Anybody else wonder why this movie and Tropic Thunder haven't ended a few careers yet? Why do C. Thomas Howell and Robert Downey Jr get a free pass?

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed. - Mahatma Gandhi

Since she says her flyers are from God, I thought it fitting to leave this here...

In the Summa Theologiae, Medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas said Greed: "it is a sin directly against one's neighbor, since one man cannot over-abound in external riches, without another man lacking them... it is a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, inasmuch as man contemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things."

I got most of these; If you're playing along at home:
Attempt 1: Clair de Lune (Claude Debussy)
Attempt 2: ??
Attempt 3: Moonlight Sonata 3rd Movement (Beethoven)
Attempt 4: Harry Potter theme (John Williams)
Attempt 5: Pokemon theme (John Siegler)
Attempt 6: Flight of the Bumblebee (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov)
Attempt 7: ??
Attempt 8: Russian National Anthem (Alexander Alexandrov)
Attempt 9: Get Along Gang theme (don't know who wrote this)
Attempt 10: Blue (Eiffel 65)
Attempt 11: Thomas the Tank Engine theme (Mike O'Donnell/Junior Campbell)
Attempt 12: Funeral March (Chopin) I'd be surprised/alarmed if she smiled at this (!)
Attempt 13: Jaws theme (Williams)
Attempt 14: Halloween theme (John Carpenter) this too (!)
And the winner..well, you know, a chick song from a chick movie, no wonder she smiles...

This infantile lie over a narcissistic vendetta against a dead American War Hero by a draft dodging business failure and liar and his sycophants comes the day after they were caught lying under oath about adding citizenship questions to the census. Fortunately, the estranged daughter of Thomas Hofeller, who's involvement the administration had hidden and denied under oath, found and turned over hidden hard drives in his effects outlining his significant involvement to the ACLU, actually proving he orchestrated the addition and personally drafted the letter from the DOJ to the Commerce Department that instigated the addition to create a "structural electoral advantage for Republicans and non-Hispanic whites" and a "disadvantage to Democrats". His records also outlined a study he did in 2015 that showed exactly that same outcome from the addition of the question, despite the administration claiming under oath that the idea was first suggested by administration officials in 2017 without outside involvement or studies.
The administration has been given until 10am Friday to address this evidence of perjury by multiple officials.

Edit: and this morning he tweeted he had no part in Russia helping him get elected....which he later realized was an admission that he's an illegitimate president elected because of help from our enemy. The dumb just never stops from the Biggest Loser in Cheat.

Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner

@BSR

Kanovaugh-- Every leftest believed Ford- on her word alone. Where was the voice of reason then? Maybe if Kanovaugh was black. Oh wait never mind Democrats pulled that stunt on Clarence Thomas. Political Witch hunts are blind.


Don't take a woman's word at face value.


Crazy women like this need to be caged up -- they are dangerous to males.


I do feel sorry for this young boy. He did nothing except be a kid.
I also for sad for our society that encourages crazy women like this.

It isn't as rare as you think. There are numerous accounts of false accusations that don't make it as far as court or they do and the accused choose to take a plea versus chancing half their life.

Brent E. Turvey, a criminologist, wrote a 2017 book that dispels this notion. His research, and that of two co-authors, cited statistical studies and police crime reports. One academic study showed that as many as 40 percent of sexual assault charges are false. Mr. Turvey wrote that the FBI in the 1990s pegged the falsity rate at 8 percent for rape or attempted rape complaints.

“There is no shortage of politicians, victims’ advocates and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2 percent,” writes Mr. Turvey, who directs the Forensic Criminology Institute. “This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality. Reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent.”

A recent study supports this assessment. The Pentagon issues an annual report on sexual assaults in the military. Nearly one-quarter of all cases last year were thrown out for lack of evidence, according to a report released in May.

As far as the rape every 98 seconds, I am unsure where you found that number. There were 95,730 rapes under the revised FBI definitions (which include more categories that previously were not considered rape, like child molestion, under the legacy definitions) in the last year I could find which was 2016. These are the combined rapes of men, women, and children for that year. That means the actual rape of a 'person' is occurring somewhere around every 5-6 minutes. Now if you are going by a different statistic, like the CDC ones that include such a wide definition of what constitutes 'rape' that it isn't funny, you might get the result you quoted. I wouldn't go by those stats, even TIME magazine had to call out the CDC for overstating the numbers.

As far as Trump goes, he is a complete idiot dickhead. He shouldn't have insulted anyone, least of all Dr. Ford. I will point out one thing though, and this is subjective in that your viewpoint will differ from mine, Dr. Ford is an alleged rape survivor. She has made the claim and took a polygraph test, but other than that she can only claim that in her recollection she was at a party where Brett Kavanaugh was also at supposedly. She also claimed to be heavily intoxicated. If you want to believe her Ex, she has lied in her testimony. (https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/christine-ford-boyfriend-ex-letter-blasey/) Heavy leans left, so this isn't a bobknight cherry picking of information.

Now, why would she come forth and deal with all the negatives of making the claim? I guess that is the kicker, normally you would expect a person to really be telling the truth if they are going to be put through hell. I would put forward though that this was one of the most hotly contested confirmations for SCOTUS ever. Even more so than for Bork, and I remember that one clearly. In my opinion, far more than for Thomas. If you were adamantly opposed to a person sitting on the Supreme Court, had went to school with that person, and were willing to fall on your sword for your beliefs, you might do it.

In any case, that is just supposition on my part.

Nope I Do not concede it was Hypothetical speaking.

3 public accusations known..

1 is ford.
1 claims gang raped - 10 times -- She is not a victim.. She is an enabler.

The 3 is -- A story so not believable no one want to use it.

Democrats used this stunt to besmirch Clarence Thomas and Democrats are doing it again.

Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned about her memory, given her drinking at the party.

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”

She says it took her six days of hard thinking and speaking to her attorney before she decided she believed that she was positive it was Kavanaugh. Again, no other witnesses are backing her up and the couple that did say they heard of some sort of incident involving a plastic penis and a party think they heard Kavanaugh's name mentioned but they weren't present at the party.

I have to say, there was far more credible information against Clarence Thomas and a panel led by Democrats voted to pass him on to the senate. It is worth investigation? Maybe, but how do you prove it? Both accusers admit they were heavily intoxicated at the time and both have no credible witnesses. If you do have an investigation and he is found innocent, would a Democratic senate even still consider him for SCOTUS? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Sadly, it looks like he may be fucked even if he isn't guilty.

Even if they did, it wouldn't show evidence that he assaulted her. She has no worries about an FBI investigation because there is no evidence to find. Literally none, other than the marriage counselling thing you mentioned.

I'm sorry, but simply accusing someone of assault doesn't mean it happened. I don't know what her reasons are and I don't know if he did assault her, I just know that as long as we have no evidence he couldn't be convicted by a court in the nation. If he couldn't be convicted, he shouldn't be held accountable as far as his future career goes. I recall that it used to be innocent until proven guilty, not the way it is now.

I am worried he will end up fucking up Roe v Wade and I support legal abortions, but at the same time, I can't say he should be barred from the opportunity of his lifetime based on a simple accusation from someone who went 36 years without mentioning it to anyone other than her husband and marriage counselor.

Anita Hill had a much better case versus Clarence Thomas and the Democrats still voted him into SCOTUS.

The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.

I'm completely with Maher on this one.

...But, perhaps to his dismay, this kinda also explains (notice the use of "explains" as opposed to "justifies") unacceptable further-back behavior, like having some degree of appreciation for Confederate soldiers and officers in the Civil War, slave ownership by founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson, etc. It is possible to respect positive contributions of people in the past without being required to turn a blind eye to their faults, even if those faults would be utterly disqualifying today.

Quoth Malcolm Reynolds of Firefly:

Thomas Dipshit! Lol

Thomas Thwaites The Man Who Tried To Live As A Goat has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.

You think that's weird, try this....
*related=https://videosift.com/video/Thomas-Thwaites-The-Man-Who-Tried-To-Live-As-A-Goat