jdmyprez_deo_vindice
Member

All I'm going to say is this: "Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. But a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. "Now it happened that the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom, and the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things. But now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.'" LSB]

Wow. I have no words.

Deep fried mealworms aren't all that bad. You would blindly eat a whole bowl of them if you didn't know what it was.

They also lack repentance. Every time one of their policies or agendum fails, they do any of the following three things, instead of admitting fault, asking forgiveness, and turning away from (repenting) from their error: They blame their opposition. They claim they were unable to know that it would fail, or that the policy/agendum wasn't true to its core. They ignore it and move on as if nothing happened.

I guess it's a fluent transition from when only a select group of people were allowed to vote, which opened up to more and more people having a vote and it being a more and more equal playing field. If that's a good thing is an open question, which many may have an answer to. As far as I know the number of electoral votes is based on the number of congressmen +2 ? If that's the case there's a slight favour towards smaller states, which one can argue about. I would personally say that's a good thing as they're also likely less politically connected, so giving them a slightly higher influence here would be a natural balancing factor. But purely speaking it's a weird idea.

Is swatting considered attempted murder or murder by proxy in case it works as intended?

As far as we know now, humans did evolved mostly on a meat, fish and poultry/birds but also insect and reptile diet along with foraging for fruits, tubers, grains, nuts and basically anything that was edible. That's what happens when a population is limited by food availability, anything that's edible gets eaten. So I do not subscribe to the theory our bodies are made for eating meat only. Our intestine is also too long for that, we do not have an intestine as long as a grass eater like a sheep, but it's much longer than animals that only eat meat in their diet. I think the latest addition to the human diet that may not have had time to fully processed into our genes are high levels of sugar. Starches have always been there in the tubers but less refined and less available in general. In that regard the primal diet is quite reasonable I think.

Even if we trust the integrity of the polls, it still doesn't show anything true about the verity of whether Trump or Biden have the best platform that would resolve many of the fiscal and monetary problems in our country.

If you want to accelerate a "civil" war, then that's how you do it. It's just another reason why the Biden Regime needs to be resisted.

I recently got an infection that got my heart rate up quite a bit with high blood pressure. Couldn't sleep, lots of sweating, no fever that I know of. Lasted a good week. Someone said it might have been the new covid. It was annoying as hell I can say.

I think munitions are a bigger bottleneck. I think they have plenty of fuel in general. But that probably explains why they talked to North Korea recently. The DPRK will be able to supply large amounts of artillery shells to Russia, especially if traded for fuel.

Right. Nothing to see here, comrade... v2zckmz

I wonder if DHS will accept reports where election tampering has been evidenced through video footage, audio recordings, and data analysis from outside sources... :confused:

The editing has about the same value as the news itself. I know a little bit about astronomy and only recently I read an article (IDK what it was about anymore) but the person that wrote it stated that the galaxy is about 15 times the size of the solar system. And this is one of the best read news sites in the country. I don't understand why they can't find anyone that knows anything about science to edit those pieces. In any case, journalism hasn't improved. Not watching news is the most relaxed thing you can do in life.

Just a misdemeanour for apparently being one of the bigger factors in getting masses of people into or towards the building? Compared to 22 years for not being there ? Makes sense.

I think, but am not sure, that according to the letter of the law; "pulling it out" could be construed as indecent behaviour. Then I guess it would matter where it happened. I think just on how you wrote it there I think the "pulling it out" would be the issue, not the question. The question would only be relevant if said in a work environment, otherwise it's quite an unusual question to pose to someone out of the blue, but free speech? The second one, doh.

Check this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?564142-A-Christian-Denomination-That-Stands-Against-Tyranny

Exactly. Trump's decisions during the 2020 COVID nonsense, alone, have proven that he's not fit to be President again. He was tested, and he failed.

At least a year without losing comfort. Actual survival; very long. I have enough food in the freezer to last a few months without purchasing anything.

I think what I've said applies to both groups. Fundamentally, it all goes back to one's philosophical precommitments, and Democrats have assumptions about human nature and what constitutes "the greater good" in society before they advance any public policy, whether they're the rank-and-file supporters, or the politicians within the Party. Nonetheless, I do agree that Democrat leaders are controlling the helm of public opinion and action through an agenda-driven crusade to eradicate any opposition to their political goals. But that agenda is, itself, based upon certain axioms of Democratic thought which assume State power is a given.

I agree that there's an element of that in their dismissal of any solution which requires citizens to arm and protect themselves; but I also believe that it's their anthropological and political philosophies which hinder them from "thinking outside of the box" in any serious resolution to crime. By the tenets of those philosophies, Democrats have blinded themselves to real, meaningful solutions because they presuppose that the civil government ought to be the first-responder to any problem within society.

The solution is so simple, but Democrats are philosophically incapable of thinking rationally and reasonably about what to do about crime. Obviously, the solution is to empower citizens by allowing open-carry of firearms, which will be a safe and effective deterrent to would-be criminals. Instead, Democrats will further complicate the issue by ignoring the root causes, blinded by their own hubris.

Whenever there's a police shooting that the public has deemed as "unjust" or "unethical," the state and local governments never blame the weapon(s) involved; they go after the cops who were potentially guilty of an offense. However, whenever a private citizen is involved in a shooting that the public has deemed as "unjust" or "unethical," the state and local governments always blame the weapon(s), first. Clearly, we all see there's an agenda to confiscate firearms from citizens by incremental policy, even if they have to do it under the guise of "public health" or "emergency."

People need to remind that raggedy, corrupt bitch that we're not a democracy.