search results matching tag: archies

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (42)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (3)     Comments (49)   

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

😂
Says the guy who STILL believes the NEXT (fake) whistleblower will have undeniable proof of Dark Brandon selling policy for cash despite the last 20+ completely disintegrating under examination.

The latest disaster being Devon Archer who was going to verify the Hunter Biden laptop and it’s contents, he didn’t, would testify to being present when Joe got on the phone to sell influence to Hunter’s business partners, he said it never once happened, and would bring audio recordings of Joe taking bribes, he didn’t know what they’re talking about.
Then they claimed the DOJ tried to hide him, tried to put him in prison before he could testify before congress, but every single court document proves they not only didn’t try that, they specifically noted his appointment to testify when they filed with the judge and insisted under no circumstances should he be incarcerated before he was finished, despite knowing he was not scheduled for incarceration yet, a process that takes months, so there was always absolutely no danger he might be unavailable anyway. Those documents are public.

You buy the dumbest, easily disproven nonsense. Such stupidity it usually looks like you’re playing the character of a brainless MAGA moron, like Colbert used to, because it’s just too stupid too consistently to be believed by even the most gullible person alive.

When is Hillary being arrested again? I forget. Wasn’t it coming for certain in 2017?

You are really entertaining Bob…along the lines of Archie Bunker…the worst of humanity, but entertaining to watch flounder.

Uh-oh. Case closed when your lawyer admits you did the crime on tv.

bobknight33 said:

Koolaid drinking dreamer

All in the Family, The "N" Word Unbleeped

enoch (Member Profile)

Are You A Patriot?

Archie Bunker on Immigration

eric3579 (Member Profile)

Deray McKesson: Eloquent, Focused Smackdown of Wolf Blitzer

newtboy says...

The sad thing for him is, in the eyes of others, you are as you appear in the eyes of others, not as you appear in your own.
He may believe he's not racist, just as Archie Bunker believed he was not racist, I mean he has a "black friend", Mr Jefferson over there (just don't ask Mr Jefferson about Archie).
If he only cares how he looks to himself, just saying his nonsense does the trick. If, on the other hand, he's trying to convince all those who read his comments that he's not racist, he's failing miserably.

I think they both need to watch this weeks episode of "through the wormhole", which dealt with racism and how and why, even though consciously you might not be racist, that doesn't matter so much when we are nearly ALL subconsciously racist (just to different levels). It was quite informative on the subject, and actually made sense of how many 'racist' people can honestly see themselves as non-racist.
In one experiment, racism was manifest in a 'shoot the man with the gun, don't shoot the man with the phone' experiment, where nearly everyone shot the black man with the phone more often than the white man with a phone, including the black people shooting, and everyone took less time to decide to shoot the black man, phone or gun. Amazingly, cops in the experiment seemed to do better than average at NOT shooting the black man, but still shot him faster and more often.

ChaosEngine said:

The sad thing is you probably believe that you're not racist.

Sagemind (Member Profile)

Archie Bunker's Theology

Huckabee is Not a Homophobe, but...

Hanover_Phist says...

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't suggest the Muslim men were not discriminating. I simply stated that the Canadian woman who wanted to force devout Muslim men to cut her hair, for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do. Just as if a mixed race couple were to find Archie Bunker to ask him to cater their wedding solely for the purpose of crying foul when they get discriminated against by the well known racist.

But that's not what's going on with the wedding couple, the photographer or the bakers. You are insisting that discrimination should be protected as a fundamental human right if someone calls it their “religion” and I find that idea abhorrent. So does the State of Oregon.

The bakers can't discriminate against a gay couple on religious grounds just as Archie Bunker can't deny blacks from drinking from the same water fountain as him. The difference between these two analogies is Archie Bunker wouldn't then turn around and suggest that his right to be a bigot is a fundamental human right that is on par with black's rights to not be discriminated against.

“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

As stated many times above, your right to religion extends to the tip of your nose. That's how and why physical rights trump religious rights.

silvercord said:

I guess I am having difficulty squaring two of the things you've mentioned. If a devout Muslim barber can refuse to serve women and this is not seen as discrimination why can't a devout Christian refuse to participate in a gay wedding and get the same respect from you?

As to the idea that religious rights, or rights of conscience are subservient to rights of physical attributes or genetic predisposition I need more convincing. The Civil Rights Act doesn't favor one over the other. Religion ranks as an equal with race, color, sex and national origin. How are physical rights "more protected?"

An instance comes to mind where someone's religious rights are actually weighed as more important that your physical rights. Members of the Native American Church may legally use peyote. You and I will be arrested.

I see the argument of conscience vs. genetics upside down from where you've landed. So does the State of Oregon. Did you know, that if there is no reconciliation between the bakery and the State then State will move to 'rehabilitate?' Because something must be defective in the bakery owner's mind they need to be 'rehabilitated.' That is chilling. The very idea that your thoughts could be somehow suspect indicates that the State has concluded that thoughts are incredibly important. Because thoughts lead to behavior. Not only do they not want you behaving in a certain manner, they don't even want you thinking it. I reference 1984 and Animal Farm.

I am not sure that people know what they are asking for when they back this kind of intrusion. It might seem right to them at this moment, but when their counterparts are are in charge (because the pendulum swings), it makes one wonder what thoughts will be in the dock then. How will that law be used to root out contrary thinking then? I want to be free to think what I want to think. I want the privilege of being right and the privilege of being wrong. I also want you to have that privilege, as well.

As I have mentioned before, I think these laws are blunt. While I agree that people should not be discriminated against and I practice that in my own life, what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event? How can they refuse since they already cater other events? We have opened the proverbial can of worms

English Bulldog Puppy Dreaming

Jimmy Fallon: History Of TV Theme Songs

Sagemind says...

1). The Jefferson's
2). All in the Family (Archie Bunker)
3). Golden Girls
4). Friends
5). Prince of Bel Air
6). Facts of Life
7). Good Times
. Greatest American Hero
9). Threes Company
10). Sanford and Son (Thanks diggum317)(That was my guess but I wasn't sure)
11). Full House
12). Saved by the Bell
13). Happy Days
14). Cheers
15). The Mary Tyler Moore Show'

Presentation Fight - IPad vs Surface

Sarzy says...

>> ^shuac:

Very true. And while all technology products are derivative of earlier products to some degree, I think Microsoft does more bandwagon-jumping than most. Let's look at the evidence.
Java, made by Sun. "Reimagined" by Microsoft.
Console gaming, made by Atari, Nintendo, Sega, Sony, et al. Microsoft gives us Xbox.
Online Music, pioneered by Napster, made legitimate by Apple. Microsoft gives us MSN Music.
MP3 player, pioneered by Rio, made super popular by Apple. Microsoft gives us Zune.
Internet search, pioneered by Archie in 1990, made insanely profitable by Google. Microsoft gives us MSN. And Live Search. And Bing.
Far as tablet computing goes, Microsoft actually has a much bigger history than Apple. I remember MS peddling tablets back in 2001 with XP. Trouble is, XP was never designed as a touch interface. Even as recent as 2008, Microsoft tried this strategy with the Origami.
The innovation Apple made is to take its smartphone OS (whose design is based on touch) and pull it up to the tablet rather than take a full-blown desktop OS and push it down. This is the idea Microsoft is copying with Surface and Windows 8.
Other than Kinect, which is an innovative product since it is more than merely a response to the Wii, I'm not sure Microsoft invented anything. Even its flagship Office suite is based on earlier software (WordStar, WordPerfect, dBase, Lotus 1-2-3). In fact, when Microsoft first licensed MS-DOS to IBM for a huge profit back in 1981, it was essentially QDOS, which they purchased outright from some guy for $50,000. Deal of the century.
You may say, "Well Apple didn't invent the MP3 player. Why aren't they guilty of copying too?"
They are. But Microsoft's history is rife with this sort of "me-too" thing in a way no other company's is. Let me distil my point into one sentence: How many companies are copying Microsoft's products?
To sum up: Microsoft is slim on innovation, fat on looking over the shoulders of the smart kids in class...>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^mtadd:
Microsoft never fails to innovate their name on someone else's product.

Yes, because the iPad was, of course, the first tablet ever.



Cool story bro.

No, seriously though, you do raise some interesting arguments. The only point I was trying to make is that it seems a bit reductionist to dismiss the Surface as merely an iPad clone, when it seems like Microsoft is legitimately trying to do some interesting things with it and Windows 8, rather than just jumping on the iPad bandwagon.

Presentation Fight - IPad vs Surface

shuac says...

Very true. And while all technology products are derivative of earlier products to some degree, I think Microsoft does more bandwagon-jumping than most. Let's look at the evidence.

* Java, made by Sun. "Reimagined" by Microsoft.
* Console gaming, made by Atari, Nintendo, Sega, Sony, et al. Microsoft gives us Xbox.
* Online Music, pioneered by Napster, made legitimate by Apple. Microsoft gives us MSN Music.
* MP3 player, pioneered by Rio, made super popular by Apple. Microsoft gives us Zune.
* Internet search, pioneered by Archie in 1990, made insanely profitable by Google. Microsoft gives us MSN. And Live Search. And Bing.

Far as tablet computing goes, Microsoft actually has a much bigger history than Apple. I remember MS peddling tablets back in 2001 with XP. Trouble is, XP was never designed as a touch interface. Even as recent as 2008, Microsoft tried this strategy with the Origami.

The innovation Apple made is to take its smartphone OS (whose design is based on touch) and pull it up to the tablet rather than take a full-blown desktop OS and push it down. This is the idea Microsoft is copying with Surface and Windows 8.

Other than Kinect, which is an innovative product since it is more than merely a response to the Wii, I'm not sure Microsoft invented anything. Even its flagship Office suite is based on earlier software (WordStar, WordPerfect, dBase, Lotus 1-2-3). In fact, when Microsoft first licensed MS-DOS to IBM for a huge profit back in 1981, it was essentially QDOS, which they purchased outright from some guy for $50,000. Deal of the century.

You may say, "Well Apple didn't invent the MP3 player. Why aren't they guilty of copying too?"

They are. But Microsoft's history is rife with this sort of "me-too" thing in a way no other company's is. Let me distil my point into one sentence: How many companies are copying Microsoft's products?

To sum up: Microsoft is slim on innovation, fat on looking over the shoulders of the smart kids in class...>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^mtadd:
Microsoft never fails to innovate their name on someone else's product.

Yes, because the iPad was, of course, the first tablet ever.

Archie Bunker Would Have Disliked Obama

bobknight33 says...

Some thing never change. leaders as still stupid as ever. 57 states and 2 to go. Smart, very smart. That's as bad as Dan Quayle with potato.

And Archie Bunker is still a lovable miss guided character whose ideas have long passed.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists