Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. Very cool and cute
  3. That's like arguing whether or not someone should be considered a 'liar'. Literally everyone has told a lie at some point or another. But does one lie make them a 'liar'? Most would probably say no, but no one (hopefully) would deny that a lie is still a lie. Whether or not someone should be considered a 'liar' normally depends on some sort of arbitrary parameters of measuring how many lies someone either has told, or tells regularly. Overall, there are undeniably 'liars' and 'truth-tellers', but ultimately every one of us tells lies sometimes and truths at others. It's just a measurement as to how much of each we do that determines whether we should be considered a 'liar', as far as the label is concerned. Though again, the label itself is somewhat arbitrary, as there's no agreed upon number of lies one must tell in order to be officially labeled as one. It's the same thing here with the term 'socialist'. If you want to argue that you aren't officially a 'socialist', then by all means. I really don't care. You can call yourself whatever you want. However regardless of what you call yourself, socialism is still socialism in the same way a lie is still a lie. If you support social programs like the military or public schools, etc. then you at least in some sense support socialism. Again, labels. It's an argument for semantics really. We utilize democratic methods, as well as the ideas of a republic. We are both a Republic and a Democracy, as well as neither all at the same time. I hear this argument all the time from republicans, who claim "This isn't a Democracy, it's a Republic!" Might as well be looking at a salad and saying "This isn't made of lettuce, it's made of carrots!" even though the salad has both lettuce and carrots in it. Call it whatever the F you want to call it, I truly do not care. The only thing that truly matters is simply that whatever words you do use to describe it is as accurate of a description as humanly possible. Saying "we aren't a Democracy, we're a Republic" is just a pathetic partisan strategy to make it seem like the US was founded on the current Republican party platform, which isn't at all the case. As for the Russian 'election', that's a totally separate topic since the 'election process' is deliberately founded on a falsehood. It's one thing for a political system to actually implement a certain policy, it's another to literally pretend to implement a certain policy just as a means of appeasing the populace while in reality enacting a totally different policy from behind the scenes. So your comparison here is completely irrelevant. You're just arbitrarily deciding what is and is not considered socialism. You don't get to make that decision. The fact is, socialism is typically in it's most basic definition, defined as wealth redistribution into various social programs. Who pays for the military? You do. Who pays for public schools? You do. Who pays for infrastructure? You do. Who pays for government employees? You do. All through tax dollars are all of these things funded. That's wealth redistribution. It's taking a certain portion of people's paycheck, and redistributing it into various different programs. I'm not the one mixing things up here. You just keep wanting to distance yourself from the term socialism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand where there are none. You're right, this isn't rocket science. And I've already explained as to why the term 'Socialist' is a spectrum. But just to make sure you don't get any more confused, I'll explain it a little more here. The 'wealth' redistribution' definition for socialism I just gave is a sort of black and white definition. Rather clear cut and simple. However, harkening back to the 'labeling someone a liar' example above, things get a bit more complicated. Defining who and who isn't a 'liar' is not a black and white kind of definition. It's difficult to determine at exactly one point someone ceases to be a truth-teller and they suddenly become a liar. How many lies does one need to tell to officially become a liar? It's arbitrary. That doesn't mean that no one can ever be accurately called a 'liar', it just means that the exact number of lies one needs to tell in order to officially become a liar is not an exact science. Same is true with the term Socialist. At what point does one suddenly become a socialist? How many social programs does one need to support and to what degree in order for them to officially be a Socialist? This isn't a black and white issue, it's a spectrum. Now you're contradicting your previous statement. Is socialism black and white, or is it 'a wide range of flavors'? Pick one. Also, Freedom is another term with no absolute definition. Does freedom mean to do literally whatever you want, even if that includes rape and murder? Or does one person's freedom end where another's begins? To what extent should people be free in regards to (insert any political issue ever here)? This too is a spectrum, and is no black and white issue. You keep fluctuating between arguing politics as being a spectrum, versus politics being black and white. I really don't care what your position is, just try and be consistent with whatever it is. Makes things easier, even if you happen to be wrong. I never said they were. You're just asserting this idea that socialism in general means 'to take over.' That isn't always the case. This sort of depends on what you mean by the words 'take over', but for this exercise, I'll use the words 'take over' to essentially mean 'to assert dominance without one's consent. If you disagree with this definition, then by all means correct me. Sometimes socialism is implemented by force, so in that since it would undoubtedly be a 'take over.' But if it's democratically agreed upon, then it isn't a 'take over' of anything. If we, say for instance, democratically voted for a Medicare for all program to be put in place, then this isn't the government 'taking over' since it was agreed upon by the American people democratically. The only people who would be 'forced into it without their consent' would be those who voted against it, but such is the case with literally every piece of legislation in a democratic society. There will always be those who disagree. Now, if you want to use the words 'take over' to mean any government or socialistic control, then we have a different ballgame altogether here. In this sense, to 'take over' means pretty much in the same way you would hire someone to 'take over' doing a job for you. You could still hire or fire whomever you like if the job they do doesn't suit you, but instead of you doing all the work yourself, you hire someone to 'take over' for you. This is how a democratic process would work, and does work. If the people want the government to help pay their medical expenses for instance in a Medicare for all system, but they don't like the way the current system works, then they can 'fire' the current system by electing politicians (hiring them) to do the right job for you, and fix what's broken about it. If by 'take over', you mean the paragraph above, then I honestly don't see what the big deal is with having it 'taken over' by somebody else. That's just how life works in a variety of functions. A person can't expect to just fend for themselves in every single avenue of life. Society crumbles the more we divide ourselves up from each other, and expect each other to fend for themselves. 'Every man for himself' is a primitive concept that dates back to the Stone Age. We always do best as a species when we work together for a common goal. (also, I find it laughably ironic that you call the military in general as being used to benefit society, while socialism in general is used to destroy it. Wondering how many military conquests there have been that have utterly decimated society and other civilizations throughout human history exactly, lol.) I don't know what you mean by 'the hive mind of socialism is ideal.' Care to explain that? Anyway, in regards to 'destroying the enemy', I once again find your outlook on life utterly detestable. The military is used for self-defense, nothing more. It should never be used for personal conquest. That's something only evil tyrannical empires do. The military is for solely for defending the homeland, not 'destroying the enemy'. Once again, you can't just arbitrarily decide what is and is not 'patriotic.' Patriotism is simply a relative term meaning vigorous support for one's country. That could be interpreted a number of ways. Some might say that supporting their country no matter what they do (evil or not) is patriotic, while others would say that opposing their government when they do something wrong is patriotic since it's done with the best interests of the country at heart. You can't say that they weren't patriotic about this or that anymore than I or anyone else can. It's a relative term that could be interpreted in almost any way you so choose. I've already explained how if socialism is enacted via the democratic process, it is not 'forcing' it upon anyone. Like it or not, that's just how democracy works. Again, you're contradicting yourself all over the map, so I can't tell which kind of ideology you're saying you believe in. Is socialism black and white? Or is it a generic term that's just a different flavor? This constantly flip-flopping between positions is rather convenient for you, since it means you can never be proven wrong. All you have to do is say: "That's not what I meant, what it actually means is this..." I'd call this strategy clever if not for the fact that I don't think it's intentional on your part. Just an accidental convenience for you... Power from whom? In a government that is of, by, and for the people, that power lies in the hands of the people. Do you not understand how a democracy works? If the government is corrupt and abusing it's power, it is the duty of everyday citizens to stand up and elect uncorrupt politicians to take their place. WE THE PEOPLE are the ones in power, not the government. Our liberty is granted upon ourselves by ourselves. That is what it means to be a Democracy. Absolutely, WE THE PEOPLE must remain forever vigilant, because WE THE PEOPLE are the ones in power. That is the inherent genius of a democracy. Rather than having the government control the people, the people control the government! That's how things are supposed to work. Under this kind of system, the government acts within the best interests of the people, because it is the people who ultimately control the government. You and so many other government-hating conservatives don't seem to get that fact. You want to rant all day about the evils of the government, yet your solution is to get rid of the government period, rather than to just keep it in check. You keep acting like this is some form of Monarchy or something when it isn't. You're the ones with the power, therefore you should use that power to end all the government corruption yourselves. It was an acurrate portrayal of what you and many others are doing. You're defending your party and your preconceived notions no matter what the cost, and opposing any alternatives simply because they're the alternatives. I could cite all of the childishly snarky comments you gave in your response from the Gun Control thread, but I won't waste any more of my time. I have never 'shut down' any opposing views, nor will I ever. Do not confuse refuting your arguments with silencing your free speech rights. You're free to voice whatever crazy argument you want, just as I'm free to refute them as much as I want. And with that, I bid you adieu.
  4. Isn't he cute? Or she? I don't know which.
  5. If they don't think he is alive ask them to prick in him a needle and say now do dead men bleed? Idk but for some reason that little parable comes to mind when I see this story except its reversed.
  6. That is frustrating. You'd think the doctor would be more responsive. I'm sorry you have to go through all this.
  7. That is wow amazing
  8. Man, that neck thing sounds awful. Is it better now? I didn't know you work with your sister. If you're employed at a place and have a task you're not looking forward to, wouldn't a professional person do it anyway? Anything promising in the job listings? That's always a chore unto itself.
  9. Facebook is a public media site, so having such technology is not surprising. There is no conspiracy here and no violation. It's no different then the fact you cannot post certain things on Facebook, that there are guidelines to follow and if you violate those terms it gets taken down. Plus Facebook is a free service that you have the freewill to use or not to use, just like other social media like Twitter, Youtube etc.
  10. I'll have ti take your word on Maddow and that you didn't vote for Obama, just as you didn't for Trump, but I never saw you complaining about anything Obama ever said or did and he was an absolute disaster for this country but fiscally and in foreign relations. Yet we see you complaining daily about Trump without ever mentioning the good tings that have recurred over the last year so please spare us your fair an balanced act (see what I did there being an insider and all). I'l break off now as I don't need to be banned again.
  11. The NRA doesn’t make decisions. They lobby and they are one of the few that actually lobby for the people. I would say that if you are old enough to go to war, you are old enough to be an adult. Although, Obamacare says 26. But even with a set age, there will always be those that are more mature at 16 and will request emancipation. I think if you are on your parent’s insurance at 26, then you are not old enough to be an adult.
  12. Let us hope not. I saw this in the article so perhaps it is not that bad, plus it is just for a season. "The new initiative culminates more than two years of collaborative work and research with U.S. Hispanic/Latino civic organizations where each of the teams play." Maybe it is just an effort to engage the Latino community in a way they will respond favorably to and not an effort to disrespect anything.
  13. So are they going to with the junk? Send it to earth? Collect everything into a giant orbiting scrap yard? Chuck it out into the void? Will they hire some guy named Ahab? These questions need answers. Hank
  14. when I was a kid they had line bleeds all the time it could be a party line that someone wanted to use privately and was trying to scare everyone off of. but the bleed over was common and still happens upon occasion that would be my first and main guess as to what happened. it happens to me upon occasion from my cell to my landline
  15. No I express the benefits of religious belief based on current scientific knowldge . Not that i have any. The rest of your comments are reasonable. I wasn't referring to you . You don't simply say it is not possible. . However human physical cloning is already possible and other primates have been cloned. Replicating human consciousness is a bit more in the future but i have given many references by those scientists involved in this field who put it NO LATER than 50 years in the future, with some saying it will be achieved in half that time. It all depends on the advances in cpmputing speed required to interpret, decode, and then store and reproduce, the electro chemical impulses which are human thoughts and memories How we will soon be able to upload our MINDS to ... - Daily Express
  16. Hope everything is sorted out soon.
  17. What a tiring, frustrating day. Dr showed up before I got to the hospital this morning then was supposed to come by this afternoon. Waiting until about 7:00 pm and I had to get home for the night.
  18. Nope. At work. And have to do two jobs because my sis doesn't want to do them. Woke up around ten this morning unable to move, massive cramp around the base of my neck. Eventually was able to get up and get to work. Looking at job postings at the moment, with everything going on lately, i just don't think this is going to last.
  19. One of those days, eh? I hope you can kick back and relax now.
  20. I have never seen a Rachel Maddow segment in my entire life. Truth. And again, I'm not talking about Obama, Merc. Ask me if I voted for Obama (hint: I didn't.) Did I mean for my post to be the one damning topic? Nope, idiocy on Twitter, isn't going to get someone impeached, it just shows a complete lack of intelligence. Would have never guessed what from my behavior? I posted from the can. My posts aren't being taken in to consideration by other world leaders, so if I want to post an error ridden message while I poop...I will.
  21. I see you edited your post there Papa. Fear mongering is deplorable.
  22. All I have to say about today is "ow."
  23. Here it is: It's hard to judge the size but it's about a foot long. The CT scans show the body of the croc inside the bandages is quite a bit smaller. It may have been mummified not long being hatched.
  24. Fox News insider?? LMAO I guess that is a really tough insult to tough SJW's like you huh AO? Wow, brutal. Did Rachel Maddow teach you that AO? Yeahm, wel the only peopel saying that are you leftists. See, you make things up and then attack the person over it. I guess it keeps you busy. You mean like when Obama blamed the Benghazi attack on a YouTube video? Like your posts? You know, the one damning the topic of this entire thread by a noted leftist legal mind so you could tell everyone how embarrassed you are ? Yeah, not so well thought out huh? I'd have never have guessed that by your behavior here.
  25. They are not entities, LadyScorpio. You are fine and sleep paralysis seems like the most scary real thing ever. I have gone through it. It took me a while to believe it was not real.
  1. Load more activity