Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think a lot of them are figuring out that the majority of immigrants are good, hardworking people and they were sold a bill of goods on "criminal immigrants."

Yea. These aren’t bad hombres getting deported.  Those guys have guns so ice will avoid them. 
 

these aren’t bad hombres people doing jobs you wouldn’t do.  And guess what?  You need them. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:


But…and this is important….it doesn’t fucking matter, he won’t lose a single vote over it. Because cult.

This is correct. Whoever gets the dem nomination is going to be an even bigger pedophile than Donald Trump, based on what they see on Facebook, and they may not like these deportations, but they will have no choice.

  • Like 1
Posted
Did Rosie say or do anything to get back on his radar?
also, if he can take away her citizenship because “not in the best interests of our great country” then what mechanism stops him from taking citizenship away from any of us for the same stated reason?

I think she was very vocal that she was moving to Ireland, at least temporarily, after Trump won. Not sure what’s she done since other than maybe lobbing a few criticisms online.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, C-Man said:


I think she was very vocal that she was moving to Ireland, at least temporarily, after Trump won. Not sure what’s she done since other than maybe lobbing a few criticisms online.

She was on Howard Stern in 2016 talking about (IIRC) having him as a nightmare neighbor.  Don't remember the specifics but their "feud" goes back quite some time.

Posted
4 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

Not that it will matter and I think I'm relatively neutral on ol Rosie.  But this was a great reply.

spacer.png

Oooh, it didn't register with me that it was Rosie O’Donnell and not Roseanne Barr. I always get their names confused; hence, my calling her crazy in another thread. It also explains so much more.

  • Like 2
Posted
8 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Pope 

Catholic concessions to alcoholics and celiac sufferers belie the Catholic doctrine that holds wine and bread transform into blood and flesh of Christ. Accordingly, Catholics now say that one need not consume both bread and wine to fully partake in the sacrament.

  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Chopper said:

If the entire premise is false, wouldn't that make the statement untrue?

The entire premise isn’t false. The premise that “most of the children of Trump’s voter base” has been “systematically cut” out of “any realistic prospect of access to higher education and corporate America” is true.  Of course it’s not limited to Trump’s base- it’s true for most of the population, but it’s particularly true for the children of Trump’s base. 

 

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The entire premise isn’t false. The premise that “most of the children of Trump’s voter base” has been “systematically cut” out of “any realistic prospect of access to higher education and corporate America” is true.  Of course it’s not limited to Trump’s base- it’s true for most of the population, but it’s particularly true for the children of Trump’s base. 

For the record, I'm not trying to be argumentative or shitpost. I was genuinely surprised at your statement. I did a double take. I'm curious how you arrived at your conclusion as stated above. 

Edited by Chopper
word choice
Posted
1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

She was on Howard Stern in 2016 talking about (IIRC) having him as a nightmare neighbor.

THAT is how you humblebrag

Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Catholic concessions to alcoholics and celiac sufferers belie the Catholic doctrine that holds wine and bread transform into blood and flesh of Christ. Accordingly, Catholics now say that one need not consume both bread and wine to fully partake in the sacrament.

As I understand it, they don’t claim that it physically transforms, which makes sense, because anyone could tell they’re consuming wine and bread not blood and flesh. So they say it gets transformed in some kind of fundamental, invisible way that doesn’t affect its physical properties. So they can stand by their story that it really is the flesh and blood in the way that matters but also not have to try and convince you that Jesus was a living person who had flesh and blood indistinguishable from bread and wine. 

Edited by Thermos H. Christ
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Thermos H. Christ said:

As I understand it, they don’t claim that it physically transforms, which makes sense, because anyone could tell they’re consuming wine and bread not blood and flesh. So they say it gets transformed in some kind of fundamental, invisible way that doesn’t affect its physical properties. So they can stand by their story that it really is the flesh and blood in the way that matters but also not have to try and convince you that Jesus was a living person who had flesh and blood indistinguishable from bread and wine. 

Not Catholic, but attended a Jesuit high school, and was raised Episcopalian. Perhaps this explains my understanding of this situation. Nevertheless, my belief is common enough that AI offered the following to a question about transubstantiation and contransubstantiation:

Quote

In Roman Catholic theology, the Eucharist (Communion) involves transubstantiation, where bread and wine are believed to become the actual body and blood of Christ, though their physical appearance remains the same. Episcopalians, while also believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, do not define the how of this transformation as explicitly as Catholics.Many Episcopalians believe in "consubstantiation," where the bread and wine remain bread and wine, but are infused with the real presence of Christ. 

Edited to add the definition of contransubstantiation:

Unlike transubstantiation, consubstantiation maintains that the bread and wine do not change their fundamental nature (their substance). They remain bread and wine, even after consecration. 

 

Edited by Willfully Horn
Posted
12 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Not Catholic, but attended a Jesuit high school, and was raised Episcopalian. Perhaps this explains my understanding of this situation. Nevertheless, my belief is common enough that AI offered the following to a question about transubstantiation and contransubstantiation:

 

fucking hell now we’ve got Hal9000 bloviating on systematics.  
 

AI is wrong on this, cher ami.
 

 

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

fucking hell now we’ve got Hal9000 bloviating on systematics.  
 

AI is wrong on this, cher ami.
 

 

 

Well, alright. I will concede and seek further information for my own edification.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Well, alright. I will concede and seek further information for my own edification.

Episcopal doctrine has a very weak, anemic official statement on the Eucharist, something along the lines of the hosts being “spiritually infused” if I recall 30 years back correctly.  Essentially it leaves it up to the believer as to what happens during Eucharist.  
 

for consubstantiation, look at the official position of historical Lutheranism.  

please don’t ask me to explain it.  I’m old and have self-inflicted dain bramage.  

  • Like 1
Posted

Are we about to come full circle where the released J6 anti-Americans storm the capitol again this time for the release of the Epstein files

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Are we about to come full circle where the released J6 anti-Americans storm the capitol again this time for the release of the Epstein files

They would all be killed and Trump would go on and on about how they were traitors, communists and losers.
Posted
6 minutes ago, Fastbreak said:


They would all be killed and Trump would go on and on about how they were traitors, communists and losers.

and then all of their relatives would vote for trump for a fourth time anyway.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
48 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

Episcopal doctrine has a very weak, anemic official statement on the Eucharist, something along the lines of the hosts being “spiritually infused” if I recall 30 years back correctly.  Essentially it leaves it up to the believer as to what happens during Eucharist.  
 

for consubstantiation, look at the official position of historical Lutheranism.  

please don’t ask me to explain it.  I’m old and have self-inflicted dain bramage.  

Don’t know much about Roman Catholic eschatology but when I was in medical school I had a patient who told me when I was taking her medical history that she had “fireball tumors in my Eucharist”

  • Haha 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Don’t know much about Roman Catholic eschatology but when I was in medical school I had a patient who told me when I was taking her medical history that she had “fireball tumors in my Eucharist”

did she have acute angina?

Posted
54 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Are we about to come full circle where the released J6 anti-Americans storm the capitol again this time for the release of the Epstein files

Antifa!



×
×
  • Create New...