22 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 06:55 AM)playwrite Wrote: >   Let me see if I can explain this article to you - The women who
>   failed in their accusations a decade or more ago are being trotted
>   out again by the Right wingnuts again because of the false
>   accusations at UVA.  You are aware that the UVA accusations were
>   also found false and people moved on - with the usual exceptions,
>   for the usual reasons.  

Yeah, I knew you'd say exactly that.  No, the accusations were never
found TRUE, and based on the volume of accusations are almost
certainly true.  What happened is that Hillary and NOW and other
feminists, who normally claim that women never lie about rape, savaged
the accusers, and made sure that Bill Clinton would never be
prosecuted.

You're exactly the same as all the other feminists.  It's apparently
ok with you for a Democrat to rape any women they want, because you
and other feminists will savage the rape victims, victimizing the
women over and over and over again, and make sure that the Democratic
rapist is never prosecuted.  Like other feminists, you have no morals
or ethics.

There, I corrected that for you.

As to moral or ethics, you wouldn't be making these accusation except for your POLITICAL purpose.  That makes you something that should be flushed down the plumbing.

[John J. Xenakis]

Warning to readers: The following contains a quote attributed to me
that I didn't say, and has been modified to propagate a lie. Please
see my actual message above to see what I actually said.

(07-21-2016, 09:39 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 07:22 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 06:55 AM)playwrite Wrote: > Let me see if I can explain this article to you - The women who
> failed in their accusations a decade or more ago are being trotted
> out again by the Right wingnuts again because of the false
> accusations at UVA. You are aware that the UVA accusations were
> also found false and people moved on - with the usual exceptions,
> for the usual reasons.

Yeah, I knew you'd say exactly that. No, the accusations were never
found TRUE, and based on the volume of accusations are almost
certainly true. What happened is that Hillary and NOW and other
feminists, who normally claim that women never lie about rape, savaged
the accusers, and made sure that Bill Clinton would never be
prosecuted.

You're exactly the same as all the other feminists. It's apparently
ok with you for a Democrat to rape any women they want, because you
and other feminists will savage the rape victims, victimizing the
women over and over and over again, and make sure that the Democratic
rapist is never prosecuted. Like other feminists, you have no morals
or ethics.

There, I corrected that for you.

As to moral or ethics, you wouldn't be making these accusation except for your POLITICAL purpose. That makes you something that should be flushed down the plumbing.

You really are an unbelievably sleazy person, changing the words in my
quote and attributing to me things that I never said. You excuse
rapists, you victimize rape victims, and you lie about quotes.
There's no excuse for someone like you.

[playwrite]

(07-21-2016, 11:43 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Warning to readers: The following contains a quote attributed to me
that I didn't say, and has been modified to propagate a lie.  Please
see my actual message above to see what I actually said.

(07-21-2016, 09:39 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 07:22 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 06:55 AM)playwrite Wrote: >   Let me see if I can explain this article to you - The women who
>   failed in their accusations a decade or more ago are being trotted
>   out again by the Right wingnuts again because of the false
>   accusations at UVA.  You are aware that the UVA accusations were
>   also found false and people moved on - with the usual exceptions,
>   for the usual reasons.  

Yeah, I knew you'd say exactly that.  No, the accusations were never
found TRUE, and based on the volume of accusations are almost
certainly true.  What happened is that Hillary and NOW and other
feminists, who normally claim that women never lie about rape, savaged
the accusers, and made sure that Bill Clinton would never be
prosecuted.

You're exactly the same as all the other feminists.  It's apparently
ok with you for a Democrat to rape any women they want, because you
and other feminists will savage the rape victims, victimizing the
women over and over and over again, and make sure that the Democratic
rapist is never prosecuted.  Like other feminists, you have no morals
or ethics.

There, I corrected that for you.

As to moral or ethics, you wouldn't be making these accusation except for your POLITICAL purpose.  That makes you something that should be flushed down the plumbing.

You really are an unbelievably sleazy person, changing the words in my
quote and attributing to me things that I never said.  You excuse
rapists, you victimize rape victims, and you lie about quotes.
There's no excuse for someone like you.

You actually wrote "No, the accusations were never found false"

- and I'm the sleazy one???

Goebbels is not in a position to hire you, but you might want to try at Faux News - I hear they have a new opening for a fat guy who can't get laid. Pitiful, how far you've fallen.

[Eric the Green]

Oh yeah, now this is real "change" man! Trump is the outsider, the change candidate; Hillary is beholden to Wall Street yadda yadda yadda oh yeah real "change"

Trump Said to Want Ex-Goldman Banker Mnuchin for Treasury

Wednesday, 20 Jul 2016 06:35 AM
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trump-mn...r=87qcfzkd

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has told would-be donors that he wants former Goldman Sachs banker Steven Mnuchin to serve as his Treasury secretary, according to a Tuesday report in Fortune.

Mnuchin, the CEO and chairman of hedge fund Dune Capital Management LP, was appointed as Trump’s national finance chairman in May despite being a onetime donor to Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama.

SkyBridge Capital founder Anthony Scaramucci, who has been raising money for Trump and revealed the candidate's comments, said that Mnuchin should get more credit for fundraising despite the campaign's slow start.

Mnuchin spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs, becoming the company's chief information officer in 1999 and leaving in 2002. In 2004, he founded Dune with financing that included $1 billion from George Soros, a prominent Democratic donor.

Trump, who is expected to be officially nominated for president Tuesday evening at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, has named financiers Carl Icahn, Jack Welch, and Henry Kravis as possible Treasury secretaries in the past.

Mnuchin didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trump-mn...z4F4UERPxF

[John J. Xenakis]

Quote:> Faux News - I hear they have a new opening for a fat guy who can't
> get laid.

When Roger Ailes is credibly accused of sexual harassment, Fox News
investigates, and will probably fire him.

When Bill Clinton is credibly accused of raping numerous women,
there's no investigation, and feminists, led by Hillary, repeatedly
savage the women he raped, so that the women are victimized again,
over and over and over and over.

That's the difference between feminists and decent people.

[Eric the Green]

We can count on Bill Maher to make fun of and trash our bozo GOP and its nominee in fine style!

[Eric the Green]

Profile of the Sociopath
Glibness and Superficial Charm.
Manipulative and Conning. They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. ...
Grandiose Sense of Self. ...
Pathological Lying. ...
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt. ...
Shallow Emotions. ...
Incapacity for Love.
Need for Stimulation.



http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

[Eric the Green]

This is a man whose own ghost writer calls him a sociopath, and the architect of his favorite building says he ripped him off.

[playwrite]

(07-21-2016, 02:04 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

Quote:>   Faux News - I hear they have a new opening for a fat guy who can't
>   get laid.

When Roger Ailes is credibly accused of sexual harassment, Fox News
investigates, and will probably fire him.

When Bill Clinton is credibly accused of raping numerous women,
there's no investigation, and feminists, led by Hillary, repeatedly
savage the women he raped, so that the women are victimized again,
over and over and over and over.

That's the difference between feminists and decent people.

Ah, sorry to just now realize that you were in a coma in the 1990s.

It does explain a lot, however.

[Eric the Green]

(07-21-2016, 02:04 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

Quote:> Faux News - I hear they have a new opening for a fat guy who can't
> get laid.

When Roger Ailes is credibly accused of sexual harassment, Fox News
investigates, and will probably fire him.

When Bill Clinton is credibly accused of raping numerous women,
there's no investigation, and feminists, led by Hillary, repeatedly
savage the women he raped, so that the women are victimized again,
over and over and over and over.

That's the difference between feminists and decent people.

As Bill Maher says, Ailes well that ends well!

I can tell that you don't like feminists very much. I wonder how I got that impression, uh; but..........

for me, I feel really ashamed to be a white male now; actual large majorities of us will actually vote for a lunatic, sub-human billionaire crony-capitalist xenophobic sociopath to be our president, just because he exploits the anger of old white guys. It doesn't speak well for our sub-species. As Trump would say, "that I can tell you; believe me"