hehe nice..

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:This whole diversion was started by you and your urge to school people on how insignificant sharing their hopes is.

Well, there's the empirical for you, again: Sharing their hopes seems to have scant appeal in comparison to the attraction of whatever it is you're up to at this point. Maybe you could help me out, here, and give it a name. I'd suggest one for you, but I'm sure you'd much rather lead your own parade.

What I'm up to? You're not being forced to comment here. Try taking responsibility for your own actions. I'm all for people sharing their hopes, even if the only purpose is to give voice to them. That's why I'm prompted to reply to the sight of you parading yourself around like some grand overseer of the value of expressing hope. Why do you think anyone else should care what you think of what others feel, especially as it's you braying that it's pointless? What motivates you to spend all day making sure everyone knows how you feel about how little it matters what people feel? Why are you seemingly incapable of taking what you dish out without trying to deflect the heat, despite protestations to the contrary? Answers on a postcard to the usual address.

Hope is not pointless even in the face of virtual or total adversity

It is a means toward an end rather than an end in itself but it should still
be acknowledged as a positive thing in its own right which of course it is

Fallible wrote:[Why do you think anyone else should care what you think of what others feel, especially as it's you braying that it's pointless?

Yet you're still here, trading bray for bray. Not only that, there goes another one trying to get ought from is. I don't think anyone should care, but they do anyway, confirming once again the win of the empirical over hope. I congratulate all good ground apes, theists, ex-theists, or never-believers, who, in solidarity with me, find a judgemental bitchfast is the most fun we can have with our clothes on after we've used up all the other drugs.

I dont think that not caring is very beneficial as it restricts opportunity and therefore progress
Empathy is not a drug one can choose to discard just because some think it rather superfluous

The New York Times waited until Kennedy retired before posting their "news" that his son was the Deutsche Banker who loaned DJT hundreds of millions of dollars when no one else would toss him a dime.

Helplessness in the face of such corruption is the norm.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:[Why do you think anyone else should care what you think of what others feel, especially as it's you braying that it's pointless?

Yet you're still here, trading bray for bray.

You're doing it again. Don't try to turn it around on me. I'm not deriding expressed feelings and proclaiming that expressing feelings is pointless while expressing my feelings all over the place. I wasn't the one creating a disturbance of shit out of something as run-of-the-mill as someone expressing feelings, which I kept going all day, with various people.

Not only that, there goes another one trying to get ought from is.

Unless you can be bothered to furnish your brain burps with some sort of context instead of relying on lazy passive aggression, don't expect this to interest me.

I don't think anyone should care, but they do anyway, confirming once again the win of the empirical over hope.

You don't think anyone should care, while simultaneously acting like your feelings have some kind of value by mere virtue of you signalling them so frantically. Since you're the champion of 'the empirical', please accept your constant self-references as evidence of your belief in the importance of your own thoughts and feelings outside of your own brain, which tend to take the form 'you know where I stand on x', 'you know by now my thoughts about x', 'consider x to find out how I feel about y', that pompous assumption that others have been looking to you for your opinion, as if it qualifies as a reliable gauge of what's right, and as such are well up on what Cito thinks (they're probably not).

I congratulate all good ground apes, theists, ex-theists, or never-believers, who, in solidarity with me, find a judgemental bitchfast is the most fun we can have with our clothes on after we've used up all the other drugs.

Thank you for once again taking the time to honour us with the expression of your sacred fee fees. At least you've grown out of that phase where you responded to people pointing out the hypocrisy of expressing your feelings over others expressing their feelings by being propelled into a rant about how you really-o truly-o help real people in the real world, as if no one else does. Are you bored yet?

newolder wrote:The New York Times waited until Kennedy retired before posting their "news" that his son was the Deutsche Banker who loaned DJT hundreds of millions of dollars when no one else would toss him a dime.

Helplessness in the face of such corruption is the norm.

It's somewhat depressing that I probably don't possess the capacity to be surprised by anything that comes to light now.

^ Not even a wooden light bulb?

You got me.

Fallible wrote:

newolder wrote:The New York Times waited until Kennedy retired before posting their "news" that his son was the Deutsche Banker who loaned DJT hundreds of millions of dollars when no one else would toss him a dime.

Helplessness in the face of such corruption is the norm.

It's somewhat depressing that I probably don't possess the capacity to be surprised by anything that comes to light now.

It was a pretty open secret from a couple of tweets I’ve seen.

Ah. Well, still.

I wondered if the Repub women would "go along" ....'pears not.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

"I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."
the retirement of 25 potential choices.
"The President really was soliciting my views on the type of nominee that I was looking for," Collins said. "I emphasized that I wanted a nominee who would respect precedent, a fundamental tenet of our judicial system."
"I actually don't," she said of Gorsuch joining an opinion overturning Roe. "I had a very long discussion with Justice Gorsuch in my office and he pointed out to me that he is a co-author of a whole book on precedent."
In addition to her belief on Gorsuch's position, Collins also noted Chief Justice John Roberts previously expressed that Roe v. Wade had been established.
"I want a judge who will apply the law to the facts of the case with fidelity to the Constitution," Collins said. "Roe v. Wade is a constitutional right that is well established, and no less an authority than Chief Justice Roberts said that repeatedly at his confirmation hearing."

The grimy old men in the repuglies might not have such an easy time as they expect.

There are 4 other Republican senators who are women.....this may not be the cake walk dumpf thinks.

With mid terms coming up I'd bet there will be a lot of heat from prospective voters if Roe vs Wade is seriously threatened.

and Collins not the only "woman of power" in a position to decide

Do Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins feel like exercising power on their constituents’ behalf?

In stark contrast to the Democratic swing votes, Collins and Murkowski are insulated from near-term electoral considerations — and likely, even from long-term ones. Both senators have strong personal brands in their states, and do not need much support from their party to win reelection. If they did, they (probably) wouldn’t both officially support abortion rights. And during the fight over Obamacare repeal, Collins and Murkowski proved themselves willing to defy the GOP Establishment on a matter of enormous stakes.

I guess that will be a good sign of how bad things will get in the future, if it happens.

repuglies may risk a huge backlash if they tackle Roe v Wade

(CNN)Voters overwhelmingly agree with the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Monday.

More than 6 in 10 voters -- 63% -- agree with the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion, while 31% disagree. There's a surprisingly small gender divide on the issue, with women agreeing on the decision at 65% and men just four points behind.
Republican voters are the only group in which a majority disagree with the decision -- by a margin of 58% to 36%.

All other listed parties, education, age and racial groups agree with the decision, the strongest of which are Democrats (84% agree), African Americans (71%), and white voters with a college degree (70%).
Exactly half of voters say they believe the Supreme Court is motivated by politics rather than law (50% to 42%).
The public is also split on whether the Court has a partisan lean, with 31% saying it is too conservative, 19% feeling it is too liberal, and 41% believing it is just right.
Looking ahead to November, 50% of voters say they would vote for the Democratic candidate if the election were held today, compared with 41% who say they would vote for the Republican. The gap among women is 25-points for Democrats compared to an eight point advantage for Republicans among men.
Independents side with the Democrats by a 49% to 35% margin.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/02/politics ... index.html

It's never stopped them before though.

Think Trump will be bothered. It is his style. Cause chaos, frustration and hate. He wants to do that with the world.He wants World War without firing a gun. In complete chaos he believes he can take over.