Um….what?
Full of fact. I wonder what far right propagandists are saying.

It had time (2:30 am), place(Pelosi’s SF home), injuries (arm, hands, and skull fractured), weapon (hammer), identity(42 year old David Dipappi), and exactly what he did(broke in yelling where’s Nancy wielding a hammer, tried to tie up the husband and wait for her, husband called 911 and dropped phone, police came and stopped the murder in progress).
It’s nothing but facts. I think you didn’t watch it. It was short, but still too much fact for your little brain to accept. Such a baby. Do you think shoving your head farther up your ass makes you look strong? Smart? On the ball? It only makes you look scared and intentionally ignorant, buddy. Ask anyone not up there with you.


What isn’t there besides his long history of spouting the exact crazed far right lies you spout daily? Election fraud, COVID’s a fraud, Trump won, Jan 6 was by ANTIFA, Trumpists believe in law and order, Russia is our friend and ally, Lil Kim is a genius and benevolent leader, Democrats are in a pedophile vampire cabal where they take children to pizza parlors to eat their pineal glands and gain immortality….🤦‍♂️

I won’t post because this video can’t be posted off YouTube, you fuckwit. I didn’t bother looking for more, it had plenty to trigger you so served it’s purpose. This story is everywhere, even on Fox, people without cranial rectosis don’t need it spoon fed to them….but you do.

I guess you just need more MAGA terrorism, more violent attempted murder of the elderly, more hard core anti democracy, and more deadly anti American MAGots actions to be posted, although for the life of me I can’t fathom why….but ok, I’ll find something and post it just for you. Don’t say I never gave you anything.

https://videosift.com/video/Failed-MAGA-Assassination-Pelosi-Husband-Attacked-In-Home

Infinitely more fact and information than you EVER produce, buddy. You have been hiding from your enemy, reality, for at least 6 years now. It effects your family in ways that are severely detrimental to their mental and physical health. You have admitted this in the past, but can no longer admit reality so I’m certain you won’t admit it now. Please don’t murder your family like so many MAGots have…it wouldn’t be a bit surprising if you did.

If you say all lives matter in response to black lives matter, you're a racist blinding yourself to the truth that in many ways black lives don't seem to matter to authority. It's like sitting at a big table where everyone but you gets served dinner, and when you mention that your dinner matters you get answered with an angry "all dinners matter" but no food.

You can't commit crimes, dumbass. How moronic are you?

You can't (edit: or shouldn't, I guess you still can in most places) go to church because Covid is real, not a fake virus as some morons insist. I wish these deniers would sign a petition denouncing and refusing any medical treatment for covid related issues, then go party with each other making sure to shake hands and kiss each other ceaselessly. Put your health where your mouth is...or don't you believe the dangerous bullshit you spout?

Peaceful protesters don't carry bricks, those are Boogaloo boys looking to start riots. Peaceful protests at capitals protesting masks and shutdowns aren't what happened, heavily armed violent takeovers of federal buildings to denounce public health measures and threaten public officials with lynchings and mob murders is what happened....but with no feds sent in after them like was done preemptively in Portland.

Protests in the streets by mask wearing, social distancing people is not a major risk factor, indoor Trump rallies without masks or social distancing ARE a major risk factor, and sparked outbreaks.

So much nonsense and ignorance in such an annoying package is almost impressive.

Here's a thought experiment:

Imagine a power technology emerging that makes the cost of electricity virtually zero and the supply virtually endless.

Since the emergence of life, the task of survival is the quest for energy in one form or another. Most of the critical advancements by humanity have been driven by the need to acquire, distribute and store energy. When you're sitting at your computer being productive for a paycheck, you are serving the same goal as prehistoric hunter-gatherers, you're just doing it via a much more complex system of acquisition and distribution.

The more efficiently we acquire energy, the less effort it takes to satisfy our individual energy needs and the more time we have for other pursuits such as culture and exploration.

What happens when the effort necessary to acquire a life's worth of energy approaches zero?

Seeing him in action and not just through the speaker made this. Perfect ending!

I remember my brief few months in fast food. They weren't bad at all. I enjoyed myself and the people. You gotta love your job no matter what and make people smile -- when you think of the people you're serving, and you distance yourself from workplace negativity, you'll love every minute of the day.

And when you no longer love enjoy your day -- which is inevitable -- that's a sign that you need to move on to bigger and better things.

Guys like this do their thing and then move on. That's the natural progression of quality employees. Don't get stuck. If you don't put on a show, it's time to move on.

Oh, that is so interesting. In high school we called it "a leather lunch", so you were served a leather lunch, ate a leather lunch, etc.

How about, instead of Amos, you open to the book of Luke.

"No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (NLT, Luke 16:13)

Or Matthew

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (NIV, Matthew 6:19-21)

But it's obvious these guys don't actually practice the religion they preach. They're gifted con-men, like most highly-successful American figures who tout their Christianity (looking at you GOP field).

That I suppose too depends, just like the gays,

I would suppose if the blacks, Latino or Irish came in looking all thug like or the gays came in flaming gay then I would be probable to deny service.

If these groups came in dressed civilized and showed manners that the community is accustomed to then why would you not serve them.

Thanks Silvercord, I do believe you've articulated yourself here better than I have. I don't take much issue with anything you've said above and I think we agree more than we disagree.

You're right, I'm from Canada. I have a unique perspective of American culture at the same time as living in the most culturally diverse city in the world. Here, multiculturalism is enshrined in law. We see ourselves as a mosaic instead of a melting pot. Something I'm quite proud of. (but not all Canadians feel the same way) There are plenty of conflicts of culture to choose from around here.

But when I'm speaking about an individuals 'fundamental human rights', I'm not speaking as a Canadian, or Torontonian or North American, I'm speaking as a human. And when I stated that religious/cultural rights were trumped by physical ones I didn't mean to suggest they were non-existent. The Klu Klux Klan for example is a religious organization (or at least that's what they call them selves) as is the Westboro Baptist Church and it's because their rights "extend to the tips of their noses" that they can't impose their will over people they believe are lesser than themselves. They are free to carry hateful ideas around in their heads, (as is their "right") but if it causes them to commit hateful actions, they are breaking the law.

The same can be said of the baker and the photographer. Albeit of varying degrees. The reason the baker and photographer have a sacred idea of marriage being only between a man and a woman is because of an intolerance of homosexuality. You say they're not intolerant because they serve the gay community in every other aspect outside of marriage and I say if there is any way they treat the gay community differently than that is the very definition of discrimination. Again, it's just in varying degrees.

What if I held a religious belief that marriage was only between a white man and a white woman and refused to supply services to anyone outside of that definition? "Sorry we can't in good conscience go there. Oh, it's not you, it's me." I would be running my business in a discriminatory fashion and I would pay a fine. As it should be.

Might I suggest if you want to be selective as to who you will serve and who you won't based on the physical attributes someone was born with, that you keep those reasons to yourself and politely refuse service to those people citing a scheduling conflict or artistic differences. Because to stand up proudly saying you don't recognize gay marriage or mixed race coupling as your 'fundamental human right' is offensive. By all means, carry your intolerant ideas in your head, just don't carry out intolerant actions and think the rest of the community has to respect you for them.

"Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't."

Um, no, you're right. It doesn't work that way. But laws do create culture if not for this generation, than for the next. As Yogi stated above; "Eventually these people will die, and the old husks and their followers left behind will spur further movements towards greater equality." A little harsh perhaps, but when you you think back to the '40s, '50s and '60s and the how attitudes and culture have changed for the Black community you can't deny that civil rights laws have made the world a better place, for equality and for everyone.

I'm afraid you can lump me in the same group. I don't understand why it is offensive to tell women to smile. I'm also in the same boat as others here in that i have literally never, in my existence, heard a male tell a woman to smile in any way that wasn't contextual. Thirdly, i'm struggling to imagine a way in which the directive to "Smile!" is offensive.

You say "stop making it about YOU!" yet you're speaking about a video that is trying to personalise an issue. I hate to even get involved in this argument, because i believe modern day feminism is more about finding an issue than it is about correcting any number of issues that really exist and need attention (ie. wage inequality).

I think you'd serve the cause a lot better if you tried to understand why people make those comments instead of chastising them for making it. You're missing an opportunity to explain the problem better - you've engaged people, people are interested and talking about it. Now is the time to explain it so that those who don't understand can understand. And if you can present it in a believable way, you will convince me.

However if you stand there, fold your arms and say "ugh, guys!" then i'm going to insist that you're behaving in a sexist way.

In my upbringing, i was subject to women abusing their advantageous legal position when it comes to custody of children and such (i was the child). I was witness to women who claimed abuse when there was no abuse, and thankfully only saw a very small effect of what can happen when such false accusations are made. I've seen a close male relative go through divorces in which he made his best attempt to share the assets of the divorce, whilst the female partner did what they could to claw as much profit as possible, eventually taking a completely unfair share (all of it) in one case.

However, i am rational enough to understand that not all people are like that, and that my experiences are not common. If i was given the opportunity to campaign about father's rights, i'd do it clearly and in a way that people could empathise and sympathise with. I wouldn't generalise and i certainly wouldn't tell them not to personalise, because empathy is all about being able to personalise an issue.

If men are arguing with the point, perhaps the point is not being explained well enough. And if it keeps happening, perhaps that's an even stronger message. I wouldn't argue with videos that campaign against domestic violence - which i also haven't seen happen! - and that's because the campaign is well presented so that i am able to grasp the problem.

I don't understand why what this video refers to is a female issue. Add to that the fact that i have never seen it happen with such frequency that it was notably a female-only issue.

Until i am able to understand why this is specifically a female issue, i'm afraid i will consider this video to be sexist in that it addresses a universal issue as a solely female problem.

Apparently you can serve two masters.

Let's look at the scripture in a little more detail:

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

This scripture is at the tail end of a conversation Jesus had with a young rich man. The young man had inquired of the Lord how he could have eternal life. The answer Jesus gave was simple, "sell your possesions and follow me." In the rest of the scripture we see that the only requirements for salvation is a confession of Jesus as Lord and a belief that He was raised from the dead. So, why did the Lord give the additional requirement to the rich young man of selling all of his possessions? We see why in the next verse:

Matthew 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

This man, even knowing that Jesus could instruct him on how to attain eternal life, could not follow after the Lord because he loved his wealth more than God. This is what Jesus said in Matthew 6:24

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

His riches were the stumbling block preventing him from following the Lord, and that is why the Lord dealt with it there. The Lord knew He was a slave to his wealth and could not bear to be parted from it, even at the expense of his eternal life. This is a reason why the Lord warned us in Matthew 16:26

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Which is to say, that if someone laid all the wealth of the world at your feet, and you traded your soul for it, you would have made an unprofitable deal. The wealth of this world is perishing and will pass away, and we along with it, but those who do the will abide with Him forever. So, let's look on to what Jesus said to His disciples after the young rich man parted:

Matthew 19:23-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

You'll notice that Jesus only said it was impossible for men, but with God all things are possible. The problem with the young rich man was not his wealth but his heart condition before God. He wanted the gift more than he wanted the giver of the gift. When Jesus put his loyalties to the test, the true condition of his heart was exposed. There is nothing inherently bad about money, but there is something inherently bad about putting it before God. That is the sin of idolatry, and that is what Jesus is condemning, not money itself. Take Joseph of Arimethea for example:

Matthew 27:57-60 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus.
He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.

And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away.

Joseph was a disciple of Jesus yet He did not require Joseph to sell all of his possessions. Indeed, if he had Joseph would not have been able to provide the tomb that Jesus was buried in, ultimately fulfilling the prophecy about Jesus in Isaiah 53:9.

So, to conclude, what God is most concerned about is the heart. If your love for your possesions is what is keeping you from the Lord, He may ultimately require you to sacrifice them. I think is especially difficult for the rich man to realize his need for salvation because he is so self-sufficient. He believes he is in control of his life because his money insulates him from many of the cares of this world. He does not realize that his very breath rests in the hands of the Lord. He may not confess, as Job did, that his riches are all blessings from on High, and at the disposal of the Almighty to do with them what He may.

Job 1:21 And he said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."

@enoch, I totally agree. The "for the good of the people" clause should come back, and so should time limits. But that's not going to happen. Though it'd be a step in the right direction.

I agree with everything you've written, actually. Absolutely you cannot have a free market as long as we have a protectionist government. And corporations use government to destroy competition.

Civil disobedience is one thing you can certainly do, but there are other ways. You can't fight every fight. And certainly you have to pick the battles you'd serve best. I think a civil conversation between adults about the evils of corporation/state collusion is the beginning of that. From there, it's a movement to change hearts and minds, and I think in the long run we may just win that battle.

Damn son, you got served!

>> ^enoch:

oh fuck you @shinyblurry.
your post is pure troll.
there is no defense to "get em while they are weak".
and your sarcasm is just vulgar and disgusting.
or maybe you were intentionally insinuating that jesus wishes for an army to maim,murder and torture.
is that it shiny?
the thought of an army of god killing in the name of jesus make you sweaty and in need of a wee bit of "alone time"?
i bet you didnt serve one day in the military.
people like you never do.
too weak and cowardly to put your own life on the line.
jesus would never approve of such tactics as this,but people like you sure would.
why?
weak and cowardly.


You missed my point, entirely. HPQP had the audacity to call people using the military to spread the gospel "very disturbing", emphasizing that people should get together and stop this "outrage", as if this is what we should be concerned about regarding our soldiers. It's just another pet issue for atheists, who are actually advocating that we take away what helps soldiers endure and overcome the horrors that they are ordered to carry out on a daily basis. I think that is completely callous, wrong-headed, and in the context of the real problems with the miltary, ludicrously out of touch with reality.

oh fuck you @shinyblurry.
your post is pure troll.
there is no defense to "get em while they are weak".
and your sarcasm is just vulgar and disgusting.
or maybe you were intentionally insinuating that jesus wishes for an army to maim,murder and torture.
is that it shiny?
the thought of an army of god killing in the name of jesus make you sweaty and in need of a wee bit of "alone time"?

i bet you didnt serve one day in the military.
people like you never do.
too weak and cowardly to put your own life on the line.

jesus would never approve of such tactics as this,but people like you sure would.
why?
weak and cowardly.