Hodad

This is an old chestnut for folks arguing against the social safety net, but I've yet to see any reasonable explanation for a mechanism that creates dependency. Presumably, there was a time in your life in which you made a lot less money, but could still meet your basic needs for food and shelter. Did achieving that basic, subsistence lifestyle demotivate you? Did you have any less ambition or less desire to elevate your status or acquire more luxury? Did you want less? Or, alternatively, you could quit your job now and move down into poverty, meeting your basic needs with assistance, but little else. Is there any appeal to that? Is it a struggle to avoid doing making that choice and what keeps you from it? Those are largely rhetorical questions and I'm pretty confident that I know the answers. They're probably the same for you as they are for me. So my question is why do you think the majority of people would have different answers? People with little or no income may be dependent on aid to meet basic needs, but I don't see that meeting those needs creates further dependency? And I certainly don't see how it would discourage or demotivate people who want more. For anyone who wants more, it's a safe platform from which to pursue goals.

Maybe. But also I think the generalization is correct. For example, a Christian might share the message "Love everybody." But "Love everybody." isn't a religious message. No one would object to that. But if the message is "Love everybody because Jesus is the savior and he said to love everybody." that's becomes a religious message and is inherently exclusionary to other faiths and non-faiths. The distinction I've been making is between messenger and message. Inclusivity means anyone from any faith or non-faith can come and participate in appropriate activities comfortably. It doesn't mean that anybody can use public space to produce any content they want, particularly when there's a hostility baked into religious messaging. Religions can get coexist at a superficial level, but underlying the civility they are not pluralistic and are inherently hostile to one another. If someone says that Jesus is the only path to salvation and eternal happiness that sounds fine enough, but the other edge of that sword is that it is telling all the Jews, Muslims- whatever -that their beliefs are wrong, inferior and that their souls are damned unless they convert. So not exactly nice dinnertime conversation. -- Best to just stop at "Love everybody."

Agreed, not all. Of course, many do think that, but unanimity isn't really the point. The point was that if you "let them all participate" or specifically to let them all proselytize or sermonize as part of public programming it doesn't create an inclusive environment. Instead, they really just take turns being exclusive. After all, they all claim to be the one true faith. Far better, I think, to keep proselytizing, sermonizing etc. out of the public spaces as a matter of policy. Freedom of religion really does mean freedom from religion too. And, FWIW, most religions and sects don't want equal access, they want exclusive or dominant access to public support and spaces. The Church of Satan is rather successful in demonstrating that point at every opportunity. Every time they show up to claim their share of equal access to public support the religious folks change opinions very quickly, lol.

1. YES YOU DID claim that the MFF is specifically for rioters, you pathological nutbag. This is the exact quote from your post: "You know that Kamala Harris publicly called for people to support a fund which was specifically for getting rioters out of jail." ,The "absolute indisputable fact" is that you are a shameless liar. Kamala Harris never said anything about bailing out rioters, yet you claim she did. That is lying. She tweeted about the MFF to support protesters. You don't get to just change her words and invent new meanings for them. Some pathological liars are very smart. You, on the other hand, are as dumb as they come. Like Trump and his "largest crowd ever" and "no rain fell during the inauguration" lies, you just can't help yourself from telling the dumbest, most casually disproven lies. Of course many protesters were arrested for non-violent offenses. MOST of them were arrested for non-violent offenses. For example: In Minneapolis, the city where Floyd was killed, local police arrested 570 people in the ensuing protests — nearly 90 percent of them from the metro area, with the vast majority being charged with curfew violations. Now, according to city and county prosecutors, all but 44 cases have been dropped. There were people "thrown in jail" for a huge variety on nonviolent "crimes" that had nothing to do with rioting. Many peaceful protestors. Occasionally people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time or tried to run away from the "kettling." Here is your challenge: "If you think that they were against the violence and the rioting, I'd like you to find some examples of Dem politicians or MSM pundits excoriating rioters for the destruction of communities" It took about 30 seconds to find quotes of not just randoms, but the POTUS and V-POTUS both condemning violence and rioting in strong language. Hard to see and hear what politicians say when you have your head up your ass. This would be more fun if you were smarter or made even remotely plausible claims. Oy. No one was aware of his "violent crime" until 6 days after the shooting. I posted proof for you--literal screenshots of FOX and CNN breaking the news on the day the police eventually released the robbery video. Yet you still maintain that your (apparently magic) TV showed you the robbery on the same day as the murder. -- You see what I mean, the same stupid, easily disproven pathological lies. You just can't help yourself. The media reported Brown's friends and family describing him as a "gentle giant." No one in the MSM knew Brown to characterize him one way or another, though you're welcome to produce a link of someone directly characterizing him rather than reporting. And when the robbery video became available they reported that perspective as well. Again, hard to know that with your head up your ass. Great, if you can agree that it's unsolved by unknown shooters then you can stop yammering about "a 16 yr old black kid was killed by Chazz police" and whining about how the media didn't cover it. You posted a damn article from the Seattle Times. Hey look, the media covering it! You go on to say: There's no heart-warming/heart-wrenching backstory about "a gentle, happy child" or a sad story of a "troubled, impoverished youth..." in either story to stir up emotions. But you link to an "MSM" article that says this: "Antonio Mays liked video games and rapping and playing with his 7-year-old sister, his family said. He didn’t even own a cellphone. His family called him Little Tony, or Rico." -- “He told my brother he was going to Seattle to be a part of history and protest,” his uncle, Michael Mays, told The Seattle Times, describing the note. “And he just wanted us to be proud of him.” “He was into mischief like any other kid, but he was respectful, he listened, he was just into mischief,” You can't even keep from unraveling your own lies. Jeebus, I'm not sure you could make this any easier. The moral of the story, as always, is that you live in a completely delusional fantasy world and whenever anyone pokes holes in it with facts or evidence you start lying your ass off to spackle over the cracks and then call names and tantrum like a toddler. Grow up. Get a life. Try being a decent, honest person.

3. Not quite. That logic doesn't hold. Inclusivity doesn't come from tolerating every form of speech, but from creating an environment in which everyone can feel welcome on the same terms. As an example, if you invited Baptists, Muslims and Mormons to proselytize you would be including a diversity of faiths, but you'd also be sending message that gay people, trans people, atheists and agnostics etc. vile deviants and damned heretics. So it's not creating an inclusive environment, but rather an exclusive one populated by a diverse set of excluders. The library ceases to be a welcoming safe space for all. Alternatively, the way to create an inclusive environment is to say that baptists, muslims, mormons, gays, trans people, atheists agnostics etc. are all welcome at the library -everyone is welcome- but exclusionary programming is not. Come to the library, volunteer, read as many Dr. Seuss and Judy Bloom books as you want. Just don't preach or teach exclusive lessons. Those don't align with our mission. Really, that's a lot like most workplaces. You know that there's a diversity of political, religious and cultural beliefs, but nobody is allowed to preach about it and everyone can be comfortable doing their tasks and coexisting. 4. Yes! It should be reversed, but it isn't. This is making lemonade out of lemons.

Talking about two different things. They didn't reject his book--although librarians build collections and some may not think it a worthwhile addition. Apparently the latest installment is not even a story, but disintegrated collection of opaque platitudes - which are paired with illustrations - followed by a sort of Christian activity workbook. The complaint, as I understand it, is that some libraries have declined to sponsor his reading events. Most community libraries have an explicit mission to create inclusive, safe spaces for everyone. When librarians can turn on the TV and see Kirk Cameron on TV declaring himself and his books as part of a "war for the hearts of children," fighting for Christian and conservative values and against "wokeness" and tolerance for gender and sexuality deviance, then I think it's reasonable (and correct) for librarians to assess that Cameron's content and mission are not aligned with the mission of the library. Like schools, parks and other of public spaces, libraries walk a fine line when it comes to religion. How do they tolerate all without endorsing any? Typically there's a distinction between private facility use and public programming. The "Christianity is the Only True Faith" club of Minneapolis could reserve or rent a study or meeting room at any library or school in town offering such spaces. But neither of those places are likely to host a public performance of proselytizing that is likely to be understood as state support. Anyway, I think the substantive debate is a bit of a distraction, really, from what's actually happening. Cameron is not new to the culture wars. He is a wealthy person with diverse business and creative enterprises. He has zero interest in touring libraries around the country doing book readings. But if he can collect some rejections it becomes marketing gold for an audience that loves and craves a victimhood narrative. "Our socially dominant religion is being repressed! Quick, everybody send Mike Seaver $30 for Jesus!"

I do. Why would public libraries accept faith-based programming? He's not being excluded because he's an a-hole. If he wanted to volunteer to read standard children's books instead of proselytizing, I'm sure he'd be welcomed--despite being an a-hole.

It's been widely assumed as fact for a long time, There are many people involved who have acknowledged it. This is just the first time that an American directly involved hasv confessed it. If you don't find a confession from one of the Republicans who was involved in the effort, it's hard to imagine what you think would constitute "evidence."

No, he's POTUS because he was running against an crass, unqualified boor whose "politics of spite" were wholly inadequate to lead through actual national challenges. He's POTUS because he ran against an unpopular narcissist who wasn't getting the job done. He is POTUS because Trump sucked. He's POTUS because the GOP is so uncreative that they tried the same October surprise that helped them in 2016- and this time people didn't listen when you cried "wolf!"

Nah, it's still impossible to reasonably deny the results. That's left up to the loons. Every state certified. Multiple state investigations. 60-ish cases laughed out of court. Dozens of crazy conspiracy theories thoroughly debunked. And still not a shred of evidence. See, you have no interest in facts, evidence or reality. Hunter Biden has nothing to do with the fact that you're completely delusional.

What constitutes "proof"? A Republican, who was party to the events, gave a late-life confession with morning to gain. In response, you talk about the deal being in the heads of deranged Democrats? I think there's a typo in your user name, Delude.

Rock hard dong.

You are lying. Again and again and again. The MFF is NOT specifically for protesters, let alone rioters, yet you claim it is and underline the word. You are a liar. Despite what you read in your looney chain emails, Harris did not "gleefully" predict anything about riots. She discuss protests and the justice movement, but unsurprisingly never mentions riots or voices any support for violence. Watch the interview, you are a liar. I'm sure it was probably hard to see Democrats condemning violence with your head up your ass, nevertheless it happened publicly and at the highest levels. Again, you are liar. Both Biden and Harris condemned riots and violence last year on multiple occasions. They expressed support for peaceful protest. In August, Biden said, "I want to be very clear about all of this: Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It's lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted. Violence will not bring change, it will only bring destruction. It's wrong in every way." Harris distinguished between peaceful and violent protest in her own August statement, saying, "We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence." She added, "We will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice." In October, Biden and Harris issued a joint statement following the fatal police shooting of Walter Wallace Jr., a Black man in Philadelphia who was carrying a knife during what his family said was a mental health crisis. Biden and Harris said that "no amount of anger at the very real injustices in our society excuses violence" and that "looting is not a protest, it is a crime." Michael Brown's family and friends described him as a gentle giant, not the "MSM" and as already shown too you, essentially every network and site publicized the robbery video on the day it was released. You are a liar. AFAIK, Mays shooting is unsolved. You're welcome to post evidence (lol) to the contrary. But why would you expect national commentary on it anyway? Perhaps your Special TV that shows you news from the future has shown you more of the story. You are (probably) a liar, but I'll withhold judgement pending any substantiation. I won't hold my breath. I don't know how a person gets the way you are, just constitutionally incapable of telling the truth. Jeebus.

You are a liar. The entire goddamn speech is an appeal for unity, understanding and love. And it was a pretty good one. There is literally no way to honestly construe that speech as supportive of violence. Seriously, that's the exact opposite of any literal, figurative or contextual reading. You don't have to like it, but the absurd spin you're trying to put on it is profoundly dishonest. I challenge anyone to click that link, read the speech and try find any inkling of support for violence. It's simply not there.

There is no substance to debate. Your claims are utterly without merit. Plain stupid, actually. You can't support your claims. You can't find an example of anyone in either administration who supported violence. You've been revealed as a liar again. So what is left to debate? If you don't want to learn the difference between infer and imply, fine. You've never been much interested in learning, so no surprise.

Do you honestly not understand the nature of that confession? The Republicans told the Iranians NOT to release the hostages or negotiate with Carter. To wait a year and they'd pay them back for the favor. It's just plain evil to trade 55 years of actual human suffering for a better chance that you'll get elected. If that vile exchange is "right and true" in your be worldview then you have some very big problems.

You don't have evidence. In you posted links to something entirely different that in no way supports the claim made. Classic naked link bait and switch. Is a bail bondsman pro murder if they front bail money for someone accused of murder? Of course not. Don't be stupid. Community bail funds have very simple core values and they don't have anything to do with supporting crime. They simply believe that a person who happens to have $0 when arrested doesn't deserve to lose their job, house and family while they await trial any more than a person arrested with $1000 (or whatever arbitrary figure).

You have demonstrated over and over again that you have zero interest in facts. You don't use data or evidence to inform your opinions and even when they are delivered to you on a platter you lack the willingness or ability to incorporate them and revise your beliefs. A person who can't or won't use facts themselves absolutely should talk to experts and obey. It's your best chance of success and survival.

You can't even manage to be honest about dictionary definitions. OED Which Word?infer / imply Infer and imply have opposite meanings. The two words can describe the same event, but from different points of view. If a speaker or writer implies something, they suggest it without saying it directly: The article implied that the pilot was responsible for the accident. If you infer something from what a speaker or writer says, you come to the conclusion that this is what they mean: I inferred from the article that the pilot was responsible for the accident. Infer is now often used in informal speech with the same meaning as imply: Are you inferring that I’m a liar? However, this is still considered incorrect in standard English. Obama didn't "infer" anything while speaking. You mean to accuse him of "implying" something. Rather, you inferred something from his speech that was absurd because of your delusional alternate reality and extremely fuct version of "logic." Again, let the record show that you can't produce a single statement from anyone in either administration supporting violence. You have only your delusions and lies. Not a single statement supporting violence, when you claimed that everyone supported violence. Pathetic lies.

1. There are a LOT of people who find the bail bond system, and the unsavory industry it spawned prime examples of the inequity baked into our justice system, and many who support a community funded alternative. It's not any sort of support for violence. It's support for fairness. Oh, and protestors are not necessarily violent. Duh. 2. No, dummy, she's not rallying a graduating class into an army, she's extolling them to stay active and engaged and, yes, angry about the injustice in the world. That's the way change is made. There's a whole speech to provide context. You might try that instead of the excerpted line FOX news told you to "stay angry" about. 3a. Learn the meaning of the word "inferred." 3b. Your interpretation of, again, a full speech worth of context, is insanely far off. There is no way a sane person can construe that speech at pro violence. That's plain flat-earth loony. Get a life.

Jeebus. You're a scumbag in real life too? Most people are worse online, but that kind of dangerous, deceptive behavior is truly deplorable. You can't even be bothered to respect people's wishes about their health and free association? It's fine to have differences of opinion, but regardless of what one believes, one can behave honorably. Shame on you.

No, those events simply do not support your claims. Not even remotely. You'll pretend that they do, in the same way that you pretend to have a special TV that shows you future events, but nobody is buying it outside of your conspiracy fever swamp.

Great, let the record show that you could not produce even a single example of a person in the administration supporting violence, despite claiming that *everyone* did, up to and including the president. I set you a VERY low bar and you couldn't even clear that. Why? Because lying snakes lack legs are are, consequently, notoriously poor jumpers. At least you're predictable.

So after clicking your naked links I can confirm that you've got nothing. Thanks for playing.

Yes, although I think you meant CNN. FWIW, I actually don't have any network news or live TV. I just read and catch the occasional newsworthy clip. When it comes to politics: There are the ignorant and apathetic. There are people with opinions and positions. There are conventional partisans. And then there are deluded people who live in an entirely invented reality. Frankly, I'd take the 1s over 4s all day every day. They are equally ill informed, but the 4s are crazy enough to take action.