Bullshit, you liar. You constantly declare the country is doomed because Biden is incompetent and have since before the 2020 election….yet since he was sworn in every metric of national success has improved….but you don’t let a little thing like facts color your opinion.

Or do you mean the shortages nonsense, because you absolutely posted propaganda about fake shortages in summer 21, I remember fact checking you and finding out they were recycling images of empty shelves from 2020 and from other countries on righty media, just like you posted ridiculous nonsense in 2020 claiming BLM had burned multiple entire cities to the ground, using photos from previous years, some wildfire footage, etc to “prove” your point (proving you don’t have one in reality, only in your fantasy world of make believe).

What party? I vote Democrat by default, not choice. Before Trump I never once voted on party lines. He made it a choice of America or Trump. You choose Trump over country, honesty, reality, or sanity every single time. Sycophant!?! Lol. Every stupid accusation a stupid admission. I don’t think there’s one person here besides you and your sock puppet accounts that doesn’t consider you a complete sycophant of and zealous cultist to your Orange messiah who you believe is perfection personified and has never done anything wrong in his lifetime.
I constantly debunk your sycophantic extremist lies, you call that being a lefty sycophant. I don’t think you know what the word means, just like most English words.

What a fool believes, he sees, and you believe some unbelievable nonsense like “indictment will make Trump more powerful and popular than ever. Nov 2020 is a great time to go “all in” on Tesla. Covid is just a mild cold and will disappear by April 2020. Horse dewormer is good medicine for humans, targeted vaccines are bad. Jan 6 was a false flag by BLM and ANTIFA not a failed coup by Trump. 2018, and 2020 will be huge red tsunamis.” Etc. There’s no end to your foolishness, and never once an admission you were wrong despite being wrong over 98% of the time, you just change the subject and refuse to look back at your lies (Ashley Babbitt, Pelosi, etc).

If fools like me were a dime a dozen, this world would be a MUCH better more sane place. Sadly, it’s fools like you that are easy to find and dupe with pleasing (mostly hateful) ridiculous lies. Fools like me rank and score in the 99th percentile, friendo. You don’t even know what that means.

Believe.

If you can't believe, make believe.

Hey Bob, do you know….who is “Trucker” Randy Bishop?
I’ll tell you since he’s playing make believe, he’s a far right wing radio host and Trump lover who’s running for the senate in Michigan (as a far right wing Trump loving racist anti gay fake Democrat…wtf is that!?) who complains that all families aren’t all white anymore, and race mixing should be outlawed, he shouldn’t have to see it on tv, and whines that black Americans own the nation, the media, the politicians, and the public schools.

Bishop was ranting about the media indoctrinating children through TV commercials, just like racist Trumpist often do (but never Democrats)….

“You will not believe what this country looks like in 20, 30, 40 years from now,” he said during the show, “If we continue down this path with public indoctrination of our kids and their socialist and communist agenda. What is it? Destroy the nuclear family.”

A few seconds later he clarified how the nuclear family is being destroyed.

“Now every single commercial has a biracial mom and dad,” Bishop said in the show.

“I can’t even watch a college basketball tournament without commercials telling me that I have to feel guilty,” Bishop said, “Because I think a family should be a white mom a white dad and white kids.”

Let me guess, 1) you think this proves Democrats are racists (he’s about as much a Democrat as Regan or Dick Cheney or Manchin) and 2)you would vote for him.

Btw, Michigan Democratic Party has denounced him, said they will not support his candidacy, and are deeply insulted this far right wing racist would pretend to align himself with them.

“Views such as the ones Trucker Randy Bishop espouses have no place in the Democratic Party. Candidates who say or believe these things are not welcome. Randy Bishop is not a Democrat, he is a dishonest minor social media personality that enjoys getting attention from making outrageous statements. He shows nothing but disrespect to our system of government by using a run for elected office to promote his personal agenda, entirely based on lies, hate and fear.
Disgusting racist belief systems are not welcome in the Democratic Party and frankly should not be welcome in any political party or community. We will not support his efforts to run for Senate and find it deeply insulting that he would dare to put a D next to his name.“
“With dangerous views such as this, this individual masquerading as a Dem has no business anywhere near any branch or level of government or in policymaking. Calling for the erasure of entire families/groups of people, is another example of & in line with the backwards, heinous views & actions clinging to white supremacy that we’ve been seeing in anti-history & anti-LGBTQ bills & it’ll only get worse w/someone like this in office.”

Republicans, on the other hand, have been supporting him for years, with Republican senators, representatives, and others often going on his show, including supporting his failed campaign as a Republican for the same seat.

More blatant Republican dishonesty, racism, intolerance, vitriol, and more dishonesty. Par for the course if you’re a Republican. You guys REALLY need to stop huffing the keyboard duster.

Wait - is that a real song?

I thought it was make-believe for that Will Ferrell Eurovision movie on Netflix.

Ah, if only. Got me excited before I realized it was make-believe.

You quoted a racist statement below Care to indicate where it came from?

So you are in make believe now making up racist statements to fit your narrative.

Trump won because Obama failed to create jobs and Hillary was just a bad candidate.


He is undoing Obama failed policies for ones that are working better.

My point, Cuba's health care system provides better results for 1/10 the cost, even though their patients are almost all living well below what we call the poverty level and with the constant stress of living under communism.

That is objective fact, not Michael Moore make believe.

Gravity uses existing technology, existing spacecraft, existing spacesuits.

Interstellar uses make believe technology, make believe spaceships, make believe space suits, make believe calamity, make believe killer sandstorms, make believe space planets and plenty more hokey bullshit.

S'ok if you want space opera for 2 hours but I like my sci-fi more believable.

You must have submitted that comment in error.

The senator clearly said, "Nobody will dispute that," so either you're completely wrong or...


or he's an ignorant dipshit who has deluded himself into believing whole-heartedly in make-believe scientific facts he fabricated out of whole cloth.

Which is more likely? I'll let you decide.

This might be throwing a bit of a lit match into the whole thing, but there has been a lot of discussion about how "the media" failed women, and how some sort of unseen force is trying to keep women down, or even men.

At some point in the production of any music video you care to point a finger at, some women have been quite happy to accept money in exchange for portraying whatever it is that certain people are unhappy about.

I have to insist that the question is asked - does everyone WANT equality? There are a lot of women out there quite happy to make a lot of money based on photoshop'd depictions of how they might look in a make believe world. Or to dance around in their smalls, trying their very best to MAKE men interested in their sexual prowess. Their primary money making skill is sexual.

So before we criticise this invisible and possibly make-believe machine that systematically holds women down, how about we consider the individual decisions of prominent women? The women in the blurred lines video weren't forced at gunpoint to strip off and dance around titillating viewers, they accepted payment for a job and did what they were paid for knowing full well that young girls might be watching and imitating them, or whatever.

I mean, great job insulting the hell out of the producer of the video or the choreographer or the guy who made up the song. But all they did was write out a script or imagine out a vision of something they would consider sexually appealing. How about blaming the vacuous bints that wobbled their tits around without considering the consequences?

Perhaps not everyone WANTS equality. Men or women, but women are the easy example; perhaps some or perhaps even many women WANT to be able to use their bodies to gain interest from men or money. If that is the case - as it is for "sexy" music videos, photo shoots, modelling contracts or anything you care to name that involves a complicit woman representing an apparently undesirable or harmful skill - then it is equally unfair to force "equality" on those who do not want it. I see everyone as a person - all equal. And if someone wants to accept payment for wobbling their bits around then that's their decision until it becomes illegal, and it's ridiculous to turn around and say "oh how terribly oppressive of <someone else> for paying that women to flaunt herself." She accepted the fucking cash and did it. She could have pursued any career she wanted. It isn't like she had no other choice.

Additionally, I'm not going to even enter into any discussion that involves "rape" or terms akin to "rape culture" (what a bullshit term) because i actually believe that it detracts hugely from actual acts of rape and the pursuit of justice and prevention of rape.

Well, if you're attacker is a believer in EFO, and you let him know you're going to use EFO against him to stop his attack, and tell him when he's not doing it properly... well in that case it'd work perfectly!

Seriously, what makes believe in such stupid BS?

Yes, but you as well, are leaving out a key detail.
She wasn't killed instantaneously. Regardless whether she was "declared" dead or not as she was still alive. Even though she was thought to be dead, clearly her brain was still functioning and was not dead. Her subconscious was still functioning.

What we know is that she was declared dead, and became conscious when Jesus returned her to the light. It's possible that the staff made a mistake, and it's also possible that she was clinically dead. You are weighing this heavily on the mistake side because of your naturalistic presuppositions, yet there is no actual evidence backing it up. This is exactly how your naturalistic presuppositions will always distort the evidence you're looking at in favor of naturalistic conclusions. If you had evidence of the supernatural in front of you, you would never actually recognize it. It's what I mean when I say your worldview is like a pair of glasses you wear to interpret reality.

Last night I dreamed I was chased by a dinosaur, this does not give evidence that dinosaurs are waiting for us in the afterlife. (poor example maybe - but my point is there.)

This isn't a good analogy because it doesn't match the circumstances. It's the circumstances which give the testimony weight.

And no, in answer to your question, I have NEVER seen nor experienced anything in this existence that gives the possibility that a God exists - sorry. (all due respect.)

Is the truth important to you? IE, if the truth was contrary to all of your preconceived notions about reality, would you want to know it?

And you are wrong about me not looking for anything passed the "world view" as you put it. I am spiritual, I'd love for a representation of the mystical to give evidence to itself. I'd love to live in that make believe world, honestly. I just learned early that it isn't there. I don't explain things away but I've never seen anything that could prove it existed. You are not privileged to my experiences so you shouldn't make assumptions - only I know what I give belief to.

What does it mean to be spiritual, to you? Would you be willing to pray to a non-existent God to help you with your unbelief?

My reality lays on a solid foundation while yours lays somewhere else.

What is the solid foundation that your reality is resting on?

You are correct in that I don't give myself freely to the unprovable purely for the reason of faith that it exists. That, to me, would be more than foolish. If I was to do so, I would fall prey to every word, and person said to me. I would have to join all religions and believe in them all even though they contradict one another. And what is to stop me there, why shouldn't I believe every person who has ever tried to swindle me. Faith is something earned and not given freely and so far religion has swindled my far more in life than it has proven itself to have any basis in reality.

I don't expect you to believe something without any evidence; my point is that neither do you have any basis for doing the opposite. My earlier question was, how do you know you haven't been indoctrinated into your beliefs by the secular culture? For instance, if you believe that truth is determined by what we can sense, ie empiricism, how do you reconcile that with the problem of induction?

Call me an Atheist if you like, but I prefer the term Realist. I am a Realist who likes to play at fantasy but in the end, I always land with my feat back on solid ground knowing which way is up.

I'm curious at what you mean by play at fantasy? Do you have an active imagination?

>> ^Sagemind:

Yes, but you as well, are leaving out a key detail

Yes, but you as well, are leaving out a key detail.
She wasn't killed instantaneously. (And nothing you can say will change that statement.) Regardless whether she was "declared" dead or not as she was still alive. Even though she was thought to be dead, clearly her brain was still functioning and was not dead. Her subconscious was still functioning.

Last night I dreamed I was chased by a dinosaur, this does not give evidence that dinosaurs are waiting for us in the afterlife. (poor example maybe - but my point is there.)

And no, in answer to your question, I have NEVER seen nor experienced anything in this existence that gives the possibility that a God exists - sorry. (all due respect.)

And you are wrong about me not looking for anything past the "world view" as you put it. I am spiritual, I'd love for a representation of the mystical to give evidence to itself. I'd love to live in that make believe world, honestly. I just learned early that it isn't there. I don't explain things away but I've never seen anything that could prove it existed. You are not privileged to my experiences so you shouldn't make assumptions - only I know what I give belief to. My reality lays on a solid foundation while yours lays somewhere else.

You are correct in that I don't give myself freely to the unprovable, purely for the reason of faith, that it exists. That, to me, would be more than foolish. If I was to do so, I would fall prey to every word, any person said to me. I would have to join all religions and believe in them all even though they contradict one another. And what is to stop me there, why shouldn't I believe every person who has ever tried to swindle me. Faith is something earned and not given freely and so far religion has swindled me far more in life than it has proven itself to have any basis in reality.

Call me an Atheist if you like, but I prefer the term Realist. I am a Realist who likes to play at fantasy but in the end, I always land with my feat back on solid ground knowing which way is up.




>> ^shinyblurry:

You're leaving at a few key details in your analysis here. Number one, according to her testimony she was declared dead at the hospital. You're saying this was all the result of a subconscious mind on guilt overload, but she didn't know that she was dead until after she experienced the NDE. When she got hit by the car, she was killed instantaneously. She believed that she was dead because, at the moment of impact, she was flung out of her body into a dark tunnel with demons gnashing at her. For her to be influenced by guilt would necessitate that she already knew what was going on, but she didn't until after the experience had already began. It wasn't as if she was laying there for a time, knowing she was about to die. It all happened in a moments time.
Second, she came back to life at the moment that Jesus saved her. When she called upon His name, He came and lifted her back into the light, and it was then that she regained consciousness in the hospital. Do you believe this is a coincidence?
Your explanation is plausible if your underlying presupposition is correct, that Jesus Christ is not alive, but you have no way of confirming that. There is no instrumentation which is going to confirm your explanation either. You really have no basis for ruling out the possibility that her testimony is true, in actuality. So why do you? Have you never experienced anything in all your life which tells you there could be a God out there?
To note, we're both looking at the same evidence, but we're interpreting it different. The reason we interpret it differently is because we both have certain presuppositions about reality, which you could call a worldview. A worldview is like a pair of glasses that you look through to view reality. Your presuppositions are like the prescription for those glasses, and if your presuppositions are faulty, your interpretation of what you see will lead you to faulty conclusions.
The main presupposition of atheists is that of atheistic naturalism. To an atheist, the things of the spirit are ruled out apriori, so therefore there must be a naturalistic explanation for everything. So, an atheist will completely miss any explanation which doesn't fit into naturalistic assumptions, because they are interpreting every evidence through a naturalistic lens. Your explanation here is that this woman is simply a victim of her own lifelong conditioning, which as I pointed out doesn't quite line up with the facts. If what she described is 100 percent true, you would never once reach that conclusion, because of those presuppositions. How do you know you're not simply the victim of lifelong conditioning towards naturalistic assumptions about reality? This is after all what we are taught in school, and which is reinforced in the culture, popular media, books, music, and the like.
>> ^Sagemind:
This sounds like a person who believed in God but didn't stand by the principles of religion. Then she had a close call/ near death experience which forced her to have a guilt overload.
During that overload, she experienced everything she knew in her sub-conscience, everything she had been taught about heaven and hell as she focused on her fears and guilt over the life she had lead.
I'll guarantee she she was brought up in a religious home and religion was a large part of her life, so that when this experience came, her fear of death, caused her to remember everything she had been indoctrinated with. Everything she is saying is true for her and is a sentimental retelling of her experience but this just shows you how fragile and influential the human brain is to ideas if the ideologies are ingrained enough.
I believe she saw and felt what she did, but I also believe what she experienced was a manifestation of indoctrination and fear influenced by guilt which had been ingrained into her during her years of upbringing.
This is why religion is a dangerous tool. It's very powerful and influential and can be used to as a tool to over-power a person's natural abilities to discern the differences between reality and fantasy.

Sounds like summer indeed Master of my Make-Believe!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_My_Make-Believe

Funky jazzy Parov Stelar, chillaxin' at the summer after party:)

gonna check find more musika!:)

>> ^bobknight33:

Unless you have young kids you have no room to talk. You don't have knowledge to make any judgement.
Parenting IS filtering out inappropriate material.
I'm talking when a 6 year old is clicking channels to get to his cartoon channel it at times comes across inappropriate material.
WRT to web serving same thing. The kid can be you You-tubing or sifting for kitty cat stuff and come across some wild stuff. Sure I don't want my 6 and 7 year seeing women and men rubbing up against each other or to watch some brutal gang violence event that some posted. What parent would? Some parents don't mind at all and that a darn shame. There are limits for kids and parenting filtering is a must.

I take responsibility for my kids upbringing. If other parents stepped up to the plate kids would have better moral compass.
When you have kids, revisit your post.
You don't seem to have high regard for the parenting skills from you mother. sorry to hear that.

>> ^VoodooV:
Instead of blaming television @bobknight33, the responsibility is still ultimately the parents. You don't have to be a parent to know that. Parents are not helpless to modern television. If you can't be bothered to educate your kids on the difference between made up television and reality, you don't get to blame television. My mom was a pretty horrible parent, but that is one of the first things I recall her ever teaching me. So since I'm actually armed with this thing called knowledge. I can watch any TV I wish and it's not damaging to me because IT'S NOT REAL!
It's the same thing with the teachers. Parents don't want to be the parents anymore, they want to be their pal. So when little billy doesn't do well on his test, who gets chewed out? Not little billy, that's for sure. Parents blame the teachers when they should be blaming themselves.
You can believe television and commercials are inappropriate all you want. Still doesn't absolve you from your responsibility. History has shown over and over again that when you try to hide shit from your kids, they always find it eventually. The more forcefully you dictate how bad something is, the more the kids want to do it just to spite you and rebel. So instead of trying to trick and coerce your kids into behaving, maybe you should actually try to educate them. If your "education" has any merit to it, then it will stick. Education beats coercion every time.
Parenting is not rocket science, it just takes effort, so you can get off your moral high horse. You've demonstrated time and time again you have no claim to any moral high ground, especially not any morality based off made up deities.



Once again, bob laughably attempts to claim moral superiority over everyone. Sorry, but you aren't magically granted wisdom the instant the kid pops out of the womb.

When you fail to educate your kids WHY things are inappropriate and just filter because "you said so" then you're not accomplishing anything. Authority without the actual facts to back it up fails EVERY time to kids with nothing better to do than to rebel. It's the hot stove analogy which you apparently failed to learn. Parents will tell you to not touch that hot stove. Kids disregard this and touch it anyway and are immediately introduced to the facts of WHY you shouldn't touch a hot stove and guess what..they never do it again.

If you told a kid to never touch a cold stove...because you said so. The kid eventually touches it and learns that nothing bad comes of it. Not only are they encouraged to rebel. Your authority is undermined and they learn that you're full of shit and continue to ignore you.

In other words, since bob probably hasn't been following. Moral authority means absolutely jack unless you have provable facts to back it up. When kids find out you're bullshitting them. Kids have this pesky thing called the ability to learn and the ability to detect bullshit. Telling them not to do something only because your imaginary friend up in the clouds told you so has a way of coming back to bite you in the ass when the imaginary friend in the clouds doesn't punish them because that imaginary friend doesn't exist.

Bob lives in the typical republican bubble where he deludes himself into believing he's the good parent and everyone else is lacking. What's it like being so self-centered bob?

And once again, Bob cherry picks what he wants to hear and disregards everything else. I praise my mom for teaching me that TV is make-believe and all bob chooses to hear is the negative part. You are utterly incapable of having a rational discussion bob. I've proven this time and time again. The sift is going to continue to beat you over the head with logic and rationality every time until hopefully you learn something.