ThreePointTakedown

The attorney general for the guy that has lied more than anyone in the history of the office, who has the resources to see and check whether or not the election was legit or not, would, in theory, have a lot to gain by parroting your point, disagrees with you and Schuck Olerange. Your retort is, but a thousand, thoroughly, uninformed(by comparison, and that is being generous) people say, 'nuh uh'. And you agree with the mob? That tells me all I need to know about how you solve problems and seek information. Best of luck to you. You will need all of it!

45's ATTORNEY GENERAL said the election was legit. Square that circle if you can?

Big Lie!

Prove it!

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Prove the claims that you have made! If you can't or won't, you are being dishonest.

Getting shut out by ISU is not a great look for CB. What is the upside to keeping him on as HC? Who else could take over and do better?

I agree, they have not. Despite having knowledge of things that are egregious crimes, going back decades. Moving offenders to places where they reoffended. They have not been found liable for their actions at all. That seems like a miscarriage of justice. There is a slippery slope argument to be made here. We can all agree that there are certain types of crimes, perhaps based on frequency and/or severity, that should not be shielded from authorities regardless of religious affiliation. Things with the word 'petty' associated with them, I could get behind a priest, bishop, or pope-ish person to handle. Just about anything above that, should probably include consultation with the police. How much crime are we comfortable covering up? Circumstance and severity can be taken into account in both respects.

Considering the track record of the last few decades. Maybe they should voluntarily exempt themselves from the laws they helped write. Have the church opt out for 10 years. See how it effects attendance or their bottom line. Could be an interesting case study moving forward. Do people confess to unburden themselves of sin for the absolution or because they know they have a witness that can't/won't turn them in to authorities?

Fair point. But planning to commit or cover up a crime is a crime. Regardless of your involvement with the act. Lawyers don't get to keep privilege under those circumstances. Its a tricky place to be in having info of a crime you had no part in planning or committing. Religious organizations, I don't feel, should be an exception. They aren't lawyers or doctors.

Not sure about requiring. You have a right to not self-incriminate. But when someone tells you of a crime they have committed, they are including you in the circle of offenders. At that point you can weigh the consequences and your options. But you are not required.

It kind of turns into a conspiracy-type thing once another person knows a crime has been committed. When it comes to light, after the fact, their knowledge both how much and when acquired can be used against them. I imagine prosecutors are hesitant to throw the book at most people in that situation for fear of a chilling effect to future cooperation.

Change my mind? 32 states still have laws saying churches are not responsible and cannot be held liable for crimes they do not report after learning of them through confession. Including past and present child abuse by parishioners.

As the political season ramps up. It is important to remember those that may disagree with you are going through their own stuff that we might have a hard time understanding. Try to find empathy or sympathy for their journey. Some may try to convince us that those, for whom we disagree, are doing so from a place of evil or villainy. If they stoop to refer to anyone as vermin or in any way other than a human being, they are trying to manipulate you and you should very carefully explore their motives for doing so. That which is proclaimed without evidence can be disregarded without evidence. If their idea is better they should have no problem proving it without name calling or the us e of any other rhetorical tactic.

What is the Republican plan to improve health care in the country? There was a guy that kept saying it would be announced next week. That was 4 or 5 years ago now. Are we any closer to that. I know they have worked their tails off to deny health care to 50+% of the population and a fraction of a fraction of % the population that identify as trans. Definitely limited government-type policies. Ensuring the freedoms of us all. The right is laughable in the people they vote to represent them. Have higher expectations.

Would it be better for health outcomes if government paid for health care for all or we continue on the current system(if we can even call it that) that we have now? Does/should 'personal freedom' factor into the decision?

Death rattle of a losing candidate/party. No introspection. All working hard to convince you they are the Leopard that will eat the most faces. Losing grip in Kentucky, Virginia, Ohio, Georgia. Haven't won the poplar vote in 20 years. But can only whine about them being stolen with NO EVIDENCE of it being true. Policies getting more and more religiously fundamental and authoritarian. But you're right... preach.

I explained this in the post you responded to. CYP, is to understand that how you have come about your opinion and experience may be different than others and to take that into consideration. Often times its that more privileged that HAVE an opportunity to voice an opinion of any kind. While the less privileged are working to ensure they can eat or keep the lights on and have no time to scroll an internet thread. If/when you don't do that, you're opinions at best come off as ignorant/arrogant, at worse come off as malicious/hateful. If your intention is to be helpful, good. A little humility and sympathy for those in less fortunate circumstances would go a long way to offering your opinion as a stand in for their voice. Not that it isn't appreciated. But try to understand that raging against someone for asking you what your experience might be lacking when coming to a conclusion only emphasizes the fact that you aren't coming at the issue in a healthy way. The fact is, it seems like you feel attacked and people are rarely productive while in that state. So I'll take that with a grain of salt. So for everyone reading, I hope this can act as an aid to help you understand that it isn't bad to try to be helpful. But solutions without empathy to the actual problem doesn't help as much as they could. Hope you understand it this time around.

As a means to an end it has a track record of not working out well(bombing civilians to get at military targets).

I take it this is from the NCAA tournament? Rules would've helped, sure. But Simmons, Esposito, Perry, Herbert, Glenn had a few falls each. Didn't see as many from Askren, Fleeger, Cooperman, Conrad, or Rosholt as you would expect. They would've been able to make quite a dent had they contributed. But do see a bunch more peppered in the bracket. Maybe just a fluke? Year of the cement mixer! Doesn't explain why the trend didn't continue or why it dropped off so much. Or maybe it does. Curiouser and curiouser!

Did you forget to change accounts before you repeated this?

#winning

Do tell? Because it matters a great deal who you think I am.

I would love to see your breakdown of how and where I did any of this. Please cut and paste my text with inclusions of where you feel this happened? Seems as though you're feeling attacked an behalf of someone else. That sounds exhausting. Pointing out that they should consider other circumstances when forming an opinion is what I did. Do you disagree? If so, please elaborate. I am open to other perspectives. I'd love to know more about yours. Their opinion of what they consider 'hard work' or where it can take you is based on a lot of things. But making a blanket statement like that is ignorant of a lot of things. Or they should say something like, 'if we all started at the same point, then hard work or work ethic would probably play a large part in where a person ends up as far as success(which is a funky metric that we can discuss at another time)' That, you and they, keep coming back to 'hard work' as a defining characteristic to getting success says to me that you take it personal. You may feel that your work ethic was the thing that set you apart from others and played a key role in how you've gotten to where you are. That may be true, but if you take a step back and look critically you might see other things that happened or was offered to you that helped to make the 'hard work' pay off a bit more than you give them credit for. We have a difficult time checking our privilege. I sure do. Terribly lucky growing up when and where I did. With friends and family that I had. The more I learn the more I come to understand that my perspective is incredibly narrow and defending the status quo that helped me get to where I am is also defending a status quo that keeps some people, through no fault of their own, from enjoying the simpler things that I take for granted but could otherwise change or improve their lives immensely. I hope you can see this not as an attack but as someone trying to offer a perspective that you might not have. In the hopes that it leads to actions that primarily benefitting neither of us. Also, they referenced 'success' several times. That each child had a certain amount of success(again not specific to what that could or should mean) but not if any of them were happy, independent of success. Just a thought.

You commented on something that you made up as if it was legit? Classy. Makes me feel better that you will no longer be engaging. L8er

Can you take a screen grab of when/where I used the word 'idiot'? I'd love to see the original post, seeing as it doesn't exist.