I was under the impression that companies like that paid 'reparations' (restitutions) based on their actions under the Nazis. Is that wrong?
What I meant was they weren't allowed to keep the spoils of the war they lost...as far as I know....and were forced to paid for their complicity, along with the nation as a whole (right? I just assumed Germany paid reparations, but I admit my post war European history is spoty at best)....that doesn't mean eradication, or even stop further success, but it would mean that later successes cannot be attributed to profiting from war crimes. I hope that's right.

*quality sentiments, *promote

We can't deport them. We can't jail them. We can't shun them. The only option I see is engage them and educate them. Their beliefs come from a miseducation, clearly, since they somehow see their failed causes as superior.
Remind them the Nazis lost...and are anti American.
Remind them the confederates lost...and are anti Americans.
Remind them the white power movements lost...and are anti American.
Remind them that, if they are working to eradicate all but a master race, they have proven repeatedly to not be that master race, so they should start by eradicating themselves.

Spicer explaining why Trump may be eradicating his job....


It seems that it's not working having Trump's public representatives explain Trump's actions without discussing them with him as they've been doing, and he's not going to take time to discuss them, so they might as well go home and let him write his own press releases so at least they can stop looking like know nothing liars daily.

The first trailer for Ep. 7 did such a better job of grabbing my interest than this one did. The title is intriguing though, as is Luke's last line. Honestly, I had kind of hoped for it to go in this direction back in Ep. 7--that the Knights of Ren were a group of Force users that had determined the biggest cause of strife in the galaxy was the constant battling between Jedi and Sith and therefore sought to eradicate both groups in order to restore the balance. Would have made Kylo Ren a waaaaaaay more interesting villain. Instead, though, they made about as generic of a Star Wars film as they could have by just copy-pasting plot points from previous films. So I'm pretty skeptical about Ep. 8 being any better.

Sadly, at this point, "evidence" may be just as fabricated as the numerous differing claims about what's happening and why. The utter failure of news media to do any actual reporting rather than just repeat what the AP or other paid, biased single sources claim, paired with the total eradication of trust in the white house or other official sources has led us to a point where discerning the truth is a near impossibility.
I think that's totally intentional.

If humans didn't eat and use animals, we would eradicate them as competitors for resources and hazards to our safety. That is the way of man, always has been.
No attempt to instill guilt will change that, it's more likely to spur it on out of spite for those dispensing the guilt.

It makes one wonder....what's @bobknight33 s take on this weeks total failure of another of Trump's main campaign promises, immediate repeal and replacement of the ACA, even though Republicans have full control of congress and enough votes to do what they like?
What about his promise of better health care for everybody for less money, but his bill actually offered much higher premiums (>20% higher immediately) and 24 million more people without healthcare, and those who manage to keep their insurance would find it useless since it would no longer cover prescriptions, doctor visits, hospitalization, emergency room visits, etc. Not exactly better care for less, is it?

How about the wall, now paid for with taxes, not Mexico?

How's the war on Daesh going, are they eradicated yet like he said they would be instantly with his great secret plan? No? Oh, what did the Democrats do that saved Daesh from his perfect knowledge of military actions?

Also, what's Bob's take on the bi-partisan congressional investigative committee (that now clearly needs to be made an independent prosecutor run investigation since a committee member decided to report directly to the suspect of the investigation rather than his investigative committee) saying there is far more than circumstantial evidence of collusion with the Russians and his campaign? That's treason, and this level of treason, once proven, calls for execution not prison, and certainly not just removal from office.

Is there a point where average Trumpeteers will admit they made a huge mistake, or is this guy the only one that sees reality?

-..."they" in that sentence is the Catholics and Protestants.....it's your topic. In a general sense, it applies to most religions as individual groups, and the more dogmatic the followers are, the less tolerant of any dissent they become.

I can read. It's in the bible, and never contradicted or eradicated from the religious 'law'...so it's not what I define their beliefs to be, it's what the bible defines their beliefs to be, and if they don't follow it, what in the hell are they 'believing'?

I think you won't provide evidence because you can't. Someone's misinterpretation of the clear instructions, that let you off the hook for following them, means nothing when you have the clear text to read.

Only one hefty book matters in this instance, and it's undeniably clear. If you don't murder infidels, you don't follow the bible's teachings and so must deny it's God's law....making it nothing but a terrible book of fairy tales.

Edit: I think there's a disconnect about disrespect here. Atheists may not respect your beliefs with lip service and placations, but most religions require the complete eradication of differing beliefs. Atheists absolutely respect your right to believe any nonsense you want to, even if we may try to convince you why you're wrong. Religions invariably do not exhibit that base level of respect, how can you possibly claim they are more respectful?
Could it be that atheists are more respectful, enough to engage the 'other', so SEEM more disrespectful because they're up front and honest about their disrespect for beliefs, while religious people might smile but rarely actually engage in discussion/debate for fear of actually having to defend their indefensible beliefs, so just consider them a subhuman demon to be avoided as much as possible and backstabbed at every opportunity because they, let's say, think Saturday is the Sabbath?
I grew up in Texas, I have plenty of experience with 'Christian respect' for the beliefs of others (or lack thereof)....and it's nearly non existent there. I was told more than once that if I don't believe in God or Jesus my opinion didn't matter, and I wasn't welcome there, and deserved death. A few of those respectful Christians tried to beat some Jesus into me....but never one on one, and never successfully.

Btw, I condemned no one, I pointed out clear facts in a rational way. Historically, and by religious decree (above), Christians don't discuss or respect others differing beliefs, they just try to eradicate them. It's part of the dogma to be disrespectful of any tiny difference in belief, disrespectful to the ultimate degree.

Its basically all in the video, there are physical barriers already out there, it is a long term problem that has been improving lately, there is probably not much more protection a big wall would provide over a symbolic fence (only effect is length of tunnel/ladder required). Everyone agrees on illegal vs. legal, prostitution and drugs can not be eradicated, only limited, by making the little girls illegal you push them in peril. One could improve the situation by cooperating with the government of Mexico and border states, border towns, by making the legal waiting line clear and bearable, Trump is the elephant in the porcelain shop on all of this, making things worse.

Simple solutions to complicated problems... never mind.

Are americans really competing with illegal immigrants for jobs?
Is it that hard to get an education in the US that would get you past the dish-washing stage? IDK.

Why are the rules for employing illegal imigrants so hard to uphold? Could it be because it is impossible? Because no-one else would be willing to do the work for the money available in the local economy? How would the overall situation change if rules on "legalising" some of these people were relaxed instead of tightened? If they can hold a job for months or years without commiting any law violations besides going past the validity of their work permit they deserve at the very least permanent residence over all the trash living on social security just because they were born a few miles north.

If they are living and working and not doing any wrong, you should keep them regardless of... whatever.

BTW I happen to agree with what you wrote about that commercial 100%, Bob. Just probably from a different point of view. Its propaganda fairy-telling without a good point.

If I really wanted to move to the US I would make absolutely sure I had a plan on what to do there. Not just get in at all costs. Like the Budweiser guy (but better beer).

EDIT: No, I certainly don't know that. They often operate in places where the local government is not strong, but that's different from no law but their own by FAR.

It's not what I refuse to acknowledge, it's the constitution and American law. You can't murder American citizens without due process and conviction. Period. Al Awlaki was not killed on the battlefield taking up arms against Americans, the only legal acceptation.

So, you THINK they are inhuman monsters that kill innocent children (in order to spread their 'our way or the grave' message), and maybe some of them do, so you want to go ahead and kill their children (to spread our "our way or the grave" message), because killing children makes the killer the kind of human trash that we all agree should be eradicated without process, huh? Think about that.

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

So...if a fetus is created from only female DNA, it would be sinless?
Why aren't the church and all Christians pushing for cloning research then? It's only logical that, if sin is only from the father, and that sin, untreated, leads to eternal damnation, there should be an all out push to eradicate it like polio, by removing the offending relatives....but there's not. It seems the church either disagrees with you, or has completely failed to consider the implications and responsibilities of that stance. Today, given funding and removing the stigma, it's totally possible to make all the female Jesuses one could ever ask for, complete with virgin births, that could start the new era of sinless humanity, removing any need for Jesus or God. ;-)

I agree that the tech exists, but to implement enough of that tech (in the time left) to change how humanity abuses our resources would take more resources than exist, leaving the tech swap 2/3 finished and the planet barren.....if you could convince everyone to go along.
Had we started moving in that direction 35+ years ago, maybe, but at this point the greenhouse gasses already in the atmosphere will cause climate change that's already decimated the forests and will continue to get worse, even if we go 100% green today. It's too late for tech, population control, or much else.....and the methane is just starting to be a factor.
If we just moved into the forests and abandoned tech, the forests wouldn't last one year.
If we eradicate 9/10 of the population, we don't have to change so much and the planet can absorb our damages without destroying the systems life relies on, then we just need to mitigate the damage already done instead of continuing to add to it. The best way imo was as you suggest, have people get fixed and quit having children the planet can't support...but it's too late for that even if we cut 3.2 billion nutsacks today. As I see it, we need to be fully invested in numerous plans to both stop making things worse (population, food issues, climate change, pollution, etc) and make some painful sacrifices to repair the damage done by the "greatest generation" and their spawn.

People have to fucking change. They don't need to eradicate forests to do these things, there are plenty of sustainable architectural / eco living books out there. Plenty of space out in the desert and there is plenty of ocean water to filter. Plus, so much tech to help with this wave of transformation.

I do agree that simply put, people need to get snipped. Continue fucking but STOP having kids, please!